Info on How to Help Hurricane Katrina Victims

Here is a listing of organizations that you can send donations to help our fellow Americans who have suffered the effects of Hurricane Katrina.

They also could use your prayer support. First, last and always.

www.redcross.org or 1-800 HELP NOW

http://www.redshield.org/crisis/ or 1-800-SAL-ARMY

Operation Blessing: (800) 436-6348.

America's Second Harvest: (800) 344-8070.

Adventist Community Services: (800) 381-7171.

Catholic Charities USA: (800) 919-9338, or www.catholiccharitiesusa.org.

Christian Reformed World Relief Committee: (800) 848-5818.

Church World Service: (800) 297-1516 or online at www.churchworldservice. org.

Convoy of Hope: (417) 823-8998 or www.convoyofhope.org.

Lutheran Disaster Response: (800) 638-3522.

Mennonite Disaster Service: (717) 859-2210.

Nazarene Disaster Response: (888) 256-5886.

Presbyterian Disaster Assistance: (800) 872-3283.

United Methodist Committee on Relief: (800) 554-8583.

In addition, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is accepting donations at its 3,800 stores and Web site, www.walmart.com.

Let's step it up, America. Let's show our brethren that the American Spirit still lives on.

If You Don't Vote, You can't Complain

I know several people that choose not to excerise their right to vote.

They still hold to the disproven notion "With so many millions of people voting, my vote isn't going to matter."

These are the same people that later on complain when things go badly.

I remind them that by not voting, they forfeit their right to complain.

By choosing to not vote, you are essentially removing yourself from the democratic process. Hence, you have relegated yourself to the role of spectator.

Which brings me this article at the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/26/AR2005082601323_pf.html

The part that caught my eye was this:

The draft constitution, as it stood early Sunday, allowed for the next National Assembly to approve creation of a new federal region by a simple majority, authorities said. Shiites make up an estimated 60 percent of Iraq's population and would almost certainly hold a majority in the next assembly.

Sunni Arabs, who made up Iraq's ruling elite for decades but fell from dominance with the toppling of Saddam Hussein in 2003, largely stayed out of this past January's National Assembly elections in response to insurgent threats and boycott calls from Sunni leaders. The move left them with comparatively little political leverage in the constitutional negotiations."

When the election was held, the Sunnis stayed home. They didn't vote.

Meanwhile, an overwhelming majority of the Iraqi population snubbed their noses against "insurgent threats", showed up at the polls and voted.

So now we have the people, and their leaders, WHO STAYED HOME wanting to have a say in the Constitutional process????

My question to the Sunnis and their leaders is this:

WHERE WERE YOU BACK IN JANUARY?

WHILE YOUR COUNTRYMEN WHERE RISKING THEIR LIVES TO VOTE, WHERE WERE YOU???

I hate having to repeat myself but:

By choosing to not vote, you are essentially removing yourself from the democratic process. Hence, you have relegated yourself to the role of spectator.

Boot To The Head!!

Doug Patton, writing for GOPUSA.com delivers what can best be described as a well-placed boot to the head of the liberals running the show at the DNC.

WARNING: If you're a liberal, don't get anywhere near this article. The truth always leaves a mark.

As always, the link: http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/dpatton/2005/dp_08221.shtml

It's Official: The Dems Are Losing
By Doug Patton
August 22, 2005

Despite my ongoing grumbling about GOP inaction on certain key issues important to the future of the Republic, a recent article from The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reminded me once again why I remain a Republican.

I couldn't help but smile as I read about the latest official report from something called "The Democracy Corps." According to the Post-Dispatch, the report warns Democratic candidates that their party has "made little progress presenting themselves in a way that would capture rural voters or make inroads into other Republican turf."

Tapping into a brain trust consisting of such Democrat hotshots as Stan Greenberg, Bob Shrum and James Carville, this organization has managed to do what Democrats always do so well: spend lots of money to produce a study that states the obvious, only to create flawed strategies drawn from inaccurate conclusions. Their brilliant hypothesis this time: Democrats are losing elections. The reason: red state voters are failing to understand the moral values of the Democrat Party.

