hahaha ! Thanks, RonDog!Good article, Beaureguard! Thanks for posting.
Posted on 07/26/2004 5:36:04 AM PDT by beaureguard
What got them riled up, you say? Me. Friday. Oh boy, you should see the email. Letters to sponsors, radio stations, the Democratic National Committee all pretty much demanding the same thing ... that I be cancelled/fired/executed.
So, why all the fuss? Because I said on Friday that I honestly couldn't make up my mind which group of people was more dangerous to the future of this country: (a) Islamic jihadist terrorists; or, (b) people who intended to vote for The Poodle for president.
It seems that some of the more strident complainers were convinced that I had compared Kerry voters to Islamic terrorists. This quality of thought is pretty much what you would expect from someone who would cast a Democratic ballot, but for those of you who did manage the incredible feat of graduating from a government school .. let's put that to rest. You can die if someone fires an apple at your head at 150 miles per hour. You can also die if someone drops a Volkswagen on you. Either the apple or the VW can be dangerous, but that does not mean that apples and VWs are alike. Ergo ... saying that both Kerry voters and Islamic terrorist can be dangerous is not necessarily comparing one to the other. I know that's a bit tough for you government school grads, but if you read this paragraph a few times I'm sure you'll get the idea.
Now ... let's deal with the question of whether or not I was out of line suggesting that Kerry voters, as a group, could possibly be as or more dangerous to this country as, say, whatever remains of al Qaeda.
First question: Can voters actually be dangerous? That's a hanging curve ball. Hitler was elected in Germany. Nuff said.
So ... second question. Can Kerry voters be dangerous. Well now that would be a matter of opinion, wouldn't it? My opinion is that they very well can be, especially if there are enough of them out there to actually put Mr. Paper Cut Purple Heart into the White House with his trial lawyer pal. I consider Kerry to be dangerous to the future of our Republic, to freedom and to economic liberty. You may disagree. So be it. Consider, thought, my reasoning. Here's a brief list of the threats Kerry poses to our country, not necessarily in the order of their severity.
1. Kerry is soft on sovereignty. As Boston Herald columnist Cosmo Macero says: "Never has the dilution of U.S. Sovereignty been so boldly forecast." This is a man who said that the United States should not deploy troops overseas without the "permission" of the United Nations. He made no exceptions. He stated it as a hard and fast rule. Do we want a president who seeks the permission of the United Nations before he can act in what he believes to be the best interests of the United States? Oh .. to be sure, Kerry wouldn't dare make this statement today. He's running for office! Tell me ... just when do you think a person speaks his true mind? Hint: It's not when he's in the middle of the campaign. Remember ... Kerry has instructed Democrats to hold back on their anti-war statements during the convention. He knows that many of the voters he wants to convince approve of the liberation of Iraq. He also knows that most of the voters don't think the UN should have veto power over US military deployments. Believe him now at your peril.
2. Kerry is an appeaser. Kerry knows that many of the principal members of the European Union want to build the strength of that body on the declining weakness of America. The leaders of these countries are quite upset over George Bush's show of strength in the Middle East. They knew the threat was there, but it was a threat they didn't have the courage to face. The US did. The US is showing strength, Europe is showing weakness. Naturally this is going to breed bitterness toward our country. Kerry wants to address and moderate this bitterness by weakening America through a policy of appeasement.
3. Kerry is a tax-and-spend liberal. Just recently Microsoft announced that it was going to distribute $32 billion ... that's with a "B" ... in Microsoft cash to shareholders via a dividend. Give The Poodle his way and the dividend, which has already been taxed by the Imperial Federal Government, will be taxed again when it reaches the shareholder. How nice. Kerry's spending plans, if enacted, would essentially double the size of the federal government. Virtually every economist out there not working for the government credits Bush's tax cuts with our economic turnaround. Raising taxes is a good way to stop our economy in its tracks.
4. Kerry sends a message of weakness. Islamic terrorists are emboldened when they believe their enemies to be weak. Disagree if you wish, but there's a school of thought out there which believes that the election of John Kerry would send a signal to the wonderful world of Islamic terrorism that America is once again ripe for an attack. I attend that school. How many Americans will die when Kerry brings us the era of appeasement?
5. Kerry sends a message of government dependency. Whatever you need, the government is there to provide it for you. Kerry is pressing the concept of health care as a right. This means that the person in need of health care would have, under a Kerry regime, an enforceable right to a portion of the life of some health care provider somewhere. If health care is a right, what else? The right to a home? The right to a job?
