MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN

MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN

"God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it. Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting. Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians. "

Daniel 5: 25 - 28

These words were written by the finger of God on the wall of Belshazzar's palace, they serve as a warning to the rulers of America.

Tuesday's election is not a measure of George Bush's Presidency - it is a measure of the "rightful rulers of America," its people. We the People are the rulers of this country - as surely as Belshazzar ruled Babylon. We will bear the consequences of our choice.

I have listened with growing frustration to the direction in which the Kerry campaign has crumbled. Now Kerry's only line is that President Bush has failed in Iraq; misled in the War on Terror. Kerry drags our dead heroes through the "streets" of American cities and says their deaths are President Bush's fault; that President Bush has mistaken, misled, misjudged, mishandled. These heart-breaking deaths are not President Bush's fault. They are the terrible cost of freedom, the unavoidable cost of war fought against the Evil that would destroy the Good. If Kerry comes to be "Commander in Chief" soldiers will still die. What will Kerry do then? Whine, declare himself a failure, and surrender? That is what he did in 1971. Our nation cannot be lead to victory by a whining child who wants to win without sacrifice or take his ball and go home. The right will only prevail if we are led by an adult, one who will take the responsibility of doing difficult and often unpopular things and who has the courage and wisdom to follow through.

There was a placard at a recent Mike Moore-inspired Democrat rally against our President and the war he is leading us in, the war that we must fight to preserve our nation. It read, "Clinton Lied - No One Died". The sign itself is a lie and shows the fallacy of theDemocrat, the Relativist, position. Many died and Clinton still lies! What about those who died in Mogadishu? What about the deaths in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center? What about the Americans that died in Al Qaida bombed embassies in Africa? What about the sailors who died on the USS Cole? What about the defenselsess people murdered in Indonesia, Israel, and on and on and on? In each case people died and in each case Clinton lied. He lied to us by pretending to defend our nation while all that he was protecting was his own glory. His weakness placed our nation on the terrible slide toward 9/11. When Osama BinLaden sent his murderers into the air on that nightmare day, it was Clintonian cowardice that he expected to encounter. Bin Laden was so sure that Americans could not bear to see their own people die that he intended to defeat American with one act of un-imagined terror. How our enemies danced with joy at the fear and humiliation of We the People. But this time it was different; this time the nation was not lead by a liar, a coward, or a fool. President Bush said the War would come to them and for three years they have fought, not to terrorize our homeland, but to stay alive. They are losing that battle.

The War on Terror can be traced to Clinton's lies. Before Clinton, Carter lied to us. He told us that we were the evil ones, and abandoned strength in the name of "human rights." He promised us peace, but because of Carter's lie the power of evil in the form of Communism and Islamic Fanaticism spread like a plague. We the People choose Ronald Reagan and the nation was saved. And now another liar wants to lead America.

Kerry's lies are Satanic. "Choose me" he entices, "and I will solve all your porblems, there will be no sacrifice, only the miracle of my power. Give me your vote and I will make every thing perfect." Oh how tempting it sounds - how tempting to choose the path by which "not one will be lost." But such a promise is a lie from the beginning, and those who make them are only interested in their own glory.

We have talked a lot over the past few days about the fall of empires, the death of nations, and the fate of the Good and the Evil. Now America must choose. Belshazzar, ruler of Babylon, chose the way of decadence, he drank from the golden cups that his father had obtained but that Belshazzar would not make the sacrifice to keep. In a Democracy, a Democratic Republic, the majority must choose the right. If the majority chooses evil all are lost. It is not President Bush whom is being measured; he has faced his test and met it. He meets it day in and day out like the great man he is. We the People must choose; either to take up the heavy burden of sacrifice that agency demands or opt for the lie. If we choose "Evil", we too will be weighed in the balance and found wanting.

A House Divided, But Why?

For the second time in thirty years I am reading The Peloponnesian War cover to cover. I read it as a boy at University. It was "Vietnam" - it was too painful to read words written 2500 years ago that spoke to my world. It is too painful to read it now, but I will do it because Thucydides still speaks the truth to our world. Thucydides writes of a city divided against its self, where power means more to politicians than the survival of their way of life.

