Saturday, October 30, 2004

Osama bin Stupid
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans

October 30, 2004

The text of Osama bin Laden’s latest tape can be found at TurkishPress.com. Here are my thoughts on certain passages.

Not only is Osama bin Laden a liar, he is a stupid liar. He says:

I swear we never thought of attacking the towers, but when we saw the injustice and arbitrariness of the US-Israeli alliance against our brethren in Palestine and Lebanon, it became too much and the idea came to me.
In the same sentence, he pleads his innocence “...we never thought of attacking the towers” then admits his guilt “...and the idea came to me.” Notice how he holds himself blameless throughout, that he swears he never thought of attacking the towers, and that the idea came to him. He didn’t think of it, the idea just barged into his head without his permission. Golly, that must have hurt.

Osama bin Laden also agrees with the Democrats that Bush stole the election in 2000,

Bush’s father thought it was a good thing to put his sons to govern states. And he did not forget to transfer (election-) forging skills from the presidents of the region to Florida to use them in critical times.
and that the Patriot Act threatens freedom.

He transferred tyranny and repression of freedoms to his son and they called it a national law (US Patriot Act, introduced) under the pretext of combating terrorism.
I have to admit that I’m not at all sure what this next bit is supposed to mean. Does it mean that Bush failed to order the evacuation of the Twin Towers? Mayor Rudy Giuliani was in charge of that, not George Bush or the armed forces. Is he suggesting that Bush abandoned the victims of the attack? If so, then Osama bin Laden and Michael Moore are on the same page.

It never occurred to us that the commander in chief of the US armed forces would leave 50,000 of his citizens in the two towers to face these horrors alone at a time when they were most in need of him.
Osama then repeats John Kerry’s criticism of Bush for not acting promptly when news of the attacks was delivered to him. This passage is right out of the Kerry talking points:

He reckoned that it was more important to preoccupy himself with the talk of the little girl about her goat ... than with the planes and their strike on the skyscrapers, giving us three times the time required to carry out the operations, thanks be to God.
Then he openly tries to intimidate the American people with this:

Your security is not in the hands of (Democratic presidential candidate John) Kerry, Bush or Al-Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Any (presidential) mandate which does not play havoc with our security would automatically ensure its own security.
Do you understand what Osama bin Laden is saying to you? He is saying that our government is powerless and that you must appease him directly if you want to be safe from further attacks.

“Your security is in your own hands.” Well, Osama, you rag-head bastard, you’re right about that. Our security is in our own hands. And on November 2, 2004, we’re going to re-elect President George W. Bush so that he can stay the course of putting an end to you, your death cult, your stupidity, and to Islamic fascism all over the world.

Keep hiding in your hole, Osama, you coward. I guarantee you this; our team will put an end to all your troubles.

Osama bin Laden is profoundly wagged out, probably the cause of having a small pee-pee all his life. I’d feel less disgusted if Osama bin Stupid wasn’t such a complete idiot.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

Friday, October 29, 2004

Rocky Mountain Alliance of Blogs
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans

October 29, 2004

I want to send a great big THANK YOU! to the Rocky Mountain Alliance of Blogs (see links in the right hand column) for adding me to their list of Friends of the Alliance. I ask my readers (both of you) to visit the RMAB sites often. (I guess this means I’ll have to order some high quality bloggin’ jammies.)

Hugh Hewitt has not posted a symposium question as of 8:00 a.m., MDT. Let’s give this a shot.

Symposium question for the RMAB and faithful fans of One Destination:
Modern logic asserts that in the proposition “some S is not P” the subject term “some S” affirms the existence of at least one member of the subject category “S”. In other words, modern logic asserts that the proposition “some unicorns are not mammals” affirms the existence of at least one unicorn. The question is, does the proposition “some S is not P” affirm the existence of at least one member of the subject category “S”? If so, why? If not, why not?

I will check the RMAB to see how you’re doing with this. Family and friends may respond via e-mail.

I will give the answer next week.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

Thursday, October 28, 2004

Thursday Thoughts
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans

October 28, 2004

Congratulations to the Boston Red Sox for winning the World Series. They won eight games in a row to come back from a 3-0 deficit in the American League Championship against the New York Yankees and then to beat the Saint Louis Cardinals 4 games to none to clinch the World Series. I can imagine on the night the Sox lost game 3 to the Yankees, someone in the locker room said, “All we have to do now is win eight games in a row, and we’ll be the world champions.” I’m sure someone else punched him in the arm and said, “Shut up, man!”

For a few hours last night, we were all Bosox fans. It seems all the Sox needed to win the World Series was a total lunar eclipse in the seventh inning. I got to see that, too.

The Prediction
Someone said to me back in 1976 that “this generation”, meaning the hippie generation, would “destroy this country”. After two terms of Bill Clinton and the near election of an obvious pathological liar, Al Gore, I was becoming convinced that the prediction would certainly come true. On Tuesday, “this generation” will have their opportunity to finish off the United States of America once and for all by electing John F. Kerry. Why Americans hate America so much is still a mystery to me if you exclude the possibility that such people are profoundly stupid.

Fortunate Catastrophe
In war, you end up being grateful for things that under ordinary circumstances you would consider catastrophic. For example, when a typhoon wrecked the Mongol invasion of Japan, the Japanese called it “kamikaze”, meaning “divine wind”. The typhoon was a catastrophe to be sure, but more so for the Mongol invaders than for the Japanese defenders.

The attacks on September 11, 2001, may be considered a fortunate catastrophe. I have to admit that I am grateful to Osama bin Laden for one thing: Slapping sense into American voters. It was a catastrophe of the first order, and fortunate only in that we survived it and have become stronger and more resolute as a result. I will never forget how much it hurt. You shouldn’t, either.

Stupid Genius
I’ve mentioned this before, but it comes up from time to time. Thomas Edison said about his achievements, “If I can do it, anyone can do it.” This is one of the most incredibly stupid and dishonest things anyone has ever said. It’s stupid because you can only invent the light bulb once. It’s dishonest because Edison himself viciously sued people who tried to do what Edison did. Edison spent a fortune trying to stifle competition. He tried to stop the development of alternating current (AC) as a source of electricity by promoting the electric chair as a form of execution. He sued people who tried to develop moving picture technology. When I hear people say, “If I can do it, anyone can do it” in reference to a unique achievement, I wonder how they can be so ingenious about some things and so moronic about others.