It is hard to imagine why their agenda is not resonating with the American people. After all, Democrats stand for so many things Americans hold dear, things like:
*purging all references to God from the public square;

*coddling violent criminals while banning the ownership of handguns by law-abiding citizens;

*the redistribution of wealth from those who have earned it to those who have not;

*capitulation to our terrorist enemies abroad;

*the surrender of American sovereignty to a corrupt world body (the U.N.);

*homosexual marriage;

*abortion on demand right up to the moment of birth; and

*the seizing of private property for commercial use if it produces more tax revenue for their precious government coffers.

What civic-minded American wouldn't support a sensible agenda like that?

Don't believe me? I offer as Exhibit "A" the national platform of the Democratic Party. It is one of the most socialist documents since Karl Marx wrote, "I have an idea for a manifesto" to his friend Frederick Engels. In fact, the Democrats' platform was written by radicals from organizations like MoveOn.org and the nation's teachers unions, who want nothing to do with traditional American values. These are the people who comprise the "grassroots" of the Democrat Party.

Exhibit "B" is its national chairman, Howard Dean, one of the shrillest liberals in the country. The only two more out-of-the-mainstream people the Dems could have chosen to lead their party are Michael Moore and George Soros. (Unofficially, at least, these two seem to be running the party, anyway.)

Then there is the Democrats' anointed 2008 presidential candidate, Hillary ("Where did I leave those Rose law firm billing records") Clinton. This is a woman with such contempt for the free enterprise system she tried to affect a government takeover of one seventh of the American economy in 1994. You will recall that her draconian health care proposal was so extreme her husband couldn't even get it through a Democrat Congress.

Finally, there is the United States Supreme Court. Democrats will tell you it is a "conservative, Republican court." Uh-huh. And John Kerry was a supply-sider. The left-wing decisions coming from our federal courts are so far away from the thinking of both the Founders of yesterday and the American people of today that the only question remaining is whether the Republic can be saved from judicial revue.

Democrat strategists like Carville, Shrum, Greenberg, et al, are in the business of winning elections. However, they will continue to lose as long as they think their party's "values" are the values of the American people. Their only hope lies in masquerading as something they are not. Voters didn't fall for that one in 2004. Let us hope they don't in 2006 or 2008.

------------
Doug Patton is a freelance columnist who has served as a political speechwriter and policy advisor for federal, state and local candidates, elected officials and public policy organizations. His weekly column can be read in newspapers across the country and on selected Internet web sites, including www.GOPUSA.com, where he also serves as the Nebraska editor. Write him at dpatton@neonramp.com.

True Social Security

Grow Accounts for Social Security
Ending the Raid on the Trust Fund with Personal Retirement Accounts

By: Max Pappas, FreedomWorks Policy Director

The movement to allow workers to put a portion of their payroll tax dollars in an account they own and could pass on has taken on new vigor in Washington, DC. A large group of prominent Senators and Representatives, all with their own bills and visions for improving Social Security through Personal Retirement Accounts have put aside their differences to support an idea that has overwhelming popularity across the country: ending the raid on
the Social Security surplus.

As many Americans now know, Social Security currently runs a surplus, but will begin to run a deficit by about 2017. What many have been surprised to find out is that the surplus Social Security is currently bringing in is given to Congress to spend on whatever they want—whether it is the $3,000,000 the federal government gave to the Cal Ripken, Sr. Foundation or the $1,700,000 it paid for the International Fertilizer Development Center. In exchange for these surplus dollars—about $150 billion—Social Security gets IOUs to be
cashed in in the future.

As voters across the country have learned about this, they have almost without exception called for it to end—whether or not they think personal retirement accounts are a good idea.

