Email Fun

A little over a week ago, I received an email from a very long ago acquaintance -- a fellow who lived next door to me from about fifth grade through high school.

His email was a forward of a letter he'd received from his dentist, who felt the need to express the fear he felt for his children and grandchildren... a letter that I felt was a not-too-veiled letter of endorsement for George W. Bush.

I don't know which urge I was satisfying -- the desire to be a trouble-maker or the desire to keep such an endorsement from going unchallenged -- but I clicked "Reply All" and, well...

Dear Church Reps: the following is a letter I sent out to all my friends who are still wavering about " who to vote for"....if you have any friends, or relatives or neighbors like that, I encourage you to do something similar......Also, please don't forget about the Christian Voter's Guides. They are available at Cathedral of Praise and Perrysburg Alliance Churches......Blessings ......Bill

October 26, 2004

Dear Friends,

A week from tomorrow, we will be casting our vote for the next president of the United States. Although there has been an over abundance of information out there regarding the election, I have tried to respect your opinions. I have refrained from challenging any of you whose views differ from mine. I'm sure all of you know where my heart lies. What you probably don't know is the amount of fear and angst I have for my children and grandchildren as I look to the future. Next August I will turn 60 years of age. Janie and I have lived a very full, rewarding life. I have seen it all and done it all.at least the things that I felt were important. Never in my life did I ever think we would be discussing issues like what the definition of marriage is; or if we should eliminate "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance; or if we should ban partial birth abortion ( a hideous murder of full term babies.) There is an old saying that "what one generation allows in moderation, the next generation will excuse in excess". I ask you, "What will we be excusing 20 years from now?" I find myself wanting to cry out, "Enough is enough!!!!"

America has turned its back on God and yet on 9-11 we gathered together, held hands, and with eyes swelling with tears, we sang "God Bless America." What a mockery. The truth is, He has blessed us..as we fought and won our independence from Great Britain in the 1700's; as we fought a civil war and rid this nation of the dreaded curse of slavery in the 1800's; as we fought two world wars and defeated hideous dictators like Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin in the 1900's.

And what have we done with the blessings? Systematically we have taken prayer and Bible reading and the 10 Commandments out of the schools and out of the market place and out of the discussion of ideas... One thought! In light of the school incidents that occurred in places like Paducah, Kentucky and Columbine, Colorado, might it not be a good idea to be teaching kids "Thou shalt not kill" and "Honor your father and mother" along with math facts and spelling words?

With the breakdown of the family; sexual and physical abuse of children; and corruption at all levels of government, business and even the Church, you can't help but wonder how close we are to becoming a 3rd world country. At that point, dear friends, it really won't matter who has a job and what a gallon of gas is selling for.

I am at a point in my life where I am embarrassed to ask God to keep blessing us.why should he?.would you as a parent continue to bless your children if they acted as we have as a Nation toward the heavenly Father? My ongoing prayer has been that "God would have mercy on America. Please forgive us for turning our backs on You." Please notice that I have not yet mentioned the threat of terrorism that looms over us from beyond our borders. Actually the decay we have going on from within may be enough to destroy us. But there also is that threat from without. International terrorism is not going to go away regardless of who is President on November 3rd. The battle will continue to wage world wide. But for the sake of my children and grandchildren and yours, I would rather have that battle on foreign shores.

The Old Testament dedicates a whole book to a man of courage, Nehemiah, who's purpose in life was to go back to Jerusalem and repair the breaches in the wall. He risked fame, fortune, even his own life to fulfill this mandate. Under his leadership there were no fence setters. The people understood the times and knew what they had to do. Today our walls are in great disrepair. Our gates are open and the enemy is approaching. I ask you.will you sit on the fence or stand on the wall?

Will you take up your responsibility and help to rebuild the wall? Before you go to the polls next Tuesday, I ask you .no. I implore you, to please think of the future.not just the next four years but the next 10, 20, & 50 years. What will America look like in 2014; 2024; & 2054? Which lever you pull, or ballot you scan or chad you punch may very well be the deciding vote for the future.and vote as if your life and your children's lives depend on it. For they truly do!

Blessings to you..You are all very special to me!


Bill

My response to Bill, et al...

Throughout most of my life, I have kept myself fairly aware of current events but have never been much of a political activist.

The events of the last several years, however, have begun to chip away at my political timidity and I have begun to give voice to the many thoughts that have passed through my skull.

Most of you don't know me from Adam, but because I felt a need to respond to the email I received earlier this evening, here I am thanks to "Reply All."

First, I will say that I'm voting for John Kerry next Tuesday. If you're mind has already been made up, then I suspect I've done you a favor by letting you know up front. If, however, you've not yet determined your choice for president, I hope you'll read on. (Especially since I've spent the better part of two hours writing it!)

The cornerstone of the email was Bill's "fear and angst" for his children and grandchildren.

Far be it from me to try to minimize anybody's fears. Alleviating fear, however, and the means by which we approach such a task is quite another thing.

Does one person on the receiving end of this email really believe that one candidate for president is really going to make this country safer than another? If so, please examine the actions of our current president over the course of the last three years and tell me if you *really* feel safer than you did on the day of September 11, 2001.

Do you know *why* you don't feel safer?

I'll tell you why... it's because George Bush has stirred up a hornet's nest in the Middle East while the snake that bit us is still slip-sliding through the mountains of Pakistan.

There are a lot of really pissed-off hornets buzzing around now.

Getting away from metaphors for a moment... The war in Iraq has nothing to do with safety.

If you're not familiar with the Project For The New American Century, you probably ought to be. Below is a link to a letter written by the group that is essentially responsible for the war in Iraq. Look at the signatories... most of them are a part of the Bush administration. The letter was written to President Clinton in January of 1998.

Here's an excerpt:

"The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."

Project For A New American Century

Do you see any mention of terrorism in the letter? Al Qaeda?

Nope... neither do I.

1998. Five years before Bush invaded Iraq, the maps were being drawn.

George Bush is a liar. Dick Cheney is a liar. Donald Rumsfeld is a liar. Condoleezza Rice is a liar. Colin Powell is a liar.

Liars all.

Now that I've clarified that, I'd like to address the reasons we were attacked on September 11, 2001.

This is a lot more complicated, because it involves a multitude of things. It involves, primarily, the incestuous relationship between multi-national corporations and our foreign policy. But it also involves imperialism. It involves political expediancy. It involves political ignorance.

Do any of you recall the Iranian hostage situation that began in 1979? Did you learn any lessons from that? Did our government learn any lessons from that? Clearly not. As if nothing had happened, we (as a nation) continued our exploitive ways in the Middle East. We supported oppressive (dictatorial) governments as a matter of making multi-national corporations fatter, happier and sassier. Oppressed people usually resent their oppressors and those who accommodate their oppressors.

Let's not forget the military industrial complex....

