A Boston Tea Party …(Sending A Message)

What message will we be sending the world in 4 days? The results of this election will signal to the world what kind of country America will be for the remainder of my lifetime. Do we choose to blame the terrorists for their actions on 9/11 and fight for our safety or do we instead prefer to blame America for creating the atmosphere in which terrorism exists?

Imagine another attack similar in scope to 9/11 in your state, possibly in your city, or maybe even involving someone you know. Maybe someone in your family is a victim or maybe a relative. How do you react? Would you take the threat we are under more seriously? Does it surprise you that three years removed from 9/11 Americans feel less threatened? People certainly don’t seem as worried about attack as they did 3 months after September 11th. A vote for each candidate sends a different message to the terrorists and world.

John Kerry is supported by people and media that strongly feel we should never have went to war. Plenty of them would not have even attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan. These people make up over half of his supporters. These same people blame America for terrorism, they blame Israel and support Arafat, and they say they support human rights but lack the willpower to stand up to governments that suppress human rights. A constituency like this will not sustain the necessary military action required to keep us safe. Whether it is one attack or a dozen attacks on the citizens America, a majority of John Kerry’s supporters will continue to blame this country. A Kerry vote is a message to the world that we are at fault. If God forbid an attack touches your family or friends, justice will be provided only with the approval of the United Nations. That means plenty of sanctions but very little action. We all know how forceful and decisive the United Nations is.

George Bush has the support of people who remember how their stomach felt on 9/11. They are as concerned with safety today as they were in 2001. People who vote for Bush realize that terrorists hate America because of our success. His constituency places the safety of their families above all other matters. They also agree that America has a right to defend itself and we do not need the approval of the United Nations. If Bush wins, the world will realize that America does not forget and America will not quit when war gets ugly. Terrorists and the governments that support them will know they cannot win because the people of America will do everything necessary to protect themselves. Four more years of President Bush provides the world with a message of inner strength. A strength that shows we chose the correct path when taking the fight to the terrorists. A strength that says we will pay the sacrifice for freedom. A vote for Bush means you take ownership of your destiny, your family’s destiny, and your country’s destiny and will not delegate that destiny to the passive view of others.

The hidden message of your vote is innocent or guilty, strong or timid, consistent or wavering, decisive or uncertain. The world and terrorists will act differently depending on who wins. America will act differently depending on who wins. I know which message Osama Bin Laden and Abu Musab El Zarqawi prefer.

A Boston Tea Party …(Lawyers, Used Car Salesmen, And Journalists)

We have all heard the many jokes about lawyers and used car salesmen. It is now time to add journalists to that select group. A once proud career choice has definitely gone down the crapper. The story of the missing RDX explosive from Iraq is a blatant attempt by journalists to provide the Democrats with the momentum needed for victory next Tuesday. The New York Times willingness to provide nonfactual information and the willingness of the Kerry campaign to pounce on the story is utterly shameless.

The New York Times continues to show its bias towards Kerry. Last week Paul Krugman wrote an op-ed piece explaining why President Bush would instill a military draft even though the President flatly denies it. This week on the eve of the election the Times with the help of CBS News decides to run a story on missing explosives in Iraq. As the hours pass it becomes more and more clear that there is no evidence to support the story that this happened on Bush’s watch. The lack of fact in the story was well known by Tuesday evening. So imagine my surprise as I watched “Hardball” with Tim Mathews last night, seeing Tim, Evan Thomas of Newsweek, and Ron Reagan Jr. continually talking about the mistakes the Bush administration had made with these explosives. John Fund of the Wall Street Journal kept telling them that the story was missing valuable details and that no conclusions could be made at this point. Those details were not important to Mathews, Thomas, and Reagan. What was important was their personal belief that Bush must lose regardless of known facts. You watch things like this happen right in front of you and it amazes you how little integrity these people have for true journalism and reporting. Contrast that with FOX News this morning reporting that the International Atomic Energy Agency showed in January of 2003 only 3 tons of RDX was being stored not the 380 tons reported by the Times. Imagine had there been a simulcast of “Hardball” and FOX News, a stark difference between the real story and the wishful thinking story.

