When people talk about exit strategies, whether it's business or politics, their intentions aren't usually honorable. Why are the Democrats asking the Bush Administration, "What's your exit strategy for Iraq?" Iraq isn't the quagmire that Vietnam was. America liberated Iraq. Now's time to reconstruct the land that was devastated by foreign occupiers, who used the resources of Iraq to wage a war of terror against the innocent peoples of the Middle East. In order to carry out their genocidal intentions, the Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein had to suppress the people of Iraq. This was not a case of Sunni against Shi'ah. It was a case of despotism against democracy.

Why don't the Democrats talk of our exist strategy for Germany, or our exit strategy for Japan? Why do they talk about our exit strategy for Iraq. Iraqi expatriates have been begging the American government for years to do something about Saddam Hussein. Nobody did anything for the Iraqis until September Eleven.

For the Iraqi people the Weapons of Mass Destruction were never the issue. They were an oppressed people that needed to be freed. It was not the duty of the Americans to free them, but the Terrorists who committed the genocide on 9-11 were being supported by the Terrorists inside Iraq. That's why on September 11, there was dancing in the streets of Iraqi towns and cities. How naiive can someone be to deny that the same people who danced in the streets as a result of the tragedy in NYC on 9/11/2001, were the same Terrorists under the skin as the ones who committed the atrocity on that day?

That they were a small percentage of the population goes without saying. The majority of Iraqis are glad to be free and appreciate what the US finally did for them, but the small percentage of genocidal maniacs in Iraq are typical of all totalitarian regimes who allow racial hatred to run rampant in their countries.

There are many regimes in the Middle East who aren't democracies; however, Saddam Hussein's regime was openly against the US policy in the Middle East. They had declared themselves the enemy of the United States, just as Osama Bin Laden had. There's a difference between a non-democratic regime or a monarchy that is allied with the US and a regime that's openly antagonistic toward the United States. This is where the Democrats in politics don't draw the distinction. Kerry in his campaign speeches attacked the relationship between the US government and the Saudi Arabian government. It showed his ignorance of the US policy over several US administrations with respect to Saudi Arabia.

The US should stay committed to the rebuilding of Iraq. Staying in Iraq is necessary for maintaining peace in the region. The holy cities of the Shi'ah sect of Islam are in Iraq. The US isn't interested in occupying any of them. The US presence in Iraq is strictly to maintain the freedom of the Iraqi people against the Terrorists, who are predominantly common criminals without ideology or purpose, except to commit acts of genocide against innocent people.

Mesopotamia is the birthplace of civilization. It's called the Cradle of Civilization. According to the Bible, God created Adam and Eve there and put them in the Garden of Eden or Paradise.

Did the Devil ask Adam and Eve, "What's your exist strategy?" But he did find a way for them to be kicked out of Paradise. There are some places where one needs to stay put. There's no need for an exist strategy for Iraq. Americans are needed to protect the Iraqi people against the Terrorists.

The only exit strategy I see is for the Democrats to resign their seats in the US Congress and allow for the unrepresented Americans to participate in the American democratic system. What are the Democrats contributing to the democratic process? Just negativity? The Democrats would like to change the perception of the American people regarding the US policy in Iraq. They're not only out of touch with reality, because they can't accept the fact that they lost and are wrong about Iraq, they're now trying to make it sound like they were right all along and the US needs to admit its mistake in liberating Iraq and calling it the occupation of Iraq. In that regard, they're in agreement with those Europeans who supported Saddam Hussein by doing business with him, selling him weapons and giving him the false hope that they'd rescue him through diplomacy. It's all very obvious and painfully embarrassing, but we need to say it like it is. All the people of the world would like to have a say-so in their own government regardless of religion or race. All people deserve to live free. That's how everyone will respect each other and live at peace with one another.

January 26, 2005

Yesterday, I saw a debate between the reporters of Fox News and an atheist professor who wants to prevent the President of the United States from taking the oath of office by invoking the name of God.

There's something wrong with a system that allows for this type of nuisance to reach the American public in their homes. But since it has, we must now consider restoring our educational system so we don't end up having to lose all the freedoms that we cherish, especially the freedom to worship our Lord and God.

Perhaps, there is some law that has been overlooked in the Constitution that can be applied to try atheists who hold public office or university positions for sedition. I don't advocate incarceration for such individuals who are found to be the enemies of our culture, but they should at least be fired from their jobs. I believe in our freedom as a nation, but traitors to our Constitution should not be representatives of our nation or teachers of our children.