SOCRATES: “That objects should be imitated in letters and syllables, and so find expression, may appear ridiculous, Hermogenes, but it cannot be avoided--there is no better principle to which we can look for the truth of first names. Deprived of this, we must have recourse to divine help, like the tragic poets, who in any perplexity have their gods waiting in the air; and must get out of our difficulty in like fashion, by saying that ‘the Gods gave the first names, and therefore they are right.’ This will be the best contrivance, or perhaps that other notion may be even better still, of deriving them from some barbarous people, for the barbarians are older than we are; or we may say that antiquity has cast a veil over them, which is the same sort of excuse as the last; for all these are not reasons but only ingenious excuses for having no reasons concerning the truth of words. And yet any sort of ignorance of first or primitive names involves an ignorance of secondary words; for they can only be explained by the primary. Clearly then the professor of languages should be able to give a very lucid explanation of first names, or let him be assured he will only talk nonsense about the rest. Do you not suppose this to be true?”

Socrates is not being insulting by saying that the professor “will only talk nonsense”. By “nonsense”, Socrates means that it will not be possible to make sense of any explanation the professor gives. So it is with all explanations. To paraphrase Socrates, every person who wishes to advocate a position should be able to give a very lucid explanation of the basis of that position, or let him be assured he will only talk nonsense about the rest. If his audience discovers that what he offers are not reasons, but only ingenious excuses for having no reasons, they will reject his explanation, and ultimately reject him.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

Tuesday, October 26, 2004

Pseudologia Fantastica
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans

October 26, 2004

The question of John Kerry’s habitual and self-defeating pattern of telling whopping lies has cropped up again with his lie about meeting with the United Nations Security Counsel. It is an obvious lie, and it does nothing to help Kerry win votes. Like his “Christmas in Cambodia” lie, and his “I don’t fall down” lie, and all the other strange and obvious lies he tells, the U. N. Security Counsel meeting lie is bizarre, easily disproved, and damaging to Kerry’s apparent self-interest. So, why is he doing this? Why has he been doing this all his life? Why does he continue to tell lies that mutilate his credibility to the point that he is becoming a national joke?

I’m no psychologist, and I’ve never played one on TV. Therefore, I have no choice but to search out the experts. The Internet is a wonderful thing.

I found this site promoting a book called:

High Achievers Who Lie: Why Do They Do It?
By Mark O’Keefe
© 2001, by Newhouse News Service
I haven’t read the book, but it sounds interesting. On the web site, Mr. O’Keefe mentions “pseudologia fantastica”. Dictionary.com gives the following definition:

pseudologia fantastica n.

An elaborate and often fantastic account of exploits that is false but that the teller believes to be true.
This raises the question of whether Kerry believes his lies to be true. I can’t answer that, nor do I think it’s pertinent. He lies, he makes a fool of himself when he does it, and he discredits politics even more than it already is. He can’t control his lying. He reduces the people who believe him to little more than gullible idiots. In this regard, he and Al Gore are very similar.

The article, published in 2001, is very interesting. I encourage you to read the whole thing. Here are some of the relevant portions:

They don’t need to lie but they do, fibbing and faking to look and feel good -- until they’re caught. Then they fall, sometimes hard.

Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Joseph J. Ellis, recently caught in a web of lies about his role in the Vietnam War, is the latest example of a high-profile, high-achieving person who seemed to have little to gain and everything to lose by lying, but did it anyway.

Dr. Charles Ford, a psychiatrist, professor and author of “Lies! Lies!! Lies!!!: The Psychology of Deceit,” said such people often have a disorder called “pseudologia fantastica,” or pathological lying. It is the affliction of “a person who lies when the truth would serve him better,” he said.

Ford has never met Ellis, the Mount Holyoke College professor who falsely claimed to students and in interviews that he fought in the Vietnam War and later protested it. But Ford said Ellis “fits the pattern I’ve seen with a lot of men,” and some women.

“In my opinion, and I think it’s fairly consistent with other psychiatrists who have studied this phenomenon, these individuals have an inherent lack of self-esteem,” said Ford, professor of psychiatry at the University of Alabama at Birmingham’s school of medicine.

“Despite achieving some success, they don’t really believe in their hearts that they’re worth very much. They always have to exaggerate in an attempt to be the center of attention, to have people admire them, to feel good about themselves.”

Ellis taught one of Mount Holyoke’s most popular courses, Vietnam and American Culture. He captivated students at the South Hadley, Mass., women’s school with moving stories about his experiences in the war and then the anti-war movement.

But as the Boston Globe revealed, Ellis never served in Vietnam and there is no evidence he protested it later.

In an interview with the Globe last year, Ellis went into detail about his service, saying he went to Vietnam in 1965 as a platoon leader and paratrooper with the Army’s famed 101st Airborne Division. When the newspaper checked out the claims, they were bogus.
Does this sound familiar? Just like Kerry, this Ellis clown wanted people to believe that he was a Viet Nam war hero turned anti-war protester, the same kind of brokenhearted hero anti-war audiences love in the movies. It goes on:

“Why do people do this?” said Dr. Alan Hilfer, a psychologist at Maimonides Medical Center in New York. “Largely they do it because they’re under a tremendous amount of pressure and they’re worried about losing their job or are fearful of looking inadequate in front of their colleagues.

“There must have been a real sense of inadequacy about him to make him feel that he had to embellish his background with this fictional history. He worked hard to make himself to appear to be a very important person because he didn’t feel he was a very important person.

“That all goes back to more basic primitive stuff, how he saw himself as he was being raised, messages he got while growing up, that type of thing.”

Ford has written that in one out of three cases, some brain dysfunction affects pathological liars. Such liars are often smooth-talking narcissists, “so self-centered they often think they can construct a reality,” he said.

In many instances, the lying gets worse as the liar gets more power.

They seem normal, Ford said. “But they get a little power and they lie all the time. The expression used to be that his head got bigger than his hat. It’s the idea that if I believe it, all of you will, too.”

When women lie this way, Ford said, it’s usually “to make them seem more important in interpersonal relationships.” He said a common lie on female resumes is that they were president of their college sorority.

Men who lie almost always do it in ways that make them appear more macho, Ford said. The most common exaggerations are about military service and sports exploits.

While chronic lying may be a pathology for some, Michael Josephson, founder of the California-based Joseph and Edna Josephson Institute of Ethics, sees it more as a character flaw, one he and others are addressing in public schools through character education programs that stress honesty and other virtues.