Here's a film about the Carlyle Group which you might find interesting (the first minute and forty-five seconds or so are in Dutch):

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3995.htm

Simply put, we were not attacked on September 11, 2001 because terrorists hate our freedom! (Do you really buy that nonsense?!?) We were attacked because our foreign policy helps to reduce others' freedoms.

Let's talk about life now.

I noticed in Bill's letter that he's satisfied he's "lived a very full, rewarding life." In the same breath, he considers partial birth abortion as "a hideous murder of full term babies."

Abortion has always given me a problem, but you know... being a man, I've never gotten pregnant. Not once have I had to worry about that. Nor have I had to worry about being beaten for having become pregnant. Nor have I had to face ridicule for having gotten pregnant. Nor have I had to face the prospects of raising a child at the age of seventeen as a result of a pregnancy.

If I had my way, there would be no abortions. I really would rather no one had to consider such a thing. But this world isn't particularly kind to children -- especially children born to children. Whatever the circumstance that lead to an abortion, who am *I* to tell a woman what she should or shouldn't do. If we believe that there is a god that sits in judgement of our actions, whose business is it, then -- other than a woman and her god -- if abortions are performed?

Life. Anti-abortion but pro-war.

Bill is satisfied with his long, full life, but Bush's war has taken, ripped, stolen the lives of over 10,000 people from them in Iraq. For what? For the sake of the Project For The New American Century.

For George W. Bush
For Elliott Abrams
For Richard L. Armitage
For William J. Bennett
For Jeffrey Bergner
For John Bolton
For Paula Dobriansky
For Francis Fukuyama
For Robert Kagan
For Zalmay Khalilzad
For William Kristol
For Richard Perle
For Peter W. Rodman
For Donald Rumsfeld
For William Schneider, Jr.
For Vin Weber
For Paul Wolfowitz
For R. James Woolsey
For Robert B. Zoellick

Many of the over 1100 dead American soldiers probably thought they were fighting to protect us from the terrorists that attacked us on September 11, 2001. After all, that's what Bush, Cheney, et al, has repeatedly told them.

But no... they died for a handful of men with a cockamamie scheme to conquer the Middle East. "Screw negotiations," they said. "Screw sanctions," they said. "Screw the idea that the United States doesn't *start* wars," they said.

And so they did. And in the process, they screwed over 1100 young men and women of their lives. You might call it the "hideous murder of full-term babies."

Go here and look at the faces and ages of the men and women who are dead because of Bush's war:

Faces Of The Fallen

As you look at their ages... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23... think about what you were doing at those ages. Think about the things you were hoping yet to accomplish with your life. Think about how much you've grown since then and how glad you are to have survived those years; how much you appreciate having grown to the age you are. Think of your ability to have children and grandchildren.

Yes, those people chose to be soldiers. They didn't choose, however, to fight a liar's war.

Think, too, of the innocent men, women and children killed in Iraq as a result of Bush's war. Bush and company were so bound and determined to protect them from Saddam Hussein that he wiped them off the face of the earth. 10,000 to 15,000 people. Dead. Gone. Forever.

Pro-life.

We have a president and a vice president and an administration that care so little about life, who are so recklessly destroying life on this planet, yet we take up our time worrying about whether or not the words "under God" are removed from the "Pledge of Allegiance." Give me a break. (Their addition to the pledge, of course, came at a time that a similarly mad Joseph McCarthy was prowling Washington, D.C.) We expend our energies trying to take away the rights of others. That's a funny way to be a Christian, don't you think?

Pro-life.

What does life depend upon? Water? Air? Food?

With increasingly contaminated water, air and food thanks to the policies of the Bush administration, do you think "pro-life" is really an aspect they are considering?

I fear that my children and grandchildren won't have clean air or water or food. I fear that new cancers will rob them of many days of happy, carefree life. Terror indeed.

What is the point of being "pro-life" is we don't concern ourselves with what is required to *sustain* people's lives once they've emerged from the womb?!?

Bill is so distraught about the shape of the world, yet he pins it on (amongst other things) a loss of god.

I worry about the world, too. But religion and the lack of a god have nothing to do with it. Prayer has never stopped a war, averted an earthquake, or intervened on behalf of torture victims. Is Darfur any better off because someone is praying?

Nor is it "the economy, stupid!" It's about treating one another decently. It's about developing a true "society" -- not one in which we kill each other over plots of land, or dead-bolt ourselves from the rest of the world -- one in which we are more likely to help out the person in need instead of ignoring him. It's about being good to your neighbor because goodness is its own reward -- not because of a tax credit or some promise of heaven.

The promise of heaven, after all, is what suicide bombers are taught awaits them.

Tim W. responds to me...

I'm going to throw in my $20 worth here. Patrick, have you given any thought to the 80 persons per day that Hussein had tortured to death? That's over 20,000 per year that we have rescued from the despot! It would have been a sin of omission to not help there, especially given all the ignored warnings the U.N. gave Hussein. Are U. S. lives worth more than Iraqis in the eyes of God? (And that's God, with a capital "G"!)

As for abortion, the baby is not part of the woman's body; it is a separate life growing within her, using her nutrition to grow. The problem was that she was made pregnant by someone, not the pregnancy itself. The deed is done by that time; the problem has nothing to do with the child. Saying that you are a man and can't know what it's like to be pregnant is a cop out on your obligation to point out a wrong. I wonder if Abraham Lincoln's Mother and Father would have aborted him since they were so poor? Gees, they didn't even have a microwave, TV or central air!

You may think that honoring God is a waste of our time, but I don't. Neither would the founding fathers. This country is turning into a cesspool because of the secular absolutism of fanatical, atheistic liberals. I pray to God that people will come to hear that still, small voice that is the Holy Spirit, come to faith and put that faith into action.

If John Kerry considers himself a man of faith, what good is it if he doesn't put his Catholic faith into action? A true man of faith cannot on one hand say he is a Christian and on the other allow the Sacrament of Matrimony (Catholic sacrament) to be corrupted by gay marriage. Nor can he allow the taking of life such as it is in abortion.

Now for the background on why we are in Iraq. This is a long history and explanation, but it will really open your eyes to what is really going on in the world. I will paste it in below my name and before your rebuttal to Dave Childers forward to all of us from the dentist, whose message unfortunately was deleted from your rebuttal.

Tim

Serving you with honesty and hard work.

Democracy always dies after 200 yrs.

About the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in the year 1787, Alexander Tyler (a Scottish history professor at The University of Edinburgh) had this to say about The Fall of The Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior.

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From Bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the most recent Presidential election:

Population of counties won by:
Gore=127 million
Bush=143 million

Square miles of land won by:
Gore=580,000
Bush=2,2427,000

States won by:
Gore=19
Bush=29

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Gore=132
Bush=2.1

Professor Olson adds:
In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off government welfare

Olson believes the U.S. is now somewhere between the complacency and apathy phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy; with some 40 percent of the nation's population already having reached the governmental dependency phase.

Pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake in this Election Year and that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.

THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS AND THE GREAT CALIPHATE
by Larry Abraham, Author of Insider Report
January 29, 2004

I urge all of my readers to make copies of this report and send them to your friends and relatives. The information is too critical to be overlooked in the madness of this election year.

Watching and listening to the Democrat Party candidates is tantamount to enduring the Chinese water torture. The blah, blah, blah goes on and on and nothing of value comes out except the pain of listening to the same nothingness over and over again. I won't take the time or space to repeat what you have heard so many mind-numbing times, but what you have not heard is crucial.

President Bush and his administration spokesmen are not telling the American people what they really need to know about this "war." If they don't do that between now and November, it may cost them the election.

The war against terror did not begin on September 11, 2001, nor will it end with the peaceful transition to civilian authority in Iraq, whenever that may be. In fact, Iraq is but a footnote in the bigger context of this encounter, but an important one nonetheless.

This war is what the Jihadists themselves are calling the "Third Great Jihad." They are operating within the framework of a time line, which reaches back to the very creation of Islam in the seventh century and are presently attempting to recreate the dynamics, which gave rise to the religion in the first two hundred years of its existence. No religion in history grew as fast in its infancy, and the reasons for the initial growth of Islam are not hard to explain when you understand what the world was like at the time of Muhammad's death in 632 AD. Remember that the Western
Roman Empire was in ruins and the Eastern Empire, based in Constantinople, was trying desperately to keep the power of its early grandeur while transitioning to Christianity as a de facto state religion. The costs to the average person were large, as he was being required to meet the constantly rising taxes levied by the state along with the tithes coerced by the Church.

What Islam offered was the "carrot or the sword." If you became a convert, your taxes were immediately eliminated, as was your tithe. If you didn't, you faced death. The choice was not hard for most to make, unless you were a very devoted martyr in the making. At the beginning, even the theology was not too hard for most to swallow, considering that both Jewry and Christianity were given their due by the Prophet: There is but one God--Allah, and Muhammad is His Prophet, as was Jesus, and the
pre-Christian Jewish prophets of the Torah (Old Testament). Both were called "children of the book"--the book being the Koran, which replaced both the Old and New Testaments for former Christians and Jews.

With this practical approach to spreading the "word," Islam grew like wildfire, reaching out from the Saudi Arabian Peninsula in all directions. This early growth is what the Muslims call the "First" great Jihad. It met with little resistance until 732 A.D. when Charles Martel of France, the father of Charlemagne, stopped them in the Battle of Tours in France. By then, Islam had firmly established itself as far east as the Iberian Peninsula. The onslaught against the West continued in various forms and at various times until Islam was finally driven out of Spain in 1492 at the battle of Granada.

The "Second great jihad" came with the Ottoman Turks. This empire succeeded in bringing about the downfall of Constantinople as a Christian stronghold and an end to Roman hegemony in all of its forms. The Ottoman Empire was Islam's most successful expansion of territory even though the religion itself had fractured into warring sects and bitter rivalries with each claiming the ultimate truths in "the ways of the Prophet". By 1683 the Ottomans had suffered a series of defeats on both land and sea and the final, unsuccessful attempt to capture Vienna set the stage for the collapse of any further territorial ambitions and Islam shrunk into various sheikhdoms, emir dominated principalities, and roving tribes of nomads. However, by this time a growing anti-western sentiment, blaming its internal failures on anyone but themselves, was taking hold and setting the stage for a new revival known as Wahhabism, a sect which came into full bloom under the House of Saud on the Arabian Peninsula shortly before the onset of WWI. It is this Wahhabi version of Islam, which has infected the religion itself, now finding adherents in almost all branches and sects, especially the Shiites.

Wahhabism calls for the complete and total rejection or destruction of anything and everything that is not based in the original teachings of The Prophet. It finds its most glaring practice in the policies of the Afghani Taliban or the Shiite practices of the late Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran. Its Ali Pasha (Field Marshall) is now known as Osama bin Laden, the leader of the "Third Jihad." Bin Laden is Wahhabi, as were his 9/11 attack teams, 18 of which were also Saudi.

The strategy for this "holy war" did not begin with the planning of the destruction of the World Trade Center. It began with the toppling of the Shah of Iran back in the late 1970's. With his plans and programs to "westernize" his country, along with his close ties to the U.S. and subdued acceptance of the State of Israel, the Shah was the soft target. Remember "America Held Hostage"?

Thanks, in large part to the hypocritical and disastrous policies of the Jimmy Carter State Department, the revolution was set into motion, the Shah was deposed, his armed forces scattered or murdered and stage one was complete. The Third Jihad now had a base of operations and the oil wealth to support its grand design, or what they call the "Great Caliphate."

What this design calls for is the replacement of all secular leadership in any country with Muslim majorities. This would include Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, all the Emirates, Sudan, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Malaysia, Indonesia, and finally what they call the "occupied territory" Israel.

As a part of this strategy, forces of the jihad will infiltrate governments and the military as a prelude to taking control, once the secular leadership is ousted or assassinated. Such was the case in Lebanon leading to the Syrian occupation and in Egypt with the murder of Anwar Sadat, along with the multiple attempts on the lives of Hussein in Jordan, Mubarak of Egypt and Musharraf in Pakistan. Pakistan is a particular prize because of its nuclear weapons. (Please note the al Qaeda call for the Islamic-militant overthrow of Musharraf in Pakistan on March 25, 2004.)

The long-range strategy of the Third Jihad counts on three strategic goals. First, the U.S. withdrawing from the region just as it did in Southeast Asia, following Vietnam. Second, taking control of the oil wealth in the Muslim countries, which would be upwards to 75% of known reserves; third, using nuclear weapons or other WMDs to annihilate Israel. A further outcome of successfully achieving these objectives would be to place the United Nations as the sole arbiter in East/West negotiations and paralyze western resistance, leading to total withdrawal from all Islamic dominated countries.

Evidence of the Bush Administration awareness of this plan is found in the events immediately following the 9/11 attack. The administration's first move (while Americans focused on the disaster in New York) was to shore up Pakistan and Egypt, believing that these two would be the next targets for al Qaeda,. The administration also knew that the most important objective was to send a loud and clear message that the U.S. was in the region to stay, not only to shore up our allies but to send a message to the Jihadists.

The attack on Afghanistan was necessary to break up a secure al Qaeda base of operations and put their leadership on the run or in prison. The war in Iraq also met a very strategic necessity in that no one knew how much collaboration existed between Saddam Hussein and the master planners of the Third Jihad or the extent of Hussein's willingness to hand off WMDs to terrorist groups including the PLO in Israel. What was known was that there were serious indications of on-going collaboration as Saddam funneled money to families of suicide bombers attacking the Israelis and others in Kuwait.

