Google

Thursday, July 14, 2005

Ionic, Doric or Corinthian?

Marie Jon', the person who founded PeoplePolitical.org responded to my last post stating that she was aware of the problem and that it would be corrected as soon as her web developer returned. (He suffered a family tragedy, and I wish him the best.) She then gave me links to two articles explaining her political philosophy. This first one was written by her:

Very Bad Politics

The Fifth Column/Marie Jon'

June 11-12, 2005 - With each passing day, the Democrats prove once again that they are primarily interested in furthering their efforts to hurt the President of the United States. In doing so they seem totally indifferent to the fact that such efforts hurt America period!

Who can argue that Democrats are continuing to politicize a war on terror that took our troops to Afghanistan and ultimately to Iraq, or that this politicization is not only making the war more difficult for those troops, but also emboldening America’s enemies to continue the fight worldwide?

There are two relationships between the invasion of Iraq and the war on terror: (1) Despite a lack of corroborating evidence, the administration (sometimes implicitly and sometimes through the corner of their mouth) incorrectly claimed a direct connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 hijackers; and (2) the invasion of Iraq has been of inestimable value to al-Qaeda in the recruitment and training of new terrorists.
Our country is in no way immune to further attacks that could conceivably end up being far worse than 9/11.
Absolutely, which is why we should have continued the hunt for Bin Laden and other top ranking al-Qaeda operatives, instead of diverting resources from this goal to the unrelated invasion of Iraq.
Yet as a country we are clearly weakened by our internal divisions. And this is because the Democrats regularly display their unfounded opposition to the war, in an effort to exploit it for political gain.
The internal divisions to which you refer are more commonly known as the democratic process, and (as noted above) opposition to the war is hardly unfounded.
Much has been written about the far-left beliefs of the modern Democrat political leadership. Their ideologies are based in a heartfelt disdain for such time-honored values as patriotism and traditional morality. Their words are insulting, stinging and just plain nasty and disrespectful.
The Democratic political leadership is hardly monolithic. Similar to the Republican leadership, different Democratic politicians act for different reasons. Speaking for myself however, I do not consider it to be patriotic to lie to the country, and its military personnel, in order to send our soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen into a war of choice.

Howard Dean says much about the Democrat National Committee, which he chairs. I do my share of reading and listening. With each new attack on the war effort, and with each new effort to sidetrack the country from the necessary work of winning that war, less doubt is left in the minds of the American people as to where the far left is coming from.

The liberals who dominate the Democrat party have no new or worthwhile ideas for the betterment of this country. On virtually every occasion presented to them, they simply do and say anything they think they need to say in order to sway their base constituents.

Base constituents don’t need swaying. That’s why they’re considered base constituents. The group that either party tries to sway is the swing voters.
Do they really think the country could be made safer, or its best interests served, by hurling constant accusations that the president “deliberately misled” or “lied to the American people? Such allegations prove that they believe they are lofty thinkers and are somehow intellectually and morally superior to those who recognize the mortal threat facing America, and the need to forcibly confront it. They may believe they are good Americans, but history conclusively proves that in the long run, the country has little to gain, and much to risk, from the proliferation of such thinking.
When an action by the administration reduces the security of the American people, and leads to the unnecessary deaths of our military personnel, pointing out that the administration not only is responsible for that action, but also lied in order to convince us that that action was mandatory is the patriotic duty of every American. Hoping that the government would think twice and act honestly before sending our military into harm’s way is not lofty thought, it’s a moral necessity.
I am the average Jane that lives next door, who sees America not from the standpoint of lofty intellectuals, but according to the long-standing principles of virtue and truth on which the country was based. I express what I do understand.
Making pleas to anti-intellectualism? Do you feel that your argument is so weak that it cannot stand on its own feet?

I understand that America is in big trouble politically and in other areas, such as its crumbling social environment. Politically, the Democrats have engaged in efforts on these fronts that do not improve things, but consistently work to aggravate virtually every one these dangerous conditions. To put it bluntly, they couldn’t be doing a worse job of dealing with these problems, if they had actually taken to being seditious.

Who can honestly argue that by focusing on problems with America’s military efforts, they are actually undermining our security in the war on terror. They diminish America’s standing among foreign leaders, both friend and foe, by constantly showing their disrespect for the man America elected into office.

You might want to re-consider your wording in these paragraphs. They are murky at best. Perhaps it would be useful if you were to have a fellow-traveler with editing experience blue pencil them.
Democrats in high positions have expressed nothing short of hostility while speaking about this president. Can the morale of America’s enemies be anything but boosted by such actions?
A vibrant opposition party is a necessary part of any fully functioning democratic government. Are you suggesting that we should surrender our democratic ideals because of the reaction of terrorists?
Some claim to be Christians and loyal patriots, but their words lead you to believe otherwise. Were their actions consistent with their words, they would be working in harmony with President Bush for the betterment of this country. Yet on every occasion, they seem to be dedicated to doing quite the opposite. Their acts and their deeds are willfully planned to be disruptive. It used to be that, in a time of war, such actions would be branded as “sedition.” That type of behavior ultimately hurts you and me, the average Joe and Jane and our families.
When the actions of the President not only do not better the country, but in fact increase the potential for harm to befall it, then it is the duty of loyal patriots to oppose those actions.
As I plan for my future, I must consider the political alternatives available to me from a standpoint of what will make the country freer, stronger, safer, and more prosperous as the years go by. From everything I have observed among the present-day Democrat leadership, none of their key players have an interest in what is best for America, and thus, none of them are worthy of my vote.

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

The power of christ compelled me

The site PeoplePolitical.org (Where it's ok to be RIGHT) has the following link image on it:

Although normally, I try to avoid doing this. The power of christ compelled me to write them the following e-mail:

The tag line on your petition ad reads, "These 12 people can have a serious impact on your life."

There are only 9 Supreme Court Justices (or 10 if you count Scalia twice). You could probably tell this if you bothered to look at the picture below the caption and count.

Thanks to Sadly, No!

Update (20050714.1130): A friend pointed out to me that the London bombings occurred on the day after the awarding of the Olympics to that city, not the day before. I should have mocked that too; my bad.

Saturday, July 02, 2005

Happy Independence Day

Okay, here's where I get my iconoclast card punched. Instead of two days hence, we should be celebrating today, July 2nd, as our independence day.

On this day in 1776, the Congressional Congress voted that the colonies should be independent from Great Britain. I consider this vote to be the important one, the one that should be celebrated; not the one two days later agreeing to the specific wording of the Declaration of Independence, nor the date in August when the Declaration was signed.

So everybody,
Happy Independence Day

(and for my friends still living in the mother country - no hard feelings)