The Choice Before Us

2004-11-1 18:04:00

My Friends,

Let us divert from the standard teachings for a moment and talk briefly about this point in time, a point of tension. Why is it a point of tension?

Because the elections in the United States are tomorrow and an important election it is. This is an election which involves a real choice which will take the nation and the world in one of two very different directions.

Therefore, I will break from tradition and make a few comments.

Before I do I realize that as long as I call the truth as I see it I will be accused of bias, but many in this age do not seem to realize what bias is.

Many think that another is biased if he merely disagrees with his own views.

Others think another is biased if he is so bold as to take a point of view.

Still others accuse bias if comes to an objective conclusion.

None of these represents true bias.

What then is bias?

A bias is a willingness to support a distortion of truth to move forward his agenda or point of view.

If two people disagree does this mean then that one is biased?

Not necessarily. Both of them may be attempting to put together the facts correctly, but one of them may not have all the facts or his reasoning powers are just not powerful enough to come up with a correct conclusion.

The point is that one without bias will sincerely seek to find the truth and put the various truths together to come to a correct conclusion.

Unfortunately, most people are heavily biased because of the power of the emotions. When people feel strongly in one direction it is rare that even hard-core facts will change their mind.

I speak of this subject as a preemptive strike against those who will surely accuse me of bias.

In making a decision there are several overriding issues to consider. There are many minor issues which would have some effect, but not as important as those which I will name.

(1) The War on Terror. This is the most important issue because the conflict with which we are involved. If the terrorists are not contained then civilization, as we know it could disintegrate and a thousand years of progress could be lost.

Bush has treated this as an outright war and has aggressively taken steps to stop them dead in their tracks. If you were to ask the populace one month after 911 if we would have another attack before the next election I would guess that 90% would have said yes, including myself.

We haven't had another attack, and this was not by accident. The reason is that aggressive steps have been taken to protect us. It is true that Bush has not been perfect in all his decisions, but they have been on par with Winston Churchill and FDR during World War II.

Some think that we have not had an attack because President Bush, or the Bush family, are in on a great conspiracy and engineered 911 and events, which followed.

The recent video from Osama Bin Laden dispels many of the myths around this. In the video Bin Laden admits that he engineered 911 and confirmed the names of the hijackers who the conspiracy people say were not even on the planes. This also dispels the Jewish conspiracy theory.

Some say that the Bush people told Osama Bin Laden what to say on the recording, but it would make no sense that the whole video would contain the Democratic talking points condemning Bush, such as his 5-7 minute delay in acting while reading to school children.

Osama Bin Laden also threatened retaliation against states that give their electoral votes to Bush in the election.

In other words, no future planes will fly into the buildings of the blue states, only the red Bush states.

If Bush were really this evil genius (instead of the bumbling idiot) then this statement would be an insane addition.

Kerry, on the other hand, wants to fight the war on terror as a police type of action. He appears to think that by getting the cooperation of the French and Germans in addition to our current allies we can obtain the power to merely arrest those who are causing us problems.

This is indeed wishful thinking. What would have been the chances of us capturing Hitler during World War II if our policy was merely to arrest him? The hardcore truth is that the only way to neutralize such an enemy was through the use of horrific force. Even so, the only way to put Osama Bin Laden in his place was to go against him with such force. This seems to have been successful, for instead of initiating an attack all he is able to do to influence the elections is to send a video (rather than planes) from his hiding place.

Kerry says that he will attack our enemy when they pass a global test of approval. The question is how much approval does he need before he acts? He voted against Gulf War I when almost all the nations of the world approved, even Syria and Egypt. His global test seems extreme indeed. It would seem that we would need an atomic bomb going off before he would act.

In my opinion, Bush has acted with justice and the fruit of his actions is that the hope of freedom has be brought to 50 million people.

Some say it has not been worth the cost, but consider this.

Bush has fought and won two wars with the loss of about 1000 lives wherein we fought and lost in Vietnam with a loss of about 50,000 American lives and millions of other lives in Vietnam and Cambodia.

If memory serves me right, I believe about 50 million lives were lost in World War II.

The positive results that have been achieved by Bush (if they are not bungled by a future leadership) are amazing and have the possibility of achieving a high point in history as noted by future historians.

In addition to this, securing the freedom of these 50 million Afghanistanis and Iraqis will clear a major hurdle in preparing for the return of the Christ as well as setting an example that other Moslem nations will emulate.

(2) The issue of Freedom.