Atheism is a disease that came to us from the former Soviet Union. This disease has ravished our nation for a century. Our universities are inundated by atheist professors. They've removed the name of Jesus from all public school textbooks. Now they want to remove the name of God from the Declaration of Independence. We may have won the Cold War, but we've lost the cultural war. We can't even protect ourselves against the atheists now. They openly call themselves Marxists, but they go crazy when they're called Communists. I don't understand anymore: what is it they want? If the President can't swear on a Bible when taking the oath of office, what is he supposed to swear on? Do the atheists have a Bible? I've never heard of one. After all these years one would think that they had agreed on some manifesto, but then the denial of God's existence can't generate anything positive. We can't be expected to swear on a blank principle, on the negation of all Scriptures, on the existence of a black hole of morality.

Is there no sanity left in any of the universities? Can't the American universities clean up this mess that they created?

Jan. 15, 2005

The Democrats are thus betraying not only their allies in the Middle East, but they're betraying the American heroes again, like they did in Vietnam.

The Iraqi people are poised to hold their first free elections in history. They're taking a beating at the hands of their foreign enemies, such as the genocidal maniac Osama Bin Laden. But the world cannot be held hostage by one man, if there are any decent people left in the world.

The Iraqi people will be the difference in the Middle East in the future, because terrorism in the Middle East will become the target of the Iraqi people, after they take control of their country and insure the right of all Iraqis to freedom and democracy. The Iraqis will be on our side for a change.

I think that all Arab-Americans and all the people of the Middle East should boycott the Democratic Party in the future. The Democrats don't want democracy for the Middle East. The Democrats, it seems to me, have always wanted the leadership of the US for the sake of controlling the American people. They use democracy just as a catch phrase to get themselves elected. Their main contribution to democracy has been great speeches. They know how to put on a show. They're great talkers. They can turn black to white and white to black. They can disembowel the truth.

The Democrats pretend to promote diversity, but in so doing they don't want to share power with the diverse people that voted for them. Try to get one of their Congressmen or Senators to help you with a problem. They'll immediately come up with an excuse that it's not fair to others if they help you. They practice tokenism in their appointments, but they don't bring benefit to the entire community, only to their immediate cronies.

The Democrats pretend to be in favor of labor, but they use mob tactics in unionizing the select few who are their benefactors. Look what they've done to the film and TV industry. They're giving out top awards to a traitor of democracy like Michael Moore. This propaganda filmmaker is calling for the defeat of democracy in Iraq.

The Democrats pretend to be in favor of homosexual rights, women rights, minority rights, but they put down anybody from these groups who doesn't belong to their party. Their hypocrisy became apparent during the last presidential election.

The Democrats have made a mockery of democracy. It's time they straightened out their act. If the Democrats want to become a viable party again, they need to weed out the liberals who've pushed the party so far to the left that they've put the radicals of the 60's to shame.

The Democrats lost the election of 2004 because of their stance on Iraq, but they're still pretending that it was the issue of validating homosexual relationships that made the Christians vote against Kerry. The Democrats are still in denial and are acting like the spoiled children that they are.

The Democrats need to become mature in their outlook and treat the wishes of the American people with respect. Enough of this red state and blue state business. Americans are a fair-minded people. The American people believe in freedom and democracy. They're a generous people; they believe in liberty, but they're not liberal with their values. Democracy should promote freedom, and if democracy is good for us, we should promote it in the rest of the world also.

This is a unique period in history. Empires control the people they conquer and subjugate; President Bush believes in freeing the people of the world. Thus, the US does not need to become a world empire.

Terrorism is the antithesis of freedom. The liberal policy would've been to bomb and bomb the countries where Terrorists operate, until it was useless, and then out of desperation the use of nuclear weapons would be justifiable. This has happened in the past, lest we forget.

The wise policy is to spread freedom in the world, promote co-operation and free trade. Let people work side by side and co-exist, regardless of religion or race. This is the principle upon which America was founded. This is the policy of George W. Bush for the world as well.

Dec. 5, 2004

I think that the Democratic Party is in denial. By the next election, two years from now, the Republican Party should try to win more seats in the Senate and the House. Ultimately it will take a drastic reduction of the Democratic seats in both Houses of Congress to convince everyone that the Democratic Party as we know it is going the way of the Dodo bird. This scenario looks like the most likely outcome of the liberal hysteria that swept the country in this election year. It was certainly too close for comfort for most Conservative Republicans to contemplate losing a Presidential Election to a Vietnam War Protestor like Kerry. It was bad enough to sit it out for two terms with Bill Clinton while Saddam Hussein and the Terrorists were building up armies of insurgents and suicide bombers to conduct genocidal acts against innocent people for decades to come.

For true, patriotic Americans there is no return to the days of carelessness and irresponsibility. It would be a sin for the Republican Party to carry on like the 2004 Election was just another victory for the Republican Party. The Democratic Party is too far gone for the two-party system to work properly. The Democratic Party needs to be reformed or replaced. In my opinion, I don't think it can be reformed. The signs from the Democratic Senators and Congressmen who won seats in Congress is that they're just having a bad year and that they must fight back.

