PurePolitics.com

A Tsunami of a Problem

2007-01-07T20:22:00.000-08:00

Try to remember that time not so long ago when celebrities were flooding the airwaves, begging for help for victims of the tsunami. Only the most heartless of Americans could have possibly turned down those impassioned appeals.

Now comes word from the BBC that half of the billions of dollars pledged by individuals, businesses, and governments around the globe for tsunami aid has not yet been spent—two years after the disaster.

It should come as no surprise, however, that a number of foreign governments have completely reneged on their promise to send aid. Others have only given a small percentage of what they promised.

All told, some 6.7 billion dollars was pledged, but only 3.4 billion has been spent, according to the BBC report. Among the biggest deadbeats—China, which pledged 301 million dollars to Sri Lanka, but has actually given only a paltry million…France, which promised 79 million, but has forked over just a little more than a million…and Spain, which pledged 60 million, but has actually donated less than a million.

With friends like these, the tsunami victims need no enemies.

The BBC reports that the European Commission owes 70 million; Britain, 12 million. Meanwhile, the United States has donated about 38 percent of the dollars it promised. The Red Cross, one of the most trusted relief agencies in existence, promised to build 50,000 homes, but has finished only about 8,000.

The British Red Cross is defending its post-disaster performance, with spokesman Matthias Schmale telling the BBC: “It is incredibly difficult…we said from the beginning, this is happening in very difficult circumstances. We raised the money knowing it was difficult. It will take time to spend this money in a responsible manner.”

Schmale admitted that the speed at which houses are being built sounds like “slow progress.” However, he noted that the tsunami also swept away identity papers and legal documents, creating a bureaucratic storm.

However, an official with the United Nations, Miloon Kothari, sees the excuse-making as uncalled for: “It should really not take this long to build permanent housing,” Kothari told the BBC.

Kothari added, “I do not accept the explanation that it is going to take four to five years, in some cases, seven. I’m an architect, I know how long it takes to build a house.”

It was the day after Christmas in 2004 that an earthquake measuring 9.3 in magnitude sparked a tsunami that resulted in the loss of more than 200,000 lives.
Obviously, it can take a long period of time for those who survive such a disaster to recover. But when promised money is inexcusably slow in coming…when pledges made are not kept…and when snail-paced bureaucracy is involved…recovery is not only hindered—it can actually grind to a halt.

If ever there was an effective argument against nationalized health care, the tsunami relief fiasco is it. If it takes more than two years for a centralized authority to build a house, imagine how long it could take for you to find a surgeon to remove your gall bladder—if the federal government were in charge of the entire health care system.
There are some things that the private sector is simply better equipped to handle. Home building, food service, economy-building, and health care are just a few of them.

The Legacy Of Gerald Ford

2006-12-30T21:41:00.000-08:00

President Gerald Ford was an ordinary guy who did a remarkable job in extraordinary times.
After replacing a disgraced vice president, he stepped in for a disgraced president and led a disheartened nation through trying times.

The jovial, plain-talking Ford immediately soared in popularity, but he cashed in his political capital to pardon Richard Nixon. Time proved his decision right as well as courageous, but it angered liberals and moderates and probably cost him the close 1976 election against Democrat Jimmy Carter.

Now he is mostly remembered as the never-elected, awkward president. The bumbling caricature is unfair. Ford was probably our most athletic president, having played center on a University of Michigan football team that won two national championships.

A Navy veteran, he angered conservatives when he granted conditional amnesty to Vietnam draft evaders and deserters. As a member of Congress, he had angered liberals by criticizing Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" programs as wasteful, but some 30 years later, bipartisan welfare reform confirmed his fears about overly generous handouts.

Throughout his career, his wife, Betty, was a source of moral strength, even when her high-profile advocacy of women's rights was a political liability.

Soon after they left the White House, she was treated for alcohol and pill dependency at a Navy hospital. Recognizing how hard it was to find treatment, she later founded the Betty Ford Center, which has helped thousands of people overcome addiction and helped make her among the most fondly remembered of presidential spouses.

Her husband spent most of his long post-presidency contentedly in the background, lecturing, enjoying his family, answering mail and raising money for charity. He led bravely, upheld his principles and then humbly returned to private life.

President Clinton recognized Ford's contribution in a 1999 ceremony: "President Ford represents what is best in public service and what is best about America."

Blue Dog Democrats Rise Again?

2006-11-16T18:38:00.000-08:00

WASHINGTON, DC – Nine new members-elect are set to join the Blue Dog Coalition, including FL-16 Tim Mahoney, IN-02 Joe Donnelly, IN-08 Brad Ellsworth, IN-09 Baron Hill, NC-11 Heath Shuler, NY-20 Kirsten Gillibrand, NY-24 Michael Arcuri, OH-06 Charlie Wilson, and PA-08 Patrick Murphy.

By electing Blue Dogs to Congress, the country has sent a strong message to Washington in support of fiscal responsibility and the bipartisan ideals that the Blue Dogs were founded upon. The Blue Dog Coalition is dedicated to a core set of beliefs that transcend partisan politics with a particular focus on the financial stability and national security of the United States.

Blue Dogs represent the center of the House of Representatives and appeal to the mainstream values of the American public.

In the 110th Congress, the members-elect will join the Blue Dogs in their fight for fiscal responsibility and greater government accountability. As moderates and fiscal hawks, the Blue Dogs have made a determined effort to reach across the aisle to engage in a real debate on fiscal responsibility – including the adoption of pay-as-you-go, a core Blue Dog value that government should not spend more than it has.

All 35 Blue Dogs who ran for re-election to the House will return to the Coalition in the 110th Congress. Those members include: Joe Baca (CA-43), John Barrow (GA-12), Melissa Bean (IL-08), Marion Berry (AR-01), Sanford Bishop (GA-02), Dan Boren (OK-02), Leonard Boswell (IA-03), Allen Boyd (FL-02), Dennis Cardoza (CA-18), Ben Chandler (KY-06), Jim Cooper (TN-05), Jim Costa (CA-20), Robert E. “Bud Cramer (AL-05), Lincoln Davis (TN-04), Jane Harman (CA-36), Stephanie Herseth (SD), Tim Holden (PA-17), Steve Israel (NY-02), Mike McIntyre (NC-07), Jim Marshall (GA-08), Jim Matheson (UT-02), Charlie Melancon (LA-03), Mike Michaud (ME-02), Dennis Moore (KS-03), Collin Peterson (MN-07), Earl Pomeroy (ND), Mike Ross (AR-04), John Salazar (CO-03), Loretta Sanchez (CA-47), Adam Schiff (CA-29), David Scott (GA-13), John Tanner (TN-08), Ellen Tauscher (CA-10), Gene Taylor (MS-04), and Mike Thompson (CA-01).

The returning members have built the Coalition into a serious player in the policy arena, promoting positions which bridge the gap between ideological extremes. Many of the group’s proposals have been praised as fair, responsible, and positive additions to a Congressional environment too often marked as partisan and antagonistic.

The Blue Dog Coalition was formed following the 1994 election debacle for Democrats. The founding members chose the name Blue Dog Coalition because they literally felt “choked blue by the extremes in both parties”. Over the past 12 years, the Blue Dog Coalition has grown from a small organizing group to a 44 strong member organization when the 110th Congress convenes.

The Thought Police of Minneapolis

2006-08-30T19:36:00.000-07:00

The Thought Police of Minneapolis
By J. Matt Barber

If you’re a Christian working for the City of Minneapolis, watch your step – your job may already be in jeopardy. In what may be one of the most blatant acts of anti-Christian bigotry and discrimination by an American government agency to date, the Minneapolis Police Department has suspended a Police Psychologist, Dr. Michael Campion of Campion, Barrow & Associates, at the behest of pro-homosexual activists.

What was Dr. Campion’s crime? It seems that until last year he was a board member with the Illinois Family Institute (IFI), a Christian organization which advocates traditional family values. The Minneapolis Police Department admits that because of Dr. Campion’s Christian beliefs, and his former affiliation with IFI, he is now under suspension pending an investigation into his beliefs.