Kerry’s continues to blame Bush for nearly everything. First it was the scare of a potential draft, then the lack of flu shots, and now the missing explosives. The real story is not important. He hopes that if he blames the President for breathing, he might get a few more votes. He is very selective about the news he follows. Kerry doesn’t mind if the news lacks facts just so long as it is negative. Conveniently, Kerry fails to mention major news stories like the oil for food scandal at the United Nations because the facts in that story do not support Kerry’s efforts. Kerry is more than willing to use both the print media and television news to his advantage. I don’t expect him to mention in the remaining hours of the election that Russia quite possibly moved the explosives to Syria as reported by Bill Gertz of the Washington Post.

The real October surprise will be if The New York Times, CBS, “Hardball”, and John Kerry apologize to the American people for getting the story wrong and rushing to judgment. It is much more likely that they will apologize sometime after the election assuming Kerry wins. A tainted win made possible by a tainted profession.

A Boston Tea Party…(Camouflage)

camouflage- to conceal or disguise

I thought it was very ironic last week to see John Kerry walking in a field in Iowa in camouflage gear. His campaign wanted everyone to know that Kerry is an avid hunter. I’m willing to bet you don’t see venison on the Kerry dinner table all that often. Like a hunter trying to fool an unsuspecting flock of geese, Kerry throughout his campaign tends to be something he is not.

He has tried to fool the public into believing he is a devout Catholic even while supporting abortion rights. He has portrayed himself as a fiscally responsible Senator rather than the more liberal of the two Senators from Massachusetts. He depicts himself as being strong on defense yet didn’t even support the military action in the first Gulf War. He even tries to explain his voting against the war in Iraq after voting for the war. Who he really is and what he represents himself to be are often at the opposite ends of the spectrum.

Pretending to be someon you are not can be done with the use of a properly staged photo-op or by speaking to an audience with a false sincerity. If used correctly, camouflage can help you bag your limit in a corn field full of birds and can help you fool enough people into helping you win an election. Like a poisonous snake disguised to match its surroundings, Kerry has duped enough voters into thinking he is someone he is not. Should he win this election, I am willing to bet he won’t spend a single vacation hunting for pheasant, geese, or any other animal. America will find out that he isn't who he says he is but rather he is who he always was, a liberal from Massachusetts willing to hold his finger in the political wind to define his position.

A Boston Tea Party …(“Unfavorables”)

With 8 days remaining to the election the popular vote shows Bush and Kerry virtually tied or Bush slightly ahead. However, Bush’s favorable rating is around 44 percent. Why are more people going to vote for him than like the job he is doing?

Voting comes down to the choice between two men. You may not be a big fan of either of them or not agree with every position a candidate takes. Sometimes when you get in the voting booth you must choose which of the two men you dislike the least. For Bush to get such a low favorable rating must mean that some Republicans and Independents feel he hasn’t been doing the best job. Why?

For a conservative Republican like myself it is easy to identify with certain issues that other Republicans feel Bush has let them down. Issues involving outrageous spending, new entitlement programs, the open Mexican border, and the continuation of a political rather than military war in Iraq to name a few. True conservatives cannot be happy with a Republican President increasing domestic spending without requiring spending cuts at the same time. Buying the votes of some senior citizens with a prescription drug entitlement program is not my idea of leadership. Not having the political will to close the Mexican border upset me. Not having vetoed any bill over a 4-year period is shocking.

President Bush might have a higher favorable rating had he chose to be faithful to his conservative base. A prescription drug bill disillusioned as many conservatives as it gained in senior citizens. Vetoing a few spending bills might have shown he was different than his Republican friends in congress. He failed to realize that you can spend to please some Democrats but in the end they (the Democrats) still won’t think he spent enough nor vote for him because of social issues. Blowing up Falluja might have shown us safety hawks that beheadings were not going to be tolerated or closing the border with Mexico would have put safety over votes.