What the U.S. needed to establish was a significant base of operations smack dab in the middle of the Islamic world, in a location, which effectively cut it in half. Iraq was the ideal target for this and a host of other strategic reasons. Leadership of various anti-American groups both here and abroad understood the vital nature of the Bush initiative and thus launched their demonstrations, worldwide, to "Stop The War." Failing this, they also laid plans to build a political campaign inside the
country, with the War in Iraq as a plebiscite, using a little-known politician as the thrust point--Howard Dean. This helps to explain how quickly the Radical Left moved into the Dean campaign with both people and money, creating what the clueless media called the "Dean Phenomenon."

By building on the left-wing base in the Democrat party and the "Hate Bush" crowd, the campaign has already resulted in a consensus among the aspirants (minus Joe Lieberman) to withdraw the U.S. from Iraq and turn the operation over to the U.N. And, if the past (i.e., Vietnam) is the prologue here, then if the U.S. were to leave it would not go back under any circumstances--possibly even the destruction of Israel. Should George W. Bush be defeated in November we could expect to see the dominoes start to fall in the secular Islamic countries and "The Clash of Civilizations," predicted several years ago by historian Samuel Huntington, would then become a life-changing event in all of our lives.

What surprised the Jihadists following the 9/11 attack was how American sentiment mobilized around the president and a profound sense of patriotism spread across the country. They were not expecting this reaction, based on what had happened in the past, nor were they expecting the determined resolve of the President himself. I also believe this is one of the reasons we have not had any further attacks within our borders. They are content to wait, just as one of their tactical mentors, Vladimir Lenin, admonished: "two steps forward, one step back."

A couple of additional events serve as valuable footnotes to the current circumstances we face: the destruction of the human assets factor of the CIA during the Carter presidency, presided over by the late Senator Frank Church. This fact has plagued our intelligence agencies right up to this very day with consequences that are now obvious. And Jimmy Carter himself is the one man who must bear the bulk of the responsibility for setting the stage of the Third Jihad. Americans should find little comfort in how the Democrat contenders constantly seek the "advice and counsel" of this despicable hypocrite.

Lastly, we should not expect to see any meaningful cooperation from Western Europe, especially the French. Since failing to protect their own interests in Algeria (by turning the country over to the first of the Arab terrorists, Ammad Ben Bella), the country itself is now occupied by Islamic immigrants totaling twenty percent of the population.

We are in the battle of our lives--a battle that will go on for many years, possibly even generations. If we fail to understand what we are facing or falter in the challenge of "knowing our enemy" the results will be catastrophic. Imagine a world where al Qaeda regimes control 75% of the world's oil, have at their disposal nuclear weapons, legions of willing suicide soldiers, and our national survival is dependent on the good graces of Kofi Annan and the United Nations.

There is one final footnote, which may be the scariest of all. Either none of the Democrats currently leading the drive to their party's nomination are aware of the facts of the Great Caliphate and Third Jihad or they do know and they don't care so long as their power lust is satisfied. But, I can guarantee you one thing for sure: some of their most ardent supporters are aware of this and will do anything they can to bring it about.

**************************************

Additional Note from James T. Clifford
Program Manager, WMD Training
The International Association of Chiefs of Police
The above report was written before John Kerry had the nomination sewed up, but recent events clearly demonstrate that Kerry is going to fulfill Abraham's prediction of the Democrats calling for the UN and the French/Germans/Spain coalition to force the US out of Iraq. Also understand that the current 9/11 hearings are a political 'show,' and that Clarke's book was timed for these hearings and the campaign. And this is why Condoleezza Rice sought a private meeting with this commission to 'tell it like it is.' The national security issues involved around 9/11 cannot be an open book to the public, and I believe we have to understand that.

This is scary stuff. President Bush and the Republicans are obviously extremely cautious in bringing this issue to the campaign because the left-leaning media and the Kerry Democratic left would call this 'racist' against Islam and a distraction for the alleged lies of WMD and our reasons for going into Iraq. Bush correctly referred to the 'axis of evil' (Iran, Libya, Iraq and North Korea) as a pointed strategy to blunt the WMD-terrorist movement and he has been very successful in thwarting al Qaeda, despite what everyone on the left says. We are threatened in
Pakistan, and if Musharraf is assassinated (it's been tried several times in the past year), we can see how the militants will gain control of Pakistan's nuclear weapons, already spread to Iran by a militant Islamic scientist. If Musharraf is 'taken out' we will have to deal with both Iran and Pakistan as militant Islamic power bases armed with nuclear weapons. And let's not overlook Abraham's issue about the potential for militant Islamic states who would control 75% of the world's oil.

This is probably why Dick Cheney, Rice, Powell, and Wolfowitz are so committed to the belief that we are in this struggle for the free world as we have known it and that we must focus on defeating the militant Islamic global strategy. They have skirted the core issues raised by Abraham in the article above because of the political-correctness implications, but after reading this, you understand what is at stake here. Kerry and the liberal Democrats want control of Washington at any price. Abraham clearly spells out what price that is: Victory for al Qaeda and the Islamic militancy. Abraham's article brought all of these issues together; that is why it is important for us to educate our friends and associates.

This is a deeply impressive, cogent, and intelligent overview of the militant Islamic movement. Pass on Abraham's article to those who have a need to know--which is just about everybody.

James T. Clifford
Program Manager, WMD Training
The International A

Written by Mathew Manweller... Central Washington University political science professor
"Election determines fate of nation"
"In that this will be my last column before the presidential election, there will be no sarcasm, no attempts at witty repartee. The topic is too serious, and the stakes are too high.

This November we will vote in the only election during our lifetime that will truly matter. Because America is at a once-in-a-generation crossroads, more than an election hangs in the balance. Down one path lies retreat, abdication and a reign of ambivalence. Down the other lies a nation that is aware of its past and accepts the daunting obligation its future demands. If we choose poorly, the consequences will echo through the next 50 years of history. If we, in a spasm of frustration, turn out the current occupant of the White House, the message to the world and ourselves will be two-fold.

First, we will reject the notion that America can do big things. Once a nation that tamed a frontier, stood down the Nazis and stood upon the moon, we will announce to the world that bringing democracy to the Middle East is too big of a task for us. But more significantly, we will signal to future presidents that as voters, we are unwilling to tackle difficult challenges, preferring caution to boldness, embracing the mediocrity that has characterized other civilizations. The defeat of President Bush will send a chilling message to future presidents who may need to make difficult, yet unpopular decisions. America has always been a nation that rises to the demands of history regardless of the costs or appeal. If we turn away from
that legacy, we turn away from who we are.

Second, we inform every terrorist organization on the globe that the lesson of Somalia was well learned. In Somalia we showed terrorists that you don't need to defeat America on the battlefield when you can defeat them in the newsroom. They learned that a wounded America can become a defeated America.

Twenty-four-hour news stations and daily tracing polls will do the heavy lifting, turning a cut into a fatal blow, except that Iraq is Somalia times 10. The election of John Kerry will serve notice to every terrorist in every cave that the soft underbelly of American power is the timidity of American voters. Terrorists will know that a steady stream of grizzly photos for CNN is all you need to break the will of the American people. Our own self-doubt will take it from there. Bin Laden will recognize that he can topple any American administration without setting foot on the homeland.