The Minneapolis incident is a sad replay of the character assassination Dr. Campion experienced at the hands of liberal activists in Springfield, Illinois last year. After a liberal rag, the Illinois Times, raised questions of Campion being on the board of IFI, an “anti-choice, anti-gay group,” the Springfield City Council dumped him as psychological screener for police and firefighter candidates.

The Minneapolis Star-Tribune reports that despite the fact that the Minneapolis Police Department admittedly gave Dr. Campion “’high marks’ on ‘general procedural goodness and specific cultural fairness’ of his testing procedures;” he was nonetheless suspended soon after liberal city activists informed Police Chief Don Harris about his IFI affiliation.

Additionally, and equally confusing, is the fact that Sgt. John Delmonico, president of the police federation, admitted that “it never had any complaints about Campion.” Notwithstanding this admission, Delmonico told the Star-Tribune “…any issues that have been raised should be looked into.”

The Star-Tribune further reported that “Council Member Scott Benson appears to have been the first to hear of Campion's beliefs.” Benson, while referring to a conversation with the Minneapolis P.D., told the Star-Tribune, “‘I asked them if given his background, should he be conducting psychological evaluations… They definitely should conduct an investigation and determine what's fact and what's fiction.’”

So apparently it’s that simple. If a person has Christian beliefs, he’s disqualified from working for the city of Minneapolis. This official government act of anti-Christian discrimination by the Minneapolis Police Department should send shivers down the spine of every person of faith. It is a transparent and egregious violation of Dr. Campion’s First Amendment rights to both freedom of association and religion.

The message from Minneapolis is clear: The Constitution be damned! If you work for our city, and you happen to be a person of faith belonging to a church or public policy organization that advocates traditional family values, then you might as well clean out your desk now – because as soon as we find out…you’re done.

The Minneapolis Police Department has sworn to protect and serve, to uphold the U.S. and State constitutions, and to police its community. But now they’ve dangerously overstepped their authority. They’ve become the Minneapolis thought police… just the latest example of how the militant homosexual lobby, aided by willing liberal activists in high-level positions of government, will not rest until Judeo-Christian principles are abolished, and traditional notions of human sexuality, marriage and family are eviscerated.

Take Action Now:

Please let the city of Minneapolis know that government-sanctioned, anti-Christian bigotry and discrimination will not be tolerated. Telephone the office of Police Chief Timothy Dolan and express your outrage. You can also send an e-mail or letter to the addresses provided below:

Timothy Dolan
Interim Chief of Police
350 South 5th Street
Room 130
Minneapolis, MN 55415-1389
612-673-2853
Fax: 612-673-2613
E-mail: police@ci.minneapolis.mn.us
Copyright © 2006 by J. Matt Barber

J. Matt Barber is the Corporate Outreach Director for Americans for Truth, and a conservative, pro-family political strategist. A former undefeated professional Boxer, Matt now fights his battles in the ring of culture and policy. He holds both a law degree and a Master of Arts in public policy from Regent University. Matt is a contributing editor for TheConservativeVoice.com, and a contributor to the Washington Times' "Insight Magazine," AmericanThinker.com, and a number of other top online and print publications.

E-mail your comments to Matt, at jmattbarber@comcast.net

A Political Problem in Aisle 5

2006-08-27T19:52:00.000-07:00

As anyone who lives in the ‘burbs knows, the all-American pastime on Saturdays isn’t necessarily a trip to the baseball diamond. For many of us, it’s a trip to the local Wal-Mart. This is particularly true as the back-to-school season is in full swing.

So, it’s a little bit disconcerting to know that, as families across the U.S. are loading up their shopping carts, the elite in the Democratic Party are scowling. While many of us are concerned about al Quaida, a number of Dems have identified Wal-Mart as public enemy number one this political season.

As far as I know, the CEO of Wal-Mart isn’t running for President, but don’t tell that to Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr. of Delaware, a presumed Presidential contender. In Iowa recently, Biden delivered what the New York Times described as a “blistering attack” against Wal-Mart.

In addition to serving America’s need for clothes, toothbrushes, and other luxuries, Wal-Mart happens to be the nation’s biggest private employer. In other words, the company now has more than a million people on its work force. This is a business that is giving jobs to folks—but, according to the bizarre calculations of Democratic leaders, Wal-Mart is bad news for the economy.

Senator Biden suggests that Wal-Mart doesn’t care about “the fate of middle-class people.” But Wal-Mart does business with middle-class people everyday. I don’t know how often the Washington elite shop at Wal-Mart, but the average-income families that I know shop there all the time, because that’s where they can get the best deals for their dollars.

Granted, chances are you won’t earn a six-figure salary at Wal-Mart. But you can earn a paycheck. And you can gain the type of experience that will help you apply for jobs in the future which require more responsibility and will earn you more money. That is, after all, the American way—to start out on the first floor of business and work your way up to the boardroom.

And, speaking of boardrooms, isn’t it curious that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was a member of Wal-Mart’s board, returned a campaign contribution from the company to protest Wal-Mart’s health benefits? That, apparently, was the start of the unofficial Democratic campaign against the company.

Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana has claimed that the anti-Wal-Mart effort is not anti-business. But, when you attack one of the nation’s biggest businesses, it stands to reason that people are really going to wonder whether you have the best interests of business at heart.

No one can be in favor of corporate corruption…bad management decisions…and mistreatment of employees. But the fact is that, without business, many of us would not have jobs. Of course, that concept is mystifying to career politicians who do not have to meet a weekly payroll or deal with constant competition. Their jobs may be safe—but the average taxpayer’s job isn’t.

I may not agree with every corporate decision made at Wal-Mart headquarters, but there can be little argument that the company is a business success story. If it were not so successful, it wouldn’t be under attack. In fact, a national poll showed that Americans generally support Wal-Mart—an attitude which seems to be borne out in the company’s sales. The company posted an $11 billion profit last year.

In a letter written to Iowa Wal-Mart workers, company officials said they “would never suggest to you how to vote, but we have an obligation to tell you when politicians are saying something about your company that isn’t true. After all, you are Wal-Mart.”

And a lot of us are Wal-Mart shoppers—whether we want to admit it or not.

Meaning of Lieberman’s Defeat to Gun Owners

2006-08-20T19:26:00.000-07:00

Both Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and Ned Lamont who defeated him in the Connecticut Democrat primary are anti-gun. Nevertheless, gun owners should pay attention to the outcome of this race. Indeed, anyone interested in survival should pay attention.

From all that anyone can determine, the only issue that separated Lieberman and Lamont is the war against terrorists. Lieberman, although an enemy of personal self defense, was an unabashed supporter of defending America from Muslim crusaders intent on killing every man, woman and child on earth who does not proclaim themselves to be Muslim.

Fourteen hundred years of jihad is not enough evidence for the Democrat left. They are unconcerned about those who today proclaim jihad even while beheading and exploding as many people as possible in the name of their religion.

Since the left is typically unconcerned about religion, they seem to be incapable of accepting the reality that anybody else might be motivated by religious beliefs.

The students of the ‘60’s who lionized mass murderers such as Che Guevara, Mao Tse Tung and Fidel Castro are now the professors, media elite and other Democrat party activists who still lionize their old heroes – and now also are apologists for Muslim terrorists.

The self-destructive view of the Democrat left goes well beyond the naïve mantra that “violence never solved anything.” Tell that to the people of the south of Sudan. They stopped the genocide of some 2,000,000 non-Muslims by the jihadi regime that illegitimately rules the country. The Sudanese People’s Liberation Army did not stop the jihad by talking. They did it by shooting and killing Muslim crusaders before they could kill any more.

The Democrat Left’s support of terrorists derives from self-hatred. They are convinced that Americans, and Westerners in general (but also including African Christians who were slaughtered without a peep from the Left), are the source of violence and resentment in the world. Because we have caused the problem, they believe, we deserve to be attacked. This belief is so deep set that the Left believes self defense and retaliation are morally unacceptable.