The Congressmen have listened, and are trying to ending the raid on the trust fund the only way they can—buy putting it in the savings device that Al Gore made famous, a lockbox. But this time, the lockboxes will be individual lockboxes. They’re calling them GROW Accounts, an acronym for the Growing Real Ownership for Workers Accounts Act. Under the GROW Accounts proposal, instead of Congress getting to spend the surplus Social Security
money on whatever they’d like, workers will have the option of putting their share in their own account—their own lockbox.

The Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Social Security lays out the following details on the GROW Accounts legislation:

1. It’s based on the following principles:

• Social Security taxes should only be used for Social Security.

• The Social Security surplus should not be used to fund other government programs.

• The surplus should not be used to mask the true size of the national deficit.

2. The bill does the following:

• Protects the Social Security surplus.

• GROW Accounts will be created for workers under the age of 55, unless they choose not to participate.

• The Social Security surplus will be dedicated to GROW Accounts, where it will be invested in no-risk, marketable Treasury securities - real assets that workers own.

• Upon retirement, account balances will be used to help pay the worker's Social
Security benefit.

• Account balances are inheritable.

• An independent Board will manage and administer GROW Accounts. In January 2009, the Board will submit a plan to Congress that would allow individuals to diversify into other prudent investment options. Workers can always choose to keep their assets invested in Treasury bonds.

• The bill does not impose investment risk on workers and does not harm the Social Security Trust Funds. It does put us on the path to protecting the integrity of the Social Security program by ensuring that Social Security taxes are only used for Social Security.

Congressmen Jim McCrery (4th Dist.-La.), Clay Shaw (22nd Dist.-Fl.), Sam Johnson (3rd Dist.-Texas), and Paul Ryan (1st Dist.-Wis.), along with Sens. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and John Sununu (R-NH), should all be applauded for taking this important first step toward meaningful reform. It’s time to pass real personal accounts that workers can own and control and pass on to their loved ones.

It would be even better if the proposal allowed workers to put even more payroll tax dollars into these accounts, but this bill is sound in that it contains two key ingredients that must be a part of any good reform proposal. First, it allows individual ownership of Social Security tax dollars and second, it allows the inheritability of the accounts created with these dollars.

The current system lacks these important features. Under the current system, someone can work from age 16 to age 65, paying tens of thousands of dollars into Social Security along the way, and have nothing to pass on if he or she dies at 65. A system with ownership and inheritability of contributions, like the GROW accounts, ends this unacceptable pitfall.

Individual ownership of the surplus Social Security dollars is also the only way to create a real claim on these dollars. Any politician who ever supported the idea of a lockbox should be a strong supporter of this new plan, which creates individual lockboxes.

GROW Accounts also put opponents of Social Security reform in an interesting position: do they really want to be on the record for voting against ending the raid on the Social Security trust fund? That would make for an interesting campaign ad next fall.

For more information visit http://www.freedomworks.org

A Teenager Who Gets It

http://acuf.org/issues/issue41/commentscensor.asp

Censoring Conservatives
by Tyler Whitney

America's culture war is fought everyday and the country's most vulnerable soldiers --conservative high school students–are on the front line. Conservative students are ridiculed everyday as we fight to save America from the ongoing leftist assault. Unfortunately, spreading conservative ideas is difficult when administrators muzzle conservative speech and indoctrinate students with liberal propaganda.

Repression is alive and well at East Lansing High School.

On Tuesday March 19th, several conservative students distributed “The Right Way” -- a conservative paper independently organized and published. Instead of receiving accolades for extracurricular involvement, we were reprimanded for distributing our publication before the school approved it.

Frustrated yet cooperative, I visited the board office where Superintendent Dave Chapin banned our paper. Although his reasoning is unclear, he did mention that the John Birch Society is too extreme for East Lansing High School. Apparently, Dr. Chapin felt his superintendent status granted him authority to rate the extremity of content.