To compare small things to great. (A favorite phrase from Herodotus) Some years ago I was asked to take over a failing Boy Scout Camp on Catalina Island. I knew of this camp and one night had dreamed I stood by the sea and was given a chance to direct it. The actual offer seemed to be a miracle. My wife and I visited Cherry Valley. What a mess. There were piles of garbage; barrels of liquor bottles. Filth blanketed the dining hall; where the most astonishing object was a mounted litter display hanging over the tables. As I spoke with the man I would replace and members of his staff, it became obvious to me that these people had a disdain for Scouting. They had no desire to use Cherry Cove to instill the values of scouting in boys, or even to give kids a good time at the sea. All these loafers wanted was a little kingdom of self indulgent pleasure. A former staffer told me his goal in coming to CCV was to catch some sun and drink beers with his pal Bill. Bill was the former boss. I told the applicant that we didn't have a position that fit "his" job description. When the Scout Executive, a man of great vision and courage, granted my only stipulation - 100% discretion in hiring - I accepted the job. What followed was the most painful experience of my life; an enormous success that brought me great pain. In the summer that followed, a wonderful staff turned every thing around. A camp that couldn't fill its eight week schedule; that lost thousands of dollars; that didn't have a working washing machine; that was due for closure; blossomed. It expanded to nine weeks and has been booked full for years in advance ever since. The enormous income it generates is the foundation of the financial success of the San Gabriel Valley Council. Its staff, programs, equipment, and location are the source of Scouting Spirit to thousands, and a great joy and satisfaction to the hundreds who have worked there in the ten years since. To me it is a stinking burden, a painful memory that only the pure waters of Yellow Stone can wash away. What destroyed my dream? Division! Not financial success, not restoration of the camp and solvency for the council could soften the anger of those who I had removed and their bitter friends. Throughout that terrible first summer I was attacked in every way imaginable. Accused of crimes and incompetence, attacked by letters and petitions, staff members subverted and faltered to attack our program and tell tales. Lies and more lies were circulated. Had it not been for my assistant, the loyalty and friendship of my staff, the support of my wife and children, and the gratitude of the scouts and scouters we served, I would have quit. The very people who had distoryed Camp Cherry Valley changed paradise into hell for me. In their anger and hate they resented every success, distorted every advance into a crime. My enemies didn't care if Cherry Valley succeeded of failed, if scouting changed lives for the better or simply disappeared. They only wanted to destroy me.

Now I listen to the "talking heads" opine. They indict President Bush, asking why he can't unite the nation? Why he has failed to end the partisanship that tears our land apart? How was our nation split? Believe me when I tell you, I know!

The war for Power!!!!!

Bush must fail if the Democrats are to regain power. Counting on the ignorance of Americans the Democrats appeal to the lowest emotions: greed, prejudice, and fear to prevent Bush from succeeding at anything. Thus, like the demigods of the Athenian assembly, relativist attack his every effort. Truth nor justice, nothing matters but power. [Don't tell me that our President does the same unless you can back it up. There are differences between the right and the wrong - just ask the scouts at Cherry, ask the ghosts of the Athenians who died in the quarry at Syracuse. You will hear their voices in the pages fo Thucydides' book.]

Here is the backup to my claims:

Bush's bipartisan crafted attempt to improve education is vilified as teachers are mobilized against it in fear that they will have to work.


Bush's Social Security reforms are demonized as seniors are told to fear the loss of their benefits.
Bush put forward a conservation plan for our forests and we are told to fear the extermination of endangered species.

Bush plans to provide domestic energy and the imagined terrors of Global Warming and "caribou destruction" are concocted to vilify him.

Bush seeks to insure the safety of our nation's medical supplies and the elderly are told they will have to choose between their food and their prescriptions.

Bush, with bipartisan support in the House and Senate, crafted the Patriot Act that has kept America safe from terror since 9/11 and Americans are told to fear the loss of their civil rights - the Constitution in shreds, and Bush and Att. Gen. Ashcroft are compared to Hitler.

Bush mentions his faith and the Democrats bring up the specter of the Spanish Inquisistion.

The Assault Weapons Ban expires. This is a law that did not affect a single assault or automatic weapon, and Bush is accused of arming criminals with AK 47's and putting the lives of our nation's police in danger.

President Bush leads our trembling and dishearten nation back to peace and confidence and the Democrats make him a monster in collusion with "Saudis" and terrorists.

President Bush courageously liberated the people of Afghanistan, drives the al Qaida murderers into caves, and the Democrats accuse him of inciting attacks by not catching bin Laden in the deadly mountain passes of Tora Bora. This, after they cowered and grumbled against going into Afghanistan in the first place.

President Bush places black men and women in the positions of the greatest authority and responsibility in our nation, but Democrats falsely accuse him of seeking to disenfranchise black voters, playing the race card to capitalize on fear and hate they have concocted.

President Bush supported the will of the vast majority of Americans and their representives; of science and medicine, and signed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. Democrats accuse him of trying to drive women to back alley abortions.

And the hits just keep coming.

In this self destructive grab for power the media has taken the side of the Relativists, the Democrats. There are out-and-out Media falsehoods like Dan Rather's forged letters and the "missing explosives" story and there is the constant current of bias that permeates every report. From Bush's first steps toward the presidency the "traditional media" plotted and confused. John McCain was a Media concoction; his run for the nomination a fabrication. His utter collapse in the primaries proves this, but his phoney candidacy diverted Bush campaign funds and divided Republicans over non issues. Now the media turns to McCain and Buchanan, Bush's rivals, as sources of "Conservative" comment while ignoring the input of legitimate representatives of the administration. In the 2000 race the media did all it could to portray Gov. Bush in a negative light while pandering to Gore; as they had to Clinton; as the now do to Kerry. The elite media challenged Bush's intellect and set traps to question his abilities. Two days before the election they put up the non-issue of a 30 year old traffic ticket. The media supported the hoax of the Florida election challenge; doing all it could to perpertuate Gore's unjustified claims while burying the truth. They chanted attacks against the U. S. Supreme Court while unjustly defending a one vote pro-Gore margin in the Florida court. A decision which the Florida justices later apologized for making. The media digs for dirt on Bush while hiding his accomplishments. Eighty to ninety percent of the media have come out for Kerry. A chief editor at News Week actually bragged the liberal bias of the press would give Kerry fifteen points in the polls. Bush recieves 59% negative reports while Kerry recieves only 25%. The press is rooting for Kerry. It is sad. In the past four years I have caught myself reflecting that a Democrat victory would at least put the media back on American's side.

