Friday, May 28, 2004

A Rebuttal to the Rules for Republicans

I came across an interesting blog titled Politics Daily ( which posed 20 rules for being a good Republican. As one would expect, the rules are sarcastic in nature but a good read nonetheless.

Imagining all the good fun our Democrat brothers and sisters must have had putting the list together, I feel compelled to make my own list. So here are USANow's "Democratic Party Rules of Conduct":

  • You must place more value on the life of a slug or a snail-darter than an unborn human.
  • You must cringe when a white male achieves success, and assume he got there by cheating, lying, or stealing, or by taking advantage of a minority person.
  • You must forget elementary mathematics when it comes to computing the impacts of recent tax cuts, and feign ignorance when you discover that lower class wage earners received a larger percentage tax cut. Furthermore, you must cling to the "wealthiest citizens got a larger break" line despite the fact that the wealthiest 1% of citizens pay more than the bottom 80%.
  • You must be tolerant of all colors, creeds, and religions except white Christians.
  • You must declare war against the wealthy, even if you're a congressman who's married to a multi-millionaire heiress.
  • You must demand that the government take care of all your financial and healthcare needs.
  • The term "personal responsibility" only applies to other people.
  • You must have a good, healthy dose of American self-loathing.
  • You must always assume the worst when it comes to the United States: Our military is incompetent, the FBI listens to all our private conversations, the administration is corrupt, we're in Iraq to steal oil, etc.
  • You must fight for everybody's right to free speech, except for those who speak out for pro-life issues.
  • You must ALWAYS step in line with any cause fought for by the ACLU, Green Peace, or Amnesty International.
  • You must ALWAYS put more creedence in Al-Jazeera than Fox News.
  • You must ALWAYS trust Al Qaeda before you trust George Bush.
  • You must believe that illegal immigrants have more rights to higher education than white males.
  • You must work to raise suspicion that somehow the Bush Administration was complicit in the 9/11 attack.
  • You must hold to the premise that the US foreign policy must be approved by the United Nations.
  • You view economics as a zero-sum game, and that somebody's success ALWAYS comes at the expense of somebody else.
  • You believe that if the United States were suddenly disarmed and our economy collapsed, that the rest of the world would become more peaceful and prosperous.
  • You believe that big business and big oil are enemies to our nation.
  • Wednesday, May 26, 2004

    Amnesty International Report 2004

    Amnesty International released their annual report today which summarized the current state of human rights in 155 nations and territories across the globe. There is no question that Amnesty International is a valuable and respected voice with respect to human rights. However, it may come as a surprise to many that the United States seems to be the focus of the 2004 report with respect to human rights abuses. It may be surprising that the global war on terrorism is labeled "bankrupt of vision", and viewed as an excuse to commit abuses rather than an important and noble cause.

    How can it be that Amnesty International chastises the United States as the primary villain with respect to human rights? Isn't the US the global champion of human rights? Hasn't this war improved the living conditions of millions of Afghan civilians? Haven't we opened the doors to peace and prosperity in Iraq? Haven't we inflicted major damage on terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda?

    The answer to the first question is clear. The organization is now being led by a new breed of leadership under Secretary General Irene Khan, and as a result is mired in the misguided sentiments expressed by the anti-US, Euro-left.

    Ms. Kahn is the first woman, the first Asian, and the first Muslim to take the helm of Amnesty international. Ms. Kahn has repeatedly ridiculed governments for their measures related to the "war on terror". She states that nations are jumping on the "anti-terrorism" bandwagon. She has stated the world "does not need a war against 'terrorism'". It seems that Ms. Kahn is the reason why Amnesty International treats "terrorism" as some sort of fantasy conceived by the Bush administration as an excuse to detain, torture, and kill faithful Muslims. This is quite interesting considering that Kahn herself acknowledged in an interview with the BBC on 12/26/2003 that the religion of Islam is now in a period of its history similar to "Christianity in the 14th, 15th century" and that Islam is "an aggressive religion trying to establish itself..(referring back to the 14th century analogy)those were the times when the Crusades took place".