That night I immediately fired off press releases to every major media outlet. I wanted to make the world aware that East Lansing High School was taking unconstitutional actions. Thankfully, I wasn't the only person who believed that ELHS was in the wrong. East Lansing High School received numerous phone calls from angry conservatives nationwide about the censorship of our paper.
Due to the awkward nature of the situation, I managed to completely avoid speaking to administrators while media coverage continued to pile up.

Eventually, Principal Paula Steele granted our paper the status of a Non School Organization, meaning we had the same rights as groups that meet in the building after school.

Despite that, I was later informed that any content that can be traced to East Lansing High School must be removed. Principal Steele wanted me to remove an ad for my Teenage Republicans club as well as several other insignificant things.

Feeling rebellious, I distributed my paper with the banned content. As expected, I was reprimanded. Unfortunately, my punishment was quite severe. Not only was I suspended but more than 200 copies of “The Right Way” were trashed by school authorities.

After weeks of fighting, I have decided to give in to East Lansing High School's Stalinist policies. I can't call my battle completely pointless because I've created awareness about the cultural bolshevism prevalent in America's high schools.

As a dedicated conservative activist, I will continue to publish more issues and inform our nation about America's biggest threat: Liberal indoctrinators who try to create unthinking minions with their biased multicultural education and its anti-male slant. If conservatives rise up, we can create a cultural backlash against the tide of liberalism corrupting America's youth.

Did You Hear What They Said?

Hello True Believers!

Once again, it's time for another edition of "Did You Hear What They Said?"

This is where we quote public figures, people in-the-know, and various media figures IN CONTEXT on a variety of today's issues.

Just remember, folks, it's not a hit-piece..... it's direct quote!

And now, ON WITH THE SHOW!!!

FILIBUSTERING PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES

Remember how Democrats recently defended filibustering President Bush's nominees ? Let's take a look at their position on the matter when THEIR man was in the Oval Office:

Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Delaware) March 19, 1997: “But I also respectfully suggest that everyone who is nominated is entitled to have a shot, to have a hearing and to have a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on the floor.”

Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Illinois)September 28, 1998: “We should meet our responsibility. I think that responsibility requires us to act in a timely fashion on nominees sent before us. ... Vote the person up or down.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) September 11, 1997: “Let’s bring their nominations up, debate them if necessary, and vote them up or down.”

Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)February 3, 1998: “We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don’t like them, vote against them. But give them a vote.”

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) May 10, 2000: “The Founding Fathers certainly intended that the Senate advise as to judicial nominations, i.e., consider, debate, and vote up or down. They surely did not intend that the Senate, for partisan or factional reasons, would remain silent and simply refuse to give any advice or consider and vote at all.”

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) 5/14/97 : “It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor.”

Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD): “I find it simply baffling that a Senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination.” (Congressional Record, 10/5/99)

(Yes, my friends, he really DID say that!)

Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD): “Hispanic or non-Hispanic, African American or non-African American, woman or man, it is wrong not to have a vote on the Senate floor.” (Congressional Record, 10/28/99)

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND): “My expectation is that we’re not going to hold up judicial nominations. …You will not see us do what was done to us in recent years in the Senate with judicial nominations.” (Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume,” 6/4/01)

Richard Durbin (D-IL) "If, after 150 days languishing on the Executive Calendar that name has not been called for a vote, it should be. Vote the person up or down." (Cong. Rec., 9/28/98, S11021)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “Let’s bring their nominations up, debate them if necessary, and vote them up or down.” (Congressional Record, 9/11/97)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “It is our job to confirm these judges. If we don’t like them, we can vote against them.” (Congressional Record, 9/16/99)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “Our institutional integrity requires an up-or-down vote.” (Congressional Record, 10/4/99)

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA): “[The filibuster process] is used … as blackmail for one Senator to get his or her way on something that they could not rightfully win through the normal processes.” (Congressional Record, 1/4/95)

