Wednesday, March 31, 2004

Kerried Away?

In a public letter to Senator Kerry published on March 19, former CBS newscaster and outspoken critic of the Bush Administration Walter Cronkite tells Kerry that “some detailed explanations are in order.” What does Cronkite accuse Kerry of? The letter wonders why Kerry tried to refute the media’s characterization of him as a liberal, saying, “What are you ashamed of? Are you afflicted with the Dukakis syndrome – that loss of nerve that has allowed conservatives both to define and to demonize liberalism for the past decade and more?” Cronkite points out that when the National Journal said that Kerry’s Senate voting record makes him one of the most liberal Senators, Kerry called it “a laughable characterization” and “the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever seen in my life.”

As Cronkite asks, why should Kerry be afraid to admit his liberalism? The reason is because he has studied the politics of the last few decades, and knows what America doesn’t want. Since at least the 1972 election, the United States has a history of defeating self-confessed liberals. In fact, the only openly liberal president elected in living memory is the one-term wonder Jimmy Carter. Back in 1972, Nixon defeated the openly leftist George McGovern, who only won a single state (Massachusetts). In 1976, with the public disgusted over the Watergate mess, Jimmy Carter beat Ford by only 2% of the popular vote. After four years of Carterism, however, the public could stand no more, and handed Carter a resounding defeat – Reagan won 44 out of 50 states. The next election produced yet another self-confessed liberal. Walter Mondale ran his campaign on a pledge to raise taxes, and, in a repeat performance of the ’72 election, won only one state (Minnesota). The most successful of the openly liberal candidates was Dukakis, who in 1988 lost to Bush Sr. by a count of 40 states to 10. Then of course we have Bill Clinton, who was smart enough to campaign as a centrist (surprisingly enough, Mrs. Clinton has also appeared to shift towards the center in recent months, could she be readying herself for 2008?). That is why Kerry has tried to avoid being called a liberal candidate.

Setting that to one side, let’s ask another question: Who wants Kerry to win? Despite the fact that Kerry has refused to divulge the names of the numerous foreign leaders who support him, some of these leaders have made their support public. Surprisingly, Kerry had a press statement issued that says in part, “John Kerry does not seek and will not accept any such foreign endorsements.” Why doesn’t he want these guys support? Let’s look at who they are:

First of all there is Spain’s newly elected Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. “We’re aligning ourselves with Kerry,” the Prime Minister Elect said, “Our alliance will be for peace, against war, no more deaths for oil, and for a dialogue between the government of Spain and the new Kerry administration.” This is the fellow who announced that his response to the Madrid terrorist attacks was to remove his troops from the war on terror. If he actually believes that thing about “deaths for oil” he should read William Saphire’s Op-Ed in the March 29 New York Times about the oil-for-food scandal. It turns out that before the war, under this program, at least $5 billion in kickbacks (mainly from Russia and France) went into Saddam’s pockets. “Prices were inflated to allow for 10% kickbacks, and the goods were often shoddy and unusable.” It was a joint oil-for-trash rip-off of the Iraqis by Saddam and the UN.

The second “endorsement” for Kerry has come from none other than North Korea’s dictator, Kim Jong-Ill. As the Valley Morning Star reports: “…the dictator’s preference for Kerry over President Bush is evident, according to a report in The Financial Times, by the fawning treatment Kerry is getting on North Korea’s state-run media…While the North Korean media relentlessly excoriates Bush, it plays up polls showing Kerry could defeat the president, spotlights Kerry’s claims that Bush deceived the world on Iraqi weapons programs, broadcasts Kerry speeches and replays the senator’s pledge to adopt a ‘sincere attitude’ toward North Korea if elected — all music to the regime’s ears.”Lastly, we have an endorsement from former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, who said “I think Kerry would be much more willing to listen to the voices of people and of the rest of the world.” To fill you in on Mahathir Mohamad, he is an avowed anti-Semite who also said, for example, “the Muslims will forever be oppressed and dominated by the Europeans and the Jews.”That’s one great set of endorsements there. If that, combined with America’s past aversion to liberal candidates doesn’t smother him, there is another thing that Kerry has to worry about: himself.