On my tiny world at Catalina I had to face down the torrent of fear, prejudice, jealousy, and hate. Each Sunday afternoon I greeted the leaders from Pasadena with a heavy heart. Most of them came in angry, having heard that camp was dangerous, that the food was bad, that they would not have program opportunities, that there was no coffee or Coca Cola to drink. It only took them a day to realize they had been lied to. Judge one's works not the lies of those whose power is dependant on divison and failure.

History will judge George Bush by his works, but sadly there are not many people who read history. If they did they would know that Thucydides has already written the sad story of our day; the too sad tale of a free people of seemingly infinite strength brought into slavery by those who tore down and destroyed their own city for power's sake. I will read The Peloponnesian War again. I wish we all would!

The Friend of My Enemy is My Enemy

I liked Zell Miller's speech at the R.N.C.; an honest man speaking with eloquence. But then he got off on that Wendell Willkie thing. Do you Remember? Miller said his greatest hero was Wendell Willkie??? - the guy who ran against FDR during WWII and lost! It seemed inexplicable; but Miller explained. Willkie chose his country and the lives of his countrymen over his chance to be President of the United States. He did not exploit the difficuities of the World War for political gain. The vote was close, less than five million votes separated the victor from the loser, but Wendel Willkie would not attack his country to destroy a political rival. I think I know what Zell was up to. He was asking John Kerry to be a great man, to put America and the lives of her soldiers ahead of his own ambitions. Instead, John Kerry phoned Bill Clinton; reajusted his strategy, and politicized the war in Iraq. John Kerry abandoned greatness to buy his way to power with blood.

The other day,Russian President Vladimir Putin said what everybody knows; that Kerry's election will be a great victory for terrorism. Mike Moore is not the only America hater who rejoices in and profits from America's problems in Iraq. Yassar Arafat, who's Nobel Peace Prize oozes blood, has come out for Kerry. The government of France offers Kerry POLITICAL support though vowing to withhold any other kind, "no matter who wins the election". The Murders in Bagdad and Fallujah "worked hard" to chalk up a 1000 dead American soldiers for Kerry's stump speech, and he eagerly accepted their gruesome gift. I imagine Osama in his cave. If the al-Qaida king is not plastered to his Tora Bora wall, a Kerry/Edwards bumpersticker is. The pro-Kerry media, which sadly includes all major American networks as well as al Jazeera, cheer on al-Qaida and al Zarqawi while deriding and refusing to air the evidence presented by the Vietnam Vets who could tell the truth about John Kerry's political drive.

John Kerry's allies, past and present, know him well. His picture hangs in a place of honor in the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City. The Communist murders who slaughtered our heros and enslave the people of Vietnam today, claim John Kerry as their War Hero. They know what Kerry's self-serving attacks on America and her military got them. Kerry also knows how the deal works. As Kerry grabs for greater political power he turns once again to his friends, America's enemies - within and without. Kerry race-baits to stir up hate between Americans of different color, he talks down the American economy to exacerbate class warfare and turn worker against employer, the poor against the rich, those who want against those who have. Kerry lies about abortion to drive women to fear the policies which would serve their needs. Kerry turns the young against the old with falsehoods about taxes and Social Security. Kerry even claims belief in God is an ominous threat to civil liberties. And now the flu is his friend. The flu virus and the other infections of the world are his best hope. Muslim murderers hang the bodies of our warrior heros on the bridges of Bagdad, Mike Moore hangs them on the movie screens of America, and John Kerry hangs them on George Bush. Terrorists seek to destroy the West, Moore grabs for money, and John Kerry wants the White House. These "friends" obtain their goals by tearing down America; nothing is more important. They are all our enemies.

Since I had no idea how to spell Wendell Willkie's name I had to look it up. It wasn't in the index of my history book, so I took a shortcut and looked up FDR. There Willkie was, a name on a chart. Not much more than a footnote in History; Wendell Willkie will always be a great man. Wendell Willkei will always be my hero. John Kerry may well become President of the United States. He may well obtain the prize he has wasted such precious treasure to seize, but he will never be a great man and he will always be our enemy.