Tom Harkin (D-IA) "Have the guts to come out and vote up or down….And once and for all, put behind us this filibuster procedure on nominations." (Cong. Rec., 6/22/95, S8861)

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA): “I urge the Republican leadership to take the steps necessary to allow the full Senate to vote up or down on these important nominations.” (Congressional Record, 9/11/00)

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): “It is true that some Senators have voiced concerns about these nominations. But that should not prevent a roll call vote which gives every Senator the opportunity to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ ... Parties with cases, waiting to be heard by the federal courts deserve a decision by the Senate.” (Congressional Record, 9/21/99)

Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI): “These nominees, who have to put their lives on hold waiting for us to act, deserve an ‘up or down’ vote.” (Congressional Record, 9/21/99)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “I hope we … will accept our responsibility and vote people up or vote them down. … If we want to vote against them, vote against them.” (Congressional Record, 10/22/97)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “Now, every Senator can vote against any nominee. … But it is the responsibility of the U.S. Senate to at least bring them to a vote.” (Congressional Record, 10/22/97)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “ "I have stated over and over again … that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported …” (Congressional Record, 6/18/98)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “[E]arlier this year … I noted how improper it would be to filibuster a judicial nomination.” (Congressional Record, 10/14/98)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “[I]f the person is otherwise qualified, he or she gets the vote. … Vote them up, vote them down.” (Congressional Record, 9/21/99)

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): “[W]e should have up-or-down votes in the committee and on the floor.” (CNN’s “Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields,” 6/9/01)

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY): “[W]e are charged with voting on the nominees. The Constitution does not say if the Congress is controlled by a different party than the President there shall be no judges chosen.” (Congressional Record, 3/7/00)

(Uh, Chucky....you...are....BUSTED!!!)

Carl Levin (D-MI) "If a bipartisan majority of the U.S. Senate is prepared to vote to confirm the President's appointment, that vote should occur." (Cong. Rec., 6/21/95, S8806)

(Are we having fun yet?)

AMBASSADOR JOHN BOLTON

"No one should make prejudgments on reputation. One must do it on the merit of the facts. We'll do that when we see what happens here."--Chile's UN ambassador Heraldo Munoz

"He's a colleague like any other. He will be received as such."-- Denmark's UN ambassador Ellen Margrethe Loj

"No American ambassador arrives at any appointment anywhere with a cloud hanging over his head; the representative of the president of the United States makes his own weather."--Wesley Pruden

JUDICIAL

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823

"Fidelity to the original intent of the Constitution must be the sole ideological criterion used to evaluate any nominee. Everything else is noise. Originalism alone produces a body of law evincing the will of America's citizenry." --Steven Geoffrey Gieseler

"A resumè is no substitute for answering questions about whether the nominee respects the basic rights and freedoms on which the nation was founded." --Ted Kennedy "
At Thurgood Marshall's 1967 Supreme Court confirmation hearing, a young Sen. Edward Kennedy lectured his colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, saying it was not their responsibility to question a nominee's judicial philosophy, only to ascertain his legal credentials and qualifications." --Jill Zuckman, Chicago Tribune.

"Senator Boxer, the Constitution says 'Advice and Consent,' not nag and meddle. If you want to be involved in the nominating process, run for president." --Duane Patterson

"I hope Judge Roberts, understanding how important this nomination is, particularly when replacing a swing vote on the court will decide to answer questions about his views. Now that he is nominated for a position where he can overturn precedent and make law, it's even more important that he fully answers a broad range of questions."--Sen. Charles Schumer, July 19, 2005

(Uh, Senator...judges don't MAKE LAW, they INTERPRET it.)

"Judge John Roberts cannot be given the opportunity to make law for what may well be the next 30 years." --spokesman for "Gay Men's Heath Crisis"

(Apparently, they don't get it, either.)