It is said that America 's W.W.II generation is its 'greatest generation'. But my greatest fear is that it will become known as America 's 'last generation.'

Born in the bleakness of the Great Depression and hardened in the fire of WWII, they may be the last American generation that understands the meaning of duty, honor and sacrifice. It is difficult to admit, but I know these terms are spoken with only hollow detachment by many (but not all) in my generation. Too many citizens today mistake 'living in America ' as 'being an American.' But America has always been more of an idea than a place. When you sign on, you do more than buy real estate. You accept a set of values and responsibilities.

This November, my generation, which has been absent too long, must grasp the obligation that comes with being an American, or fade into the oblivion they may deserve.

I believe that 100 years from now historians will look back at the election of 2004 and see it as the decisive election of our century. Depending on the outcome, they will describe it as the moment America joined the ranks of ordinary nations; or they will describe it as the moment the prodigal sons and daughters of the greatest generation accepted their burden as caretakers of the City on the Hill."

Written by Mathew Manweller... Central Washington University political
science professor.

Antonia responds to me...

You are deceived...George has given an oppressed people Freedom! Freedom isn't Free.

And Mick...

Dear Patrick,

You call President Bush's administration a bunch of liars. If you can't see that the Democrats are the party of liars then it would be unfair that I personally have a conversation with you, as I cannot have an intellectual shootout with an unarmed man. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but the lies of the Democrats are so blatant, so rampant, that the only way to not see them is to be utterly uninformed. The only way that the Dems can get into power is to lie and depend on people like you to either buy into their lies or remain uninformed. Like most Dems and/or liberals, your arguments can be shot full of holes easily. For instance.....you say

"George Bush is a liar. Dick Cheney is a liar. Donald Rumsfeld is a liar.
Condoleezza Rice is a liar. Colin Powell is a liar."

Please give facts and examples of when and how they all lied. If you voted for Bill Clinton, I don't even want to hear a reply on this one. You may say, "Where are the WMD's?" Saddam used poison gas to kill 1000's of Kurds. Every intelligence agency in the world said that the WMD's were there. The president of Egypt and the prime minister of Jordan told Gen.Tommy Franks that they were there. We told Saddam for months that we were coming, then intelligence said that there was a large amount of truck traffic going from Iraq to Syria right before the U.S. arrived. In light of all this, whose word do you trust, that of President Bush or Saddam Hussein?

Saddam invaded neighboring countries twice, with the Iran/Iraq war numbering over a million dead. If the Israelis had not bombed Saddam's nuclear reactors in 1981 then then Saddam would have had nuclear weapons by now. With all these facts in hand, would you rather have Saddam still in power?

You may say,"The U.N. inspections and sanctions needed more time to work." Saddam gave the U.N. inspectors the runaround for 12 years, then kicked them out. People in France, Russia, and many in the U.N. were being bribed by Saddam through the U.N.'s own oil-for-food program. Give the U.N. more time? Gimme a break! John Kerry said that he wants to turn the rebuilding of Iraq over to the U.N. How does THAT make sense??

You say,"Do any of you recall the Iranian hostage situation that began in 1979? Did you learn any lessons from that?"

I sure do. I remember that the hostages were leaving Iraninan soil at the exact moment that President Reagan was being inaugurated! Before he was president, Ronald Reagan talked tough and made it clear that he would rebuild America's military and the U.S. wouldn't take any crap from anyone. The extemists who overthrew the Shah took note and decided that that the new president would be no one to mess with. Yes, America did back an oppressive Shah regime, but during the Cold War you sometimes had to pick the lesser of two evils. America had military bases in Iran for a long time, no doubt a deterrent to Soviet expansionist ideas. And where is the Soviet Union now anyway?

You say,"Bill is satisfied with his long, full life, but Bush's war has taken, ripped, stolen the lives of over 10,000 people from them in Iraq. For what?" I'll tell you what for, sir....

For freeing 25 million Iraqis from one of the hideous brutal dictatorships that history has ever seen!! Since America's military chased Saddam from an opulent palace to a hole in the ground, Iraqis can now speak their mind without fear of having their tongues cut out in public. Iraqis no longer have to worry about Saddam's thugs breaking down their door and hauling them away to be imprisoned and tortured for no reason, except to terrorize them into submission. Under Saddam, women were hauled into rooms to be raped while their husbands were forced to watch. People were put in plastic shredders alive, feet first so that they would suffer more. Since the Americans ousted Saddam, mass graves of his victims have been unearthed. It's been estimated that Saddam murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people. THAT'S the real story of what America accomplished in Iraq sir! If you don't believe me, then ask an Iraqi or an Iraqi immigrant if America should have gotten rid of Saddam!

Time does not permit me to point out the undeniable links between Saddam and terrorism or to respond to your ridiculous assertions that America is somehow to blame for terrorism. Those who fly airliners into buildings, who blow up babies in supermarkets, who behead people with kitchen knives while listening to their blood curdling screams, those people are nothing more than blood-thirsty homocidal maniacs who cannot be reasoned with, only hunted down and killed so they cannot kill even more people.

Patrick, let me give you the history of the world in a few short sentences. There will always be someone somewhere who wants to either conquer your nation and/or destroy it. You must have a strong enough military to either discourage such ideas or to quickly kill those who would come and kill us. You also need a strong, decisive leader like George W. Bush to be Commander-in-Chief, not some obvious flip-flopper like John Kerry who only says what he thinks voters want to hear.

Yes, I do feel safer with George W. Bush in the White House acting as Commander-in-Chief. You never know if Al Gore would've stepped up to the plate and done the right thing, but he said he'd have never gone into Afghanistan, which means that bin Laden would still be running his terrorist training camps there, the taliban would still be beating people to death with sticks for the crime of listening to music, women would still be publicly shot for adultery, and little girls would still not be allowed to go to school. Under President Bush, all this has changed and women now vote there! Doesn't it mean anything to you that 50 million people have been freed from brutal oppression ?? My God, don't you care at all about human rights?????

Yes, people like me are pro life. And no, no one really wants war, but the unpleasant reality is that, as history shows, sometimes the only way to stop killers is to kill them.

Your other assertions are just a bunch of conspiratorial nonsense. God help us all if those who buy into political fables and paranoid nonsense like this get into power.

Sincerely, Mick

Robyn responds to me (sort of)...

Subject: The Good News on Iraq
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 23:07:40 -0400

Can you circulate this? This is a letter from Ray Reynolds, a medic in the
Iowa Army National Guard, serving in Iraq:

As I head off to Baghdad for the final weeks of my stay in Iraq, I wanted to say thanks to all of you who did not believe the media. They have done a very poor job of covering everything that has happened. I am sorry that I have not been able to visit all of you during my two week leave back home. And just so you can rest at night knowing something is happening in Iraq that is noteworthy, I thought I would pass this on to you. This is the list of things that has happened in Iraq recently: (Please share it with your friends and compare it to the version that your paper is producing.)