I've said it before, but here we go again for the record. We're in the middle of World War IV. bin Laden has pledged to kill as many Americans as he can. He has even set a goal of four million. Will you be one of those? How about a member of your family? The Democrats are going to nominate a man who was opposed to removing Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. A man who voted for the Iraq war, and then voted to deny the funding our troops needed to pursue that action. The Democrats are nominating a man who believes that the United Nations should have veto power over American military moves. A man who would weaken the American economy through ratification of the Kyoto Treaty and the imposition of tax increases on the very people who are now powering our economic revival.
Kerry is dangerous. Anyone who would put him in power is dangerous. Islamic jihadists are dangerous. The question as to which group presents a greater threat to our Republic, to our freedoms and economic liberty is a valid one. I suspect that some Kerry voters are just a wee bit uncomfortable with the possible consequences of their actons.
I don't believe that it's over the top or even unduly pessimistic. W has devoted the majority of his first term to cleaning up after Clinton and still has a long way to go. If we put Kerry in office, I don't think Americans will have the will or the desire to pick up the pieces . . . . again! We'll be too tired and too broke to try and fix another libs mess. Reagan had to clean up after Carter, and W is having to clean up after Bubba. It's debatable whether or not Nixon actually cleaned up any of LBJ's mess.
The libs could live in the Leftist States of America while we could have the other half.
I think Boortz comments on Friday just lit the fuse. The Democrats, in case nobody noticed (grin) had a TERRRIBLE WEEK last week.
And I suspect this week is going to be worse, no matter how hard they try to "vet" the speeches scheduled.
When you represent a political party that runs from new ideas, you only have one topic available to you.
Mindless bashing of the opposition. It will work in the short run among the DNC faithful....but lets not forget, they are the clear minority within our political system.
I don't believe a Kerry presidency will doom the Republic. I despise Kerry-called his fellow soldiers baby killers in order to advance his political career. He is despicable man...no doubt. I am a Bush supporter all the way. However, we survived Carter and Clinton ( four years for Carter and two years for Clinton with an all Dem congresses in place), we can survive this turkey. In the horrifying event that flip flop is elected, we must fight his marxist policies tooth and nail as Gingrich fought Clinton in 1996. Even Bob Dole fought against Clinton-Mr. Compromise himself.
We must make sure that Kerry doesn't get to nominate super radical judges to the bench (the Demons have denied Bush's judges and set an ugly precedent which Republicans can and should follow). When the next election comes, we must deny Kerry a second term. Our Republic has withstood worse than Kerry. We will continue-no matter what. Of course, it would be a miserable, tough four years-no doubt about that. I fear Americans would die..because of terrorism. An appeaser in the White House is a green light to terrorism.
However, this country has survived war with Britain (twice) in its's infancy, a devastating civil war,Spanish American war,the Kaiser, Roosevelt (marxist-elected for three terms), the great depression, Nazism, Communism, Truman's pro-communist reign, the 60's radicals (remember the bomb planted at Macy's in New York at Christmas..)and of course 9-11. We are tough. We will survive Kerry if we must...However, I don't believe Kerry will win the election.
I think it depends.
If Kerry gets elected, I think he loses the press almost immediately. It will unify republicans, and if he is really serious about his 'soft on sovereignty' thing, he's going to lose his party.
The objective of Democrats isn't to get Kerry elected, it's to beat Bush. After that, if they want to hold power, they will likely have to throw guys like Moore off the wagon and govern to the right.
The center isn't going to cut it anymore. There will have to be another tax cut - a tax increase, no matter how it is dressed, will be out.
Kerry is also inheriting a good economy. Were it to fail in the first couple of years, R's would have both houses of Congress locked up to the nines.
Not in a million years would I vote for Kerry. If he wins, however, I don't think we are doomed.
I think he will do a Carter and lose the presidency for good, in landslide proportions for another 12 years.
As a side benefit, Hillary would be out, likely for good. Kerry would have to do Johnson and declare he wasn't running in 08.
No, there are worse things.
I think the Judiciary of the US would be in trouble. That I do believe.
Boortz and Corinne? Brown (Rep from FL) are going at it right now.
Same ole same ole about the 2000 race, and how blacks were disenfranchised in 2000.
We can and must survive. If the Democrats win;it is the will of the electorate. Sometimes voters goof as in electing Carter and Clinton. We have had many peaceful transfer of power, and I expect many more.
Republicans can and have risen to the occasion. Think about Bob Dole-hardly a junkyard do-but he did fight Clinton successfully. He rose to the circumstances and did a splendid job of opposing Hillary health care and increased taxes (not one Republican voted for Clinton's tax increases-not even a Rino).