It's not just that we're in a war or that we must keep off the Terrorists from attacking us again; we're at the crossroads of history. We as Americans must decide now that we can't let Islamic Extremists to conduct a war of attrition against us. We may not think of ourselves as a Christian Nation, but this is a moot point as far as the Muslims of the World are concerned. The Terrorists think of us as a Christian Nation out to destroy Islam. The Democrats don't understand this. They think that civil rights and economy are the only issues; that if we leave the world alone, the world will leave us alone. They're in denial, like the millions of Americans who voted for the liberals.

The Democratic Party has gone so far to the Left that the Center is on the Left side as well. As for the Right Wing of the Democratic Party, they're the Center now. As ridiculous as that may sound, they're the ones running for office. They're "for war" against Iraq! They don't even understand, we're not fighting Iraq; we're the liberators of Iraq.

The Republican Party shouldn't squander this opportunity. They should educate the public and help the opposition party to develop a patriotic alternative to the Conservative philosophy, an alternative that will offer the American value system and freedom to the labor-oriented constituencies of the Democratic Party, the non-Christian sector of the population, and the minorities. This was the traditional role of the Democratic Party. In playing this role, the Democratic Party can begin the reform process that it must undergo to remain a viable second party.

Lawyers are trained to argue both sides of the same case. Any competent attorney can represent the plaintiff or the defendant equally well. The attorneys are required to fight for the case of their client regardless of whether they believe their client is guilty or innocent.

Both Kerry and Edwards are lawyers by profession. Their record in politics is typical of lawyers who win a seat in the Congress of the United States of America; they know how to play the game and straddle both sides of every issue.

During the presidential debates of 2004, we've had a chance to study this phenomenon as it plays itself out on television. Millions of American voters are being wooed to cast their vote based on who wins the debates according to the polls.

Last night I watched the Chaney-Edwards debate. It was ironic that Edwards claimed that Kerry and he were glad that Saddam Hussein was removed from power, but that the UN should've been allowed to continue the sanctions against Iraq and allow the weapon inspectors to do their job. He added that the weapon inspectors would then have discovered that there were no weapons of mass destruction. He didn't go on, and the rules of the debate didn't allow Chaney to make the rebuttal that if that were the case, then, if Kerry had been president, Saddam Hussein would still be in power. Because on what basis could the US then liberate Iraq, if there were no weapons of mass destruction? The UN wouldn't have approved the action and, in fact, maybe even the sanctions would've been removed against Saddam Hussein and he would've been able to resume his nuclear weapons program, his clandestine support of Terrorists and his well-known financial support of the suicide bombers, namely $25,000 paid to each of the families of the dead suicide bombers.

As a trained attorney, Edwards was able to take credit for both sides of every issue raised during the debate, just as Kerry had done in the Bush-Kerry debate earlier in the week. He claimed that Kerry and he had a better plan for "winning the peace" in Iraq. He criticized the Bush conduct of the war as being too weak. Kerry and he would train the Iraqi forces outside Iraq, I presume where it would be safe, and then return them to Iraq to fight the insurgents. Forgetting about the cost of training half a million Iraqi troops outside Iraq, where would Kerry and he train these troops, in which Arab or Muslim country would they train them? Would they fly them to the US for training? Again, the rules of the debate didn't allow enough time for a full rebuttal to these contradictory points that Edwards made. And as a trained lawyer, he made the best use of the rules.

Then the debate moderator asked, when would Kerry and he withdraw US troops from Iraq if they won the election, in six months or when? Edwards replied that they would withdraw the troops when the Iraqi military could take over the job, but that it would be sooner than Bush would. He argued in circles; Kerry and he always had the better plan, Bush and Chaney weren't doing good enough.

Finally, to show how low the Democratic Party would stoop in their desperation to win this election, Edwards complimented Chaney about his support for gay relationships, touching on a personal issue in Chaney's family. It was clearly designed as an insult against Chaney. It was in bad taste and hypocritical. On the one hand the Democratic Party is in support of homosexuality in the US culture and on the other, Kerry and Edwards supposedly recognize that marriage is the union between a man and a woman, a claim that Edwards made during the debate. He stated that he was opposed to the amendment that Bush proposes to maintain the sanctity of marriage in the US. Thus, Edwards claimed that he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, but that he respects Chaney's position that people are free to choose whatever relationship they wish. And Chaney replied to this attempt at character assassination by Edwards by simply saying, thank you for the kind words regarding my family. The interviewer was stunned. "Is that all?" Chaney said that it was. He showed his character and his decency by not lowering himself to his opponent's level.