From Aeschylus' Agamemnon

A merchant in gold is Ares, and the bodies of men are his gold: in battle he holdeth his scale.
He sends from Ilium dust out of his fire, a heavy gold to weeping love, powder that once was a man, now pressed into the compass of a jar.

Thank You Tom

Dear Tom Rathke,

Thank you very much for taking the time to read my ideas and the trouble to comment on them. Your courage, passion, and cunning made for a very enjoyable evening. I hope you are reading this letter even after the "spirited defense" of my honor your first venture into the Agora stirred up. The majority of those who gather here are my former students. It's a bit ironic that, having spent most of their years with me pointing out what a narrow minded ideologue I am, they would chasten you for saying the same thing. That irony turned bitter-sweet when you (Tom) had the kindness to call my anonymous rantings "eloquent", and my good friend Bryan pointed out that there are only nine people in the world who care to read them. Tom, thank you for being number ten.

My defenders, to whom I am most greatful, have made a good point - you need to attack my arguments and ideas, not me. (I hope I taught them that!) Tom, you need to point out why I am so misguided. You need to answer the questions. We learn by throwing out ideas, taking positions, and then challenging them. The clash of ideas purges out the truth. You begin this process when you claim President Bush can't be trusted on the draft by saying he lied about Iraq. But you don't give any evidence to support your claim. I argue that President Bush has remained true to his original claim, that Saddam's regime had to be removed because it was a danger. Mass graves, gigantic abuses of the Oil for Food Program, clear intentions to subvert U. N. sanctions and develop WMD's, and the active support of terrorism; all have supported the President's postion. A position he has not changed. Kerry, on the other hand, supported the war on the same evidence and criteria that Bush did, then refused to fund it when shilling for votes during the Democratic primary. After claiming that anyone who didn't think removing Saddam was worth it was not fit to be President; Kerry now says that removing Saddam wasn't worth it. Kerry has openly longed for the "stable days of dictatorship". I claim, on these arguments, that it is John Kerry whom we cannot trust. Tom, it is your job to deal with these "facts." Explain them away with logic or refute them with evidence. The size or shape of my mind has nothing to do with it, nor does my name.

There is a good chance we will have to spend the next four years dealing with "President Kerry"; maybe you can make me feel good about it.

I eagerly await your comments. You are always welcome in the Agora and I believe that if you stick around and engage us, you will find a diversity of opinion that you can greatly enrich and benefit from.

Lisis

P. S. Tom - I tried to vist "splatrabbit". Loved the graphic!!! It says your "COMMING SOON". I look forward to that.

Questions for Democrats Still Supporting Kerry

Here are some questions to ask Democrats who are still supporting John Kerry. Wouldn't it be nice if this country had an unbiased news media that would ask these questions directly to the Kerry Campaign? Anyway, give them a try. Any Kerry supporter who has an answer, please "let me have it".

1. Considering that the only legislation calling for the re-institutionof the draft has been put forward by Democrats. (Rep. Charles Rangel, D - NY & Sen. Fritz Hollings, D - South Carolina); that both Kerry and Edwards repeatedly mention the possible need for a draft on the campaign trail, and that John Kerry has pledged to increase the Army by two divisions (10,000 to 18,000 each) and 20,000 new special forces troops; would a President Kerry re-institute the draft? If not where does he propose to get the 56,000 new troops from?

2. Recently John Kerry likened Islamic Terrorists, bent on the destruction of Western Culture for religious reasons to organized criminals pushing gambling and prostitution for money. In light of John Kerry's past willingness to abandon the Cold War on Communism, why should the American peole believe that John Kerry has the vision to lead the War on Terror?

3. John Kerry has promised to cut the taxes of the middle class, increase spending on the military, the War in Iraq, the War in Afghanistan, and the War on Terror. Kerry has promised to provide the same healthcare benifits available to senators to all Americans, and free healthcare to all children. Kerry has promised to reduce the Medicare eligibility age to 55, fully fund "No Child Left Behind', re-institute costly federal funding for local police and fire departments, provide college tuition to all, and on and on and on!!!! When President Bush pointed out that reinstating the taxes cuts on the top 2% of American incomes, those over $200,000 per year, will not cover the bill; Kerry replied that his promises are on a pay-as-you-go contingency. Why shouldn't voters beilieve that Kerry is making promises he can't keep?

4. A VOTE FOR NADER IS A VOTE FOR HILLARY! Don't you see that a vote for Nader in 2004 is not a vote for Bush; it is a vote to make Hillary's 2008 campaign possible?

Please Massa, Don't Set Me Free

Please massa, don't set me free!

The Democrats haven't changed in one hundred and fifty years. In the days of slavery the Democrats, the pro-slavery party, assured abolitionist Republicans that blacks were better off as slaves. Democrats running for office, arguing for fugitive slave laws, demanding compromise on expanding America; insisted that blacks were better off while being taken care of like cattle or house pets. They claimed that African traditions and black blood; even the will of God, required the Blacks be forever, hewers of wood and fetchers of water. Democrats insisted that slavery was not only an advantage to the masters but good for the slaves.