President Bush has tried to be a little of everything to everyone. He figured if he throws enough bones at various interest groups he might get a few more bites. The evidence has shown that he either didn’t throw enough bones or quite possibly threw too many. Next Tuesday he just better hope that like myself the “unfavorables” still come home to vote. I just hope he didn’t take to many of us for granted.

A Boston Tea Party …(Truth? What Version?)

In college I took a course on logic and truth. A person can be logical while still making untrue statements. If you start with an untrue statement, logic will make your reasoning untrue. Logic also removes emotion from the decision process.

As the election gets closer, each party tries to sound logical while the truth (fact) seems to become more and more blurred. As a believer in the truth, it continues to amaze me how the Democrats and to a lesser extent the Republicans distort the truth and more importantly, why we the people allow it.

Democrats continually suggest that President Bush is a liar. A local Democratic talk show host was stating this to a caller last week. When the caller asked him to tell him how he knew Bush is a liar; he answered by saying he just believes he is and nothing can be done to change his mind. Even if confronted with overwhelming evidence, his opinion that Bush is a liar was not about to change. If his statement that Bush is a liar is based on fact then it would seem there must be two versions of the truth. One is the actual truth while the other is the truth he is willing to accept. An argument with this type of person would be futile because logic states there is only one correct version of the truth. Logic also states the opposite of true is false. What would logic say about a person willing to believe in something that is false? Very simply, logic would say he is wrong.

I usually watch “Meet the Press” with Tim Russert each Sunday. Yesterday, he had Ed Gillespie, the chairman of the RNC, and Terry McAuliffe, the chairman of the DNC, as his guests. Not surprisingly each chairmen’s version of the truth was the direct opposite of the other’s. The truth lay somewhere in between. I instantly grew frustrated and wondered the following logical thoughts:

What kind of man would sit across the table from these two guys and not point out the distortions of the truth?
Does Russert feel his show should inform the public? If so, then why not force them to the truth? If they don’t, then cut that person off. My hunch would be that McAuliffe would not get to say much.
If a draft were a possibility, as Mr. McAuliffe states, under President Bush then it would also be a possibility under a Kerry Presidency.
What if the only way a political ad could be placed on television or radio was if it were entirely accurate? Maybe a committee of citizens should make up the truth police and would edit every ad before it went public to see if it meant a truth standard. The public would then be better educated about each candidate and better able to make a decision of who to vote for. “The whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me God” should not just be required in the courtroom but also from anyone running for political office.

You listen to a guy like Terry McAuliffe and it is easy to see why politicians are rated lower than lawyers. The man and his party have their own version of the truth. A version created to fit the circumstance. The version the Democrats hope will defeat Bush. The version that says it is Bush’s fault that there are not enough flu shots available. The version that scares old people with social security reform and young people with the draft. A similar version created from circumstance allowed O.J. Simpson to get away with murder. Logic says the Democratic Party is comfortable with ANY version of truth that supports their beliefs and therefore should lose.

A Boston Tea Party …(Voting Made Childproof)

Let the circus begin. With the election less than two weeks away the vultures, I mean lawyers, are circling. Words like disenfranchised, provisional ballots, voter intimidation, and voter fraud will soon be heard all over the news. If you’re over 18 you have the right to vote but responsibility is not a prerequisite.

You remember responsibility. Our ancestors took it very seriously. They raised their kids with it, paid their bills with it, and demanded it from their neighbors. Schools had a responsibility to the community. Churches let them know that responsibility was required to live a good life. Employees took responsibility for performing their jobs with maximum effort and pride. A generation I very much wish I were apart of.

Today is the era of no responsibility. Kids misbehave at home, in public, and in school. Generation Xer’s have never been taught what the word means. Schools and parents don’t take responsibility to educate every child. Bankruptcy is used as an easy way out from too much debt. Preachers don’t lecture on serious topics for fear of losing their following. Employees feel they are owed a job rather than having to earn a job. Lawyers tell the public they can sue someone if they were wronged in some way. No wonder we see the lack of personal responsibility creeping into the voting booth. A person cannot be held at fault if they are unable to correctly cast their vote. Someone must be blamed for their ignorance. Voting needs to be made childproof. When the President is not officially named until May of 2005, remember we are all to blame. We created this mess over the past 20 years. Why should we demand more when voting than we do in our personal lives? To do so would require the personal responsibility of our ancestors. They lived in a time when even Democrats took responsibility for their actions.