Even though Bush has been accused of robbing us of many freedoms I see no evidence to back this up. The most famous accusation is the implementation of the Patriot Act. What few comment on is that both Democrats and Republicans voted for it. Only one Senator (Feingold) voted against it. If only one out of 100 Senators opposed it then why is their not equal opportunity blame? Why just blame Bush?

Kerry and Edwards both voted for the act. Why are they not accused of being Hitler along with Bush here?

The fact is that the Patriot Act has accomplished more good than harm. It is true it has its faults and dangers, but it also has an expiration date on it so these dangers can be corrected by Congress and some modifications have already been made.

Consider this. If we compare the injustices of our traffic laws compared with the Patriot Act which one has created the most grief for the public? I know of not a single person who has been inconvenienced or wronged in any way by the Patriot Act, but almost everyone I know has suffered an injustice over traffic laws. My friend Wayne, for example, has spent time in jail over them.

I would guess that we as a nation suffer about 100,000 times as much injustice over traffic laws as we do over the Patriot Act. Why then are we not up in arms over traffics laws instead??? After all, some of them often violate the letter of the Constitution.

No matter what law is instituted there are those who complain about the freedoms taken away by it. After all, what is a law except a restriction on freedom? Law restricts the burglar's freedom to enter our house, for instance.

A law is just when the freedoms gained from it are greater than those taken away.

We thus support laws against burglary for is gives more freedom than it takes away.

Even though laws restrict freedom, some are necessary to insure the preservation of freedom. Therefore, when a law is passed we must look at the overall effect on freedom rather than the pocket of freedom that is restricted by it.

Overall, Bush is fairly supportive toward the principle of freedom including a desire to extend this to other nations. A negative for him is his overspending on social issues. This overspending does threaten out future economic freedom.

On other issues of freedom he gets positive points such as:

(1) Bush basically supports the Constitution and judges who interpret it the way it reads.

(2) Strongly supports the right to bear arms.

(3) Supports the idea of the individual having freedom to invest part of his social security.

(4) Supports tort reform to prevent unjust lawsuits from destroying our freedoms.

(5) Takes no action to restrict freedom of expression of those who disagree with him. Seems to support the First Amendment not only in word, but also in deed.

(6) He leans toward passing law through democratic vote rather than judicial decree.

With Kerry I see little support of the principle of freedom, especially as far as: (1) Freedom of expression.

Nothing illustrates this better than how he dealt with the accusations from the Swift Boat Veterans

The book "Unfit to Command" was written by John O'Neill a Democrat who voted never voted for either Bush. He and his group of Veterans were outraged by Kerry claims and presented the book to counter them.

Kerry Response: Attempt to silence free speech first by demanding that the publisher Regnery stop the publishing of the book or face legal consequences.

He dug up dirt on the highly decorated Swiftboat Vets and then attempted to smear them as racists, bigots, liars etc.

His party threatened legal action against television stations where the Swifties advertised and later gave an avalanche of lawsuit threats that prevented them from showing their Kerry film on TV.

He demanded the Swifties 527 be banned by law from free speech whereas Kerry friendly 527's be uncensored even though they were manned by illegal Democratic operatives such as Joe Sandler, Zach Exley, Jim Jordan and Kerry attorney Robert Bauer.

Not one accusation of the Swiftboats have been disproved (even though the media says otherwise) whereas many of Michael Moore's accusations have been shown to be false. Even so, the Bush people did not try to stop Moore from doing his thing.

Kerry people have threatened Fox News and talk radio with future restrictions of speech if they gain power.

(2) Any bill which has come up restricting the freedom of the Second Amendment has been voted for by Kerry.

Even though Bush is a big spender Kerry is a bigger one and has no qualms in voting for social spending that could be so great it could enslave future generations with debt and a lack of power to raise the funds to defend ourselves.

(3) He is against the idea of the individual having freedom to invest part of his social security. Wants total government control over all such funds.

(4) Claims to support tort reform but has said nothing to indicate that he would support any real reform, especially with Edwards being one of the most successful ambulance chasers in history. As evidence of this note that his party has 10,000 lawyers waiting in the wings to wreck havoc on the Republic on election day should Kerry lose.

(5) He leans toward passing law through judicial decree rather than democratic means.

(3) Social Philosophy.

Both candidates seek more social spending and programs than I like. Spending other people's money on ourselves through government intervention is appealing to many, but the path eventually leads to powerlessness and disintegration of the nation. Once taxes reach the maximum because of social mandates, the nation becomes unable to raise the funds to defend itself and will crumble in the face of an enemy.

