Can We Win The "War on Terror"?

During and interview with NBC yesterday President Bush attempted to explain the difficulty winning the War on Terror.

Can we win? I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are -- less acceptable in parts of the world.

The liberals, of course, have jumped all on this: “THE PREISIDENT IS ADMITING WE CANNOT WIN IN IRAQ”. Give me a break! The liberals want to say Iraq has/had nothing to do with the War on Terror; when the President makes a statement about the War On Terror automatically the liberals change their position and equate the War on Terror to Iraq! Amazing how they can switch mid-stride.

President Bush; was attempting to explain that the War on Terror will be an on going process – there is no country to defeat and no one that can sign a surrender. The War in Iraq is a stage in the War on Terror just as Afghanistan was; however, even after Freedom has been fully established in both Afghanistan and Iraq there will be people you are willing to die attempting to attack our (That’s all Americans for you Liberals) way of life.

Today the President attempted to clarify is position in a speech to the American Legion in Nashville, TN.

We meet today in a time of war for our country, a war we did not start yet one that we will win. ... In this different kind of war, we may never sit down at a peace table. But make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win.

I have no doubt that liberals will attempt to portray this as “Flip-Flopping” although the Kerry campaign should be experts on the subject of “Flip-Flopping” they will be getting this wrong. Hey liberals the War on Iraq (Operation Iraq Freedom) is a battle in the OVERALL War on Terror and only way we will win the War on Terror is to stay diligent in defending ourselves which John Kerry sadly lacks the leadership to accomplish.

Republican Message – President Bush’s Resolve

I guess some people are getting it! The hubbub about moderate speakers at the Republican National Convention and the innuendos from liberals that the Republicans are attempting to “put up a more moderate front” got a hard right cross last night. In his LA Times, analysis Ronald Brownstein noticed the true message:

When former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) were named to headline the Republican National Convention's opening night, most analysts in both parties took it as evidence that President Bush's campaign wanted the gathering to project a message of moderation.

But in their speeches Monday night, Giuliani and McCain signaled that the real mission for the Bush campaign this week was to send a message of strength.

The message that Republicans are attempting to relay, as I see it, is that they are unified on the biggest issue facing America and people that have different opinions about social issues can still be UNIFIED! This contrast the Democrats’ message “you are either totally with us or totally against us” – the Republicans demonstrate they are a party of inclusion where the Democrats are a party of exclusion!

Rudy, Rudy, Rudy!

Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York, made a terrific case for removing Saddam tonight during his speech at the Republican National Convention.

Saddam was a weapon of mass destruction. ... And to rid the world of a pillar of support for global terrorism is nothing to be defensive about. It is something for which all those involved, from President Bush to the brave men of our armed services, should be proud. They did something wonderful. They did something that history will give them great credit for.

You go Rudy!

In an earlier interview with FoxNews' Hannity & Colmes Rudy Giuliani explained how he can be against some of Bush's policies and still be in support of re-election. Giuliani said that leadership is what is needed and Kerry's indecisiveness demonstrates he is no leader and that on major issues the Republican party is unified; I think that says it all!

Peace Loving Protesters are Everything but Peaceful

Joel Mowbray gives a good account of the “Oxy-Moronic” protesters for peace in his Frontpagemag.com “Oxy-Moronic March”. During the peace lovers march for peace one of the members of United for Peace and Justice allegedly set fire to a float injuring two people; got to question their idea of peace. Here is an excerpt from Joel Mowbray’s article:

Befitting the whole event, the most prominent posters around the conflagration at 34th St. and 7th Ave. were for the group United for Peace and Justice. The alleged arsonist doubtlessly was a supporter of UPJ—the entire 100,000+ demonstrators most likely were—yet this (alleged) pyromaniac must have a different definition of “peace and justice” than the rest of us.

The Greatest Generations of Our Past! What has Changed?

Americans talk about “The Greatest Generation” of the 1940(s) and of generations prior greatness, why? Simply put they did whatever it took to ensure our way of life!

1. WW I: How did we get involved in this war? A SHIP WAS SUNK. There are many who say President Wilson knew that this was going to happen, that he was aware German spies had seen weapons loaded on to the USS Lusitanian; German warned us that any ships carrying supplies to Europe would be a target! Did that generation call for Wilson’s impeachment or resignation of his entire staff – no they assisted the world in defeating EVIL!
2. WW II: How did we get involved in this war? REMEMBER Pearl Harbor? It is a fact that we new an attack was imminent and Perl Harbor even received transmission, that were lost, to be prepared. Did that generation call Roosevelt’s impeachment or resignations of his entire staff – no they assisted the world in defeating EVIL!
3. War on Terror: How did we get involved? REMEMBER 9/11? This was DIFFERENT we were attacked more harshly then any other country; we entered the War on Terror before any other country, and asked others to join us. What did our generation do?