In his interview with Matt Bai in the New York Times Magazine, October 10 2004, John Kerry claims to express the "thoughtful, forward-looking theory" of his party. He condemns "the Bush doctrine of forced democracy." Bai puts forward a Relativist revision of the history of the Cold War as justification for Kerry's critique on Bush's policies in the War on Terror. "The neo-conservatives who shaped Reagan's anti-Soviet policy and now shape Bush's war on terror have long held that the "twilight struggle" with the Soviet empire was won primarily as a result of U. S. military intervention in several hemispheres and of Reagan's massive arms buildup, without which democracy and free markets could not have taken hold. Many liberals, on the other hand, have never been comfortable with that premise. While they acknowledge that American military power played a role, they contend that the long ideological struggle with communism ended chiefly because the stifling economic and social tenets of Marxism were unsustainable, and because a new leader emerged -- Mikhail Gorbachev -- who understood that." (NYT Mag. pg. 41)

President Bush's policy is based on the belief that a successful democracy at the heart of the Middle East will discredit the radical ideology of hate. Bush believes in the transformational power of liberty. Kerry, claiming his first hand experience in Vietnam as his window on the truth, sees injustice in the U. S. forcing freedom at gun point on people who don't want it. "You can't impose it on people," he said. "You have to bring them to it. You have to invite them to it. You have to nuture the process." Here Kerry's racial snobbery reaches the level of antebellum Democrats. In 1971, Kerry claimed before the Foreign Relations Committee: "We found most people didn't even know the difference between communism and democracy. They only wanted to work the rice paddies without helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages and tearing their country apart." (NYT Mag. pg. 68)

Kerry's view of history is conveniently crafted to his politics. His view of "happy rice farmers" under the watchful eye of their Communist masters would mesh well with the 19th century view of "happy cotton pluckers" under the benevolent gaze of their task masters. Now he sees the fanatical Islamic terror masters of the Middle East as so many benevolent spiritualists just waiting for their backward people to evolve to a level where they can appreciate freedom and govern themselves. What he chooses to ignore are the inherent evils of Communism and Islamic Totalitarianism; just as the Democrats of the 18th century chose to ignore the evils of slavery. The enslavement of the African people is now condemned by all but the most Relitivist of minds. Why then do they refuse to recognize the killing fields of South East Asia, the genocide in Tibet, the mass graves of Saddam? All these evils are overlooked in the "forward-looking theories of John Kerry".

John Kerry panders for votes by promising a world where diplomacy will solve all illls. Ya sure! Diplomacy sure solved the ills of slavery in America; of the Jews in the Nazi death camps; of the millions murdered by Lenin, Stalin, and Mao; of those murdered day in and day out in Communist Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, and China. Eight years of Clinton's diplomacy sure softened the hatred of Al Qaeda for America and brought freedom to the women of Afghanistan. Or did it?

Let me interject here that curbing the spread of Communism benefitted America. Freedom in Russia, Eastern Europe, South Korea, and elsewhere makes our lives of freedom and peace possible. I could also argue that ending the regimes of hate in the Middle East will make the world safer for all. But I will not argue those things now. For the moment I only want to point out the snobbery and narrowness of the liberal view that America is forcing freedom on people against their will.

We look back on the nightmare of American Slavery; at the brandings and whippings, the lynchings and mutilations, the bans on learning to read and write, the raping and humiliation, and wonder why anyone would be willing to pretend that any human beings, no matter what their race, would willing endure such evil. We cringe with guilt that a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal; could have existed for four score and seven years shielding such injustice, such evil. Someday we will look back on the brandings and whippings, the lynchings and mutilations, the "religious rapes", the bans on learning, and the systematic teaching of hate that dominates the lives of millions in the Middle East and wonder how anyone could have pretended that this was what the people of those nations wanted. If we are firm and resolute, we will rejoice, to paraphrase Lincoln, that these governments, of the people, by the people, for the people, shall have flourished on the earth.

One Man's Lie Is Another Man's Truth

One man's lie is another man's truth. This Relativist incantation is the "Father of All Lies." Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfield dealt with this deception when he said, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not to their own facts."

There is nothing more frustrating than being called a liar by a liar. A student tells his mom and dad that he didn't fail; that the grade on the report card is a lie. In a frustrating and accusation-filled conference in the principal's office, the teacher replies that the student did not do the needed assignments or attend the classes. "Are you calling my son a liar?" an angry parent demands, "my son says that he did do the work, and that you are a liar!" Out come the rolls and grade books and the real liar is revealed. In the liar/liar rants of the 2004 election campaign the books are available. Let's open them so we can judge.

John Kerry is calling President Bush a liar. It is the desperate tactic of the delinquent caught in his failure, his only hope is that ma and pa will believe. Let's look at some of Kerry's lies.

Speaking before the Senate, John Kerry described the memories, "seared into his mind!" of how President Nixon sent him on a secret mission into Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968. In Unfit for Command, the Swift Vets point out two things: 1) Kerry was never within 50 miles of Cambodia, and 2) that Richard Nixon didn't become Presidnet until January 1969. John Kerry's response is to call the Swift Vets liars.