    Ms. Kahn acknowledges that Islam today is aggressively trying to expand its influence, and compares the actions of modern day Islam to Christianity during the days of the crusades. With this backdrop, and in light of the thousands of innocent Christians murdered at the hands of Muslim militants over the past 3 years, how can Ms. Kahn fail to see the legitimacy of the "war on terror"?

    In her introduction to this year's report, Ms. Kahn states "the global security agenda promulgated by the US Administration is bankrupt of vision and bereft of principle". Kahn cites the following as evidence:

    • "Growing insurgency in Iraq" - gee, Iraq was a model of human rights before the US invaded. The coalitin is working to keep the peace and is being fired upon by insurgents and terrorists. When in doubt, blame the Christians, right Ms. Kahn?
    • "Increasing anarchy in Afghanistan" - It's clear that Ms. Kahn would prefer the former Afghanistan which trained thousands of Muslims on the proper techniques for murdering innocent Christians. The US was apparently unjustified in destroying those terrorist camps.
    • "Unending spiral of violence in the Middle East, the spate of suicide bombings" - Does Kahn believe that the Middle East was peaceful before the US initiated this war on terror? Is she aware that the Muslim world has been conducting a jihad against Christianity since 1979 when Iranian mobs held the American Embassy in Tehran hostage for more than a year? Since then, the US Embassy in Beirut was bombed in 1983 killing 63 people, the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut was bombed killing 241 servicemen that same year, and in December of the same year the US Embassy in Kuwait was bombed? Again in 1984, the US Embassy in Beirut was bombed, in April 1985 US servicemen are bombed in a restaurant in Madrid, in August 1985 teh US Air Force Base in Rhein-Main is bombed killing 22 more people. Space does not permit cataloging atrocities at the hands of "aggressive" Muslims against Christians between August 1985 and September 11, 2001. Needless to say, it's been a long and bloody road with thousands dead in the name of jihad.

    After reviewing the report's summary of the human rights conditions in Iraq, it is clear that Kahn's influence has infected the entire organization. Amnesty International disguises conjecture as fact, and these facts are then formulated into erroneous conclusions. The report states that "thousands of people were arrested and detained without charge or trial during the year". How would Amnesty International propose that enemy combatants be handled? Are coalition forces supposed to take their guns and tell militia men to go home? Would we be more successful at bring order to Iraq if we waited until trials were completed before detaining anybody? Hardly a recipe for securing the peace.

    The report goes on to state "torture and ill-treatment by Coalition forces were widespread". At this point, ill treatment has been limited to Abu Ghraib prison, which hardly constitutes widespread. Then again, I don't think anybody would be surprised that prisoners would be treated roughly in an effort to gather intelligence. Without intelligence, the coalition will never be able to secure the peace.

    Here is the kicker. Amnesty International asserts "Coalition forces failed to live up fully to their responsibilities under international humanitarian law as occupying powers, including their duty to restore and maintain public order and safety".

    To summarize, the report chastises the coalition for detaining enemy combatants, and for being too rough on those combatants in our efforts to gather intelligence, and then states the coalition failed to restore public order and safety. This is liberal spin at its finest. So which is it, is the coalition too tough on the insurgents and terrorists, or too lenient?

    Time doesn't permit an exhaustive critique of this report, but here are a few other gems worth noting:

    • "The US-led 'war on terror' continued to be waged using indiscriminate and disproportionate means." What does this mean? If killing an armed terrorist is "indiscriminate and disproportionate", then I guess we're guilty as charged. If killing chasing Osama Bin Laden all through the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan is "indiscriminate and disproprotionate", guilty as charged.
    • "Authoritative" worldwide opinion condemned the blatant disregard for international and US constitutional standards by the USA". Since when is worldwide opinion authoritative?

    As Americans, we need to wake up to the fact that the world has an agenda. Our enemies are everywhere, and wield great influence within the press, within governments, and within organizations like Amnesty International.

    Monday, May 24, 2004

    Liberal Boneheads of the Day: E.L Doctorow and Cynthia Bogard

    As reported by, E.L (Extremely Liberal?) Doctorow was nearly booed off the stage at Hofstra University as he delivered an anti-Bush diatribe. Rather than provide a motivating speech that would serve to inspire new grads, Doctorow chose to slam Bush over foreign policy decisions, accusing the president of being a "story teller". More importantly, Doctorow stated that Bush's stories are not true.