Josephson said the Ellis incident illustrates that society has become too casual about lying, and liars have forgotten the damage they can do. It’s only natural that Ellis’ work as a historian will be treated with increased skepticism, Josephson said, because he has been dishonest about his personal history.

“What he has lost is his credibility,” he said. “People usually don’t have any idea what that’s worth until they lose it.”
The article also talks about men lying about their military service to make themselves appear more macho, and mentions “the war mystique.” They want to be heroes, yet they have no idea what a hero actually is. I’ve seen quite a few war heroes. They are quiet, reserved, hard working, and self-effacing. You have to press them on the issue just to get them to talk about their experiences. They are humble. War does that to people. To us, they’re heroes. To them, they are survivors. John Kerry is no survivor.

People have been wondering about Kerry’s strategy regarding the war hero stories and the public exhibitions of sports antics he puts on. From where I sit, it isn’t strategy; it’s pathology. He wants people to be impressed with his extraordinary machismo. I think he looks like Peewee Herman.

John Kerry isn’t running for President because he thinks his ideas are better for America. He doesn’t have any new ideas, just the same old Democrat Great Depression yarn about taking from the rich and giving to the poor. No, John Kerry is running for President of the United States because he wants to be our ruler.

John Kerry is afflicted with a gigantic inferiority complex, and in his mind, the only cure is to be the President of the United States. From all accounts, it is reasonable to suppose that John Kerry’s father was extremely controlling, belittling and devaluing young John, and filling his head with all manner of totally unrealistic and exaggerated notions. John Kerry’s entire life has been a quest for the Holy Grail of his father’s unattainable approval.

In Kerry’s mind, authority equals legitimacy. It is easy to understand why Kerry would be so eager to kiss up to totalitarian dictators. Another word for this is “appeasement”, in the sense that Kerry is horrified at the prospect of confronting authority. He seeks to please people in authority. Kerry also displays a definite characteristic of narcissism. He seems to be convinced that if he believes the lie he just told, then his audience will believe it, also. When his audience is CBS News and the New York Times, his delusion becomes reality.

John Kerry cannot accept the simple responsibilities of his own rather ordinary life, and is therefore wholly unqualified to accept the overwhelming responsibilities of the Presidency. The extent of Kerry’s psychological condition has not yet been fully explored. We have no idea what he will do when he comes under unbearable pressure. If his reaction to moderate stress--by lying about what a big shot he is--is any indication, imagine the lies he will invent to cope with nuclear threats from Iran. Calculate, if you dare, how many baseballs he will have to throw to convince himself that he has the nards to threaten military action against the fearsome North Koreans. Considering how much Kerry fawned over the North Vietnamese Communists in 1972, it is reasonable to expect that he would crumble like a sugar cookie and leave America vulnerable to blackmail, just like Bill Clinton crumbled under pressure from a third-rate dictator, Fidel Castro.

From all I can find on the subject, John Kerry’s habitual, bizarre lying is a clear indication that he doesn’t have the inner strength and the coherent sense of self necessary to cope with the responsibilities of the office of President of the United States. The way he is handling his campaign, it seems that he believes that upon attaining the office of the President he will finally gain the courage he has lacked all his life.




John Kerry needs humility, not votes. If I had the chance to say one thing to Senator John F. Kerry, it would simply be this, “Senator Kerry, you are not exceptional.”

Vote Republican in 2004.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

Friday, October 22, 2004

Patience, Reason, and Faith
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans

October 22, 2004

I am becoming increasingly worn out and worn down by political rants. I like reasoned arguments. I am hearing fewer of these as Election Day gets closer.

On the left, I hear reflexive contrariness and an endless litany of complaints. It is tiresome and utterly unpersuasive. The constant bellyaching about how terrible things are suggests that Democrats are simply not ready to take responsibility. If things are so bad, then tell me how you’re going to make them better. Be specific. No “secret plans”, please.

Constant, incessant, reflexive complaining is not a strategy. Try it at home or at work and see what happens. The people who are unfortunate enough to be unable to excuse themselves from your presence will eventually stop listening to you. If they have no other choice, they will get rid of you. I have made it a point to gently extinguish the complainers in my life, and I am much more at peace as a result.

Raving Bush-haters are becoming repugnant. As one leftie told me, they don’t have to have any reasons to hate Bush, hating Bush is sufficient. In other words, if you hate Bush, you’re “cool”; if you don’t, you’re a retard. Being “cool” never had much appeal to me.

On the right, I’m hearing more outrage about the behavior of Democrats. There seems to be more consternation than usual about the assaults, vandalism, vote fraud, slander, outright lying, and rabid partisanship that some Democrats have engaged in during this campaign. I’m not shocked by these goings on. Democrats do this in every campaign. They attack people, vandalize property, deface signs, slash tires, commit slander, tell whopping lies, and generally lose touch with reality. It’s par for the course for Democrats.

Pundits on the right say that they can’t believe how low the Democrats have sunk, that it’s a sign of desperation. Well, maybe not. I don’t think Democrats have sunk to any new lows. I think the shenanigans of the Kerry campaign are an indication of what the national Democratic leadership really is. They are Francophiles. They are elitist snobs who find Americans to be uneducated, unsophisticated, unenlightened, petty, superstitious, inconsequential, unwelcome, and uncomfortably amusing. They think the Constitution has serious flaws that need to be corrected. They think that America should be more like Europe.

The Democratic Party leadership would prefer to find convenient labels to paste on each of us. This would tell them everything they need to know--white males over forty are evil, black females under thirty are victims, and so forth. This would save them having to waste their precious time actually listening to you.

Pundits on the right seem particularly upset the by contemptuous tone the Kerry campaign has used when talking about the Bush and Cheney families. This is nothing new. The politics of personal contempt is the mainstay of the left. Simple-minded people understand contempt. It allows them, if only briefly, to feel superior to people they know perfectly well can chew them up and spit them out. The politics of contempt helps motivate voters to get even on Election Day.

It seems Democrats are intent on getting even. Here’s a reality check. Bush didn’t steal the 2000 election. He won according to the rules. However, if you believe that he did steal the election, if no evidence to the contrary will persuade you, then pay careful attention: The 2000 election is over. This is 2004. Different circumstances, different Democrat candidate, different issues. It is impossible to rectify errors from the 2000 election. It’s too late. It’s over. Like it or not, it’s time to move on.