Cry Of The Loon … (Ed is #1 in Portland)

Today Ed announced to the state of North Dakota that his national show is number one in cities like Portland, San Diego, and San Francisco. I was totally impressed. It was shocking to hear that a liberal talk show is number one in a liberal city. What a huge accomplishment. I wonder if the Yankees are number one in New York; if the Redsox are number one in Boston; if the Vikings are number one in Minneapolis. Maybe even Catholics are number one in the Vatican; and Muslims are number one in the Middle East; and Democrats are number one in Massachusetts. Again this is just a hunch; I might be going out on a limb. If any of my assumptions or predictions are wrong I apologize. Far be it from me to piss on Ed’s success.

A Boston Tea Party …(BOO!)

It is the season for ghouls and goblins. The time of year when you are supposed to scare people. In order to get in the spirit of Halloween, Democrats have brought out the Dracula of politics: Social Security. Guaranteed to suck the life out of any senior citizen. Social Security reform is the Democratic party’s version of the poison apple. Take a bite and a secure retirement is over. For some of us it takes a lot more to be frightened.

Does your 401k frighten you? Imagine social security set up in a similar manner. The federal government gives you the CHOICE of opting out of the government S.S. plan for something that offers you a better chance at actually seeing a payback. (scared yet?) The plan is tightly regulated just like your 401k. You are not allowed to take out a loan against it. Your contributions are administered just like your current 401k with an amount taken out of each check. (scared yet?) The difference between this plan and your 401k is that you cannot invest in anything remotely speculative. Your options of investment are narrowed to only secure stocks and bonds that provide a return of 3%-6%. The current government plan returns only around 2%. (scared yet?) You receive your benefit at retirement just like your 401k. You are in control of YOUR money, not Uncle Sam. (I know, now you’re really scared.)

The truth is the Democrats are scared to death of reform. The Trick is trying to scare the public into believing it is a bad idea. The Treat is they get to spend the money you contribute into Social Security while making you believe they don’t touch it. The real poison for congress is the cost of transitioning from the current plan to the new one. That is what really SCARES them. Any dollar spent on transitional costs is a dollar not available for pork spending. Now you don’t have to be scared, I just turned the lights on!

A Boston Tea Party…(North Dakota’s Other Voting Block)

North Dakota has a voting block without a name. Everyone has heard of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, but that doesn’t cover everyone voting. This other voting block votes for a Republican governor and President along with Democratic congressmen. They value the leadership Republicans provide as well as the dependency Democrats create. This voting block never votes along party lines. They don’t think the party they elect to lead their state and country is worthy of spending their tax dollars. They want Republicans in charge and crave the pork Democrats deliver. They consistently vote ideologically inconsistent. Until today, this special, consistent North Dakota body of voters did not have a name. As of today these amazingly delusional people that make up this block of voters will be referred to as “The Bribed”. In North Dakota “The Bribed” somehow are able to rationalize their irrational voting behavior. I suggest that next time you run across one of “The Bribed”, ask him/her what their price was?

A Boston Tea Party…(Daschle is Pure Slime)

For the past couple months, I have been reading about how Tom Daschle is in a tight race in South Dakota for his senate seat. Like North Dakota, South Dakota is very much a pro Bush state. I have also read that Daschle was running a commercial with him and President Bush embracing shortly after 9/11.While watching NBC news on Friday night, I was able to see that commercial.