    In response, a large number of students booed Doctorow, to the point he had to stop the nonsense because the crowd was so loud. After Hofstra's president intervened and asked for calm, Doctorow continued his tirade. Why would Doctorow use a commencement address to promote his political views? Does he think that Hofstra graduates are unable to draw their own conclusions?

    As one might expect, students and parents were "livid". One parent stated that the address "ruined my daughter's graduation". Another compared him to Michael Moore. This is where Ms. Cynthia Bogard comes in. The esteemed Associate Professor Bogard teaches Sociology at Hofstra, and has been published twice on the subject of homeless mothers. After witnessing the graduation, and hearing about parents' comments, Bogard commented: "I thought this was a totally appropriate place to talk about politics because that's the world our students are entering. I only wish their parents had provided them a better role model."

    Bogard has the nerve to insult the parents of Hofstra graduates? Doctorow can speak his mind, but parents can not? Does she understand how hypocritical she is? Does she really think she is qualified to insult the parenting skills of the mothers and fathers who raised all the students who booed Doctorow? Doctorow spoiled a great life event for these graduates, and is praised by Bogard.....but parents express their dismay at Doctorow's speech and they are the ones chastised by Bogard! Does she understand that the commencement address is for the benefit of graduates and parents, and not for the benefit of promoting the liberal agenda? Does she understand that parents pay her salary?

    Just another in a long line of liberals who think that there are no limits when it comes to promoting the liberal agenda, and that anyone who expresses a different view point is either an extremist, intolerant, or in this case, poor parents who failed in their efforts to be role models for their children.

    Friday, May 21, 2004

    Too Much Botox for Pelosi?

    I've long wondered about the long term effects of botox on the human brain. It's understandable that aging women want to look good, and maintain their youthful appearance. However, the botox phenomenon seems to be taking things a bit too far. What are the long term impacts of having nerve-killing bacteria injected in your face? Could this lead to permanent nerve damage, or worse yet, brain damage? Let's take a closer look at Nancy Pelosi to decide:

    Based on comments yesterday from Nancy Pelosi, it seems that we have our answer. Speaking about our Commander in Chief, Pelosi (in her usual unblinking, wide eyed style) went on a rant, labeling Bush "incompetent". She goes on further to describe Bush as demonstrating "incompetence in terms of knowledge, judgment and experience in making the decisions that would have been necessary to truly accomplish the mission without the deaths to our troops and the cost to our taxpayers".

    So Pelosi has the knowledge, judgement and experience to wage this war on terror without any loss of troops nor cost to taxpayers? Hmmmmmm, I think the botox is taking over. To date, here is a short summary of what this administration has accomplished in this war on terror:

    • Destroyed the Taliban
    • Destroyed all of the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan
    • Greatly limited the ability of Bin Laden to wage war
    • Removed Saddam Hussein from power
    • Killed or captured hundreds of Al Qaeda operatives
    • Greatly increased the entire world's attention to terrorist threats, improving overall world security
    • Improved the integration of our domestic and international intelligence agencies

    In addition, we are very close to seeing Iraq becoming a free democracy in the heart of the middle east, which will provide tremendous long-term benefits.

    If an incompetent leader can get us this far in our war on terror, one can only imagine what somebody like Botox Pelosi could do.

    Monday, May 17, 2004

    Another Kerry Flip Flop

    John Kerry is quickly becoming famous for waffling on important issues and for changing his opinion back and forth to suit his political aspirations. Today was no exception.

    Today is the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in the Brown vs. Board of Education case, which ended segregation in our public shools. This case represents a major victory in our nation's civil rights cause. As a result, all American children have equal access to education.

    Of course, many politicians are using today to wax poetic about their political agenda, hoping to gain favor in the black community. (What these politicians fail to realize is that the case represented a victory for all Americans, not just minorities.) So what does John Kerry have to say? He insults Americans who want to "roll back affirmative action and restrict equal rights". In other words, if you aren't pro affirmative action, then you must not favor equal rights.