John Kerry continually claims that former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki was forced to retire because he disagreed with President Bush on the number of troops needed on the ground in Iraq. The fact is that the general was due to retire. Claiming Shinseki was forced out is like Kerry claiming that Bill Clinton was forced to retire as President because he supported Al Gore. Kerry's response is to say that when Bush says he listens to his generals he is a liar. The fact is that the rest of the Chiefs and the commanders in the field recommended lower numbers of troops and Tommy Franks, the general who commanded and accomplished victory in Afghanistan and Iraq, flatly states that he was given everything he asked for.

John Kerry says over and over again that the war in Iraq has cost the American taxpayer $200 billion dollars. Those who add up the figures demonstrate that, to date, the facts are that the cost is closer to $120 billion. Kerry's response to being caught exaggerating for political purposes is to call the President a liar. It is interesting to note that while Kerry attacks Bush by misstating the cost at $200 billion, Kerry says that he would have spent more.

John Kerry says again and again that the US rushed to war without allies. He acts as if Britain, Spain, Italy, Bulgaria, Poland, Japan, the Netherlands, and Australia do not exist. He dismisses these nations as insignificant. I guess, to Kerry, Germany would have been a better ally than Italy, China than Japan, Russia than Great Britain. When Bush says we have a coalition, Kerry says he is lying. Count the countries - there are over thirty, weigh their value in the world, and then consider that France and Russia were taking hundreds of millions of dollars in blood money from Saddam to pull their punches and withhold their support in the UN and from the coalition.

That France and Russia didn't enter the war because they believed that diplomacy would "solve Saddam" is another Kerry lie. Kerry calls President Bush a liar when he says that his administration exhausted all diplomatic means by supporting over a dozen resolutions in the UN against Saddam's attrocities and deceptions. Open the books. The DuelferReport clearly shows that those nations that blocked the UN from fulfilling its obligations to the Iraqi people were being bribed by Saddam. They were not interested in diplomacy, they were on the take!

Kerry lies when he says he has a plan for victory in Iraq. Last week in a twenty-nine second rambling answer to a request for details on his much trumpeted plan, Kerry said: I have a plan, but I won't know what it is until I get in the White House and find out what kind of mess the Bush Administration has created; so I don't know what I will do but I have a a plan. If he says he has a plan and then that he doesn't, he is lying. Let's put things in Kerry speak: Kerry condemns Bush, claiming Bush said, "I'll win the war then figure out a way to win the peace," but Kerry says "I'll win the election then figure out a way to win the war." Don't his own words condemn him? What Kerry says is that President Bush lied when he told the American people that he had a plan to bring peace to Iraq. And yet we have all watched as the President's plan ended the tryannical regime of Saddam, put an interim Iraqi government into place, trained over 100,000 Iraqi forces to defend their own freedoms, and daily progresses toward free elections to be held in January. Kerry's only response to the "grade book's being opened" is to call it a lie.

Kerry lies when he positions words to encourage misconceptions. Kerry and his talking heads parrot Mike Moore's lies that American troops are brutal ravaging the nations of Iraq and Afganistan; like the armies of Ghengis Kahn. The United States did not attack the people of Afghanistan or Iraq. The US attacked the monster tyrants that held these people in brutal slavery. Moore, Kerry, and company are chanting a lie. It is as bogus as saying that the police officer that risks his life to enter a house ravaged by a murderer is attacking the terrified victims whom he has come to save.

Half Truths Are Lies!!! Kerry has this trick up his sleeve too.

He says that Paul Bremer, former administrator in Iraq, has said that he does not think that there were enough troops on the ground to secure the peace. But Kerry does not tell us that Bremer went on to say that military leaders fighting and securing Iraq did believe that there were enough troops, and that he (Bremer) believes that President Bush is handling the liberation of Iraq properly. Thus Kerry gives us a half truth - he is lying.

Kerry said in the October 8th debate that there were no terrorist attacks on the US between the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center and 9/11. There were no attacks on the World Trade Center, but he does not say anything about our heros in Mogadishu, our embassies in Africa, and our ships at sea. When Kerry only tells us half the turth, he is lying.

Kerry says he takes the threat of terrorism seriously and that when Bush says he is doing all he can to fight terror, Bush is lying. Yet, Kerry shows that he does not take the war against terror seriously when he says, as he is quoted in Sunday's New York Times (The New York Times Magazine/ October 10, 2004, pg. 45) that, "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance. As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life." Is Kerry in Lahlah Land; is he just stupid? No, he is a liar. When he says he is qualified to lead the war against Islamic terror and then equates it to prostitution; when he demonstrates that he does not see the difference between "seedy back room clubs," (Kerry's own words to describe organized crime) and terrorists sworn to die in destroying America with weapons of mass destruction and holy war, he is lying. And he lies again when he disembles like this in a New York Times interview and then claims on the campain stump that he can, AND WILL, win the war on terror. If he says it can't be won and he will win it - he is lying.