"A judge's personal policy preferences are not supposed to matter when it comes to doing their job from the bench."--Rush Limbaugh

"The only way a Supreme Court nominee could win the approval of NARAL and Planned Parenthood would be to actually perform an abortion during his confirmation hearing, live, on camera, and preferably a partial-birth one."--Ann Coulter

"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion,the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."
-- Thomas Jefferson (letter to William Charles Jarvis, 28September 1820)

"The truth of the matter is that no matter who the President nominates, Harry Reid and his merry band of obstructionists will do everything in their power to delay the nomination, smear the nominee, make outrageous demands and whine every step of the way." --Kay Daly, president of the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary

"Pretty soon, Supreme Court nominees will be asked to supply the Senate with their high-school papers in an effort to determine their future votes on key issues like abortion and the Ten Commandments." --Dan Thomasson

"John Roberts is a Roman Catholic. How important to him is his religion? Do you think it might affect him as a Supreme Court Justice?" --ABC's Barbara Walters

(It didn't seem to bother John F. Kennedy.)

SOCIAL SECURITY

"Do you know where your Social Security taxes are? Some of them went to pay for the National Cowgirl Hall of Fame and Museum in Fort Worth, Texas. The same monies helped the State Historical Society of Iowa in Des Moines pay for the development of exhibits for the World Food Prize. And we should all be happy that some of our Social Security surplus funded a study of mariachi music for the Clark County (Nevada) School District. As we know by now, Social Security is facing many problems that will require long-term, comprehensive reform. But before a doctor operates on a patient, the first step is to stop the bleeding. And the first step toward Social Security reform should be to stop Congress from spending Social Security money on anything except workers' retirement." --Michael Tanner

"Liberals, Democrats and others on the Left frequently state that they 'support the troops.' For most of them, whether they realize it or not, this is not true. They feel they must say this because the majority of Americans would find any other position unacceptable. Indeed, for most liberals, the thought that they really do not support the troops is unacceptable even to them. ... Many on the Left express far more contempt than support for the troops. ... Supporting people who wish to fight entails supporting their fight; and if that fight is opposed, those waging it are also opposed. Many on the Left angrily accuse the Right of disparaging their patriotism. That charge, too, is false. I have never heard a mainstream conservative impugn the patriotism of liberals. But as regards their attitude toward our troops, the patriotism of those on the Left is not the issue. The issue is their honesty." --Dennis Prager

What are the odds that a state as miniscule as Vermont could have so many braying jackasses representing them? Ranked 48th in population and 43rd in land area, Vermont has a public image dominated by some of the most quaint and curious specimens known to mankind.

A crypto- socialist like Patrick Leahy;

a political transvestite like Jim Jeffords;

a hate-monger of like Howard Dean;

and a couple of closet Marxists exploiting the capitalistic market like Ben & Jerry, Vermont's ratio of flakes to normal folks appears to be way out of kilter. Glad I don't have to take responsibility for that bunch!" --A Patriot in Manns Harbor, North Carolina

WAR

"The next time someone demands a timetable for the war in Iraq, ask them to name just one war -- anywhere -- that had such a thing." --Thomas Sowell

"Not much has changed since the mid-1980s. Substitute 'insurgent' for 'Sandinista,' 'Iraq' for 'Soviet Union,' 'Bush' for 'Reagan' and 'war on terror' for 'Cold War,' and the stories need little editing. The U.S. is 'bad,' our enemies 'understandable' if not downright 'good.' ... When's the last time you read a story about the progress being made on the power grid [in Iraq]? Or the new desalination plant that just came on-line, or the school that just opened, or the Iraqi policeman who died doing something heroic? No, to judge by the dispatches, all the Iraqis do is stand outside markets and government buildings waiting to be blown up. ... And reporters wonder why they're despised." --Mark Yost, St. Paul, Minnesota Pioneer Press

"There are those who believe that men in uniform are somehow associated with starting wars. That's like saying policemen cause crime. ... Keeping the peace is the most important problem we face. And I believe that because young men...are willing to put on the uniform and endure the rigors of military life, peace is more secure." --Ronald Reagan