What I had always thought suddenly became obvious to me; Tom Daschle is the slimiest, most pathetic form of scum in national politics. The same man, who’s own disdain for President Bush’s policies is obvious to anyone who pays attention, is willing to use that same President as help in getting reelected. Even North Dakota’s version of winkem, blinkem, and nod (Dorgen, Conrad, and Pomeroy) has enough common sense not to portray themselves as being buddies of the President in an election commercial. But then again they are not in tight race like Daschle is. To run a commercial like that shows how desperate Daschle must be to be reelected. If they weren’t before South Dakotans should now be embarrassed.

When viewing the ad, I almost threw up my dinner. It also made me wonder what other two people would make me lose my lunch if I saw them embrace. Perhaps a Yankee and a Redsox fan, Viking fan and a Packer fan, Santa Claus and the Grinch, Bobby Knight and any referee, Shaq and Koby, Nancy Kerigan and Tanya Harding, Dick Cheney and Patrick Leahy, Coke and Pepsi, or Rush Limbaugh and Ed Shultz.

Daschle’s use of this commercial shows the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Republicans have way too much pride and self respect to do something like that. There is no limit to how low a Democrat will go to win an election, because to them the end justifies the means. This commercial shows Tom Daschle has no self-respect and I pray South Dakotan’s put him out of his misery on November 2nd. Tom Daschle is a political weasel.

A Boston Tea Party …(A Mandate)

The war in Iraq is definitely the defining issue of this election. American soldiers continue to die as terrorists strike in cowardice ways. Progress is hard to measure or see from watching the network news. Democrats nag that it is the wrong war, the wrong time, and done the wrong way. Soldiers and reservists are being kept in Iraq for extended terms. One could assume that soldiers may wonder if the war in Iraq is worth it.

We hear people say everyday how much respect and honor they have for the soldiers fighting in Iraq, although I wonder if they really mean it or if it is just the politically correct thing to say. People against the war talk as if they know what the soldiers are going through. References to Vietnam are made constantly.

Logic would say that if we respect and honor their service we should also respect their opinions. On Friday it was announced that soldiers in Iraq were polled on whom they favored in the Presidential Election. One could assume with the difficulties in their mission, soldiers should be split in their preference just like the rest of America. The results showed President Bush getting seventy percent of the vote. Ladies and Gentlemen, we have ourselves a mandate. If seventy percent of our soldiers are willing to continue the path of this President then so should you and I. If you vote for Kerry you tell the soldiers you know more than they do about the war in Iraq.

A Boston Tea Party …(Just a Thought)

I wonder...

Do you think it is possible that the baby boomer generation will never produce a leader that can rally the people of America? Someone who can get more than fifty-four percent of the vote? Look at the leaders of that generation so far: Clinton, Gore, Bush, Cheney, Kerry, and Edwards. They are an impressive bunch, aren’t they? Do you think the baby boomer generation has the stomach for war like the generations before it? Do you think it is possible that the baby boomer generation will bankrupt the country rather than sacrifice the way generations before it did? Do you think they baby boomer generation will ever stop electing politicians based on the amount of pork they bring home? Do you think the baby boom generation will allow social security to be reformed so that their children and grandchildren will get back what they pay in? If the World War II generation is called “the greatest generation”, will the baby boomer generation be called “the failure to lead generation”?

What Are You Thinking …(Say it isn’t So, Mr. O’)

I am a big fan of Bill O’Reilly. In the last couple months I had been mentioning to friends of mine that he seemed to have changed. I felt he had lost his edge. The person I enjoyed fought for the good things and enjoyed telling us about corruption. He is at his best when he attacked the charities of 9/11 or brought to my attention the ACLU’s continued corruption of the culture of America. He attacked rap music, catholic priests, and liberal judges. Since the election took over the news headlines O’Reilly seemed to have lost his focus. He changed to fair and balanced from right vs. wrong.

I listen to his radio show nearly everyday. I could tell he was a “chick hound” by the things he would say to his co-host Lis Wiehl. I often wondered how he could get away with such flirtatious comments. I know most offices would not allow it. Now we find out that it is the norm for Mr. O’. I could tell sexuality was very much apart of who he is. Why else have a porno star on your show? I just figured when you get that big you must be able to get away with it. Mr. O’ has not denied any of the allegations against him so at this time my assumption is they are true. If he is brought down by this going public, he won’t be the first nor the last. For my taste he was loosing his edge anyway. The “No Spin” is that I want a man going after the “wrongs” in the world and the hell with being fair and balanced.