I also have some problems with some people on the right. What happened Thursday illustrates the point. Rush Limbaugh was in full rant mode. He simply wasn’t making sense, and he wouldn’t calm down. In the second hour of Rush’s show, a caller said that he was disturbed by Bush continuing to reference his faith in God, and wished Bush would occasionally reference great men such as Cicero. Rush went bonkers. He openly ridiculed the contributions of mere men throughout history in their efforts to better mankind. He said that if you want to find out who the Founders used for guidance, try finding references to Cicero or Plato or Socrates in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.


At that point, I turned Rush off. I knew Rush wasn’t the brightest bulb on the chandelier, but I didn’t think he knew so little about the Founders. I think it’s an indication of Rush’s limited education that he seems unaware that the Founders did understand Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates, and relied heavily on them for guidance in establishing our Constitution. The Declaration of Independence with the statement “all men are created equal” restates Aristotle’s assertion that there are no natural slaves and no natural masters.

The Founders studied discourses in the failings of both republics and democracies, and they believed that they had solved the problems of both. It seems they were right. There is no question that the Founders were devoutly religious. However, they didn’t use the Bible as their model for representative government. They used Aristotle’s Politics and Plato’s Republic, among others. They were well versed in works by Locke, also.

Rush Limbaugh’s apparent contempt for philosophers gives me pause. It makes me wonder how many other pundits on the right feel this way. To Rush, ideas developed by mere men are necessarily inferior to ideas inspired by God and written in the Bible. I see.

Someone please point out to me where God instructed His prophets to establish three separate but equal branches of government. In Christianity, God doesn’t seem to have spent much time worrying about how men should organize their governments. Until Emperor Constantine converted the Roman Empire to Christianity, there were no Christian governments and no Christians in control of governments. Christians throughout their history have practiced their religion in spite of prohibitions by government. Until Constantine, Christians had no opportunity to consider what kind of government they should establish.

The very Constitution that Rush says he admires and defends is not a religious document. The framers of the Constitution never asserted that they were inspired by God. The Federalist Papers make it clear that they argued about everything. Those arguments continue to this day. Nothing in the Constitution is permanently settled. The entire document is subject to amendment. The Bible, as I recall, is not. “Thou shalt not steal” is not open to amendment. However, it is impossible to obey this commandment until you define what stealing actually is.

To be sure, more people in our age understand God’s commandments than Aristotle’s discourses. Aristotle isn’t taught much in the public schools, and as far as I know, isn’t taught at all in most churches. That’s too bad. We are a weaker nation as a result.

From time to time, I hear the implication of an absurd idea: Faith is superior to reason. One is not superior to the other. For example, how can you know that you have faith if you can’t define what faith is? Every person is endowed with both faith and reason. It is impossible to live by reason alone, just as it is impossible to live by faith alone. They support each other. When one fails, the other can be used to get you through. The most capable people understand and develop both faith and reason.

Socrates did not worship the Greek gods of his day because he reasoned that he could not have faith in them. For this, he was unjustly indicted. However, Socrates was not without faith. He had faith in “the good”. To Socrates, “the good” was the aim of all human endeavors. All that is necessary is for people to decide what constitutes “the good” and what is contrary to “the good”. This is in fact what people of all ages do. Socrates was a man of reason and faith.

As to the political ranker of our day, when I hear both sides complaining bitterly about each other, I am convinced that neither side has accepted the responsibility of taking the adult position in the matter. I won’t preach to you about Jesus, but I will say this: Jesus taught infinite patience. He also practiced it, and Christianity ultimately converted the Roman Empire with it.

Patience, reason, and faith are the bedrock of civilized communities. I want to see more people practicing them.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

Tuesday, October 19, 2004

Dropping Out of the Electoral College
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans

October 19, 2004

Still trying to win the election of 2000, some Democrats have proposed Amendment 36 in Colorado. This would allocate electoral votes according to the popular vote. The argument goes that if this system had been in place on 2000, then Al Gore would have been elected President.

Colorado currently has nine electoral votes. If electoral votes were allocated according to the popular vote in Colorado, then both major party candidates would be assured of at least three electoral votes. Let’s do the math. Three plus three equals six, and six from nine leaves three. The greatest number of electoral votes either candidate would actually have to compete for would be three.

Nine is greater than three. Do you think a candidate for president will spend more time and resources competing for nine electoral votes, or only three? The nine votes Colorado currently offers makes Colorado three times more important to the presidential race than if we only had three.

Democrats have targeted Colorado because they haven’t won the State in a Presidential election since the 1970’s (I think Carter took Colorado in 1976, but don’t quote me on that). If Amendment 36 passes, then the national Democrats think they can effectively steal three or four of Colorado’s electoral votes. Local Democrats have a different understanding of the situation. They understand the importance of keeping Colorado in play. I have not seen a single endorsement of Amendment 36 by any of the Colorado Democrats or any of the left leaning organizations.

If this system were implemented nationally, presidential campaigns could save a ton of money. They could simply take their base constituencies for granted. They would spend most of their time campaigning in major population centers. This would mean that they would try to win urban votes with greater promises of government spending. In other words, you’d end up with Europe.

But, that’s the point, isn’t it? Since the days of Woodrow Wilson, the Democrats have been trying to turn America into Europe. No European country has an Electoral College system. The result is a mixture of populism and socialism, with consumers demanding free or reduced-cost services from government. Former world powers like France, Germany, Spain, and England have become feeble and irrelevant. That’s what happens when politicians don’t have to compete for your vote.

Make sure Colorado matters. Vote no on 36.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

Monday, October 18, 2004

Hugh’s Vox Blogoli IV Challenge
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans

Hugh Hewitt posts: “In 250 words or less, why vote for Bush and what’s wrong with Kerry?”

First, a shameless plug. Please support The Claremont Institute.

God Lord, Hugh, 250 words or less? Yikers! *Deep breath* Okay. Here goes.

The only way to defeat a determined enemy who has no incentives to refrain from attacking us is to find the enemy, get inside his decision making cycle, and destroy his capacity to make war. After that, we will have to extinguish his ideology.

The Bush administration has the right idea. Offense can win the war, and defense will definitely lose it. The Kerry team has the wrong idea. They think that defense can win the war. They have failed to grasp the obvious fact that all our defenses were in place on September 11, 2001, and more than 3,000 people died in one day.

As for “what’s wrong with Kerry”, he’s emotionally retarded and his judgment is flawed as a result. He has shown that when the facts don’t support his political ambitions, he makes up stories out of whole cloth. People won’t trust you if you keep lying to them.