“I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it” said Kerry, in order to clarify his position on granting the money for our troops. Among his other ‘strangeties,’ Kerry has announced his intention of becoming America’s “second black president” (after Bill Clinton). Then, of course, Kerry loves to talk about his four months in Vietnam. Surprisingly, he did not respond to one of his boat-mate’s allegations that he was an “opportunist” who was always out to “save his lily-white ass.” After Vietnam Kerry first got public notice when, in a theatrical act of anti-war defiance, he threw his medals over the White-House walls. Years later, though, Kerry’s medals are hanging on a plaque on his wall. It turns out that it was someone else’s medals that ended up on the Presiden't lawn. Then of course Kerry was elected Senator, and has served there to take both sides of nearly every issue (except for military funding and tax-breaks, which he has always been against).Do you really want this guy for President?

Sunday, March 28, 2004

Make Up Your Mind, Clarke

Richard Clarke is confused – or at least so it seems. In his recent testimony before the 9/11 commission he began by theatrically announcing to the 9/11 families present in the audience, “Your government failed you.” He went on to describe how the terror threat under the Bush Administration was “not an urgent issue” and that “by invading Iraq, this president has greatly undermined the war on terrorism.” Why do I say that Mr. Clarke appears confused? Because these statements delivered under oath in 2004 are diametrically opposed to what he said under oath in 2002.

The year after the terrorist attacks, Clarke gave testimony to congress which Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is pushing to have declassified. “Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath,” Senator Frist said, continuing, “Loyalty to any administration will be no defense if it is found that he has lied to Congress.”

Even though his testimony is not yet available to us, we do have a pretty good idea of what he said – as luck would have it, we have an audiotape of his statements to the press in the same year. In this tape, Clarke says that, in only the second month of the new Bush administration, Bush decided “to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.” He also said that Bush, “changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda.” Clarke was further asked if the Bush administration refused to pay attention to the former Clinton administration’s suggestions because of the animosity between the two. He replied, “I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with [the] terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.” Clarke continued to bubble over Bush’s effective leadership.

Clarke made the further error of admitting (in 2004) that, even if the President had done exactly what Clarke wanted him to, 9/11 would still not have been prevented. This is the one point he agrees on with the other officials who recently testified (including Rumsfeld, and Tenet). One wonders why Clarke himself wasn’t more effective, having served four different administrations in his career. Why should he blame Bush’s few months before 9/11 as opposed to blaming Clinton’s eight years? In fact, perhaps he should blame himself for failing in his specific capacity as a terrorism advisor.

So, why should Clarke change his former ‘opinions’ now? Because he is very angry at the Bush administration – not over the war on terror, but because he was essentially fired from the government. While it is true that Clarke formally resigned, he did so because he wanted to be Tom Ridge’s assistant, and to help lead the new Department of Homeland Security. Unfortunately for Clarke, he had somewhat removed himself from “the loop.” He missed important meetings because, as he said, he had more important things to do. Therefore he was turned down in favor of Admiral James Loy and missed getting the assignment that he thought he deserved. He retired and broke precedent by writing a book full of scathing – and false – allegations about the current administration, breaking National Security’s reputation of professionalism and bipartisanism.Mr. Clarke should enjoy the limelight while he has it – because you can bet that the press will be a lot quieter when he is tried for perjury.

Monday, March 22, 2004

Israel and Palestine

On March 22, 2004, Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin was killed by the Israeli Air Force, which fired three missiles into his car. This move by the Israelis not only has a great affect on the Hamas terrorist organization, it may affect Palestinian head-honcho Arafat himself. “He is like a man who was hit on the head because they killed Yassin and now they could kill him,” said one of Arafat’s aides, “He feels his turn is next and he is sad and worried.” Arafat’s being sad doesn’t matter so much, but his being worried does – it may force him to keep his word regarding agreements with the Israelis, and also force him to reign in the Palestinian terrorist organizations. But is there really any point in making further agreements with the Palestinians?

Understanding the mentality of the terrorists is vital; in the following paragraphs, I will ask some questions, using for answers excerpts from “The Covenant of the Hamas,” which was written in 1988.

First, is it possible for the Palestinians and the Jews to live together in Israel? Hamas would answer ‘No’, as they write in Article 6: “The Islamic Resistance Movement [Hamas] is a distinguished Palestinian movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine.”