    Does anybody else see the hypocrisy here? Affirmative action is designed to deny equal rights for all. Affirmative action is designed to give preferential treatment to minorities. Affirmative action is designed to remove incentives to achieve, and to replace them with handouts based solely on skin color. So he touts affirmative action, and in the same sentence insults his opponents for trying to limit equal rights for all. Is he so clueless that he doesn't understand that he's the one who's guilty of denying equal rights for all?

    Watching Kerry flip flop from one congressional vote to another is amusing, and can be good sport. But watching him tarnish the anniversary of Brown vs. Board of Education by accusing his political opponents of crimes that he commits, is a disgrace.

    Friday, May 14, 2004

    Chuck Turner, Blacktivist: Sadiki's Stooge

    As a follow up to the recent post on Sadiki Kambon, USANow can't overlook the culpability of his right hand man, Chuck Turner, City Councilman from Boston. Turner joined Kambon as the other half of Dumb and Dumber when the bogus pictures of GIs raping Iraqi prisoners were presented at a Boston press conference. Should we be surprised that a City Councilman exercised such poor judgement? Should we expect a City Councilman to do a little research before accepting propaganda collateral from the Nation of Islam? Having spent their lifetimes playing the roles of victims, Kambon and Turner apparently jumped on the chance to portray Iraqi prisoners as victims.

    When Sadiki exposed himself recently as a race-baiting hack (see previous post), Turner was with him onstage at the press conference. Turner, who has a long history fighting for black rights (he says "minority", but he's never once lost a drop of sweat fighting for the rights of Chinese, Viet Namese, etc.), was critical of the DNC because their selection for head of security didn't meet his standards (in other words, she isn't black). The candidates? A white female who is a former police officer, and a black former police chief. The DNC chose the white woman. Was the woman chosen because she is more qualified? Was the woman chosen because the black candidate, William Celester, served jail time for embezzling $30,000 while serving as Newark Police Chief? The answer would be 'Yes' on both counts. Of course, Turner doesn't see it that way - as is always the case when a white person is awarded a contract, she won purely because she is white.

    The question in my mind is how can people like Chuck Turner and Sadiki Kambon become leaders in the black community when their judgement is so poor, their actions so irresponsible, their views are so one-sided? Why can't these men simply play the role of civic leaders as opposed to single issue blacktivists? It is my hope that the black community will very soon be led by fair-minded, intelligent men and women who understand that the US economy is not socialist, who understand that blacks are not always victims, who understand that success is earned and not handed out based on skin color.
    So Much Material, So Little Time

    If only there were enough time to document all of the asinine endeavors of the far left. It seems that every day brings another story of a liberal fighting to limit the rights of practicing Christians, of a liberal distorting the truth to undermine our nation's credibility, of a liberal fighting the government's attempts to neutralize terrorists.

    This week brings the story of Sadiki Kambon (is that really a name?) and Chuck Turner out of Boston. These two 'activists' actually went public with photos of Iraqi prisoner abuse...actually showing graphic pictures of a woman being gang raped. Eager to jump on the bandwagon and discredit our nation's military, the Boston Globe published the story complete with photographs.

    As we all know by now, the photos were taken from a porn web site and were not taken in Iraq. Let's look a little deeper into the story, specifically at ol' Sadiki and his motivation.

    Sadiki is always looking for the big story. He's all about attention, all about white oppression of blacks, all about discredit conservatives. If he unfairly slanders our US military in the process, who cares? Sadiki spares nothing in his efforts to be the big story.

    Recently, Democratic National Convention organizers announced major construction contracts in Boston. Of course, we all know that contracts are given out to whites first, right? Black companies will never get any contracts, because everyone who is white is racist, right? So rather than let capitalism (which has made our country the most prosperous on earth) work its course, the Sadiki's of the world have to jump in to make sure black companies get their fair share. How far will Sadiki go? So far that he threatened the DNC with a major protest for denying minorities contracts. He then submitted an unsolicitedproposal to act as the minority liaison for the DNC. He proposed that the DNC pay his group, 'The Umoja Coalition for Our Fair Share', $181,000 to act as liaison. Why the DNC needs a separate group to act as liaison to minorities is anybody's guess. But here is where it gets ugly. Sadiki went on to promise to cancel his big protest press conference if the DNC would meet with him regarding the liaison role. In other words "pay me $181,000, or I'll organize a big protest of minorities to hoot and holler about how you're racist". Well, the DNC declined and shortly thereafter Sadiki exclaimed at a press conference "We're talking about the R-word, racism". What a freaking MORON. He puts in an unsolicited proposal to provide unnecessary services, threatens a press conference if he doesn't get to sell his idea, then cries "racism" when the DNC doesn't bite. Does this guy have a freaking clue?