All that, and 33 words to spare. *Whew*

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

Friday, October 15, 2004

Hugh’s Symposium Question, October 15, 2004
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans

Hugh Hewitt posted this today:

Weekend Symposium 3: How deep a hole have John Kerry, Mary Beth Cahill and
the Edwards dug for themselves? How lasting the damage?

Kerry’s refusal to apologize for abusing Mary Cheney’s privacy, his campaign
manager’s blunt declaration that Ms. Cheney is “fair game,” and Elizabeth
Edwards’ accusation that Lynne Cheney is ashamed of her daughter have sparked
bipartisan outrage

I don’t feel any outrage myself, and I am curious about the outrage other people feel. We are dealing with John F. Kerry. Remember?

Where was the outrage when he called me and my brothers in arms war criminals? You have now gotten a taste of the fury that I and several million other veterans have had to bury in our hearts for thirty years. How does it feel?

Why is anyone surprised or upset with Kerry’s complete lack of decency? He has never had any. To me, it’s just par for the course for Kerry. He has spent his life infuriating everyone around him, and having no clue why--and no apparent concern that--they are so upset with him. He is a pathological narcissist.

“Narcissist” a psychology term. In common language, you might call him a despicable human being. But, he’s much, much worse than that. He will hurt anyone, anytime for no reason at all. Then he will deny that he did it. He is completely unconscious of the pain he inflicts on other people. He is the kind of person you warn your children about. He is a menace.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

Wednesday, October 13, 2004

Save Our Children
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans

October 13, 2004

John Kerry is having a terrible time getting his message out to the American people. Allow me to be of some assistance.

Kerry’s position is similar to the position of Harry Truman after World War II. Communism was expanding around the world. The loss of China to the Communists in 1949, along with the Soviet Union’s acquisition of nuclear weapons that same year, caused the Truman administration to review their options. America had drastically reduced its armed forces after 1946. In effect, the U. S. did not have a standing army capable of fighting a sustained ground war anywhere in the world. America had turned its attention to economic growth and rebuilding Europe and Japan, and had little stomach for war.

The outbreak of the Korean War highlighted America’s overall weakness. After three years, the U. S. was capable of no more than a stalemate. From then on, the Democratic Party adopted the policy of containment, choosing to contain Communist expansion instead of directly confronting the Soviets and risking global nuclear war.

This is Kerry’s position. He thinks that the strategy of containment is perfect, and that offensive military action against any country will only provoke greater retaliation from our enemies.

The reason he is having such a hard time getting that message out clearly is that his ability to form coherent sentences is marginal. He doesn’t think clearly, therefore, he can’t speak clearly. His faith in the strategy of containment is an indication of his inability to think clearly.

The strategy of containment helped prevent nuclear war during the 1950’s and 1960’s. The Communists understood that when faced with substantial nuclear arsenals, the Americans would choose stalemate over confrontation. For example, the risk America faced in a possible invasion of Cuba was nuclear war with the Soviet Union; therefore, the U. S. allowed Castro to stay in power. No such risks currently exist.

The problem with containment has always been that conflicts are never resolved. For example, the Korean War has never ended. There is no peace treaty with North Korea, and it is unlikely that there ever will be. The first war with Iraq that began in 1991 didn’t end until 2004 when a new Iraqi government took power and officially made peace with the U. S. and our allies.

The facts show that the strategy of containment always fails. Containment requires the kind of commitment and vigilance that neither the U. S. nor the U. N. is capable of. Containment can also be undermined, as the oil-for-food program has shown. Containment was designed to contain military aggression. Nothing in American containment policies has worked to effectively contain infiltrators, including smugglers and saboteurs. The failure of containment is clearly illustrated by this fact: U. S. containment policies and strategies were fully implemented on September 11, 2001. The North Korean and Iranian nuclear weapons programs are also evidence of the failure of containment.

The policy of containment ensures future wars. The policy of containing Communism in Southeast Asia resulted in a twelve year war in Viet Nam. As I said, the war in Korea has lasted for over fifty years with every assurance that there will be another all out war. The war in Iraq re-ignited after eleven years.

Containment has not brought down a single dictator. If anything, containment ensures that dictators become more firmly entrenched. Cuba, North Korea, Iran, and Iraq under Saddam Hussein clearly illustrate this point.

Containment is an outdated strategy. There is absolutely no reason to use containment against non-nuclear countries, especially countries as vulnerable as Iraq.

Advocates of containment always bring up the costs of aggressive action. Going to war has measurable costs in lives and property. However, there are costs for containment as well. Increased costs of security measures, lost production, and general inconvenience are harder to measure than the costs of going to war. Likewise, the costs suffered by the populations of the countries the U. S. has tried to contain is rarely mentioned as an actual cost. For example, in the last five years, estimated deaths in North Korea due to starvation alone are as high as two million people. It would be virtually impossible for the U. S. to kill two million North Koreans in a war to liberate that country. In hindsight, the strategy of containing the North Korean dictatorship over the last five years has probably been more costly to the Korean people than all out war might have been.

As for the threat of retaliation, enemies who have been defeated can’t retaliate. That’s what being defeated means. After 1945, we never worried about the threat of retaliation from Nazi Germany. There is no Soviet Union left to threaten us. Let me repeat that for the sake of the habitually stupid, THERE IS NO SOVIET UNION LEFT TO THREATEN US.

Containment ensures future attacks by Islamic fascists. Islamic fascists are motivated by a religious doctrine that requires suicidal attacks even when there is no hope of victory. The Soviet Union was not suicidal; the Islamic fascists are. By containing countries that support Islamic fascism, we allow them time to organize, train, and fund infiltrators.

The strategy of containment that John Kerry and the Democrats advocate is a relic of the Cold War. It ensures future attacks on the U. S., and it ensures future wars. The only way to deal with Islamic fascism is to defeat it in the countries where it flourishes. Afghanistan and Iraq are no longer fertile soil for Islamic fascism. Countries like Iran and Syria still are.

The strategy of containment may make sense for Europe. They have been freeloading off the U. S. for two generations. They have given up any meaningful efforts at self-defense. Because they could rely on the U. S. to come to their rescue for sixty years, Europeans have the fantastic notion that national defense is a waste of money. For them, I suppose that’s true. Europe has become irrelevant in matters requiring military action. They are simply too weak to make a difference. However, for the U. S., that’s not the case. Kerry and the Democrats think they live in Europe. I wish they did.