I do not believe, we will need a civil war...in order to repair damage done by Kerry. Nope, another election or two or three will suffice. Be of good cheer; I don't think Kerry will win.
Have you considered radical Dems feel as you do about President Bush? We must accept the next President-Bush or Kerry and support him in areas we can. The demonization of political opponents into monsters needs to stop-this threatens our republic far more than one man.
So right.
So ... second question. Can Kerry voters be dangerous. Well now that would be a matter of opinion, wouldn't it? My opinion is that they very well can be, especially if there are enough of them out there to actually put Mr. Paper Cut Purple Heart into the White House with his trial lawyer pal. I consider Kerry to be dangerous to the future of our Republic, to freedom and to economic liberty. You may disagree. So be it. Consider, thought, my reasoning. Here's a brief list of the threats Kerry poses to our country, not necessarily in the order of their severity.Kerry-Edwards are the #1 and #4 most LIBERAL Senators.
They are THE MOST LIBERAL ticket ever!:Senator John Kerry (D)
Massachusetts
Democrat, Years of Service: 19
ACU Ratings for Senator Kerry: Year 2003 13 Year 2002 20 Lifetime 5
Senator John Edwards (D)
North Carolina
Democrat, Years of Service: 5
ACU Ratings for Senator Edwards: Year 2003 13 Year 2002 30 Lifetime 12
Trust me when I tell you that I appreciate your sentiments and wish that I shared them. I don't. The November election is about more than just a difference of political ideology, it is about the difference between good and evil. It is about electing a party of appeasers who have the support of Muslim radicals, terrorist supporters and oppressors of humand dignity and rights around the world versus electing a party that is almost the sole opposition to those same forces. It is the difference between supporting a policy of hate versus supporting a policy of optimism. When we talk about the hate that the left has, it is not the same as the hate one might have for broccoli, it is a hate of biblical proportions that encompasses morals, ethics, values and embraces the most extreme beliefs of humankind. It is the hatred of Beelzebub for God.
And, that's why I don't believe that the Republic can survive a Kerry presidency of any duration. Look at his record. Look at his past. Look at his history. Kerry is a man who made a career of preying on and snaring wealthy widows to improve his social and economic position, then lies about the advantages he has gained as a result. As a senator with 20 years of experience in the Senate, he has NOTHING to show for it except a lack of dust on his chair. He has nothing to show for his wretched life but a wealthy widow and 4 fraudulent months in a war that he managed to turn into a debacle. This is not a man who is worthy of the highest political office in our nation. He has earned nothing but our enmity and disdain.
A man like Kerry, with no ethics, morals or character to guide him will leave the American ship of state rudderless. We will be taxed into oblivion while billions of our dollars are thrown away to support every outrageous, leftist cause that exists. Think about electing Stalin or Ho Chi Minh as president. That's what we will get with Kerry. That's why I fear for our Republic.
I do not minimize the threat of a Kerry presidency. However, you assume he would be able to accomplish everything. No president ever has...not even the great Ronald Reagan or the despicable Bill Clinton. Clinton had two years with an all Democratic congress! Clinton was and is a great deal more likeable than Kerry. Kerry has very little charm or charisma. Also, I take comfort in the fact Kerry has accomplished nothing..in the Senate because this demonstrates he obviously does not know how to work with congress effectively. In terms of security, Kerry would be a disaster. I will not be flying (but then we aren't secure with that idiot Mineta in charge now). We must hope and pray, Kerry is not elected, However, if he is we must fight the good fight (under our system) and oust him as soon as possible. In our 200 plus years as a Republic, I am betting we have had men of worse character than Kerry assume the presidency (Clinton comes to mind) and survived. LOL- keep praying for the re-election of President Bush- a man of great character, decency and wisdom (wish he was more conservative, but hey you can't...always get what you want).
Terry
---
The Nazi's never won a majority vote in Germany.
---
But they did win enough of a vote to have enough seats to pull a coup.
They may not have been a majority party, but they were not insignificant. Germany was not a two-party government, and the Nazis controlled about 30% of the seats if I remember correctly. That's a sizable minority in a multi-party government.
You are correct they were a significant party in a multi party system. In fact I was going to point out that fact in my post and then pontificate on the dangers of a multi party system but I thought I might stray too far off topic.
A man who would weaken the American economy through ratification of the Kyoto Treaty...
Sorry, presidents don't ratify treaties; the senate does. kerry was among those who voted Kyoto down 95-0 in 1997. He may now be claiming to be in favor of ratifying Kyoto but it's pretty obvious he was against it before he was for it.
Sorry, I sent you a message meant for some one else..hit the wrong button...mea culpa.
Okey-dokey.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