We should not think that the Democrat Left’s hatred is reserved for President Bush. They hate him because he is fighting back against terrorists. Thus, anyone connected with national defense – even a socialist such as Sen. Lieberman – gets treated to the same scathing hatred that has been directed toward President Bush.

If Lieberman’s defeat is a harbinger of future elections, any Democrat who believes in self defense, be it personal or national, can expect to get the same treatment. And of course, Republicans can expect to get more of the same as long as they support self defense.

The issue of our age is self defense. The Democrat Left has drawn a line in the sand in Connecticut. They are against survival.

Larry Pratt is Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, a national gun lobby with over 300,000 members located at 8001 Forbes Place, Springfield, VA 22151, (703) 321-8585.

Preambles of all 50 States Of The United States

2006-08-10T18:14:00.000-07:00

Preambles of all 50 States Of The United States:

Alabama 1901, Preamble. We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution.

Alaska 1956, Preamble. We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land.

Arizona 1911, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution...

Arkansas 1874, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government...

California 1879, Preamble. We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom.

Colorado 1876, Preamble. We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe.

Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy.

Delaware 1897, Preamble. Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences.

Florida 1885, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, establish this Constitution...

Georgia 1777, Preamble. We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution...

Hawaii 1959, Preamble. We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance .. Establish this Constitution.

Idaho 1889, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings.

Illinois 1870, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.

Indiana 1851, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to choose our form of government.

Iowa 1857, Preamble We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings establish this Constitution.

Kansas 1859, Preamble. We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges establish this Constitution.

Kentucky 1891, Preamble. We, the people of the Commonwealth are grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties...

Louisiana 1921, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy.

Maine 1820, Preamble. We the People of Maine acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity ...
And imploring His aid and direction.

Maryland 1776, Preamble We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty...

Massachusetts 1780, Preamble. We...the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe .. In the course of His Providence, an opportunity and devoutly imploring His direction ..

Michigan 1908, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom establish this Constitution.

Minnesota, 1857, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings:

Mississippi 1890, Preamble. We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work.

Missouri 1845, Preamble. We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness .. Establish this Constitution .

Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty establish this Constitution ...

Nebraska 1875, Preamble. We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom .. Establish this Constitution.

Nevada 1864, Preamble. We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom establish this Constitution .

New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V. Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.

New Jersey 1844, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.

New Mexico 1911, Preamble. We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty

New York 1846, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings.

North Carolina 1868, Preamble. We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those

North Dakota 1889, Preamble. We , the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain...

Ohio 1852, Preamble. We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common

Oklahoma 1907, Preamble. Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty ... establish this ..

Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I. Section 2. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences..

Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance

Rhode Island 1842, Preamble. We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing

South Carolina, 1778, Preamble. We, the people of he State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

South Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties .

Tennessee 1796, Art. XI.III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience...

Texas 1845, Preamble. We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God.

Utah 1896, Preamble. Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution.

Vermont 1777, Preamble. Whereas all government ought to enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man ..

Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator can be directed only by Reason and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other .

Washington 1889, Preamble. We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution

West Virginia 1872, Preamble. Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God ...

Wisconsin 1848, Preamble. We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility

Wyoming 1890, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties .. establish this Constitution.

After reviewing acknowledgments of God from all 50 state constitutions, one is faced with the prospect that maybe, the ACLU and the out-of-control federal courts are wrong! If you found this to be "Food for thought.." copy and send to as many as you think will be enlightened as I hope you were.

Please note that at no time is anyone told that they MUST worship God.

UnChristian Calling

2006-07-10T20:07:00.000-07:00

It’s bad enough that, in many places, Sunday is just another day in the work world. People rush to their jobs at the mall, at the restaurant, even at the bar—never stopping to think that even their Creator took a day off once in a while.

You would think that, on the holiest day of the week, telemarketers would take a holiday. Especially telemarketers for Republicans. Especially telemarketers who hope to raise money from the GOP Christian base.

The National Republican Congressional Committee is apparently running scared—so scared that it has even stooped to telemarketing on the Sabbath. One individual recently reported receiving three calls on behalf of NRCC Chairman Tom Reynolds on Sunday mornings. Even when the recipient of those calls complained that Republicans shouldn’t do their telemarketing on Sundays, the calls kept coming.

For those not in the know, the NRCC describes itself as a “political committee devoted to increasing the 231-member Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.” A noble goal, to be sure, especially when one considers the haunting specter of a Democratic Speaker Pelosi in the wings.

The NRCC website notes that, while the key sources of funding for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee are labor unions, trial lawyers, and Democratic members of Congress, the Republican counterpart relies mostly on individuals “from all walks of life,” who may be contributing as little as $25 each. In other words, the NRCC is supported by God-fearing working stiffs—the type of people who value their Sunday mornings.

In the midst of the 2004 election cycle, NRCC Chairman Reynolds oversaw historic gains for House Republicans. In fact, for the first time since 1928, the ranks of House Republicans increased during a Presidential election year. Also, for the first time, House Republicans increased their majority in two consecutive election cycles.

The Buffalo News wrote of Reynolds that with his “love of legislating and an old-fashioned backslapping style, (he) has built a House career that at this point looks charmed—and limitless.” The NRCC website also states that Reynolds is “committed to a Republican agenda grounded in strong values.” But don’t those strong values include honoring Sunday and the Higher Power who made it happen?

It’s bad enough that Christians have to deal with the anti-religion rhetoric of the left. The nation’s Democratic leaders routinely show the utmost disrespect to people who pray…who believe in the Bible…and who strongly advocate the idea of Intelligent Design over evolution. A number of Democrats have made it clear that prayer in school is the worst thing that could ever befall a schoolchild. They continue to try to downplay the religious significance of Christmas and Easter. When they do pay attention to Christianity, it seems to be part of a smear campaign aimed at denigrating Jesus and other Biblical figures—witness the effort to depict the befuddled “Da Vinci Code” as high art.

Still, difficult though it is at times, Christians have learned to live with the anti-Christian left. But when an organization attempting to elect Republicans to office is willing to run the risk of offending church-goers in an attempt to raise the almighty dollar, it’s clearly a sign that things are even worse than we Christians had thought.

I have nothing against telemarketing—but it’s sacrilegious to do it on a Sunday…even if the apparent purpose is to elect conservatives to Congress. The NRCC has six days of the week to raise money. On the seventh day, let’s give the telemarketers—and the people whose meals they interrupt—a rest.

By: Nathan Tabor

Cheering for Independence

2006-07-05T04:03:00.000-07:00

The pops and booms you hear today celebrate the ratification of the Declaration of Independence from the British Empire 230 years ago. Those fiery words set out what the 13 colonies demanded: a new government willing to safeguard life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

But independence is not what sets this nation apart. Most nations are independent, yet many squander their potential by hating outsiders and isolating themselves.

It's worth remembering that independence merits fireworks not because of how eloquently Thomas Jefferson described it or how ably George Washington defended it. It is worth celebrating because of another successful experiment of the Founders: interdependence.

Had each colony tried to stand on its own, all would have fallen. Interdependence provided a federal foundation for balanced powers and equal states that carried over to commerce, foreign affairs and the proper role of religion. Fair trade and competition were encouraged, both among the states and with other countries whose economies were in the grips of greedy kings.

The practice of interdependence rewarded integrity and thus encouraged it. When the new nation paid its debts, its money became trustworthy around the world. Immigrants and investment poured in, drawn by the rewards of the free market and rule of law.

It wasn't the nation's much-celebrated independence that made this happen. It was the increasing interdependence of farmers, merchants and pioneers - despite deep religious and ethnic differences - that turned a primitive frontier into the richest nation in the world. Plenty of big mistakes were made along the way. Most of them, like slavery, violated the spirit of voluntary interdependence.

Many thinkers through the years have understood this, none more clearly than American philosopher Will Durant. Along with two others, Durant wrote a declaration of interdependence first published in 1944. His target may have been the racial inequity of that era, but the essential theme is timeless: Mutual tolerance is the price of liberty.