• Over 400,000 kids have up-to-date immunizations.
• School attendance is up 80% from levels before the war.
• Over 1,500 schools have been renovated and rid of the weapons stored there so education can occur.
• The port of Uhm Qasar was renovated so grain can be off-loaded from ships faster.
• The country had its first 2 billion barrel export of oil in August.
• Over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time ever in Iraq.
• The country now receives 2 times the electrical power it did before the war.
• 100% of the hospitals are open and fully staffed, compared to 35% before the war.
• Elections are taking place in every major city, and city councils are in place.
• Sewer and water lines are installed in every major city.
• Over 60,000 police are patrolling the streets.
• Over 100,000 Iraqi civil defense police are securing the country.
• Over 80,000 Iraqi soldiers are patrolling the streets side by side with US soldiers.
• Over 400,000 people have telephones for the first time ever.
• Students are taught field sanitation and hand washing techniques to prevent the spread of germs.
• An interim constitution has been signed.
• Girls are allowed to attend school.
• Textbooks that don't mention Saddam are in the schools for the first time in 30 years.

Don't believe for one second that these people do not want us there. I have met many, many people from Iraq that want us there, and in a bad way. They say they will never see the freedoms we talk about but they hope their children will. We are doing a good job in Iraq and I challenge anyone, anywhere to dispute me on these facts. If you are like me and very disgusted with how this period of rebuilding has been portrayed, email this to a friend and let them know there are good things happening.

Ray Reynolds, SFC Iowa Army National Guard
234th Signal Battalion

Micah responds to Tim W.

I've decided to chime in here as well, since I'm guessing Mr. W. decided to "reply all" when I'm pretty sure he doesn't personally know half of the people on the list, especially the original sender my father CHUCK (not Dave).

I know about 80% of the people on the original email list, so I'm confident my response will have a bit more personal credibility than yours Mr. W.

As far as tomorrow's election goes, I hope all of you have made up your mind already as to who you're voting for. If you haven't, please ignore all of the hype (and fahrenhype!). Use unbiased sources in making your decision such as the Associated Press and Reuters. It's good to see names of people on this email list that I haven't seen or talked to in a while, so I hope you are all doing well.

The rest of this email is more for Mr. W. than anything else, but I'd welcome any responses or comments.

First of all Mr. W., you detail the great victory we achieved by ousting such a terrible dictator as Saddam Hussein. He had no place being in control of a sovereign state, and I commend all of our efforts in removing him from power. However, had our president told us that we were going to war solely to oust a terrible dictator and liberate a country, I highly doubt our congress would have authorized over $100BN in war expenses, as well as a commitment to 18 months of occupation. Trust me, there are many more brutal dictators in the world as bad as, if not worse than Saddam Hussein. Most notably, Kim Jon Il, who regularly has members of his own staff executed out of fear of treason. If ousting a dictator is reason enough to go to war, then by all means shouldn't we be invading countries
like North Korea, Bangladesh, and Libya? When you read that out loud, it just doesn't seem like a logical course of action.

I'm not going to comment on the abortion issue, only to say that it is the Supreme Court's job to interpret the constitution, and NOT to implement the implied process of judicial review. With that said, I'm confident that either Mr. Bush or Mr. Kerry will appoint upright, unbiased justices to positions that will be vacated in the next 4 years.

Now you bring up the issue of faith, which is interesting in your attempt to assert America as a cesspool because of atheistic liberals. You seem to have the belief that we are a Christian state, just as Iraq is a Islamic state. While I personally hold fast to my Christian values, I recognize that this country was founded on tolerance of all religions and people. Did you know that "under God" was not introduced into the pledge of allegiance until 1951? While I dearly wish that the country I love so much was more in tune with the God I love so much, I would never want to raise my children to think that our country is a cesspool because others don't share the same religious values as I do.

And Mr. Kerry never endorsed the idea of gay marriage, he simply restated what even Vice President Dick Cheney himself has said; that it is the right of individual states to decide this issue, and a constitutional amendment would not be appropriate. Maybe this is why the actual gay marriage ban amendment failed so miserably in congress.

Finally, you try to cut and paste several irrelevant statistics and quotes as justification for our invasion of Iraq. Mr. W., why can't you just step up to the plate and speak for yourself instead of plucking quotes from the media that you agree with. Believe me, I could cut and paste enough text on why the war was unjust to crash your inbox.

I see the war like this: Bush and Kerry had the same intelligence going into the war, so I don't blame the president for believing that Iraq had WMDs. However, it is this headstrong egotism of his not willing to acknowledge that he's made a mistake that really gets me. I'm sure he realizes that acknowledging his mistakes would show weakness, but in a May interview with Tim Russert when the president was asked to name 3 mistakes he's made in his time in office, he couldn't think of anything.

Mr. W., I'm sure you understand this firsthand as we are both in the Real Estate field, and when I make mistakes, I am very forthright and accepting of the responsibility for them. My credibility with my clients depends on this, and this is EXACTLY why Mr. Bush has absolutely lost all credibility with the majority of Americans.

I hope we can still talk about these issues after the election is over. I'm not a hard-line democrat, I voted for John McCain in the 2000 Republican primary, and for Mr. Bush in the 2000 general election. I'm currently volunteering for the republican candidate for governor in my state (www.dinorossi.com), as well as the Democratic candidate for US Senate (www.pattymurray.com).

In closing, I hope that all of this political dialogue can remain political, and not turn into something personal. Mr. Westhoven, while I do disagree with your views, I highly respect your commitment to them and your efforts to help elect a candidate who does as well.


Micah

Which brought...

Micah--

First off, I'm a bit offended at your tone of addressing me as if you have all the answers and I'm just another dumb Republican conservative. I didn't talk down to anyone specific in my rebuttal, but since you addressed me as such, I'll have to speak back to you in your own tone so you know how it feels to be on the receiving end of a condescending rebuttal. But I'll go easy on you because you're Chuck's kid, and I like Chuck.

Congress, the President, the Senate Intelligence Committee (of which Kerry was a part-time member) and other countries that supported us all used the same intelligence reports to help in making the decision to attack Hussein. How many UN resolutions did we need to threaten Hussein with to force him to comply? Iraq is part of the network of Islamic countries that harbored Al Qaeda and is centrally located in the heart of the Mideast, so it was a prime strategic target as well, despite the additional thought that they were harboring WMDs.

Korea is and was being handled through diplomatic means, at least for the short term. Pressure from China and other countries hopefully may work to keep us out of war there. They aren't sending or harboring or training Al Qaeda terrorists that we know of. If diplomacy can't stop Il from executing innocent people, I think it behooves us to move on him as soon as we can have the troops available. It's the same situation as Hitler or any other despot. We are the hope of the world that longs to have the freedoms and democratic society we have. Japan now has it and so does Germany. Ask them if we should have let them remain prisoners to their despotic regimes.