Kerry is a liar on domestic issues.

With a straight face Kerry says that President Bush has done nothing for health care in the US. It is as if the Medicare Reform bill that Bush pushed through - legislation that Clinton was afraid to even attempt since the Hillary-care disaster, had never happened. When Bush says that his reforms make it possible for seniors to buy medicine that will reduce catastrophic illnesses and thus reduce care costs, Kerry ignores the facts. Ignoring the fact to make a contradictory claim is lying.

Kerry's lies when he promises to reduce taxes, reduce deficits, and promises endless give-a-aways to bribe votes. This past weekend John Edwards said on the This Week program, that if a Kerry administration, "can't afford all the programs they promise they will cut some." But he still kept making the promises even though his own campaign's math - as well as the figures worked out by honest examiners - flatly state that there is no way to afford Kerry's promised programs while keeping his in-the-camera promise not to raise taxes on anyone who makes less that $200,000.00 a year. To make promises that you know you can't keep makes you a liar.

This past weekend, I forced myself to sit through two plus hours of Mike Moore's Fahrenheit 911. It was the Kerry campaign in miniature. Now, More is running about the country offering free underwear and raman noodles to the people he thinks are most likely to vote for John Kerry, the "slacker students" of America. Mike Moore and John Kerry have much in common with this new base they are reaching out to; a group who are ready to have their opinions crafted because they have no facts of their own.

When the grades come out, and their failures are revealed, their only defense is to call the teacher a liar. Let the record show . . .

Why Relativist Love Debate and Hate to Argue

September 30th's debate did clarify the difference between Bush and Kerry. This difference is the core conflict in America. Kerry is a Relativist, Bush believes in Truth. I have been asked to debate on election issues. The opponent I hoped to meet in a "clash of ideas" declined the invitation of the Teenage Democrats and Republicans. She says "She's not running for anything!" But she really just doesn't want to argue with me. I will meet the former Debate coach, who will defend Kerry's positions. A "Relatively" easy task for him since Kerry has many positions to choose from on any given subject. Anyone who has debated in competition will realize that Kerry has provided his supporters with a veritable "file box" of positions to choose from. All one needs is for an opponent to take a stand and one will have a "Kerry card" to deal with it.

Definitions: (Check your Webster's)

Argue comes from the Latin arguere - to make clear.

Debate is defined as contention by words or arguments.

I say:

Absolutists believe in the Truth and therefore argue to find it.

Relativist use arguments and words in a confusion of disconnected positions which become an appeal for points; allowing and even encouraging contradictions.

As an absolutist arguer, I say Kerry lost the debate on September 30th because he did not expose any truth about himself or the President. Relativist debaters will say Kerry won because he presented the best contentions. Let's examine both men's positions.

Note: I do not pretend to be quoting anyone directly - and many of these position statements will be drawn as much from campaign statements as from the debate, but as VP Cheney said, "ninety minutes of acting tough in a debate cannot undo 35 years of record." Unless you are a Relativist.

Kerry says, "I supported the war when I thought there were WMD threats. I now 'know' there were no WMDs so I no longer support the war, BUT I will still fight the war, I will fight it harder and win!" This is a Relativist stance. An absolutist would argue that if a war was justified by a lie it is unjust, and the thing to do is to say one is sorry and quit!" But Kerry does not say that. As a Relativist he can say we shouldn't be fighting the war and that we should win it in the very same sentence.

Kerry says, "The war is too expensive. It has cost $200 Billion that could have been used for education and health care, BUT if you elect me I will spend more money and send more troops because Bush did not send enough troops, and did not provide them with adequate equipment." An absolutist would argue that if the war costs more than it is worth, we should come home and quit spending money on it. But Kerry doesn't say that. As a Relativist he can say the war isn't worth the cost and he will spend more for it in the future.

Kerry says, "Those who allied themselves with the US were fools, a coalition of the coerced and the bribed. They have foolishly entered into reckless participation in a dangerous and unnecessary war, BUT elect me President and I will bring together all nations and France, Germany, and Russia will join in freeing Iraq." An absolutist would say, no intelligent leader or wise nation would enter a needless slaughter; so give me the power and we will get out. But Kerry, the Relativist, doesn't say that. He can say both that no nation can support the war in Iraq and that he will get lots of nations to do it.

Kerry's real motivation in his debate is not his moral compass or his core values; he has neither. He will present any position to get elected, and as a Relativist, supported by relativist in the media and the liberal elites, he can provide instant gratification to his "card grabbing" constituents by providing them with whatever sound bite they need to support him.

Now let's compare Bush's stance on these three postings. As an absolutist Bush's arguments must be logical and reasonable.

Bush says, "All wars in the defense of freedom and the safety of America are just and necessary. Saddam threatened the safety and freedom of America and the world, therefore war against him is just." This follows the form of the most famous syllogism in Logic: All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal. War is just if it defends freedom, this war defends freedom, therefore it is just. Kerry might argue that the war does not defend freedom or make America safer, but he does not. He supports the war and is against it at the same time.