Kerry and the Democrats want to convince you that there are only two choices: 1) Incur the costs of going to war, or 2) avoid the costs of going to war. This is a false dilemma. There is a third choice. While the costs of going to war may be great, the benefits of eliminating a threat can be far greater. For example, we lost over three thousand people on September 11, 2001. We have lost around 1,700 in two wars since then. The costs of leaving the Taliban in power have turned out to be far greater than the costs of defeating them.

There is no excuse for perpetuating regimes like Cuba, North Korea, and Iran. It is utter folly to lend legitimacy to countries that threaten to make war on us. There is no Soviet Union left to defend them. There is no threat of small wars escalating to nuclear war with the Soviet Union. There is no reason to avoid confronting these tinhorn dictators. As the liberation of Iraq has shown, when the bad guys understand that their choice is cooperation or death, then they start coming around to your way of thinking very quickly.

The Bush administration is on the right track. By taking out the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, the other countries that support Islamic fascism are on notice that we can and will do the same to them. The proof is that we have obtained cooperation from Pakistan and Arabia, countries that used to openly support Islamic fascism. (By the way, Pakistan is the most productive and brilliant diplomatic victory of the entire Bush administration. Without the cooperation of Pakistan, the war against al Qaeda would be far more difficult.)

The Democrats want to keep obsolete dictatorships in power. The Korean peninsula is the perfect example. We have been sending Americans and their children to defend South Korea from North Korea for two generations. There is simply no excuse for this. We’re going to have to resolve that situation sooner or later, and keeping a Communist lunatic dictator and his lunatic dictator son in power for two generations is the wrong thing to do.

We will certainly lose some people if we fight. We will definitely lose a lot more if we don’t. Save our children from the folly of containment. Vote Republican on November 2.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

Tuesday, October 12, 2004

The American Chamberlain: A Response
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans

October 12, 2004

William Tucker’s article, The American Chamberlain.

To: William Tucker

A fine article. However, I have to disagree with one statement.

“In other words, if we just ignore them, they'll go away. And if we don't ignore them but fight back, then it's our fault.”

I think this misses the point that the Dems are trying to make, albeit a precise point. They are not trying to “ignore” terrorism, they are trying to “contain” it. The point they want to make is that if we just “contain” them, then we can minimize (but never eliminate) the threat. This is in keeping with their position on Saddam Hussein. They believed that he was “contained”, and that attacking him only placed us in greater danger.

This is the same position they had with the Soviet Union. It's the same with drugs, hunger, over population, and brush wars. They don't advocate ignoring the problems, just containing them.

Of course, their idea of containment is an illusion, a skillful bit of lawyering. They will redefine “containment” to suit their agenda because they always realize too late that “containment” never works. They tried to “contain” the corrupting influence of money in politics with the latest round of so called campaign finance reform. We now see that the money was not "contained". In fact, the money is out of the control of the established political parties and in the hands of political freelancers like www.swiftvets.com and www.moveon.org.

So it is with the terrorists. The military aggression of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Syria has been “contained”. However, Moslem fanaticism has not been “contained”. Support that used to go to established nation States and their armies is now being funneled to freelancers like al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. The Egyptian Army will not risk another war with Israel. Hamas will.

The Democrats’ idea of containment makes political and military freelancing unavoidable. The Moslems who think it is their duty to destroy Israel and America organize without the support of nation States. They continue their war against Israel and America, and will continue until one side wins a final victory.

I know this sounds like nit picking, but it is vital that you be precise when explaining the weakness of the Democrats’ position. Democrats are obsessed with control, and they foolishly believe that they can find ways to control every threat. However, al Qaeda used our own notions of control and containment against us on September 11, 2001. Walls, checkpoints, airport security screeners, and police dogs can’t stop them. They will find a way to get through. They must be killed in their beds before they can pull of another attack. It’s the only way.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

Friday, October 08, 2004

Hugh’s Symposium Question, October 8
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans

October 8, 2004

Hugh Hewitt has posted the following symposium question:

“What do Kerry’s answers to today’s press inquiries tell us about Kerry’s worldview and character?”

First, let me thank Hugh Hewitt for taking the considerable time and effort to moderate this symposium. It must be a daunting undertaking. My hat’s off to you, Hugh.

Once more, into the breach…

Reviewing the exchange between the press and John Kerry, this is how I see it:

Question 1: Would you consider committing more troops to Iraq?
Kerry says, “Now, I just don’t know. I can’t tell you. What I’ll tell you is, I have a plan.”
Interpretation: Trust me. I don’t know what I’m going to do, but trust me.

Question 2: Sanctions against Saddam Hussein were weakening (“frittering away”).
Kerry says, “If you’ve got a guy who’s dangerous, you’ve got a guy you suspect is going to do something, you don’t lift the sanctions. That’s the fruits of good diplomacy.”
Interpretation: Trust me. Sanctions against Saddam Hussein were working. The war wasn’t necessary.

Questions 3 and 4: Was Saddam Hussein dangerous or not?
Kerry says, “Consistently I have said Saddam Hussein presented a threat.” “The point is that there are all kinds of options available to a president to deal with threats and I consistently laid out to the president how to deal with Saddam Hussein, who was a threat. If I’d been president, I’d have wanted the same threat of force. But, as I have said a hundred times if not a thousand in this campaign, there was a right way to use that authority and a wrong way. The president did it the wrong way. He rushed to war without a plan to win the peace…”
Interpretation: Trust me. Saddam Hussein was a threat. The President should possess the “threat of force”. However, the war that toppled Saddam Hussein was “the wrong way” to use the “threat of force”. In other words, actually using the force that actually won the war was “the wrong way”. Winning a war isn’t a good enough reason to go to war.

Based on this exchange, Hugh asks, “What do Kerry's answers to today’s press inquiries tell us about Kerry’s worldview and character?”

Hugh has commented at length on both of these matters, and unfortunately stolen some of my thunder. Not a problem. He saved me several hours of typing and editing, and he made some outstanding points. I will add what I can.

What this says about Kerry’s character, nothing. It may hint that he is fearful of using force. However, he may also think that war is the greatest evil of all, and that all other options must be exhausted before using America’s military forces. Or, he may think that the Moon is made of green cheese. Who knows?