A Boston Tea Party … (Your Voting Guide)

When listening to Presidential debates a person must listen carefully to make your way through all the B.S. and figure out what each candidate is for and against. With Bush that is a much easier task. Today I offer a simple voters guide that breaks issues down to their simplest terms.

1. Lower Taxes – Bush
2. Higher Taxes – Kerry
3. Reduce federal spending – neither
4. Keeping America safe – Bush
5. Value in the United Nations – Kerry
6. Jobs – neither (If you think government helps you get employed you’re a fool)
7. More government handouts – Kerry
8. Border protection – neither
9. Activism from judges – Kerry
10. A pain in the ass first lady – Kerry
11. Integrity – Bush
12. Reagan like – neither
13. Lower healthcare costs – neither
14. Government healthcare – Kerry
15. Private healthcare – Bush
16. Social Security reform – Bush
17. Like John McCain – Bush
18. Religious – Bush
19. Pop culture – Kerry
20. Self reliance – Bush

So if you are a person who wants to keep your own money, values your families safety from terrorists, believes in America’s right to defend itself, doesn’t want any government help, enjoys strict interpretation of the constitution, is honest and confident in your decisions, prefers to make your own healthcare decisions, feels you can plan for your retirement better than the government can, still feels the world needs moral judgments, are willing to solve your own problems, and willing to fail or succeed based on your own efforts then vote for Bush.

If you are a person who wants to keep less of your own money, believes America’s safety must be decided in the context of the global world, prefers government help in your life, wants judges who shape the constitution to their views, wants to wait in line for medical help, are to stupid to plan for your retirement, want your country to look like Massachusetts, think Teresa Heinz Kerry is a wonderful role model, feels no one should morally judge someone else, and prefers help from big brother when times are tough then vote for Kerry.

Who you vote for tells alot about you.

A Boston Tea Party ...(Assholes)

Nothing upsets me more than someone else wasting my money. If I choose to go on a vacation or buy something I don’t need, it is my money and my business. On the other hand if someone else WASTES my money, well, Houston we have a problem.

I wonder if this will offend you? In reading Joe Scarborough’s book “Rome Wasn’t Burnt in a Day”, he explains how congressmen from both political parties were lining bills labeled for September 11th terrorist relief needs with pork projects for their home districts. They used the deaths of 3,000 American citizens to masquerade their desire for pathetically lame pork spending. Congressmen continued that same style of concern in the months leading up to the Iraq war. In the year leading up to the war pork spending reached historical amounts. Evidently our leaders in Congress had a higher priority for pork projects than spending on such things as body armor for troops.

We have heard in the last few weeks from the Kerry campaign that President Bush left our soldiers short of the necessary supplies needed for war. It is Congresses responsibility to appropriate spending not the Presidents. We also know that President Bush has met no bill worth vetoing. When it was time for Kerry and his fellow members of Congress to prioritize spending between pork for reelection and supplies for troops, they chose pork for reelection. Kerry now has the gall to question the support of the military by the President. At a minimum our local Congressmen (Dorgan, Conrad, and Pomeroy) could have the decency to tell us what special pork projects they were able to secure for our benefit. You are not naive enough to believe that North Dakota politicians don’t like pork, are you? They love to bring home the bacon (see article Badge of Honor on this website). You cannot argue with one hand that the troops are not supported while on the other hand vote for wasteful projects that take money away from that very support.

The hypocrisy from which these guys speak is amazing. They believe most voters are stupid and they are right. It angers and disgusts me when I see things like this but it also amazes me. I am amazed because I can’t believe more people don’t join me in being pissed off. Our politicians are assholes and in no way have the interest of the country in mind. If they say so, they are lying. Will we ever see the day where country is put ahead of reelection? Not in my lifetime unless you join me in calling for another Boston tea party. Get mad and send the assholes home.