    Sadiki, shut up with the "Umoja Coalition for Our Fair Share" and get a real job. Do something to help your fellow man. Not just your fellow black man, but all fellow man. This isn't a zero sum game, and the world isn't setup with the deck stacked against African Americans. In fact, your children have far greater opportunities for scholarships and college enrollment than my kids do because yours are black and mine are white. You have far greater opportunities for government contracts than I do because you are black and I am white. When the time comes that I want to pursue business with the DNC, I won't attempt to extort it like you did, I'll earn it.

    Monday, May 10, 2004

    Ruth Rosen and SF Chronicle NOT Pro Choice

    Ruth Rosen, journalist and historian, recently published an article for the San Francisco Chronicle alerting Bay Area readers to horrors happening in their own back yard. It seems that a local entrepreneur, Gary Heavin, has the nerve to donate money to pro life causes. Heavin owns a successful chain of women's fitness centers in the Bay Area, and has the unmitigate gall to start a successful business and then make donations to pro-life organizations. This type of behavior, which is not surprisingly intolerable to a feminist like Rosen, is hardly cause for news. The fact that thousands of Americans donate to pro-life causes comes as no surprise to anyone, save for those in a coma for 30 years and, apparently, Ruth Rosen.

    So what does Ruth Rosen do when she discovers that a local entrepreneur is donating to pro-life organizations? She writes an editorial which 1) smears the character of Heavin (bringing up a personal bankruptcy and a 6 month jail sentence for missed child support payments), 2) compares him to the man known as Satan in feminist circles, George W. Bush, and 3) admonishing clients to find a new place to workout. This is journalism? What does Heavin's past have to do with his chain of health clubs? What does the fact that he comes from central Texas near Bush's home in Crawford have to do with his chain of health clubs? Absolutely nothing. Her commentary is simply aimed at stirring up liberals and feminists in order to harm a man who chooses to donate to pro-life causes. Her intent is evil, her techniques are shallow, her political agenda is both hypocritical and transparent, and she has absolutely no business writing editorials for a major newspaper.

    Perhaps we could snap Rosen out of her feminist rage by reminding her of a few key points. First of all, Mr. Heavin is free to donate to any organization he chooses. Perhaps Ms. Rosen thinks the only valid choice in our society is a woman's choice to murder her unborn child, but she would be wrong in that thinking. Secondly, Mr. Heavin is running a business and providing a valued service to thousands of Bay Area women. The money he donated came from his profits. With the tone of her article, Ms. Rosen would have you believe that he's embezzling money from his business, or cheating his customers. Finally, there are thousands of organizations in our great nation which donate money to liberal causes such as Planned Parenthood and the ACLU. Where are the editorials from Ms. Rosen admonishing conservatives to find new vendors? Where is her feminist rage when it comes to pro-life women who unwittingly purchase goods and services from such organizations? Of course, these editorials will never be written, because Ms. Rosen is pro-choice as long as those choices agree with her political views. Anyone caught making choices which disagree with her liberal agenda will likely catch a healthy dose of feminist rage.

    Sunday, May 09, 2004

    Is the World Supposed to Take Iraqi Clerics Seriously?

    On Friday, Sheik Sultan Al-Bahadli, the director of Muqtada al-Sadr's office in Basra, delivered his sermon at Basra's al-Hawi mosque, telling worshippers that $350 would be given to anyone who captured a British soldier and offered $150 for killing one. He also said, "Any Iraqi who takes a female soldier can keep her as a slave or gift to himself."