That doesn't mean tolerance for criminals. It doesn't require we shake hands with the enemies of freedom. Nor does it make a case for a utopian one-world government or for socialism.

Interdependence doesn't advise opening our borders and social programs to all impoverished comers from all corners of the world. Nor does it diminish individual responsibility. It simply says humans are at their civic and economic best when they find ways to get along and give one another a fair deal.

That lesson applies at every level, from international confrontations to city-rural tensions in Tampa. Tampa's suburbs are dependent on the urban center and vice versa. We're stronger, wealthier and happier when we find ways to work together.

Evidence of that is everywhere. It's no coincidence that the free nations are also the rich nations. It's no mystery why communities best able to compromise civilly on solutions to local problems are also the best places to live.

Our longstanding belief in interdependence is why we Americans are willing to invest blood and cash in Iraq. We know the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds can have a free and prosperous nation if they will only put their faith in interdependence instead of dominance. As the brave troops of the U.S. military are discovering, it can be a hard concept to grasp. Perhaps Iraqis never will.

Unlike the Revolutionary War against the Redcoats, the war for interdependence is never over. Forces of intolerance, isolation and repression reappear constantly, like weeds, and must be uprooted.

They're all around us today, too close to be touched by the arching skyrockets proclaiming freedom.

Today is a great day to wave the flag and cheer this nation's achievement and beloved independence. It is also a perfect time to think about why freedom is so successful here and what we must do to keep it that way.

Somalia's change could be U.S. gain

2006-06-15T04:45:00.000-07:00

The United States has a real chance for positive gain in the Muslim world. To achieve it, the U.S. would have to swallow its Western pride and open talks with the Islamist militants who defeated the reportedly CIA-backed warlords in Somalia's capital, Mogadishu.

The struggling and violent nation is in dire need of stability. The secular warlords have not provided that structure since Somalia's government collapsed in 1991. Muslim clerics stepped in and created a semblance of stability in the form of Islamic courts.

The moderate clerics — with whom, historically, Somalia lined up religiously — have told Western leaders that their rule will not be like that of the severe Taliban of Afghanistan.

To be of any help, the U.S. first must pull away from the remaining warlords — who were employed in the hunt for al-Qaida cells after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to a wide array of news reports — and call for them to lay down their weapons. Then the U.S. and other key nations should sit down with the clerics and discuss how to bring in the weak transitional Somali government from its ineffective vantage 155 miles outside of Mogadishu in the city of Baidoa.

The U.S. would bolster its image and clout internationally by working with the Islamists to make Somalia whole again. America could demonstrate to the world that it can work with a new Islamist movement, and help a people in desperate need.

Constructive diplomacy can also help close the gap that has widened between the U.S. and Somalia since 1994, when 18 Army Rangers were killed by rebels in Mogadishu. The incident led to a complete American withdrawal from Somalia.

The U.S. should not be afraid of Somalia's political evolution. Nation-building begins with discussion, not violence. Somalis will continue to suffer — and groups such as al-Qaida will surely gain a foothold on the African Horn — if the U.S. stubbornly decides corrupt warlords are the right partner.

(Seattle Times)

Immigration Splits America

2006-06-06T05:04:00.000-07:00

A recent PurePolitics.com Poll among american residents found 52 percent want undocumented immigrants to return to their home countries immediately or after a few years. Slightly less, 48 percent agree that undocumented immigrants should be registered, then allowed to remain in the United States while seeking permanent residency. On what side do you fall? Tell us what you think.

Immigration impasse may mean long election night for the GOP

2006-05-28T11:32:00.000-07:00

David S. Broder / Syndicated columnist

WASHINGTON — This Memorial Day finds the nation's capital consumed by the issue of immigration — a topic that reaches as deep into our history and values as any that could occupy our holiday thoughts.

The debate that unfolded in the Senate over the past few weeks tested notions of sovereignty, explored questions of national character, measured our idealism and tolerance — and carried major political implications for both parties and for America's relationships with its neighbors.

It is a worthy subject and, for the most part, was worthily explored, with almost all the lawmakers acknowledging the difficulty of the choices and the need for action.

Now the issue moves to another arena — one where the level of public scrutiny is much less and the opportunity for mischief-making much greater. At some point soon, the House and Senate will be expected to name conferees to negotiate the vast differences between the bills passed by the two chambers. The chances of roadblocks being thrown in the path are abundant.

Congressional history is rich with examples of strong-willed senators and representatives battling fiercely over the final terms of legislation. These conference committee sessions can be long and brutal, and policy differences are compounded by the institutional jealousies involved. Veterans of Capitol Hill will tell you of conferences where the rivals almost came to blows over custody of the papers containing the final agreements.

Since 1995, when Republicans took control of both sides of the Capitol, the negotiating sessions often have been confined to GOP senators and representatives, with the Democrats locked out along with the press.

That arrangement has been reinforced by the "Hastert doctrine," the policy formally enunciated by House Speaker Dennis Hastert that he will bring to the floor only bills that are supported by the majority of the Republican caucus. Because of that policy, bipartisan coalitions have become rarities in the House. The emphasis now is entirely on shaping bills in conference that most House Republicans can embrace.

In the case of the immigration bill, that may well spell doom for the kind of broad-based, comprehensive approach endorsed by President Bush and embodied in the Senate version. Conservatives in the House — and Hastert's top lieutenants — have staked out a position calling for immediate major steps to close the border with Mexico. As Bush requested, the Senate bill would link the tighter border enforcement to a new guest-worker program, allowing immigrants to come in legally for a time to work available jobs, and create a procedure that permits longtime illegal immigrants to pay a fine and back taxes, learn English and then apply for citizenship.

An odd thing has happened. While the Senate was debating immigration and moving to give the president most of what he wants, the attitude of House Republicans has stiffened. If anything, more of them seem more determined than they were a month ago to shut the border — and do nothing else. They believe the public is with them.

Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, a former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, the campaign arm of the House GOP, is symptomatic of the shift. A few months ago, Davis, who represents the affluent Washington, D.C., suburb of Fairfax County, was decrying fellow Republican Jerry Kilgore's tactic in attempting to use immigrant sentiment as a wedge issue in his losing campaign for governor.

Last week, Davis said that even his highly educated and financially comfortable constituents favor the House approach more than the Senate's. "They want a tough bill," he said, adding that immigration has become "a hot issue" for more than "the hard-right." As a campaign strategist, Davis said, he fears that an impasse over immigration "certainly doesn't help the Republican Congress." With voters already frustrated over Iraq, gasoline prices, and scandals in Washington, the climate for the midterm election is grim. "We need to change things, or it's going to be a long election night," Davis said.

For that reason, he threw out several hints that he hoped Hastert would bend his rule — and open the way for the House to "work its will" on immigration with a coalition of most Democrats and a minority of Republicans. But with Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and the principal author of the House bill, likely to lead the House negotiators, it's doubtful Davis will get his wish. And it's doubtful that Bush will get his bill.

David S. Broder's column appears Sunday on editorial pages. His e-mail address is davidbroder@washpost.com

2006, Washington Post Writers Group

Mexican standoff

2006-05-22T04:22:00.000-07:00

So our current paranoid administration is building up a border fence on land that was stolen to begin with ["Looks like fences will go up on the U.S.-Mexico border,", May 18]. Meanwhile, our elderly and baby-boomer citizens are flocking to Mexico to purchase medications, dental and medical care, or to simply retire because they can't afford to live here any longer. Fair trade, I say.

Now, along with gasoline, your food prices will rise even higher because there's no one left to pick the fruit. What happens when we get everyone mad at us instead of building good neighbor relations? Maybe Mexico will kick out all those retirees and then our children will have to support them instead and we'll have a majority of our population at poverty level with no medical care.

Let's be careful how we look at this. I happen to know there are many Americans living there who never bother to learn the language or mix with the locals while they continue to ruin the environment. What a shame. Mexican citizens are a beautiful, friendly people who were first screwed over by the Spaniards and now us.