"Clearly, a civilisation that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself."--Jean-Francois Revel

"[I]n this battle against fundamentalist Islam, I am hardly preoccupied with political correctness, or who may or may not be offended. Indeed, al-Qa'ida cares little if the Western world is 'offended' by televised images of hostages beheaded in Iraq, subway bombings in London, train attacks in Madrid, or Americans jumping to their death from the Twin Towers as they collapsed. ... As long as this war goes on, being 'offended' should be the least of anyone's worries." --Rep. Tom Tancredo

"Buried in all the mainstream media coverage this week over new terrorist bombings in London, space shuttles that didn't launch, the trashing of Karl Rove and the nomination of a new Supreme Court justice was a little-noted item about reenlistments in the U.S. armed forces exceeding expectations. USA Today offered some prominence to the story, but it was widely ignored by most of the Fourth Estate. Perhaps that's because it's a 'good news story.'" --Oliver North

"Present suffering is not enjoyable, but life would be worth little without it. The difference between iron and steel is fire, but steel is worth all it costs. Iron ore may think itself senselessly tortured in the furnace, but when the watch-spring looks back, it knows better." -Maltbie Davenport Babcock

"While it's true that hundreds of millions of Muslims live in miserable circumstances, who's actually responsible for that oppression? Fifty nations boast Muslim majorities and not one of them boasts economic prosperity and a functioning democracy. ... The true oppressor of Muslims is Islam itself, with teachings that destroy any chance of progress, peace or freedom." --Michael Medved

MEDIA

" It is a pretty sorry situation in the media when you can trick them by telling them the truth."--Rush Limbaugh

"I'll never talk to a reporter again! We were just talking -- I was ranting -- and he wrote about it. That isn't right. We all say stuff we don't want printed." --Helen Thomas after Albert Eisele, editor of The Hill, published her suicidal threat if VP Dick Cheney were to run for president

"If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." --Anatole France

ETHICS

"As eugenics passes through each of its stages -- from sterilizing the enfeebled at the beginning of the 20th century to aborting the disabled at the end of it and the beginning of the 21st -- man is indeed playing God but without any of His providence or care." --George Neumayr

"There's nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough, people will believe it." -- William James

"Of all the dispositions and habits which least to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indespensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labor to subvert these great Pilliars of human happiness."
-- George Washington (Farewell Address, 19 September 1796)

LABOR

"Union leaders seem genuinely to believe that their glory days will return if only they can defeat President Bush, or oust Tom DeLay as House Majority Leader. But their real obstacle is the reality of the modern global economy. Until they offer workers something more than class warfare, circa 1955, they will continue to decline." --The Wall Street Journal

FREEDOM

"No one more sincerely wishes the spread of information among mankind than I do, and none has greater confidence in its effect towards supporting free and good government."
-- Thomas Jefferson (letter to Trustees for the Lottery of EastTennessee College, 6 May 1810)

GAS PRICES
“As bad as prices are now, the surprising fact is that gasoline is still cheaper than in 1981, at least adjusted for inflation.”--NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell
(A barrel of oil will need to top $90 to set an actual record high price.)

And now for our multiple choice question: Who said the following?

"You vote yourselves salaries out of the public funds and care only for your own personal interests; hence the state limps along."

A) Victor Hanson
B) Aristophanes
C) Plato
D) Barry Goldwater

(Scroll down for the answer...no cheating!)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
B) Aristophanes

Have a great day and thanks for visting The Perspective!!!

Here's A Good One

Sorry for being away for so long.....life happens!

My youngest just started Kindergarten, so things have been busy.

To get back in the groove, here's a thought-provoking article from Alan Nathan from the Washington Times.