About his worldview, this exchange reaffirms Kerry’s lifelong conviction that the United States armed forces pose a serious danger to the world. His underlying supposition has always been that the United States is a rogue nation that is out of step with the world community and therefore must be contained. To Kerry, we Americans are racist, xenophobic warmongers. Any confrontation with any other country only confirms Kerry’s suspicion that America must be enfeebled.

Leave aside for the moment whether Kerry is right or wrong. If he wishes to be the President of the United States, his opinion of the United States disqualifies him. He certainly has every right to think that America is a danger to world peace. However, his supposition that America’s national interest is illegitimate makes it impossible for him to defend that interest. He cannot be trusted to defend America’s national interest.

Kerry’s answers to the press all contain one common point: Trust John Kerry no matter what he actually says or does. However, John Kerry has made it clear that he cannot be trusted, and he especially cannot be trusted to defend the interests of the United States of America. If you think that Soviet expansion during the Carter administration was a catastrophe, or that the expansions of al Qaeda and the North Korean nuclear arms program during the Clinton administration endangered us, then you have to seriously consider that Kerry will allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. Kerry will certainly want to possess the threat of force against Iran, but will never actually use sufficient force to deter Iran from their objectives. John Kerry has never made it clear under what circumstances he would take America to war, even if we suffered nuclear attack on our soil.

Imagine this press conference when John Kerry is President after Iran has obtained nuclear weapons.

Question 1: Would you consider committing troops to Israel now that Tel Aviv is a smoldering crater of nuclear death?
Kerry says, “Now, I just don't know. I can't tell you. What I'll tell you is, I have a plan.”

Question 2: Sanctions against Iran didn’t stop them from launching a nuclear attack against Israel.
Kerry says, “If you’ve got a [country that’s] dangerous, you’ve got a [country] you suspect is going to do something, you don’t lift the sanctions. That’s the fruits of good diplomacy.”

Questions 3 and 4: Was Iran dangerous or not?
Kerry says, “Consistently I have said [Iran] presented a threat.” “The point is that there are all kinds of options available to a President to deal with threats and I consistently [said] how to deal with [Iran], who was a threat. [As President, I want to possess the] threat of force. But, as I have said a hundred times if not a thousand [...], there [is] a right way to use that authority and a wrong way. [I cannot put American lives at risk and go] to war without a plan to win the peace...”

Kerry’s strategy of second guessing the Bush administration doesn’t convince me that he can be trusted with America’s national security. The question is not, “What would you have done three years ago knowing what you know now?” The question is, “What would you have done three years ago knowing only what you knew then?”

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have both been phenomenal successes. I never dreamed that they would have turned out so well. Two dictatorships defeated in three years at a total cost in American lives of less than 2,000. Unbelievable.

And the dividends just keep rolling in. The latest word is that hundreds of terrorist plots have been thwarted because we intercepted critical evidence that we would never had been able to find if we had not invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. I speculate that the number of American lives saved as a result of those two wars numbers in the tens of thousands. Think what we’ll find in Iran and Syria.

Democrats and other not-very-smart people are good at adding up the costs of events after the fact. Any dummy can do that. What they are not able to do is calculate the value of our efforts, not what the wars have cost us, but what they have saved us. Think of it this way: You buy a car for $20,000. Without the car, you can only get a $30,000 a year job, but with the car, you can get a $40,000 a year job. The cost of the car is $20,000. Now calculate the value of the car.

Likewise the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The costs are obvious. Now calculate the value of those wars. Now compare the costs of the wars to the costs of the attacks on September 11, 2001. It’s not a matter of avoiding the costs of the war the Islamic fascists declared on us; it’s too late to avoid the war. It’s a matter avoiding crippling costs in achieving our goal of securing our national interests.

There have been dozens of terrorist attacks in the last three years, and none on American soil. Unbelievable. Bush gets my vote.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

Tuesday, October 05, 2004

The Theory of Evolution in Modern History
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans

October 5, 2004

One theory of the operation of evolution is that a small group separates from the larger parent community, then, with limited genetic criteria evolves in isolation into a different variation of the parent species. If the differences that evolve in the smaller group make members of that group better able to survive and propagate, then eventually--and often, fairly rapidly--the new group will replace the parent community. A theoretical example of this would be several wolves who separate from the pack and end up in a much harsher climate than the parent pack. With their limited genetic criteria, they will either genetically adapt rapidly to the more severe conditions, or perish. If the changes that develop in the new community make the members of the new pack stronger than the members of the parent pack, then the members of the new pack will have an opportunity to return to the parent pack’s territory and wipe out the offspring of the parent pack.

In political history, an example of this is the American Revolution. American political organization and culture developed among a small population in relative isolation from the British Empire. Eventually, American political organization and culture separated from British influence. While American culture and political organization did not spread back to England and replace British culture and political organization, it did spread west very quickly and replaced indigenous populations.

The dynamic of cultural evolution is constant. New communities evolve in relative isolation, and eventually come into contact with established communities. When this happens, there are two possible outcomes:
1. The established community defeats the new community. In this case, the established community may either annihilate the new community, or absorb and dilute it.
2. The new community defeats the established community. In this case, the new community may either annihilate the established community, or absorb and dilute it.

The new community that now confronts established communities is Islamic fascism. Like it’s predecessor, Nazism, Islamic fascism is dynamic, influential, energetic, simple, determined, and highly lethal. It is intolerant of outside influences. It seeks to annihilate its neighbors, not merely killing the people, but scrubbing its victims from the pages of history. Like Nazism, Islamic fascism is totalitarian, seeking to control every aspect of everyone’s lives, and puritanical in that it rejects any ideas that do not conform to approved texts.

Islamic fascism does not seek to coexist with its neighbors, peacefully or otherwise; it seeks to annihilate them. This is a major distinction from Communism. Communist States coexist with their neighbors, though not always peacefully. Islamic fascism cannot tolerate its neighbors, and takes extra ordinary--even insane--measures to kill them.

The extent of Islamic fascism appears to be much broader than we care to know. If Amir Taheri can be believed, Islamic fascism is the norm among most Moslem States. According to Taheri, Islamic fascists take absolutely no responsibility for indiscriminate killing of innocents. Their position is identical to Arnold, Abbot of Citeaux, as papal legate to Innocent III after capturing Beziers in 1209. When questioned what to do with the citizens of Beziers, Arnold is reputed to have said, “Kill them all. God will know his own.” The result was the slaughter or enslavement of at least 20,000 people, many of them loyal to the Pope.