We spent tons of money to find out who was at fault within our own government, we sued the governments involved (Federal, County, State, etc), we sued the builders of the Trade Center, we sued the Airlines that were hijacked. Years later still spending tons of money to compare an eight-YEAR administration to an eight-MONTH administration and say they are both equally at fault. We call for the resignation of the Presidents entire cabinet. We whine about our economy even though we did not experience anything compared of those in WW I or WW II (metal rationed, fuel rationed, foods rationed, etc.).

YOU TELL ME WHAT MADE OUR PAST GENERATIONS SO MUCH GREATER THAN OUR CURRENT GENERATION.

Democrats’ Patriotism?

James Taranto has an editorial in Opinion Journal that does a good job answering the question "why do democrats have a problem with patriotism". Mr. Taranto points out saying "that the Democrats have a problem with patriotism is not to say that they are unpatriotic". Here is an excerpt:

To say that the Democrats have a problem with patriotism is not to say that they are unpatriotic. But they are awfully defensive about their patriotism. "Of course the vice president is questioning my patriotism," Michael Dukakis fumed during a 1988 presidential debate. "And I resent it." After Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia lost his 2002 re-election bid, it became part of Democratic (and journalistic) folklore that he owed his ouster to GOP attacks on his patriotism. And last month in Boston, Mr. Kerry declared: "We have an important message for those who question the patriotism of Americans who offer a better direction for our country. . . . We are here to affirm that when Americans stand up and speak their minds and say America can do better, that is not a challenge to patriotism; it is the heart and soul of patriotism."

In fact, these men had been criticized by their GOP opponents not over patriotism but over policy: Gov. Dukakis's veto of a Pledge of Allegiance bill, Sen. Cleland's vote against creating the Homeland Security Department over the absence of union privileges for workers in the new agency, and Sen. Kerry's 19-year record on defense, especially his vote last year against funding the military and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I agree with Mr. Taranto. The democrats over the years have put themselves in this position and the fact that Mr. John Kerry's campaign seems to focus on his military record only brings this issue more into the light.

Personally, I do not question democrats' patriotism I question their definition of it!

More on Health Care

I noted my thoughts on the need to improve the health care system after reading a weblog entry of by Michelle Malkin. I have just looked over some responses to Paul Krugman article in the New York Times.

The more I think about this I see several issues. I believe we need a true number of those uninsured; meaning those that can afford health insurance and choose not to get it should be subtracted from the number. We all know seniors have no prescription coverage, which should be fixed immediately and quite honestly, I know that with pharmaceutical companies give coupons and free trials and should be able to give a "senior discount"; this would be as step in the right direction. Senior discounts would also be a wonderful public relation tool for the pharmaceutical companies!

Further, as I stated in my previous note we must do something about the way physicians and hospitals bill. There is absolutely no reason that a person who cannot afford insurance pays 56% more than my insurance company does. I believe this is pure laziness on the part of the hospital and doctor administrators or their greed.

The more I dwell on this issue the more firmly I am against Government-run health system. Government is already in too many aspects of my life and decision making processes. Similarly, I believe we should have a larger choice in our insurance provider giving way to more competitive pricing. For example, insurance providers compete between several companies, but what would happen if they had to compete between all of those companies’ employees?

This comes to a Health Care Savings Plan; but I see employers attempting to get out of spending anything on health care and most would not compensate the employee. I believe we should be able to come up with a plan that would require employers to give employees a portion that could only be paid to an insurance provider. Why could an employer not keep an account that received $2.50 for every $10.00 earned, for argument sake? The employee could use this fund to choose and pay an insurance provider of their choice and I believe this could be done all electronically or at least a large portion... This is an idea but I would love to hear what others of you think. I truly believe that this could result in competitive pricing which would keep with American principles of freedom.

John O'Neal - Is Bush Behind Him? NO!

Although many democrats claim the co-author of Unfit For Command, John O'Neal, is being sponsored or supported by the Bush campaign the LA Times has a story with some facts that would indicate this is false. Earlier I posted a list comments made by many other veterans.

Health Insurance System - Broken?

Michelle Malkin: AMERICA'S BROKEN HEALTH INSURANCE SYSTEM

Recently becoming familiar with Michelle Malkin I have been reading several of you archived articles and weblog. Yesterday she had an entry about "America's Broken Health Insurance System" (linked above). I Agree with her assessment and there is a need to reform the health care system. However, I do share concerns about a government-run system.

Many laymen have used German and Canadian healthcare system as examples of what we should to in discussions with me. I personally have issues with this since I have close Canadian friends and relatives whom are German citizens. These two governments have health care systems that seem wonderful; however, when the government runs low of money YOUR health care suffers. Unless you are able to pick the time you become sick this is not an idea environment. In addition, in my opinion a Government sponsored health care system leads to Euthanasia debates.