    Supposedly, Iraq is populated with millions of educated, civilized people. People who have long been mis-treated, persecuted, and suffered through years of economic ruin as the result of economic sanctions. How is it that Iraqi people can listen to the rhetoric of Al-Bahadli without saying "Hold on a minute, you're out of your freaking mind". A religious cleric is advocating the taking of women as slaves? This is the face of Islam, the 'religion of peace'?

    The world is now infested with Islamic militants hell bent on murdering innocent civilians. We have clerics funding terrorists, arming suicide bombers, and now they're advocating slavery of women. This begs the question, when will the millions of sane Muslims finally stand up and say "enough is enough!". When will these clerics begin to be viewed as lunatics and rightfully ostracized by the Arab world? When will the people of Iraq stand up to the militants, fight for peace, and help bring an end to the occupation?

    Friday, May 07, 2004

    PS to the USANow Post on Iraqi Prisoner Abuse

    In a CNN poll today, 33% of respondents stated that the Iraq prison scandal will affect their vote in November. Of course if this represented 2 of 6 respondents I wouldn't be concerned. But over 46,000 dimwits actually will base their presidential vote on the bahavior of prison guards in Iraq.

    I can only conclude that these 46,000 people are people who will now vote for John Kerry - after all why would this issue influence people to vote for Bush? With that in mind, it's scary to think that 46,000 people will switch their allegience to Kerry due to the behavior of soldiers about 10,000 levels below George Bush in the chain of command. Are these people even aware of the dozens of other issues facing this nation that, not only collectively, but individually dwarf the Iraq prison scandal? Does the economy mean anything to these people? How about health care, defense, education, domestic security, rights of the unborn, social security, etc.?

    I'm very proud of my country, but it's somewhat discouraging to contemplate the reality that so many of our fellow citizens have the thinking skills of a squirrel and the leadership skills of a lemming. Freaking grow a spine, people, and quit jumping off the cliff after every liberal who rants and raves about the latest 'scandal' in this administration.
    2.6 Million Reasons to Vote for Bush

    George Bush and his administration were loudly chastised for predicting that 2.6 million jobs would be created this year. Liberals had a field day in January through March as lackluster employment figures were announced. In fact, the administration backed off of their prediction in February.

    Today, the Labor Department reported 288,000 new jobs were created in the month of April. Unemployment dropped to 5.6%. To top it off, March's payroll gains were revised upward to 337,000 new jobs. Job growth is now up 8 months in a row. For 2004 year to date, average monthly job growth is 217,000! Extrapolate that pace through the rest of the year and what do you get? 2.6 million new jobs for 2004!

    Poor John Kerry - now what can he stump about now that the economy is starting to sizzle? The liberal left calling for the resignation of Rumsfeld and an investigation into the Iraqi prisoner 'scandal' is a clear sign that the Democratic party is officially desperate in their attempts to discredit this administration.

    Sunday, May 02, 2004

    Iraqi Prisoner Photos

    It's late - no time to wax poetic. But the general outrage at the recently-published photos of Iraqi prisoners being humiliated by US guards is almost comical. Where was US Congressional outrage after Fallujeh? Where was the Arab outrage after Fallujeh? What did these folks have to say about American civilians being burned, beaten, mutilated, and hung from a bridge? They were like the proverbial 3 monkeys - see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

    But now some prisoners of war get some hazing, akin to a fraternity rally, and these people act as if the US has nuked a mosque. Get over it - if that's the worse thing that happens to Iraqi prisoners of war then the Arabs should thank Allah that it was the Americans who ousted Saddam and not their brothers in faith, the Iranians. Rest assured that had the Iranians defeated the Iraqis in their war 2 decades ago, doing cheerleader pyramids while naked would have been the least of their worries.

    Freedom has a price. To date, the great US of A has contributed nearly $100 billion and over 600 lives so that millions of Iraqis will live in peace and prosperity. If the worst collateral damage involves a few thugs getting hazed, then freedom has come cheap. Time would be much better spent working towards improving security in Iraq, and mourning the soldiers and civilians who have lost their lives over the past year. Those people have paid the ultimate price for Iraqi freedom and should not be over-shadowed by this prisoner abuse scandal.