Islamic fascists gladly kill their supporters and allies. Islamic fascism has embarked on a war of total conquest. Like the Nazis in Germany, the Islamic fascists will not be deterred until they are killed. It is their life’s mission to inflict as much death as possible on as many people as possible as quickly and mercilessly as possible.

As a free people, we are obliged to defend ourselves against this maniacal international death cult. I worry that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats understand the nature of our enemy. Both sides seem to think that there is a way to deal with the Islamic fascists. They are wrong.

Islamic fascism is relatively new culture that poses a challenge to our relatively old culture. They are at war with us. Americans need to learn how to identify real enemies, not merely excuse them as miscreants. We now face a real enemy in a real war that will last for generations. This is not the Cold War. We are not in a competition for the hearts and minds of people in foreign lands. We cannot defeat the Islamic fascists with economic growth, scientific cooperation, and cultural exchanges, and we can never hope to coexist with them.

Our enemies have taken a single path: Victory or death. If we fail to understand this, if we hesitate in our resolve, if we find killing too repulsive to contemplate, then we only encourage them to fight harder and to kill more innocent people.

As the slaughter in Beslan, Russia makes clear, our new enemy wishes to attack us where we are weakest. The depravity and stunning inhumanity of the murderers at Beslan--torturing, raping, and murdering children as young as five years old, shooting children in the back for trying to run away--should alert us to the fact that there can be no coexistence between us and them. If we do not kill them, they most certainly will kill us. Imagine an army of serial killers turned loose among our children. Now imagine what you will do about it.

The Democratic Party thinks that welfare programs will solve the problem. Islamic fascists have made one thing clear. They are not killing us because they want us to offer them something; they are killing us because they want us to die.

Vote for the preservation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Vote Republican in November.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

Saturday, October 02, 2004

Hugh’s Symposium Question
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans

October 2, 2004

This morning, Saturday, October 2, 2004, Hugh Hewitt posed the following question:

“Did Kerry blunder in denouncing nuclear bunker busters? If so, why? If so, how great the damage to his candidacy?”

First, did Kerry blunder? The answer depends on knowing the hearts of the voters. Without positive evidence, any answer to this question can only be speculation. I have no positive evidence; therefore, I will speculate.

Kerry’s position is identical to Walter Mondale’s position in 1984: Blame America First! According to the Democrats of that time, America was the greatest threat to peace in the world, and couldn’t be trusted with nuclear weapons. (By the way, Mondale said “nu-kyou-ler” just like Bush does today. It was annoying then. It’s annoying now.) In 1984, the Democratic Party was trying to save the world from America. It’s the same in 2004. Howard Dean, John Kerry, and France have all said that the right course of action was to save Saddam Hussein from American aggression.

Second, if so, why? Why would Kerry come out against another American weapon system? He’s done it for twenty years as a Senator, but that’s not a reason. The reason seems to be that John Kerry views the United States of America as a villain. To him, and to the Democratic Party, American efforts to halt the spread of Communism were crimes against humanity. If Kerry is to be believed, Communism is a legitimate form of government, freely chosen by billions of people around the world for nearly one hundred years. According the John Kerry, there are no, nor have there ever been any, Communist dictatorships. Democrats like Kerry and former Presidents Carter and Clinton are incapable of seeing Communist leaders as dictators.

Third, how great the damage to his candidacy? Again, you would have to know the hearts of the voters. If 1984 is any indication, Kerry may have sabotaged any chances he has to win the election. Once the voters understand that Kerry thinks that America is the greatest villain in the world, they will abandon him. Publicly, Democrats will say they are going to vote for him. In the privacy of the voting both, where they are all alone with their conscience, they may have a lucid moment and pull the lever for Bush.

By vilifying America, Kerry and the Democrats vilify all Americans, including themselves! Kerry wants Americans to think that he was a hero in a war in which his nation--the nation he fought for and wishes to lead--was the villain. Kerry cannot understand that if his nation was wrong, then he was also wrong. Germany does not honor the heroes of the Third Reich. Certainly, they fought bravely and well. But the cause for which they fought was wrong. Kerry leaves us with the incomprehensible dilemma that he was a hero in a war that, by his reckoning, slaughtered two million civilians, ravaged the countryside, and left the local population no more free than if the Communists had controlled the country. It was not John Kerry’s war; it was America’s war. John Kerry was part of America’s war effort. Therefore, when John Kerry denounces America’s war effort, he also denounces himself. He is a fool.

Our nation is the home of a unique form of government founded on a unique Constitution which realizes a unique idea: Every person is created equal to all others, and every person has certain rights which are essential to being human, among those the right to self-preservation.

And, as Hamlet said, “There’s the rub.” Self-preservation is our right because it is our nature. We defend our lives by uniting to form a nation-State, and to defend that nation against attack. In doing so, we commit ourselves to defend total strangers from total strangers with the understanding that the people we defend will also defend us.

If the United States of America is destroyed, nothing else can be preserved. If our nation ceases to function as a nation-State, then there will be no way to preserve the liberties and conveniences we take for granted. Preservation of the United States of America, therefore, takes precedence over all other concerns.

Abraham Lincoln knew this when he took the nation to war in 1860, and he was right. Liberties recognized in the U. S. Constitution cannot be defended by militia. The defense of our rights in the age of nation-States requires that we form and defend our own nation-State. The defense of our liberty depends entirely on the survival of the United States, and in this age, the survival of the United States depends on nuclear weapons.

The American people are sports fans. I hope they understand that if our team wins, we take the trophy and go home happy; if the other team wins, they slaughter everyone in the stands.

The answer to Hugh’s question, therefore, depends on whether the American voters understand their own self-interest. If they do, then they will understand that America needs to have the most accurate, most lethal, and above all, the most intimidating weapons possible.

John Kerry clearly does not understand the concept of self-preservation. He continually sabotages himself, which, for all I care, is just fine. But, he’s one of those Bozos who will get everyone around him killed, too. John Kerry does not believe that the United States of America has the right to self-preservation. By inductive reasoning--reasoning from the group to the individual--John Kerry does not believe that you have the right to self-preservation.

John Kerry’s entire outlook on life is contrary to our Constitution. If he is elected, he will be required to take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. How can he do that when he doesn’t even believe in the Constitution?

Hugh’s question is good. A similar question would be: Is a handgun a greater threat to the public in the hands of a police officer or a bank robber?

As long as Americans understand that America develops nuclear weapons to secure liberty, then John F. Kerry doesn’t have a chance.

Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?