Next, does Israel have a right to exist? Again, Hamas would answer ‘No’ as they write in their Preamble: “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it.”

What does Hamas consider the duties of Moslems to be? They write in Article 15: “The day the enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In the face of the Jews’ usurpation, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.”Would Hamas accept a peace settlement between the Jews and the Palestinians? The answer is ‘No,’ as they write in Article 13: “[Peace] initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement… Those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the infidels as arbitrators in the lands of Islam… There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. Initiatives, proposals, and international conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility.”What does Hamas think about Jews in general? Article 7: “The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: ‘O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.’”

Unfortunately, these views are not only to be found in the radical fringes of Palestinian society. When I was looking through the October 8, 2001 issue of The Weekly Standard, I found a horrifying picture spread on the last page. Included was the following caption: “Palestinian students visit a reenactment of the Aug. 19 Sbarro pizza restaurant suicide bombing in Jerusalem, replete with body parts and pizza slices strewn around the room, during the opening of an exhibition at Al Najah University in the West Bank town of Nablus, Sunday, Sept. 23, 2001.” One of the photographs show an outside view of the exhibit, in which there is a Sbarro pizza sign above door posts smeared with fake blood. Then there is an inside view of the display, where you see a visiting Arab woman gazing up at an amputated arm hanging from the ceiling. Visible in the background is a pair of jeans sitting on a stool with blood flowing out at the waist (the body’s torso is missing). Also at the exhibit was a mural depicting the explosion.

These are the people the Israelis are negotiating with, and that is the reason why the Roadmap to Peace has failed to get anywhere. How can you make peace with someone who denies you the right to exist?

Friday, March 19, 2004

Strange Stories on the Grapevine

Where would we be without the Fox News and Brit Hume’s Grapevine? Every night I sit down to watch Special Report with Brit from 6 to 7 PM, and I never miss the most telling, riveting, interesting, two minutes in news (the adjective changes every night). Mr. Hume’s Grapevine contains in a nutshell all of that news you just can’t do without; and there are three stories in particular that caught my eye in the last few days. For your convenience I will write about them bellow.

First: Democratic Presidential Candidate John Kerry has recently made claims that he has the support of many foreign leaders, who looked him in the eye and told him that they wanted Bush to loose in the worst way. When pressed to name some of these foreign leaders by an inquisitive Republican at a Kerry fundraising speech, Kerry said that he couldn’t give names, for fear of betraying the confidence of those leaders. In other words, he has been caught making an unsubstantiated claim. Now, you can go to, and bid on a “Bogusonia Foreign Leader Endorsement” which is available at the current bid of $59. The description says in part, “This offer is not to be confused with any other auction by fake foreign leaders who are making exaggerated claims in the hope of making a fast buck on Ebay. I am not doing this for the money (well, not entirely for the money anyway) I am doing it out of principal because I believe that the presumptive Democratic nominee is the best chance for better relations between Bogusonia and the U.S. I am the real McCoy, a true foreign leader, and I have a number of other foreign leaders who will vouch for me, but I just am not able to provide their names to you because I think it's important to protect our confidential discussions, so you'll just have to take my word for it.” I think we can all thank both Mr. Kerry and the unnamed leader of Bogusonia for their honesty and openness in dealing with this issue.

Second: An artist in France mistook a man on the street for Osama Bin Laden and tried to run him over with his car. He missed, and has been ordered to pay a $615 fine (which is light, considering that he was trying for vehicular manslaughter). The artist’s lawyer defends him, saying that he was the “victim of a hallucination” and adds, “If it were [bin Laden] we would have won five million dollars.” The only two foreign countries that this could possibly have happened in are France, and California.And finally: English subject Steven Dowling was found guilty of murder in 1974, and was serving his sentence up until a few weeks ago, when a court overturned his conviction. Mr. Dowling is now a free man…almost. The UK’s Home Secretary David Blunkett is asking the courts for the right to hand Mr. Dowling a bill totaling over $150,000 – to pay for 27 years of government-provided room and board. A Home Office spokesman called the plan a “reasonable course of action.” Mr. Dowling is, of course, a left-winger.

Thursday, March 18, 2004

Liberals and Guns

Liberals don’t like guns, because they are afraid of them, and view them as tools for murder. In reality, there is no reason to fear them- you must simply understand them. Guns are good for a large number of reasons; I will examine just a few of them.