We don't need a fence, we need to question why we are letting these things happen. Instead, let's see what's really going on with George Bush. Be afraid, be very afraid.

— Jana Schreurs, Snohomish

In a pinch (Gas)

2006-05-15T04:32:00.000-07:00

In a pinch (What hurts us only makes us stronger)

When the price of gasoline gets to the point that consumers will not pay for it (lower demand), oil-producing countries will have to reduce the price or exploit another market, like China. Supply and demand, pure and simple.

If the cost of oil remains high (and supply low due in part to oil-field nationalization), energy companies will have to develop alternative fuel sources to survive.

The same holds true with car manufacturers. If demand for fuel-inefficient vehicles drops, then alternative-fuel vehicles will have to be developed.

Cutting our dependence on the unstable governments of oil-producing countries by not buying their oil is vital. We have an opportunity now to make huge changes that should have been made in the '70s.

Change only follows pain. In this case, our pain is higher gas prices. Bring it on!

— Bob Russell, Woodinville

The Mexican revelation

2006-05-03T04:59:00.000-07:00

The Mexican revelation

America was built on the backs of immigrants, immigrants who came through Ellis Island legally. They came on boats from Europe and Asia, waving American flags, with little or no money, in hopes of having a better future for themselves and their children.

Italians, Irish and Chinese came in droves and were exploited by employers and often lived in squalor. They worked hard to assimilate in America, and the cultures blended together to form what America is today, a country made up of many different ethnic and cultural backgrounds.

How then can one plausibly demand U.S. citizenship while waving Mexican flags and singing a Spanish variation of the national anthem, which makes no effort to demonstrate one's willingness to actually assimilate in the American culture?

How can one expect amnesty by entering the country illegally while thousands of potential immigrants have been waiting years to legally enter the country?

How can one work for incredibly small wages that no one should have to work for and turn around and say that if they didn't do these jobs, then nobody else would? Others would do those jobs, but they would do them for fair, legal wages.

Immigrants need to enter the country legally no matter where they are from, for security and economic reasons. Employers need to hire only workers who can legally work in the U.S. And Americans need to accept those legally entering the country as a part of American society.

Showing Americans that the only thing you are bringing to the U.S. is the flag and language of your home country and making no effort to actually become a legal part of American society does nothing. If you can show so much support and pride for your home country, then what is the point of leaving it?

— Victor Masters, Bellevue

Immigration bill only a half measure

2006-04-29T22:39:00.000-07:00

THE immigration-reform bill the U.S. House passed last month is half-baked — and, if passed by the full Congress, could devastate parts of the nation's economy.

While it promises a major crackdown on illegal immigration both at the border and in the interior, the bill does almost nothing about why people sneak into the United States: jobs and better wages than in Mexico or other countries where the people come from. Employers need the workers — and hire them. Even with as many as 11 million foreign-born people living in the United States without legal authorization, the nation's unemployment rates are low.

Sponsored by Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., the Border Protection, Antiterrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 contains no accommodation for industries that, for better or worse, have come to rely heavily on unauthorized workers.

Under the bill, the government would increase border patrols further and build a 700-mile border fence. The measure also contains troubling provisions that deputize local law-enforcement officers to enforce federal law and round up illegal residents, and criminalizes assistance for the interlopers. The chance of a priest or doctor facing up to five years in prison especially doesn't sit well with churches and immigration groups whose beneficiaries include undocumented people.

Missing from Sensenbrenner's bill is a legal guest-worker program. With only enforcement and no accommodation of economic realities, industries such as agriculture and construction will get stuck with apples left on trees or buildings unfinished.

President Bush, once a governor of a border state, supports a guest-worker program but with no path to citizenship; Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., do, too, but with provisions for workers presently here illegally eventually to earn a path to citizenship. The rationale is that the guest-worker program in combination with stricter enforcement will diminish incentives for illegal immigration.

Opponents dismiss McCain's bill as another "amnesty," but it takes responsibility for government's failure to enforce existing immigration laws, permitting an underground market for illegal labor to flourish.

Washington Republican Reps. Doc Hastings and Cathy McMorris, who represent the state's two most agrarian districts, voted for Sensenbrenner's bill even though both support a guest-worker program in concept. They acknowledge this bill's approach makes for a job only half done.

The Senate is poised to take up immigration reform early this year, but it should address the whole picture. Better enforcement must be part of immigration reform. But a one-sided approach that doesn't consider the economic ramifications on businesses and whole communities is bound to fail.

Author unknown

Budget!

2006-03-19T13:36:00.000-08:00

Fighting terrorism and rebuilding New Orleans, Iraq and Afghanistan are straining the federal budget. Harder to understand is why a Republican White House and Republican Congress, during a time of low unemployment and solid economic growth, have presided over a huge expansion in social spending.

In 25 major social programs, enrollment increased an average of 17 percent from 2000 through 2005. This comes as population increased only 5 percent, reports USA Today in a startling tally of the recent welfare expansion.

The reason for the increases, according to the newspaper's well-substantiated analysis, is that more low-wage workers are eligible for food stamps and other forms of welfare. Medicaid has added 15 million beneficiaries and Medicare has added a costly prescription drug benefit.

What should concern taxpayers is that while spending on social programs increased by 22 percent in the five-year period, the increase does nothing to help solve the future funding shortfalls facing Medicare and Social Security.

Here's another way to look at it. The average household pays $18,000 in federal taxes, which is about $4,000 less than what's needed to balance the ballooning federal budget. Within 10 years, taxes would have to rise to $25,000 per household to balance the budget, the conservative Heritage Foundation calculates. But taxes can't increase 39 percent without destroying jobs and slowing growth.

That means federal expenses must be brought under control. The National Taxpayers Union says that if federal spending had increased only 4 percent a year since 2001, Bush would have been able to boast a budget surplus of $58 billion next year.

Instead, the national debt soars, future tax increases loom and voters wonder what happened to the fiscal conservatives they sent to Washington.

Titanic" & "My Life" by Bill Clinton

2006-02-16T20:36:00.000-08:00

Titanic" & "My Life" by Bill Clinton.

Students were assigned to read 2 books, "Titanic" & "My Life" by Bill Clinton.

One smart-ass student turned in the following book report, with the proposition
that they were nearly identical stories.

His cool professor gave him an A+ for this report:

Titanic: $29.99

Clinton : $29.99

Titanic: Over 3 hours to read

Clinton : Over 3 hours to read

Titanic: The story of Jack and Rose, their forbidden love, and subsequent
catastrophe.

Clinton : The story of Bill and Monica, their forbidden love, and subsequent
catastrophe.

Titanic: Jack is a starving artist.

Clinton : Bill is a bullshit artist.

Titanic: In one scene, Jack enjoys a good cigar.

Clinton : Ditto for Bill.

Titanic: During ordeal, Rose's dress gets ruined.

Clinton : Ditto for Monica.

Titanic: Jack teaches Rose to spit.

Clinton : Let's not go there.

Titanic: Rose gets to keep her jewelry.

Clinton : Monica's forced to return her gifts.

Titanic: Rose remembers Jack for the rest of her life.

Clinton : Clinton doesn't remember Jack.

Titanic: Rose goes down on a vessel full of seamen.

Clinton : Monica...ooh, let's not go there, either.

Titanic: Jack surrenders to an icy death.

Clinton : Bill goes home to Hilary...basically the same thing.

Cartoon Crazy

2006-02-12T13:46:00.000-08:00

Protesters in the Muslim world overreacted concerning Danish drawings of the prophet Muhammad. The degree of response is not proportionate to the offense.

Swastikas, burnings of crosses and desecrations of temples, mosques, churches and synagogues should be prosecuted as hate crimes; in the West, rule of law deals with these transgressions.

The movie "The Last Temptation of Christ" and Andres Serrano's depiction of a plastic Jesus in urine are two examples of art that offended many Christians. Yet, how many Christians demanded death to the artists?