Bush says, "Money spent on the war makes American safe. This is the reason we have a military; they need support so we must sacrifice the money to carry out the decisions made by the commanders in the field." Again, the same logical syllogism, wars for safety are worth the sacrifice, this war keeps us safe and makes the world safer, therefore it is worth the cost. Kerry could argue against this position by proving that this war has not made the world safer, but he says just the opposite, most of the time.

Bush says, "We get every ally we can, and show them respect and gratitude, but we do not wait for a "Global Pass" from other nations who are not interested in American success or the spread of freedom." This argument flows with elegant logic. Allies are those who support each other, we support those who support us, therefore we have allies. But America will not turn its safety over to the discretion of those who want the US to fail. We will not seek their permission, "the Global Pass." This final statement is an example of another basic logical form, the negative mode, Modus Tollens. If it is raining outside then the sidewalks are wet. The sidewalks are not wet, therefore it is not raining outside. If Nations support us then they are our allies, France does not support American therefore they are not our ally. Remember that France's stance in this war has nothing to do with what is good for Iraq or for the word, but only what France perceives to be good for France. Many point out that the French do not like Bush. Of course they don't because the French don't like America to be strong. When we had a weak President, Bill Clinton, they were very happy. If another weak President were to be elected they would be very pleased.

For a week Kerry's supporters have been reading his "cards" and saying he won the debate. Bush cannot be all things to all people because he must act in the real world. Bush operates in the world of truth. Kerry can say anything he wants because what he says has no real world effect, it does not need to be true. Kerry can be judged the better debater by relativist, for contention is the province of the Relativist, but his arguments are not winners to those who seek to make the Truth clear.

Football and Viet Nam, Terrorism and Truth

I handed a hard copy of a football analogy, (see "Let's Quit When the Going Gets Rough" posted below), to a colleague the other day. He returned the paper to me with a beautifully hand written note. I included here his comments and my response. I'm afraid our arguments date us, but as "Layton Lancer" said, (see comments under "Thomas Cahill - History for Sale" posted below), we must learn from history. Sometimes we learn our history by living it.

My colleague's comment:

"I HAVE A BETTER IDEA. DO WHAT WE DID IN VIETNAM; KEEP PLAYING, GETTING DEEPER & DEEPER IN THE HOLE. PLAY ANOTHER QUARTER, & OVERTIME AND WHEN YOU SEE YOU'LL NEVER CATCH UP ON THE SCORE, CALL THE GAME OFF. THEN GO UP TO THE SCOREBOARD & CHANGE THE SCORE TO SHOW THAT YOU WON THE GAME AND GIVE YOURSELF & TEAM A VICTORY PARADE. IT WORKED ONCE; WHY NOT AGAIN?
BUSHLEAGUER HASN'T LEARNED A THING FROM HISTORY.

My response:

As a master of all things literary, you know, better than I, that any analogy can be stretched too thin - and yet let me push this one just a little farther. You are right, we must learn from history, and the history of VietNam is most appropriate to consider. Back to the football metaphor: in VietNam, we pulled the "first string," handicapped our team for political reasons, drove our fans from the stands and replaced them with an angry mob screaming for our defeat, and then left the field before the clock ran out.

Now for history. Communism is a system built on a lie, a demonstrated economic farce, that could and can only be maintained by totalitarian terrorism. It has been responsible for more violent deaths in the twentieth century than any other factor. Murders in the name of Marx dwarf the evils of Nazism. Check out The Black Book of Communism published by Harvard University Press in 1999. In the blighted nations (including VietNam) where Communism still hangs on, all civil and human liberties are denied and the power of the party is maintained by mass murder. Because America lost heart on that terrible battle front, a million plus Vietnamese were murdered in red reeducation camps and two million plus people died on the killing field of Cambodia. Ask the tens of thousands who fled Communism by boat if that war was useless, ask the people of Thailand if they feel our heros died for "a nothing." The march of Communism was stopped by the blood of our heroes - and the wisdom of Ronald Reagan.

Back to analogy. Thank goodness that our team played out the rest of that "Cold War Season." Let's hope we learned the lesson of history, that the only way to "stay in the game" is to do ones best till the clock runs out. When the Islamic terrorists snuff out the flame of the West; when freedom, pluralism, and justice are replaced by religious fanaticism and the darkness of hate; when reason and logic give way to ignorance, superstition, and fear; let it be because they were the better team, not because we walked off the field when the going got tough.

To My Friends

Thank you so much for visiting me "at the Agora." Your comments and cleverness are exciting. I had thought to answer you each in turn - but as always you have raced beyond me in your arguments, your searching for truth. I can only thank you for bringing me along and thank you for letting me participate in your "Great Conversation." Above I am posting my response to a favorite English teacher at my school. He answered me in pen and ink and in cursive script. Those were the days! I hope my answer to him will serve as some homage to you all.