First of all, when the citizenry is armed, the crime rate is always lower. Look at what's happened to the UK - they took away guns from their law-abiding citizens and their violent crime rate rose to be the highest among first-world nations. Their armed crime rate is still on the rise. Look at our capitol city, D.C., that has both the toughest gun laws and the highest crime rate of any city in the country. You must accept the fact that the bad guys will always have guns, and it is therefore morally wrong to deprive the law abiding citizens of their right to protect themselves. The police cannot protect you - they have actually said so themselves. In 1978, the D.C. Superior Court ruled that "a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen." This quote comes from a decision about a case in which three women were beaten, raped, and held captive for 14 hours, even though they had called 911 twice. The police didn't come.

Then there is, of course, our Constitution - which guarantees our right to bear arms. If you think the second amendment refers only to the militia, you should examine the pre-Revolutionary War individual State Constitutions (which greatly influenced our national one), and the early post-war ones as well. For example, Both Pennsylvania and Vermont's Constitutions state "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state." Kentucky: "the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Mississippi and CT: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." Rhode Island: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Notice the emphasis on self-defense, not just on national-defense. Like it or not, bearing arms is a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

I dug up some more stats for the non-believers. First, on the failure of the UK gun ban: According to the Telegraph (not a Conservative paper by any means) the crime rate in London has nearly tripled since the introduction of the gun ban. Specifically, there were 939 crimes involving firearms in a ten-month period in 2002, as compared with only 322 in the same period in the year 2001. Also, for example: "In Merseyside there were 57 shootings during the 12 months to last December compared with 15 in the same period the year before". This proves that banning guns certainly doesn't keep them out of criminals' hands. In the United States, a city called Kennesaw in GA passed a gun law 22 years ago (March 1982) that makes it mandatory for citizens to own firearms. Their crime rate dropped 89% overall, crime against people dropped 74% in the first year and 45% the next. Since the passage of the law they have had only three murders, and only one with a firearm.Some more gun facts: The US governments’ stats report that a total of 824 people died from accidents involving firearms in 1999. At the same time, a report by Criminologist Gary Kleck of Florida State University found that Americans use firearms for personal defense against criminals as many as 2.5 million times a year. Would you rather have 800 people killed per year, or have the more than two million people who use firearms defensively every year robbed, raped, and/or killed?

Dr. Kellermann of Emory University, who you will see is a quack, found that owning a firearm made you 3 times as likely to be killed by one. His findings are laughable, as he didn't bother to mention that most of the people who owned firearms and were killed were criminals, either shot by law-abiding citizens, the police, or (in the drug cases) other criminals. What Dr. Kellermann has actually proved is that guns are bad for a criminal's health – after all, they're the ones getting shot. Since the 1987 passage of Florida's must-issue-concealed-carry-permit law, less than .0002% of legal gun owners have used their guns to commit a crime. This means that you are twice as likely to be attacked by an alligator in Florida as you are to be attacked by a citizen with a CCW (Carry Concealed Weapon) permit. States that pass CCW laws allowing concealed carry of firearms on average lower their yearly murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, assaults by 7%, and robberies by 3%. In 1976, Georgia made it easier for people to get guns, while Wisconsin made it harder by enacting a wait-period law. Georgia's murder rate dropped by 21% while Wisconsin's rose by 33% during the same period. On average, states banning CCW have murder rates 127% higher than states allowing free carry.

How do the liberals look at self-defense in general and guns in particular? We can look back to England for our answer, where a BBC radio program asked listeners to suggest a piece of legislation that they felt would most improve life in Britain. After 26,000 votes were cast, the winning proposal was one that would allow Brits “to use any means to defend their home from intruders.” (Believe it or not, citizens of the UK no longer have this basic human right). Stephen Pound, a wacko liberal MP (Member of Parliament) called this a “ludicrous, brutal, unworkable blood-stained piece of legislation.” He continued, “The people have spoken…the bastards.” As Pound told The Independent “Do we really want a law that says you can slaughter anyone who climbs into your window?” In other words, if it’s a question of you or the criminal who just broke into your house, Mr. Pound would rather the criminal was the one who survived. Back in the US, the most liberal congressmen are very similar. As Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said: “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it.” They continue to push these policies despite the fact that a strong majority of Americans (79%) are in favor of right-to-carry laws.