Elements of the Islamic world cry Islam is peaceful, while shouting carnage and destruction. Author Salman Rushdie received the death penalty for [his novel] "The Satanic Verses." Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh's film on Islam incited his murder.

As with terrorist attacks, retaliation is often directed at people with little or no link to their supposed antagonists. In the summer of 1997, Tatiana Susskin's leaflets depicting Muhammad as a pig resulted in two suicide bombers with links to Hamas killing more than a dozen people, including two Arabs. Susskin was arrested and sentenced by an Israeli court to two years in jail for her act.

We, Muslims and non-Muslims, must demand the Islamic world repudiate religious chauvinism and violence. This is one of the greatest responsibilities of media, both Islamic and Western.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair: PurePolitics.com's 2005 Person of the Year

2005-12-21T21:43:00.000-08:00

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has been selected by our visitors and editorial oversight committee as PurePolitics.com's 2005 Person of the Year.

The Year 2005 was a year very historic year in the realm of U.S. politics and global international affairs.

During 2005 we encountered just some of the following events:

War on Iraq reached 2,000 American Causalities
Iraq holds democratic election
Hurricane Katrina Tragedy
London Transit Bombings
Selection of a new Chief Justice: Judge Roberts
Saddam Hussein is hauled into court
Bird Flu strains found
Guantanamo Bay
Deaths of Pope John Paul II, Rosa Parks, Richard Pryor and Peter Jennings
The Tsunamis in east Asia
Israel leaves the West Bank
Run-away bride Jennifer Wilbanks
Aruba tragedy of 18 year Natalee Holloway
Alan Greenspan retiring from Federal Reserve
Courthouse shootings in Atlanta
Terri Schiavo case
Cindy Sheehan-outspoken critic of the war
CIA- Valerie Plame scandal
Tom DeLay scandal

*The Right Honorable Anthony Charles Lynton Blair (born 6 May 1953) is the current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, First Lord of the Treasury and Minister for the Civil Service. He has led the Labour Party since July 1994, (following the death of John Smith in May of that year) and brought Labour into power with a landslide victory in the 1997 general election, replacing John Major as Prime Minister and ending 18 years of Conservative government. He is now the Labour Party's longest-serving Prime Minister, and the only person to have led the party to three consecutive general election victories.

Blair moved the Labour Party towards the centre of British politics, using the term "New Labour" to distinguish his policies of support for the market economy from the party's previous rigid adherence to nationalization. He has referred to his policy as "modern social democracy" and "the third way". Critics on the left feel that he has compromised the principles of the founders of the Labour party, and that the Blair government has moved too far to the right, placing insufficient emphasis on traditional Labour priorities such as the redistribution of wealth.

Since the advent of the War on Terror, a significant part of Blair's political agenda has been dominated by foreign affairs, particularly those concerning Iraq. Despite public protests, he supported many aspects of George W. Bush's foreign policy, sending British forces to participate in the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the subsequent peacekeeping operations and is known as one of the strongest foreign allies of the United States. In October 2004 Blair declared his intention to seek a third term but not a fourth.

The Labour party won a third term in government at the 2005 general election for the first time in its history, although its majority in the House of Commons was reduced to 66.

On February 6, 2005, Blair became the longest-serving Labour prime minister: his 2838th day in office moved him past the combined length of 7 years 9 months that comprised Harold Wilson's four terms during 1964 to 1966, 1966 to 1970, February to October 1974 and October 1974 to March 1976.

On July 6, 2005, it was formally announced that the 2012 Summer Olympics, the Games of the XXX Olympiad, were awarded to London as host city, as announced by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) during the extremely successful 117th IOC session in Singapore. The last minute surprise win by London over frontrunner Paris was said to have been decided by the presence of Tony Blair at the IOC session, even down to Irish IOC member Patrick Hickey saying "This is down to Tony Blair. If he hadn't come here I'd say that six to eight votes would have been lost and London would not be sitting here today winners".

On Thursday July 7, 2005, a series of four bomb explosions struck London's public transport system during the morning rush hour. At 08:50, three bombs exploded within one minute on three London Underground trains. A fourth bomb exploded on a bus at 09:47 in Tavistock Square. All four incidents are believed to have been suicide bombings. 56 people were confirmed dead, with 700 injured. The incident was the deadliest single act of terrorism in the United Kingdom since 270 died in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, and it was the deadliest bombing in London since World War II.

Blair made a statement about that day's London bombings, saying that he believed it was "reasonably clear" that it was an act of terror, and that he hoped that the people of Britain could demonstrate that their will to overcome the events is greater than the terrorists' wish to cause destruction. He also said that his determination to "defend" the British way of life outweighed "extremist determination" to destroy it.

On July 21, 2005, a second series of explosions were reported in London, two weeks and some hours after the 7 July 2005 London bombings. Four controlled explosions, of devices considerably less advanced than those of the previous attacks, were carried out at Shepherd's Bush, Warren Street and Oval underground stations, and on a bus in Shoreditch. Even though the attacks on the 21st were less severe than those on the 7th, Blair was reported to have said that the bombings in London today were intended "to scare people and to frighten them, to make them anxious and worried". He went on to say how the "police have done their very best, and the security services too, in the situation, and I think we have just got to react calmly and continue with our business as much as possible as normal".

In December 2005, the Prime Minister was presented with the "Statesman of the Decade" award by the East West Institute, a Transatlantic think tank that organizes an annual Security Conference in Brussels.

"We are proud to name Prime Minister Tony Blair as PurePolitics.com's 2005 Person of the Year," said Robert Ragsdale III, CEO of PurePolitics.com. "He follows in the footsteps of past heroic British Prime Ministers. History will someday look favorably upon Britain's true Statesmen. He is a leader who chooses democracy and freedom as his guide versus choosing political polls."

Official Site
10 Downing Street

*Background information provided from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Ariel Sharon polled second with Chief Justice John Roberts a close third out of eight finalists for the 2005 Person of the Year. The other five finalists were: Families of Hurricane Katrina, Peter Jennings, Pope John Paul II, Lance Armstrong and Rosa Parks.

To select nominees for the PurePolitics.com 2005 Person of the Year, we utilized our greatest asset -- our visitors. We conducted a comprehensive assessment, of the most searched-for people, the most frequently viewed photos and news articles in this year. The results of this comprehensive overview were compiled to create an initial master list of nominees. An editorial oversight committee, made up of PurePolitics.com employees who are experts in tracking and identifying user interests and trends, then reviewed the data collected and used it to determine the final list of 8 nominees.

History of Thanksgiving

2005-11-24T06:36:00.000-08:00

Throughout history mankind has celebrated the bountiful harvest with thanksgiving ceremonies.

Before the establishment of formal religions many ancient farmers believed that their crops contained spirits which caused the crops to grow and die. Many believed that these spirits would be released when the crops were harvested and they had to be destroyed or they would take revenge on the farmers who harvested them. Some of the harvest festivals celebrated the defeat of these spirits.

Harvest festivals and thanksgiving celebrations were held by the ancient Greeks, the Romans, the Hebrews, the Chinese, and the Egyptians.

The Greeks

The ancient Greeks worshipped many gods and goddesses. Their goddess of corn (actually all grains) was Demeter who was honored at the festival of Thesmosphoria held each autumn.

On the first day of the festival married women (possibility connecting childbearing and the raising of crops) would build leafy shelters and furnish them with couches made with plants. On the second day they fasted. On the third day a feast was held and offerings to the goddess Demeter were made - gifts of seed corn, cakes, fruit, and pigs. It was hoped that Demeter's gratitude would grant them a good harvest.

The Romans

The Romans also celebrated a harvest festival called Cerelia, which honored Ceres their goddess of corn (from which the word cereal comes). The festival was held each year on October 4th and offerings of the first fruits of the harvest and pigs were offered to Ceres. Their celebration included music, parades, games and sports and a thanksgiving feast.