Even so there is a difference in the two. Bush has indeed spent a lot of money on his compassionate conservatism and what has been the criticism from the Kerry camp? Usually it is that he has not spent enough. Even though Bush has increased educational spending by 25% Kerry keeps complaining that he has not funded enough programs.

Another difference is this. Bush attempts to implement some individual responsibility in his social programs whereas Kerry has criticized this indicating that his social programs would follow the standard model with complete government control.

(4) Integrity.

Even though Bush has been accused of every evil that can be imagined I have studied the man and found no evidence to back up such claims.

The most common accusation is that he lies, but I have not found one outright lie the man has told. It is possible that he has told some whoppers, but I can't find any.

So why does this accusation carry any water? The answer is that his accusers have redefined what a lie is. Every time Bush makes an honest mistake they call it a lie. A mistake is not a lie. A lie is a statement knowingly made to deceive with a conscious awareness that it is untrue.

Positive points for Bush in this category is this.

He has a good marriage and has had no major scandals attributed to him during his presidency.

He sincerely follows his religious beliefs and regularly prays and seeks help from something higher than his lower self.

Even though his religious beliefs are a lot different from my own I admire anyone who follows the highest he knows and adheres to it.

There are many stories which surface that show the sincerity and generosity of the man. Note the one at the end of this article.

Bush pays his full taxes and gives around 14% of his income to charity.

Kerry, on the other hand, does not rate so high in my book. First I have seen a number outright lies that he has told including lying about lying.

He stated during the debates that he has never accused Bush of lying, but has been recorded doing so several times. It is possible that he just couldn't remember stating the Bush was a liar, but that's normally not the type of statement you forget.

He's been very deceptive about his views presenting himself as conservative when he is the most liberal person in the senate. Most people voting for him know little of his voting record because Kerry and the cooperative press have presented a distorted view of his belief system.

Kerry lied about his being in Cambodia at Christmas 1969 during the Vietnam war and then tried to hide the lie with another lie of another time.

He tried to show he was a Red Sox fan by stating that he attended the big game in New York on October 25, 1986 and was 30 yards away from Bill Buckner's famous error. Later it was discovered in a news account from the Boston Globe that he was at a banquet in Boston at this time and could not have attended the game.

A whopper was that a million blacks were denied the vote in Florida in 2000. I just heard him say this today and this statement boggles the mind. (Usually he merely claims it was thousands). After the election in 2000 all kinds of investigations were carried out and not one case was discovered where any minority was denied the right to vote, excepting those who were felons which are denied the vote by law whether they be white or black.

There were a handful (as there always is) amounting to an equal number of Republicans and Democrats who may have had their vote not counted because their name was confused with a felon. Outrageously, there were a number of military votes which were not counted because of Democrat objections.

During the debates Kerry said he met with all the members of the U.N. Security council in October 2002 about the war in Iraq. Reporters thought they would check this out and talked to all five members of the Council. Four of them said they never talked to him at all.

These are just a few out of the many that could be cited.

One thing I appreciate from anyone who is selected to lead is that when they look me in the eye and make a statement I can believe that it is the truth being related to the best of his ability.

Another problem I have with Kerry is that he claims to be a great war hero and hardly a speech goes by that he does not mention it numerous times. Remember Bob Dole, Bush Sr. and JFK and others who never reminded us of their heroism?

The fact is that Kerry only served three and a half months in harm's way and then left for home on a technicality. Some maintain he initially received a dishonorable discharge, but Kerry has refused (unlike Bush) to release his records which would reveal the truth.

Over two hundred of his fellow Veterans are so upset with his false accusations against them after the war that they have gone to war against him by attempting to set the record straight. He falsely accused them of war crimes and they are mad as hell, justifiable so. They have asked him time and time again for an apology, but he refuses.

Even Jane Fonda apologized to the Veterans for the harm she may have caused them, but Kerry will not.

One final thing. Kerry keeps telling us he has a plan but never tells us what the plan is. Either he has no plan or his plan is so alarming that he cannot speak it.

A whole book could be written on the choice before us, but I am out of time and must finish this treatise.

My advice on the vote is to find out the real truth behind these candidates and then vote the highest you know - but please make sure you know at least a few details about that for which you are voting.

The great thing about democracy is that it gives every voter a chance to do something stupid. Art Spander

Touching Story of President Bush Thanks to Susan Carter for passing it on.

This is from a man, Bruce Vincent, from Montana who received an award from the President. He writes:

For me, the biggest event of the day had already happened when the East Room Ceremony started up. While the East Room ceremony was being prepared, the four national award winners and the entities that nominated them were taken to the Oval Office for the official award presentation by President Bush and First Lady Bush.