On the subject of Supreme Court Justices and abortion, it is their duty to strictly interpret the Constitution, not legislate from the bench. Kerry says he will have a litmus test for Judicial candidates who will preserve a woman's right to choose, Bush says his choices will only have to be strict constructionists of the Constitution. So you have a Democrat doing exactly what the liberals have accused the conservatives of wanting to do all these year. If it weren't for thirty years of abortion taking the lives of about 30 million Americans, we may not have the funding problems with Social Security and other programs liberals want. Funny how the liberals always seem to have their own flawed policies come back to haunt them.

Our country was founded upon Judeo-Christian values, not just Christian values. From the beginning, our country has allowed religious freedom, not freedom from religion, but freedom OF religion. I have no problem with anyone practicing their religion unless one of its tenets is to kill anyone who isn't Muslim. We are all Crusaders in the eyes of the Islamic fundamentalists.

Yes, I know "under God" came in the fifties. So what? There are many references in the form of artwork and writings in the halls of Congress and the Supreme Court and other government buildings put there before liberals re-interpreted the history of the United States to suit their twisted agenda. Behind the Chief Justice's chair are posted the Ten Commandments. When I hear that the gays of Key West are angry at "rich Republicans" who just moved into their town and started opposing open sex in downtown establishments, I DO think the country is turning into a cesspool caused by atheistic liberals. That's not just an isolated instance, just a good and current example. I don't want a "Christian State", just limits to those things that are generally considered immoral by the public.

Liberals always throw out the worst scenario of the restrictions "Right-Wing Conservatives" will place on the world when they react and try to regain some of what they've lost in recent years. I just want a country that draws a line between what's acceptable and what isn't. I, for one, don't want to see live sex in shops along Main St. and I'll fight damn hard against it despite anyone's criticism, Micah. And I don't care if a bunch of people I don't know hear what I'm saying, I'm PROUD of it. I received the e-mail that went out to all those people, so I'll respond to the same people with my opinion, whether you like it or not. I have had many positive comments from people on that list and I must say, it feels really good to know that others agree with my point of view. In fact, I hope it inspires them to action in all their places where they live. We have to have the guts to stand up for what is right and good and take the heat when people disagree with us.

I'm a Realtor, past Realtor of the Year for the Wood County Board of Realtors, Past President of the same and seven year Director of the Ohio Association of Realtors. I make mistakes, but if someone asked me out of the blue to name three of them during a television interview, I'd be hard-pressed to rattle them off. Bush is substance, not style, Kerry is all style, but "Where's the Beef?" No where, mo friar.

I cut and paste all that wisdom from other sources because I believe them to be correct and because I think others can learn from them. I wonder if you read it all Micah. It was good stuff, but you probably didn't find the instant gratification your generation craves. It would take some time and your liberal brain might go squish, squish.

I'll be really, really depressed if George Bush, a truly good, honorable and
trustworthy man, loses tomorrow.

(Oh, I know, I overpriced a home and it didn't sell. . .I forgot to have my client initial the bottom portion of an Agency Disclosure. . . I, I, hmmm. . . forgot to shut off a light once.)

Tim W.

Now, I couldn't let that go unanswered, could I?

Wow!

Fireworks on the 1st (now 2nd) of November!

First, to Chuck... you must be proud. Brave, well-thought out, well-spoken words for (I'm guessing) an early twenty-something -- heck, for an any-something!

Second... Kudos, Micah. In a world that, to me, seems to be turning more and more to the deity of the almighty Dollar (with a capital D) for guidance, it's refreshing to know that not all young people are without original thoughts; that there are still some young adults who haven't totally bought in to the Reagan "me first" doctrine.

Third, I'm a liberal. Liberal, liberal, liberal!!

I'm not afraid of the word.

If by liberal you mean "showing or characterized by broad-mindedness", call me a liberal;

If by liberal you mean someone with a broad political stance, I'm a liberal;

If by liberal you mean someone with generous and broad sympathies, I'm guilty as charged;

If by liberal you mean tolerant of his opponent's opinions... yep, that's me;

Or if by liberal you mean having political or social views favoring reform and progress, tolerant of change and not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition, I'm indeed a liberal.

Proud to be a liberal.

Of course, those are dictionary definitions.

Do you know what it means to me to be a liberal?

It means caring about my neighbor -- not for the riches or glory or fame it might bring, or for the reward of heaven that my Catholic upbringing told me I'd receive, but because it's the right thing to do. Goodness, after all, is its own reward.

Liberalism, to me, is *taking action* to ensure that the environment that I inherited (polluted though it might have been from years and years of neglect and abuse) is as bearable as possible for future generations. I asked my older brother -- also a Republican -- what he felt about leaving a worse environment for his children and his grandchildren to grow up in and he told me this: "What the hell do *I* care -- I'm not going to be around."

Liberals fight that kind of attitude.

Liberalism, to me, means righting wrongs and injustice. Liberalism, to me, is bringing an unjust war to an end. Liberalism, to me, is speaking for the thousands upon thousands of people killed for reasons they probably didn't know existed.

You might ask why I don't speak up for the thousands or millions of aborted fetuses and the only answer I can give is that they weren't feeling, breathing "people." That we will always disagree about the beginnings of life is probably a lock. I don't *know* when the beginning of "life" is any more than you do, but there is no arguing that breathing, feeling women and children and men are alive.

Liberalism is NOT, as some would like us to believe, about *promoting* homosexuality or *promoting* taking the lives of unborn babies.

Nor is it about *promoting* the "live sex in shops along Main St." that Tim says he's so concerned about. You can, however, thank capitalism for that. You know... that good old Yankee Doodle know how! I'd say that if we were to use the basic Republican tenets of "less government" and "free enterprise" as measures of what it means to be an American, then the porn dealers are the most American of all.

For some reason, a firestorm of furor is raised over an momentarily partially exposed breast on national television, but there is no Michael Powell clamoring for changes in Bush administration policies that broadcast the obscenities of Iraq on a nightly basis -- when the "So Called Liberal Media" decide to do their jobs, that is, instead of cheerleading the war as they all did.

Now, I could sit here are rebut every single point of your letter, but it's clear that you and I can probably only agree on disagreeing. I will, though, disagree with something that you and Micah state as fact -- that George W. Bush and John Kerry (and Congress) had the exact same intelligence prior to the war in Iraq. That is utter nonsense. There is absolutely no way that the President of the United States (whether George Bush or FDR) allows himself to be on equal footing with anybody in the Senate or Congress.

No. Way.

That said, the President of the United States must live up to the trust of the members of the Senate and Congress (and the people of the United States by proxy) before committing our children, brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers to war and the threat of harm's way.