Although, I will respect my parents if they choose to have a "living will" and expect my wife to honor my wishes; I do not believe this choice should be up to any doctor or Government. Taking this freedom, the basic belief of this country, will lead to our downfall.

So what do we do? I believe that some type of "Health Care Savings" might be a good plan, but I do not pretend to be an economist or health care expert. I do know that John Kerry has proposed a plan that I am not willing to fund.

Having been placed in the same position as Michelle recently (five months ago) I have become more aware of the problem. My wife and I choose COBRA at nearly $1,000/mth, but it allowed us to keep a very good insurance plan and the all-important continued coverage.

In studying this issue, I have found another interesting point. Physicians charge the premium on every procedure to ensure that they receive the max benefit from the insurance company. This actually hurts the uninsured and there is a lawyer, although I cannot remember his name, which is bringing class action suits against many hospitals due to this.

I will try to explain. Upon arrival I may need an X-ray, the doctor charges me $125 but my insurance only pays a $80 benefit and the doctor gets his $80 and I am set; however, an uninsured patient will be required to pay $125. This hardly seems right! I can currently afford insurance but some cannot and they end up paying 56% more than my insurance company.

There are other things to consider in health care. We all know business and the expense of operating a medical facility is astronomical. The key factor is insurance and what the possible result of a malpractice suite may be. Living in Mississippi I am aware that gynecologists are becoming scarce in Mississippi, because of the ease a malpractice suite can be won and the large sums rewarded. Mississippians are actually running gynecologists out of the state. Should we not limit awards or in some way make it where accounting does not come in to play on weather a physician should fight a bogus case.

So now, we have the billing practices of the physicians, the expense of doing business as two of the large problems, and the astronomical insurance cost to the patients. What type of regulation can there be that would appease someone like me who wants to limit government and likes competition while at the same time appeasing liberals? I do not propose to answer this question; however, I believe the politicians should be discussing this.

On the domestic side of this campaign I believe in addition to domestic/internal security health care is the single most important topic that affects all Americans. But, in closing while listening to FoxNews I heard and "expert" suggest we "force" those that do not have insurance to pay for insurance: I AM AGAINST THAT!

New Product Buda-Moore

Democrat’s new god - Buda-Moore: People feel that democrats of all kinds will purchase this figurine so they can rub his belly for good luck!

Food for Thought About The Upcoming Election and The Future of The United States

At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in the year 1787, Alexander Tyler (a Scottish history professor at The University of Edinborough) had this to say about "The Fall of The Athenian Republic" some 2,000 years prior.

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From Bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage."

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul,
Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the most recent
Presidential election:
Population of counties won by:
Gore=127 million
Bush=143 million

Square miles of land won by:
Gore=580,000
Bush=2,2427,000

States won by:
Gore=19
Bush=29

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Gore=13.2
Bush=2.1

Professor Olson adds:
"In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off government welfare..." Olson believes the U.S. is now somewhere between the "complacency and "apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy; with some 40 percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

The Kerry Campaign Does Not Even Know Their Own Candidate!

NewsMax.com: Inside Cover Story

Stories like the one linked above really get under my skin. All I hear from democrat are jokes about how Bush sounds “stupid” and how he has to depend on those around him. Of course, I do not prescribe to this logic. However, when the Kerry camp makes a “boob” the major media outlets do not cover with the same vigor as they would if President Bush.

Even if you pretended to agree with liberal logic that President Bush has to depend on those around him; at LEAST HE CAN! Kerry seems to not only be a boob himself but has boobs working for him – they don’t even know if the a working for a guy named KERRY or KERREY!

Michael Moore Deceives All About Military Recruiting

Michael Moore was deceptive about military recruiting practices in his movie F-9/11. Recruters are not targeting "poor minorities" as the movie hints. I have had this argument in both a local forum and a national one. Amazingly one liberal actually accepted my facts but another used the old Missouri slogan "show me". So I decided to make a document available for everyone….

Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.03% of Income Taxes

Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.03% of Income Taxes

How much do we want the top 50% of American wage earners to pay. They are currently paying 96.03 percent.. I just got through debating a guy (board name Kink) about these numbers. So I will get right to the point to avoid the back and fourth - The numbers on Rush's Website are COPIED straight from the IRS and not created by anyone but the IRS.....

How much more can Democrats expect them to pay - do we simply not want the bottom 50% to pay anything yet reap the benefits of being American. This I do not believe is the American way or the American dream.....! "Because you have worked hard and accomplished the American Dream we want you to 100% support those that haven't tried or have failed"... I believe in taxes, but everyone has to pay something and 3.97% is not a large percentage of the over all burden.

What Veterans are Saying of John Kerry

What Veterans are Saying of John Kerry

The above link takes you to many quotes of our nation's veterans.. I being a veteran feel strongly about John Kerry's attacks on the Military - Now he is saying he loves the military and is capable of being the Commander-in-Cheif.... I think he is not!

A picture if worth a thousand words!