There were eight of us in total. Stepping into the Oval Office, each of us was introduced to the President and Mrs. Bush. I have to tell you, I was blown away by two things upon entering the office. First, the Oval Office sense of 'peace' is unreal. The President later shared a story of Russian President Putin entering the room prepared to tackle the President in a tough negotiation and upon entering, the Russian President, who has claimed to be an atheist muttered his first words to the President and they were "Oh, my God." I concurred. I could feel the history in my bones. I was admittedly concerned about meeting the man. I think all of us have an inner hope that the most powerful man in our country is worthy of the responsibility and authority that we bestow upon him through our vote. I admit that part of me was afraid that I would be let down by the moment -- that the person and the place could not meet the lofty expectations of my fantasy world.

He and the First Lady were asked about the impact of the Presidency on their marriage and, with an arm casually wrapped around Laura, he said that he thought the place may be hard on weak marriages but that it had the ability to make strong marriages even stronger and that he was blessed with a strong one.

When asked what the biggest challenge of the Presidency was, he talked about the daily frustration of partisan politics. He said that when he was elected he promised that he would do in DC what he had done in Texas and that was build alliances and coalitions that bridged party lines in order to move the nation forward. He had quickly learned that there are those in the nation's capital that would rather see the nation dismantled than work together to achieve a common good. That, he said, is a bitter and continuing disappointment.

The President talked about the artwork and other items of interest in the room. For instance the desk he uses is the one that was given to the U.S. by Queen Victoria and used by FDR and JFK. In fact FDR had a front panel added to the desk to cover the mid section because FDR did not want the country to know he was in a wheelchair. President Bush laughed and said, "My how things have changed, FDR hid a wheelchair and if I eat a pretzel and get a tingle in my arm it's front page news around the globe." That little desk faux front is hinged by the way, and is the door that we all have seen John-John sticking his head from behind in the famous photo of JFK at work.

After about 30 or 35 minutes, it was time to go. By then we were all relaxed and I felt as if I had just had an excellent visit with a friend. The President and First Lady made one more pass down the line of awardees, shaking hands and offering congratulations. When the President shook my hand I said, "Thank you Mr. President and God bless you and your family."

He was already in motion to the next person in line, but he stopped abruptly, turned fully back to me, gave me a piercing look, renewed the vigor of his handshake and said, "Thank you, and God bless you and yours as well."

I then did something that surprised even me. I said to him, "Mr. President, I know you are a busy man and your time is precious. I also know you to be a man of strong faith and have a favor to ask you." As he shook my hand he looked me in the eye and said, "Just name it." I told him that my step-Mom was at that moment in a hospital in Kalispell, Montana, having a tumor removed from her skull and it would mean a great deal to me if he would consider adding her to his prayers that day.

He grabbed me by the arm and took me back toward his desk as he said, "So that's it. I could tell that something is weighing heavy on your heart today. I could see it in your eyes. This explains it." From the top drawer of his desk he retrieved a pen and a note card with his seal on it and asked, "How do you spell her name?" He then jotted a note to her.

When he handed me the card, he asked about the surgery and the prognosis. I told him we were hoping that it is not a recurrence of an earlier cancer and that if it is they can get it all with this surgery. He said, "If it's okay with you, we'll take care of the prayer right now. Would you pray with me?" I told him yes and he turned to the staff that remained in the office and hand motioned the folks to step back or leave. He said, "Bruce and I would like some private time for a prayer."

As they left he turned back to me and took my hands in his. I was prepared to do a traditional prayer stance -- standing with each other with heads bowed. Instead, he reached for my head with his right hand and pulling gently forward, he placed my head on his shoulder. With his left arm on my mid back, he pulled me to him in a prayerful embrace. He started to pray softly. I started to cry. He continued his prayer for Loretta and for God's perfect will to be done. I cried some more. My body shook a bit as I cried and he just held tighter. He closed by asking God's blessing on Loretta and the family during the coming months. I stepped away from our embrace, wiped my eyes, swiped at the tears I'd left on his shoulder, and looked into the eyes of our President. I thanked him as best I could and told him that I and my family would continue praying for him and his. As I write this account down and reflect upon what it means, I have to tell you that all I really know is that his simple act left me humbled and believing. I so hoped that the man I thought him to be was the man that he is. I know that our nation needs a man such as this in the Oval Office.

He's not what I had hoped he would be. He is, in fact, so very, very much more!