The current President of the United States did not live up to that trust. He is not the honorable man that you believe him to be. He has repeatedly taken John Kerry to task for his vote "against supplying our troops with the necessary protection" for the war in Iraq, but John Kerry didn't send those men to war *without* that protection -- George Bush did.

That would be like you taking your wife to task for buying a bicycle for one of your children without having bought a helmet, then you allowing them to ride the bike without the helmet. Whose fault is it if your child falls and cracks his or her skull open?

Tim, you say that "we are the hope of the world"... you say "we" but your opinions and criticisms indicate not much more than "I, me, mine."

Programs such as Social Security that you seem you despise are intended to strengthen the social structure of this country, to strength We (with a capital "W") the people.

This liberal hopes that one day, most people of this country *and* the world will understand that the solutions to our problems lie with the people of the world... people who reach out -- not to rake in the cash, land or mineral rights -- but to help each other.

If there is one thing I know, it's that you and I are going to die. When I die, there will be nothing left of me other than what I did on this earth to help others. I try to guide my children by my actions. I try to let them know that money and wealth and fame and power (other than our name, of course -- heh!) mean little to me and are ultimately of little good to anyone else. You, Tim (and others on this list, I sense), might need heaven and a God (with a capital G) to fuel your righteousness, but I don't. Religion might have instilled certain basic beliefs in me, but it is more my concern for others -- not the fear of eternal damnation nor the hope of eternal salvation -- that guides my actions. (And I will admit here and now that I'm far from perfect in that endeavor, though relentlessly I strive.)

I don't sell real estate for a living. I promote music -- both as a volunteer and (as of September 1) a private contractor. This year I earned less than $20,000 but you know what? When I hear the comments of the people whose days were made brighter for the music I helped bring to them, I recognize that *that* is more important than any sum of money earned from any profit-motivated career because it helped a human being recognize his or her human-ness.

I don't say that from some high-horse-holier-than-thou posture... I say it with the same glee that brings public tears to my eyes at hearing the fine Irish voice of Deirdre Connolly singing "Curragh of Kildare."

There is really very little that means anything to us as human beings. More money might get us a more expensive casket, but it won't make us any less dead.

If being a liberal means helping to keep some Iraqi from becoming less dead, however, then I'm a liberal.

If being a liberal means working to ensure that the word "society" has meaning and value, then I'm a liberal.

Liberal to the grave.


Patrick

Patrick--

My definition of liberal would have been the same as yours 20 years ago when I was a liberal Democrat. Liberalism has been twisted by those who wish an end to anything moral. Liberalism is a tightening of governmental controls over its people. Liberals like yourself tell me they don't know when life begins, but as long as it suits themselves, they're ok with someone committing abortion. That is a perfect example of how modern day "liberals" screw things up for everyone else, FORCING their immorality on the rest of the country through a change in the laws passed down from the bench, not from Congress.

I am VERY RESENTFUL of you assuming I do real estate simply for the money. I have done lots of deals for free for those who can't afford my services and I spend countless hours donating my time and automobile to coordinate volunteers and to drive cancer patients myself to treatment for the charity I founded called "Lloyd's Lifts". As most liberals, you have looked down your haughty, elitist, wine-sipping, government-tax-money-supported nose and sniffed that it's all about the money to folks like me.

What I said about Social Security is that it would be funded but for the lack of people to fund it due to abortion. How is that against Social Security? Again, empty headed liberals like yourself hear and read what they want to from the world. I'll bet you heard Kerry say he would get us out of Iraq and then later say he would win the war. Like he said condescendingly to me and the rest of America, "Wake up".

I have to go now so I can cast my one, single vote for George W. Bush, a decent, honorable, loving family man and true leader.

Tim W.

>>I am VERY RESENTFUL of you assuming I do real estate simply for the money.<<

If this is what you or anyone else inferred, then I'm sorry... it wasn't my intention. I merely mentioned it because both you and Micah are in real estate and I'm not. I also intended to position myself apart from what I think has truly ruined this country -- the idea that value (or success) can only be measured in dollar signs.

>>What I said about Social Security is that it would be funded but for the lack of people to fund it due to abortion. How is that against Social Security?<<

I stated "Programs *such as* Social Security..." and I didn't say that you were *against* it... I said that you *seemed* to despise it. I might have misrepresented your comment, but I wrote my *impression* of what you wrote.

>>Again, empty headed liberals<<

It's ironic that you can be "VERY RESENTFUL" that I assumed something about your motives as a real estate agent, but you have no problem with insulting me or my intelligence. A comment such as this in response to a pretty reasoned letter deserves no further response except to say that you're not concerned with solving issues or problems, only casting blame, and fomenting divisiveness. Having passion about your views is one thing, but venomous, spiteful namecalling is quite another.


Pat

Patrick,

Michael Moore's movie is so full of lies that it's been debunked as propaganda. This is the 2nd chance I've had to see it for free and turned it down. Individuals who believe lies turn into large groups of people who believe lies, who then turn into a nation of people who blindly follow liars.

....Mick, Carbonado WA

Hmmm... that was an interesting bit of introspection!

Mick --

If you watch the evening news, you're watching propaganda...

It's ironic that you dismiss "Fahrenheit 9/11" as "so full of lies" without having seen it, then imply concern about a "nation of people who blindly follow liars."

You seem to have decided to blindly believe the so-called debunkers.

That reminds me of the kid who won't eat spinach, screaming "I don't like it" without even tasting it. It's one thing to see what the movie is about and *then* decide for yourself what is truth and what is creative editorial juxtaposition.

To make a film -- as Michael Moore did -- with the *intention* of helping to remove George Bush from the White House was hardly anything resembling a lie. His premise was clear; his intentions were transparent.

I didn't need "Fahrenheit 9/11" to convince me of anything, although there are a couple of undeniable, indisputable facts in the film I hadn't been aware of previously.

I think you're afraid to watch it, frankly, because of the risk you'd have to take that you'd agree with *something* in the film; that you'd walk up to that edge of changing your opinion and consider leaping.

The basic premise of the film -- debunked or not -- is that George Bush has sent over 1100 people to their deaths, fighting a war that had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, saving innocent people from "gassing" (or whatever hot-button word Bush likes to use), spreading democracy or (puh-lease!!) fighting terrorism. The basic premise of the film is that George Bush duped the American people for reasons that will only harm this country, not help it.

On September 12, 2001, I wrote this.

At some point after that, I was able to give George Bush -- as scurrilous a politician as I have ever seen (Dick Cheney notwithstanding) -- a chance; I was willing to step back from my deeply-rooted antipathy for the man and let him be my President. I was willing to let him rise to the level of statesmanship.

He never did.

He and his political operatives, instead of doing everything they could do to truly comfort the grieving and find out exactly what happened on that day, immediately formed their campaign strategy for his election (note: not *re*-election).

He failed me. He failed his country. He failed the world.

But now, the water has run under that bridge and with the help of my vote about an hour ago, George Bush will have been swept up its current.


Pat

Sigh!