So, we are left with the question “If guns are so good, why doesn’t everybody know?” The reason, for the most part, is that the media deliberately distorts the facts, and puts firearms in a bad light. As John R. Lott Jr., author of The Bias Against Guns points out, guns are used defensively four times more often than they are to commit crimes. Nevertheless, the television networks ABC, CBS, and NBC together ran 190,000 words of gun-crime anti-gun coverage in 2001, and not a single story about guns being used to prevent crime. The newspapers were nearly as bad: “The New York Times ran 50,745 words on contemporaneous gun crimes, but only one short, 163-word story [on defensive gun use] on a retired police officer who used his gun to stop a robbery. For USA Today, the tally was 5,660 words on gun crimes versus zero on defensive uses.”

We have all seen the media adds that talk about the frequency with which children accidentally shoot each other. The bias with these starts in that it defines children as “people up to 18 years old” (so you are still a child during your freshman year in college) and neglects to exclude the cases in which young criminals shot each other. In reality, in the year 1999, only 6 children under ten were shot by other children. More children under the age of five drown in bathtubs or plastic water buckets than die from guns. When there is an accidental child-death from gunshot, the individual cases have gotten up to 88 separate news stories. When children use guns defensively (which does actually happen) the cases are not covered at all in national media.

As far as biased reporting goes, CNN is in a class by itself. CNN once did a story to show how effective the Clinton Gun Ban was in reducing the damage that guns can cause. In reality, the only difference between guns banned under the 1994 gun ban and legal ones is appearance – the guns function exactly the same and use the same ammo (for the full story visit Nevertheless, CNN had to show how good the gun ban is, so here is what they did: The set up some cinderblocks and a bullet-proof vest on a shooting range, and announced that they would fire a pre-ban gun at them to show how much damage it could do. While the camera was on the targets, they fired away, and you could see the bullets smash the cinderblocks and go through the vest. Then they said they would do the same thing with a post-ban (legal) gun. With the camera still pointed downrange, the gun fired, but the targets remained undamaged. CNN later admitted that during the “test” of the post-ban gun, the man on the trigger deliberately fired into the ground and did not even shoot at the targets!

There is a lot of honest information about guns our there, but you have to look hard to find it. I have dozens more stories about how the liberals can use distorted and spun statistics to support their case (for the Dems this is SOP), so it will take a while for me to write about all of them. In the meantime, just think about the preceding paragraphs.

Tuesday, March 16, 2004

Spain, Terrorism, and Appeasement

Just days after the terror attacks that killed 201 and wounded 1,500 in Madrid, the Spanish people voted out the pro-USA and pro-war Popular Government led by Jose Maria Aznar. The new Prime Minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero (they’re all called Jose over there), is a Socialist. He has called the US-led war in Iraq and the subsequent occupation “a disaster” and vowed to bring home the 1,300 troops Spanish troops currently serving there. This is a victory for terrorism. The terrorists (Al Qaeda or ETA or whoever they turn out to be) have frightened a nation away from the war on terror. An increase in terrorist attacks is inevitable.

It is indeed fortunate that Spain is not an important country in the war on terror – the small number of troops it sent were largely symbolic. At the same time, look how Spain’s reaction to a powerful terrorist attack differs from the United States': The US fought, whereas Spain has announced it's intention to run away. Spain and the victorious Socialists are unfortunately representative of most of Continental Europe (brave countries like Poland are excepted); they show that the prevailing mood over there is not only decadence, but cowardice. The majority of Europeans have run away instead of facing and fighting the enemy. They have appeased the enemy.

The word appeasement conjures up memories of Munich in the fall of 1938, where France and the UK betrayed Czechoslovakia in an attempt to prevent war, and instead made war inevitable. They failed to understand then, and are failing to understand now, that dictators, tyrants, and terrorists do not respect weakness.

To illustrate this point, suppose there is a school bully who grabs you by the collar and demands your lunch money. You are afraid of him, so you give him the money. Do you think that by giving him the money, you will deter him from ever attacking you again? Of course not. You know that the “bad guy” got what he wanted without repercussions, and you can be sure that he knows where to get a snack the next time he’s hungry.