COMING SOON: "Did You Hear What They Said?"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050810-092827-7470r.htm

LEFT IS STUCK ON NEGATIVES OF WAR IN IRAQ
By Alan Nathan
-----------------------------------------------------------

The Left's hunger for genuinely progressive principles is rivaled only by Paris Hilton's craving for privacy; both are appetites less than ravenous. They reveal this by demonstrating a double-standard tolerance for the intolerance of Islamic extremists and their apologist governments in the Middle East.

The congressional record shows that in the aggregate, Democrats have voiced greater outrage over American abuse of prisoners than they have over Muslimsupport for atrocities. This became manifestly salient when Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin likened American soldiers at Guantanamo Bay to those who had served under Hitler, Pol Pot and Joseph Stalin.

They use their free-speech rights to support the very timetable withdrawal that would further enable dictatorial forces in the region to continue depriving their own citizenry of those same rights to free speech. These are regimes that, if given their druthers, would divest from the Left their own current entitlements of expression so as to pre-empt eventual dissent. It seems so counterintuitive.

Sens. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Barbara Boxer of California are also emblematic of this syndrome. Mr. Kennedy harps monthly about Iraq as a"quagmire" or "the new Vietnam," and Mrs. Boxer recently mimicked the European Left's sentiment to the Commonwealth Club of California arguing that, "Terrorismis a result of this war." Where is the causation given that Osama bin Ladenkilled 3,000 on our soil a year-and-a-half before the war began?

Whether abroad or here, supposed progressives seem not to realize that thetenants of liberalism are unable to thrive unless they exist within the environs of a country possessing a representative government whose leaders rule by theconsent of the governed; such as the one we're helping to create in Iraq.

The mainstream media has also shown complicity in this endeavor. Its reporting of the war in Iraq has focused on setbacks at the exclusion of equally verifiable triumphs. Our successful kills of the enemy consistently receive less news prominence. The Sunni political leadership now participating in the drafting of their country's new constitution garners little attention, though its earlier absence was once at the heart of liberal and press ridicule.

Additionally, infrastructural advances have minimal reporting, though the examples are many. One of the most dramatic was a mission involving a 700-ton,260-megawatt combustion turbine generator secretly hauled over 640 miles throughthe insurgency dominated Anbar province.

Thanks to coalition forces, the citizens of Kirkuk will soon have power for their families. But you'll not hear Mr. Durbin speak of miracles like this. He's more outraged by terrorist prisoners not receiving their rightful servings of chateaubriand chased down by magnums of Cristal.

This practice narrows the journalistic picture of Iraq instead of expanding it, and consequently marginalizes our nation's collective grasp of the advancements in that burgeoning democracy. Pundits who recognize this tendency for not reporting progress alongside setbacks in Iraq will rationalize it by arguing that good news is rarely covered. Paul Begala, former CNN host and White House counsel for Bill Clinton,once said on my show "Alan, please, you never cover planes that land on time and safely." It's a reasoning that's beyond bizarre.

What drives the legitimacy of a news story isn't whether it's good or bad. What drives it is whether or not it's eventful. We report good news all the time i.e., stock markets rising, housing starts increasing, unemployment dropping and teenage pregnancy declining. The reason we're not covering planes that land on time and safely isn't because it's good news; it's simply not eventful.

A vexing truth about the Left is their insistence to block some of the more effective methods of stopping these Muslim terrorists whose perfect universe is one in which all the Left's professed ideals (like equality for women and the right to choose or reject a religious path) would be quashed immediately. One strategy they repudiate on every level is that of racial profiling even if it's only applied to monitoring.

Just as it made sense to look at Southern white males when tracking suspected members of the KKK in the '60's and '70s, doesn't it make equal sense to look at Middle Easterners when tracking members of al Qaeda? While the vast majority of Southern white males didn't belong to the KKK, most cross-burners in the KKK were Southern white males. Conversely, while the vast majority of Middle Easterners don't belong to al Qaeda, almost all terrorists in al Qaeda are of Middle Eastern descent.

Don't these numeric realities dictate that demographic origins have atleast some relevance to our system of profiling?