The Chinese

The ancient Chinese celebrated their harvest festival, Chung Ch'ui, with the full moon that fell on the 15th day of the 8th month. This day was considered the birthday of the moon and special "moon cakes", round and yellow like the moon, would be baked. Each cake was stamped with the picture of a rabbit - as it was a rabbit, not a man, which the Chinese saw on the face of the moon.

The families ate a thanksgiving meal and feasted on roasted pig, harvested fruits and the "moon cakes". It was believed that during the 3 day festival flowers would fall from the moon and those who saw them would be rewarded with good fortune.

According to legend Chung Ch'ui also gave thanks for another special occasion. China had been conquered by enemy armies who took control of the Chinese homes and food. The Chinese found themselves homeless and with no food. Many staved. In order to free themselves they decided to attack the invaders.

The women baked special moon cakes which were distributed to every family. In each cake was a secret message which contained the time for the attack. When the time came the invaders were surprised and easily defeated. Every year moon cakes are eaten in memory of this victory.

The Hebrews

Jewish families also celebrate a harvest festival called Sukkoth. Taking place each autumn, Sukkoth has been celebrated for over 3000 years.

Sukkoth is know by 2 names - Hag ha Succot - the Feast of the Tabernacles and Hag ha Asif - the Feast of Ingathering. Sukkoth begins on the 15th day of the Hebrew month of Tishri, 5 days after Yom Kippur the most solemn day of the Jewish year.

Sukkoth is named for the huts (succots) that Moses and the Israelites lived in as they wandered the desert for 40 years before they reached the Promised Land. These huts were made of branches and were easy to assemble, take apart, and carry as the Israelites wandered through the desert.

When celebrating Sukkoth, which lasts for 8 days, the Jewish people build small huts of branches which recall the tabernacles of their ancestors. These huts are constructed as temporary shelters, as the branches are not driven into the ground and the roof is covered with foliage which is spaced to let the light in. Inside the huts are hung fruits and vegetables, including apples, grapes, corn, and pomegranates. On the first 2 nights of Sukkoth the families eat their meals in the huts under the evening sky.

The Egyptians

The ancient Egyptians celebrated their harvest festival in honor of Min, their god of vegetation and fertility. The festival was held in the springtime, the Egyptian's harvest season.

The festival of Min featured a parade in which the Pharaoh took part. After the parade a great feast was held. Music, dancing, and sports were also part of the celebration.

When the Egyptian farmers harvested their corn, they wept and pretended to be grief-stricken. This was to deceive the spirit which they believed lived in the corn. They feared the spirit would become angry when the farmers cut down the corn where it lived.

The United States

In 1621, after a hard and devastating first year in the New World the Pilgrim's fall harvest was very successful and plentiful. There was corn, fruits, vegetables, along with fish which was packed in salt, and meat that was smoke cured over fires. They found they had enough food to put away for the winter.

The Pilgrims had beaten the odds. They built homes in the wilderness, they raised enough crops to keep them alive during the long coming winter, and they were at peace with their Indian neighbors. Their Governor, William Bradford, proclaimed a day of thanksgiving that was to be shared by all the colonists and the neighboring Native American Indians.

The custom of an annually celebrated thanksgiving, held after the harvest, continued through the years. During the American Revolution (late 1770's) a day of national thanksgiving was suggested by the Continental Congress.

In 1817 New York State adopted Thanksgiving Day as an annual custom. By the middle of the 19th century many other states also celebrated a Thanksgiving Day. In 1863 President Abraham Lincoln appointed a national day of thanksgiving. Since then each president has issued a Thanksgiving Day proclamation, usually designating the fourth Thursday of each November as the holiday.

Canada

Thanksgiving in Canada is celebrated on the second Monday in October. Observance of the day began in 1879. (thanks to holiday.net)

Why Do We Run?

2005-11-13T20:17:00.000-08:00

Why? Why do we run from a fight? On pain of irritating those who hear me doing it often, I quote from the Mel Gibson’s timeless classic, Braveheart, the heart wrenching, yet inspiring epic based on the life of Sir William Wallace. In the movie, Wallace and several other Scottish nobles have amassed an army that stands opposite the hoards of Edward Longshanks, the King of England who is set upon annihilating Wallace and forcing the people of Scotland back into submission. As the military leaders of the respective sides ride towards the center of the field to discuss possible terms, Wallace rides off after them in a fury. When one of his lieutenants calls after him, asking where he’s going, he turns back, and with an expression of childish mischief yet deadly purpose, he replies, “To pick a fight.”

Wallace must have prophetically heard a phrase uttered some centuries down the road by one Mr. Edmund Burke. He said, “All it takes for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Die he might, but Wallace would never have been accused of doing nothing.

Why then do we, as conservatives, rather than welcoming the opportunity to defend our opinions with a fiery passion, we continue to run from fights? Time, and time again, we have had opportunities to win political, policy, and philosophical battles, and time and time again, we turn and run the opposite direction. I think those of us who have called ourselves traditionalists, Christians, conservatives, Republicans…whatever label you put on yourself, you know who you are. And what I’m about to say applies to most, if not all of you. For years, decades, really, we have been those who did nothing to enforce our claim to political ground. Absolutely nothing. So, when Hillary becomes POTUS, we deserve it. Had Miers been confirmed, we deserved it. If they take away our right to take our children to Mass, Sunday School, or Synagogue, we deserve it. If they take away our national anthem because it glorifies the Biblical ideals of freedom and liberty too much, we deserve it. In similar fashion, American conservatives stood idly by as our courts paved a highway for the murder of untold millions of unborn children. We stood idly by as they removed prayer from our schools, took the Ten Commandments out of the courthouses. We said nothing when they tried to take the pledge of allegiance out of our schools. We stand idly by as they, even now, try to increase their holds on our lives by restricting the practice of the principles upon which this country was built and by which it is sustained.

Two problems with that. Two really simple, logical problems. First, we have the “firepower” to win. We have majority in Congress. We have a President with three more years. We have a Supreme Court ripe for the picking. We hold a majority of the governorships around the nation. We have a massive grassroots organization that outnumbers the Democrats by over a million. Second, we’re right. It’s that simple. We, as conservatives, hold the value systems, beliefs, and the platform that most accurately reflects correct moral principles, the beliefs held by the founders of this country, and the standards that are truest to truth, justice, equity, life, liberty, and the pursuit of the happiness that so many of us so strongly desire.

That, my friends, is why my jaw dropped in absolute amazement when I heard about Harriet Mier’s withdrawal. I was unabashedly, unequivocally against her nomination. I do not think that someone who’s qualifications are relatively unknown, and who’s convictions and philosophy are in question, should even be considered. Hence, as you may assume, my surprise when I learned that Miers was to withdraw her name, and another, more conservative nominee to be offered. My question is this: why did we have to go through the pain of a failed nominee to get to this point? More importantly, why weren’t conservatives heard and heeded during the initial selection, instead of in the withdrawal consideration? Put simply, it is our job to influence the influencers, and we have not been influencing.

In short, I think conservatives need to take just a moment and review the events of the last month. We need to cognitively take stock, and realize something. I’ve said this for years, yet few seem to comprehend what it really means. If Christian conservatives will unite, band together, and exert the political and government influence that is duly theirs, our citizen lobby would outnumber the liberals, the pro-abortionists, the environmentalists, the sodomites, and the anarchists…put together.

In the alternative, I’ll reference the chilling words of the late Reverend Martin Niemoeller. “In Germany, the Nazis first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I didn't speak up because I was a protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak for me.”

Incentive Programs Gone Wild: By Nathan Tabor

2005-11-10T18:16:00.000-08:00

When I consider the concept of “incentive programs,” I’m reminded of the old adage, “It looks good on paper,” but then you are faced with the inevitable question of how will it work in practice? The basic premise of state-based business incentive programs is as follows: Company X needs a new headquarters or production plant, States B and C have the needed land and workforce, and would both benefit from having Company X move their way. So each state tries to entice Company X with a “sweetened” offer, making it financially beneficial to come to that state. The payoff to the state’s outlay comes ostensibly by Company X’s long-term investment in the state by employing locals, and bolstering the local economy through the purchase of goods and by paying their taxes.