A Boston Tea Party …(He Does Have A Senate Record?)

It was refreshing to here Vice President Cheney mention John Kerry’s Senate record during the debate Tuesday night. That record as shown during Zell Miller’s speech at the Republican convention is a lethal weapon. Kerry’s anti-defense votes need to be mentioned over and over in the remaining days of the campaign. It still confounds me how the President was unable to pounce on Kerry’s record last week. Certainly Bush knows about the anti-defense votes but for some reason did not deliver the message. Had Bush done so this race would be over. With the remaining debates on domestic policy it will be important for Bush and Cheney to drive home Kerry’s Senate record on the campaign trail. I thank the Vice President for being the President for one night.

A Boston Tea Party …(A Badge of Honor)

Senator Byron Dorgan wears it like a badge of honor. He wants us all to know that North Dakota ranks third in per capita federal spending behind Alaska and Virginia. He has turned so many citizens of this state into dependants that he boasts about bringing federal assistance to them. We should be very very proud, NOT.

When the United States was created the forefathers never imagined such a time when a politician would be rewarded for adding more spending to the federal government. They felt less government intervention was best. In some warped way Byron and his politically intoxicated friends in Washington think that by taking more of our money and spending it in the most inefficient manner possible, they should be rewarded. There was once a time in this country where people were proud enough to reject this type of thinking. People wanted to be rewarded for hard work. I know my grandparents felt that way. Today we have been convinced that big brother (the federal government) will be there to help us.

In times of natural disasters like hurricanes and floods some federal help should be expected. But guys like Byron continue to bring more money back to their constituents not because it is always needed but instead to buy votes. Most people I know have not gotten a dime from the federal government and hope they never will. We imagine a time where Washington spends only what is necessary and our politicians are elected because they spent LESS. Consider this concept: I work, I get paid, I get taxed less, the government spends less, less is spent on my state, and I end up better off. The harder I work, the more successful I am, the more money I have. With the help of a balanced budget amendment the government has less to spend, so spends less, Byron brings less home, Byron goes home. We create a brighter future for our kids and once again get back to a society of doers rather than moochers. People our grandparents could be proud of. When I speak of grandparents I speak of those folks that are over 90 years old. Anyone younger has been part of the society that has rewarded people like Byron Dorgan. The hope of the future is going back to the self-reliant attitude of the past. People from those generations deserve the badge of honor.

A Boston Tea Party …(Kool-Aid vs. Principle)

Are you a principled American? Do you know the difference between what is ethical and what is unethical? Most of us would answer, “yes” to both of these questions. So let me ask them a different way. Does being a principled American depend on the political party one is involved with? Does common sense not apply when your political party is being criticized?

The term kool-aid drinker is applied in politics when a person is considered to accept any explanation given for the stance his/her political party takes. Kool-aid drinkers exist on both sides of the isle. Watch “The O’Reilly Factor’s” mail segment and you will see how two different people will call Bill a liberal or a republican depending on the narrow tunnel from which their beliefs are held. Two separate people, watching the same news story, see things totally opposite because one is a Republican and one is a Democrat. Now I agree, this is to be expected considering the different ideologies of the two parties but there are some issues that are undeniable. They can’t be spun and to spin them only makes you look like a moron.

As we near the election the kool-aid drinkers become more intoxicated. Allow me to list a few issues I think are absolutes. Bush is honest and truly believes in his decisions. Kerry changes his mind. Bush lost the debate. A President should be able to articulate himself better than repeating “hard work” fifteen times. Democrats are anti-war. Iraq is a mess. To use the statement “if you knew then what you know now” it totally retarded. Both Bush and Kerry came from privileged backgrounds. Kerry has had 9 different views on Iraq. France, Russia, and Germany had ulterior motives for not joining the coalition. The United Nations is corrupt and therefore compromised when making decisions on Iraq. The victims of 9/11 are heroes. John Kerry’s statements after returning from Vietnam hurt his fellow soldiers. If your only argument is Halliburton, you have no argument. Kerry’s record in the Senate is anti-defense. Bush spends money like a Democrat. All politicians tell us what we want to hear rather than what we need to hear. Most commercials run by both parties are really pathetic in how childish they are. Two men running for President should be able to have a free flowing debate on all issues, to expect less from our candidates is shameful. This is a war of religion.