Terrorism is being appeased, just as Hitler was. Today there are appeasers like France and Germany and now Spain; but who are the appeasers in our country? To answer this question we can just ask Spain’s new Socialist Prime Minster Zapatero. “We’re aligning ourselves with Kerry,” the Prime Minister Elect said, “Our alliance will be for peace, against war, no more deaths for oil, and for a dialogue between the government of Spain and the new Kerry administration.”

Remember then that while appeasement never works, we have appeasers in great numbers in Europe and in the USA. This means that the work of fighting terrorism is being made even harder. What can you do about this? If you are a weakling, a coward, or a terrorist, vote for Kerry. Otherwise, stick with GWB.

Monday, March 15, 2004

Discrimination and Democrats

Today’s column will deal with discrimination. I will tell you where it is and who’s doing it, and will of course explain why it’s bad. People are pretty touchy about discrimination, and the genuine issues are often ignored.

Do any of you remember Miguel Estrada? He was one of Bush’s judicial nominees who was blocked by the Democrats, ostensibly for failing to produce certain documents (never before requested of any judicial nominee). Now I will tell you the real reason that Estrada was denied a vote in the Senate – he’s Hispanic, and what’s more, he’s a Conservative Hispanic. Unfortunately for the Democrats, some of their secret memos that were never supposed to see the light of day were leaked to the press – now we know what they’re really thinking. A memo written to Democratic Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, who is on the Judiciary Committee, discusses methods of blocking Bush’s nominees. In the memo, Miguel Estrada is singled out as “especially dangerous because he is Latino.” There you have it – while the Washington Democrats scream about the ‘theft’ of the memos to get the heat off the content, and at the same time accuse Conservatives of bigotry, they are deliberately subduing minorities. They know that if a Conservative Latino ends up in a powerful position, the classically Liberal pro-Latino organizations might end up on the Conservative’s side. Other leaked memos call Bush’s nominees (including Janice Brown, a Black Woman Conservative who the Dems have also blocked) “Nazis” and “Neanderthals.”

The Democrats dishonesty in dealing with minorities extends far beyond the memo scandal. There is still widespread discrimination going on today, and it is so prolific that it has wormed its way into the best universities and businesses in America. I am speaking, of course, of Affirmative Action. Affirmative Action is the liberal-backed policy of discriminating against whites in order to fulfill racial quotas. What this means is that in your college applications for example, you will say what race you are, and if you are the wrong color your chance of getting in will be diminished. Does anyone understand that this is wrong? I was given the impression that we should adopt a color-blind attitude in society, where all that matters is how good a man is on the inside. The Democrats think that a policy where color still matters is ‘helping’ the minorities, and this brings us to another point: Affirmative Action is condescending to minorities, it does not help them. What the Dems are saying to minorities, in effect, is, “We don’t think you’re good enough or smart enough to get in on your own, so we have to slant the playing field in your favor.” You minorities out there should be enraged at this – these people claim to be working for you, and yet their policies scream that they think you are inferior, and need special help. Not only is this patronizing to the minorities, but it removes the work ethic in the same way that socialism does. If you don’t have to be outstanding to get in, why should you be outstanding?

Why is it that the Democrats, who champion the minority cause and get the vast majority of the minority vote, work against minorities in practice? There are two possible answers. The first is that they are ignorant of the damage they do to minorities, and to America in general, in professing to help them – this answer applies to you voters who elect the liberal politicians. The second, which more likely applies to the Washington Democrats, is as follows: They need racial differences to exist. If the minorities actually had the best of life, what could the Democrats promise them? If there was no fear of race to play on, what would Presidential Candidate Al Sharpton be standing on? If there’s no racial hatred, no bigotry he can do battle with, do we need him? They need to have, if not in fact than in the public mind, the idea that our country is full of evils, and that they can disinfect it for you. The promise of a better life is their hold on the minority vote. That is why they have to promise, but can never deliver.

I do not mean to suggest that you Democrats out there are bigots. I know that you who are reading this (if you are still reading it) really do want to move our nation in the right direction. At the same time it is your duty to remain informed. I am just showing you what men and what policies you are electing. You have to be careful – because if you don’t know what these people stand for, you might vote for them.