Some would argue that the proper perspective with which to view these programs would be the axiom that you can give a man a fish and he’ll eat for a day; but if you teach a man to fish, he can eat for a lifetime. Or put another way: By investing in this company now, the state is investing in the long-term health of its citizenry.

Local and state governments are rolling out the red carpet to big corporations and are willing to fulfill just about every corporate demand in exchange for jobs. Currently, over two-thirds of the states have incentive programs that collectively offer over $3 billion in incentives.

Essentially, this once “well-intentioned” program has degenerated into a huge scam that has corporations hop-scotching from state to state once their current “fix” is exhausted

Indeed, such a program may look good on paper and, at first glance, might even appear to be consistent with a conservative ideology. But when you add 21st century politics and ethics—or lack thereof—to the mix, you quickly realize that these programs amount to nothing more than a welfare program for multi-million dollar corporations at the expense of the already overburdened U.S. taxpayer.

Note to Michael Moore and friends: this is not a rant against capitalism or business. But these programs expose a fundamental misunderstanding of how our economy works.

As a small business owner, it deeply disturbs me that our elected officials are so willing to chase after these big businesses at the expense of helping the “little guy.” The fact is that small business owners are the backbone of our economy; therefore it is only logical that their existence, success and growth should be nurtured—not dismissed. This isn’t high-level business strategy. It is merely common sense. But then again, that may be part of the problem. As a professor once quipped to me, “If sense is so common, then why doesn’t everyone have it?”

For example, take a look at my home county, Forsyth County, North Carolina. Recently, they voted to give $125,000 to Hayward Industries—a New Jersey-based company. Just a few months ago, however, they voted AGAINST giving $105,000 to a local company that was seeking to improve our local hospital. How can it make sense to help an outside corporation that will take the county for whatever it will give at the expense of growing the local industry.

By now, it must be pretty obvious that I am 100 percent against incentive programs. But I am 150 percent against multi-million dollar corporations, like Hayward and Dell, reaping financial windfalls at the expense of the individual citizen’s bottom line.

These programs get you coming and going. They are not only adversarial to the local small business owner by nature, but like any form of welfare they quickly devolve into a bloated bureaucracy that reinforces an entitlement mentality that is nearly impossible to terminate. The minute a local government seeks to scale back or cut off continued funding to these companies, they pull up stakes and look for their next sucker town and tax base that will swallow the “jobs” bait—hook, line and sinker.

This isn’t just my random theory. Look at what happened in Tampa Bay, Fla. The government promised to give J.P. Morgan $100 million to help them “create” jobs. One hundred million dollars to a company that made over $4.5 billion in 2004 alone. This is an absurd abuse of taxpayer dollars. Are you ready for the shock of your life? It didn’t benefit anyone but J.P. Morgan’s bottom line. This year, the investment behemoth laid off 1,900 workers. So, in the end, the state of Florida financed J.P. Morgan’s “right-sizing” effort. Now that’s a good deal if you can get in on it.

Credit card company Capitol One also had a sweetheart deal in Tampa, Fla., worth several million dollars. Everyone was happy until a better offer came along. Capitol One took the bait and added 1,100 names to the local economy’s unemployment list.

It is only a matter of time before this reality comes to roost in North Carolina. It seems to me that our elected officials could spend more time lowering the corporate tax rate, then dreaming up new ways to give our hard-earned money away to corporate raiders.

When all is said and done, it is small business owners who are left to pick up the shattered pieces of the local economy and put it back together again. Just imagine how strong local economies would be if the millions of dollars being wasted on corporate welfare instead flowed back into these markets.

America once prided herself on self-responsibility and for being a manufacturing giant that set the world standard. If we needed it, we made it. Now we punish the industrious, reward the greedy and wonder why domestic manufacturers are being kicked around by the communist Chinese production machine.

If we truly want to turn our economy around we must first correct our attitude and philosophy on business itself. Our elected officials must create a fertile environment for small businesses to thrive by lowering taxes and regulations on these businesses, and stop robbing the “poor” to reward the “rich.”

Nathan Tabor is a conservative political activist based in Kernersville, North Carolina. He has a bachelor’s degree in psychology and a master’s degree in public policy. He is a contributing editor at www.theconservativevoice.com. Contact him at Nathan@nathantabor.com.

Politics of the Belly

2005-10-31T18:24:00.000-08:00

In a failed state on the West African coast, fallow fields and an oligopolic import market mean many are going hungry. In this year's elections, rice is used as a political tool.

In Liberia, devastated after 14 years of a senseless civil war, talk is cheap. Any aspiring politician this election years knows he needs rice – and lots of it – if he wants a crowd at his stump.

The impoverished masses of this country, founded on the West African coast 150 years ago by freed slaves from America, view campaign season as a boon time. This is politics in the Tammany tradition. And though a voter may think twice about selling his vote, at least there is no question as to what the currency will be. “A Liberian man may put food in his mouth all day,” says Vincent Klede, for three years a driver for Firestone, which maintains the world's largest rubber plantation outside the capital Monrovia. “But if he hasn’t eaten rice, he’ll say he hasn’t eaten.”

In a country so broken it can't even offer the statistics that show its neighbors have the lowest quality of life on earth, the staple food is a vivid image to the hungry. Liberians date the beginning of their political awakening to the rice riots of 1979, when frustration over rising prices and the one-party state brought the public to the streets. Monrovians associate the worst periods of their many years of conflict with the concomitant spike in the price of a cup of rice. Chea Cheapoo, former chief justice of the Supreme Court, opened his unsuccessful senatorial bid in River Gee County in September by explaining his reasons for retiring from the bench: “That judiciary is so rotten,” he told a dancing, drumming crowd in one of the least developed regions of the countryside. “They bribe just like how you cook rice every day.” And while only one warlord, Sekou Conneh, was among the 22 candidates in the political free-for-all that was the first round of the race for the presidency, his estranged wife over the border in Guinea is an eerie reminder of darker forces in the wings. The International Crisis Group, which monitors West Africa closely, reports Aisha Keita Conneh is luring throngs of former fighters to her home by cooking 100 50-kg bags of rice every week.

In the country’s last experiment with democracy, citizens overwhelmingly elected the country’s leading warlord to the presidency. Six years after the 1997 elections, Charles Taylor, alienated by the international community and with two rebel movements at the gates of Monrovia, fled into exile. He had been elected by turning his fighting forces into a well oiled political machine, with feasts of grand proportions at the precinct and district level. Many see their choice then as a mistake, but would only be so happy to live through his campaign once more.

The Liberian officials and international experts overseeing this year’s election have devoted much hand-wringing to its needless concurrence with the rainy season. Less attention has been given to the anachronistic constitution’s placement of campaigns during the hungry season, when hampers have run dry and children grow thin. In these months, the cost of feeding a family on imports from China and Pakistan, 80 percent of which are controlled by two Lebanese businessmen, can soar as high as $40, more than the monthly salary of many civil servants. Families grouse by on cassava or the much-maligned bulgur wheat, imported from the American heartland.

The campaign feeding frenzy has mellowed since October 11, when the first round of voting decided the races for the Senate and House. The two candidates in the second round - required because none received an outright majority of votes in the first - don't want their heightened profile to get them in trouble with the country's oft ignored campaign finance regulations, which outlaw vote buying.

Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, a former World Bank official and chair of the Special Executive Rice Committee, has been part of the political landscape since the final days of the True Whig Party in the 1970s. But with her advanced Harvard degree and years abroad, she is far from the Liberian mainstream. Her runoff competitor is George Manneh Weah, the 1995 world soccer play of the year. He can’t boast a high school diploma, but his supporters say he’s too rich to be corrupted.

It's a stark choice for voters, but both candidates claim to offer the one thing Liberians want other than rice. A way out of the senseless war that has ravaged the country. Round two takes place on November 8.

By: Jeff Austin contributing writer to PurePolitics.com