Whether you are Democrat or Republican some things are certain. When you decide to look at every issue logically and not provide an excuse or spin from your tinted political party view, you become principled. If you can’t stop drinking the kool-aid then I suggest a twelve-step program.

Oops, one more absolute, Ed Schultz is a dunce.

Cry of the Loon …(dumb and DUMBER)

In order to do research for this blog, I occasionally have to plug my nose and tune into Ed Schultz’s local radio show on 790 AM and his national show on 890 AM out of Lisbon. Most people in North Dakota are unaware that you can get his national show on the radio. Ed will try to tell you that the Clear Channel people don’t want to over market him. This excuse is as usual when it comes to Ed, not true.

The evidence is found when comparing the two shows. On his local show, he is kool-aid drinking stupid, but on the national show he is KOOL-AID DRINKING STUPID. When talking to North Dakotan Democrats, he is quite different in tone. Remember most people locally are “North Dakota nice”. Arrogance, bragging, and ego usually turn the folks off. When your audience is the tree hugging people of the Northwest or intellectually elite of the Northeast, you gain much more notoriety by being LOUD and POMPOUS. The difference in style is easily noticeable. One style is dumb, while the other is DUMBER.

I give credit to Ed for knowing his target audience. I am curious though that a man that is so full of self-promotion never tells his local audience that his national show can be picked up just by changing the dial. Over exposure? When has that ever stopped him? I encourage you to listen to both, but remember to plug your nose.

A Boston Tea Party …(Global Consensus My Ass)

John Kerry said during the debate on Thursday night that the United States should not enter a war until it has gained a global consensus. He and his intellectually elite liberal friends feel much more comfortable with the permission of others before making a decision on something as important as war.

This argument disgusts me. I remember the rage and anger that I felt the afternoon of September 11th as I sat in my kitchen eating lunch. Watching the twin towers fall to the ground was all I could take. That day was the LAST day we needed permission from any other nation or council. Because only the United States was attacked, permission from other countries is voided. Why would we want to wait for weeks or possibly months to gain consensus from countries that don’t share our just cause.

Kerry’s argument has holes in it. Before the first Gulf War, the first President Bush had gained a consensus of many countries including Germany. When it came time to vote in the Senate for or against the war, Kerry voted no. He can’t have it both ways. In one instance we have a large alliance, yet he votes no, in another instance he votes yes (before he votes no) when our alliance isn’t as large. Bush should have known this fact and pounced on Kerry during the debate.

Liberals like many parents now days need permission from their peer group to feel they are doing the right thing. They are the same people that think one should never get angry. I would rather have a “MAN” that says “you are either with us or against us”. The distinction becomes very clear - either fight terrorism along side the United States or don’t expect the United States to ask for your consent. A majority of the people of this world would prefer to live in the land of the free (America), yet this same land is not capable of deciding its own fate. This isn’t logical. We have a belief that people are innocent until proven guilty, can say what ever they feel, and can choose their own religion. We don’t behead people, but we believe in the freedom of every individual, yet we aren’t wise enough to decide when to go to war.

I gave my consent to the President twice. Once on the day I voted for him, and the second time that afternoon in my kitchen when the smoke rose over the city of New York. My suggestion to Kerry and others like him is to watch videos of September 11th and ask the family members of the people who died if he has their permission. In the end, isn’t their permission the only thing needed to eliminate the poison of terrorism from the face of the earth? It was the United States that suffered and it should be the United States that decides the justification of war. If you don’t like the United States acting unilaterally, then leave, there are plenty of others willing to take your place. The lack of definate will from the people of John Kerry's ilk scares me more than any terrorist.