At every point in the debate, Edwards straddled both sides of the issue. Kerry and he approved of everything positive that Bush and Chaney had accomplished, but they didn't give them any credit; the credit belonged to the American people, to the Armed Forces. Kerry and he had a better plan; they would do better.

Chaney made hard points on the specific achievements of the Bush Presidency after the attack against the US on September 11, 2001; however, Edwards turned the truth upside down, always claiming that Kerry and he would do more. They would create more jobs, fix the Medicare system, "win the peace" in Iraq, and on with all the other liberal agenda that parades as truth.

This kind of debate doesn't have a winner, because the rules of debate aren't followed strictly. It was an opportunity for throwing slogans around, something the Democratic Party is good at. I hope the American people won't fall for it another time. This is too critical of a time in American history. We can't go back to the Vietnam Era mentality again. This is the 21st Century. Terrorists are attacking us from every corner. We need to stick with our leaders in the Battle against Terrorism. We need to hold on to our hard won values and maintain our freedom.

John Kerry went to the Viet Cong and made his peace with them, after he'd won his medals. As a lawyer he was playing both sides of the issue then. Today, we don't have the same situation as we did then. You can't go behind scenes and make peace with terrorists. Let's stay the course and not get deluded by the Democrats' call for change for the sake of change.

October 6, 2004

John Kerry is now officially the Democratic Party nominee for President. "The Democrats know how to put on a show," said one TV commentator last night. I heard the speech John Kerry delivered. It was followed by rock and roll music, thousands of baloons dropped from the ceiling and huge fireworks.

John Kerry offered his Vietnam War sensibilities for the Democrats. He believes that his service in Vietnam will help him lead America out of war, but I'm not sure he understands that the Vietnam War isn't the same as the war on terrorism that the US is fighting in Iraq. The US liberated Iraq and placed an interim democratic government in Iraq, made up of Iraqis, that will conduct free elections in the early part of 2005. The terrorists are now fighting against the Iraqi and the coalition forces to prevent the free election process and the survival of freedom in Iraq. Their purpose is to beat the US out of the Middle East altogether.

John Kerry criticized President George W. Bush for his economic policy and suggested that he is exporting jobs out of the US; however, when speaking of drugs for senior citizens, John Kerry said that he will buy drugs from Canada and other countries for less money. Doesn't he understand that the US pharmaceutical companies will lose revenues and that American workers will be laid off?

My impression of the Democratic Convention this year was that the Democrats are parading the same old tired ideas. "There is hope on the way" doesn't address the difficult issues the US is dealing with right now. The fireworks, the balloons, the music and the flags were wonderful, but the Democratic Party has lost its credibility with the American people.

July 29, 2004

The war protestors are out in force once again. They parade in the streets and show off their ignorance of how many people have been murdered by the Assassin of Baghdad. The Iraqis are dying right and left. "Let them live in peace," cry out the war protestors, just as Mary-Antoinette said about the hungry people of France, "Let them eat cake." The people of Iraq have as much peace in 2003, as the people of France had bread in 1789.

As the US troops get into position to begin the war of liberation for Iraq, the European powers are working feverishly to scuttle the whole process. It appears that the Bush administration has backed itself into a corner. Waiting for the United Nations to pass another resolution is counter-productive, because all France and Germany are doing is finding a way to avert the liberation of Iraq.

The Iraqi people are anxiously awaiting the liberators. With British troops joining the US military strike force, it's poetic justice that Britain has come back to redeem itself after abandoning Mesopotamia in 1932. And now Spain has joined the Allies in declaring its solidarity with the US, even though the rest of the Allies are protecting their interests in a world terrorized by evil men masquerading as religious zealots.

One look at the faces of Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden and it's obvious that these are not men of goodwill. Of course, their records dispel any such notion, but to the truly pathetic these men are considered heroes.

Saddam Hussein patted children on their heads while they were held hostage together with their parents, Osama Bin Laden built hospitals for children in Afghanistan to win their hearts and use them in his war of terror, and Hitler kissed babies presented to him at state dinners by their brainwashed mothers. All these monsters pretended to be men of goodwill for the sake of publicity.

The same protestors that spat on returning Vietnam War veterans are out on the streets again doing what they do best -- demoralizing American heroes -- letting the hyenas return to their scavenging ways.

-- March 15, 2003

There is something charming about the Democratic Party candidates running for election this year. They've thrown caution to the wind, charging madly toward the conservatives of the Republican Party. Their spirit is infectious, as they fly the old liberal banners; the hippie generation has finally come of age. Dean is even fond of saying that the sixties were great years of achievement for the people's rights. Kerry is advocating "regime change" as if we're being ruled by a dictatorship. As far as I know we've only had one regime since George Washington, who stepped down as President, without having to be deposed in a revolution, when Americans elected another President.

Bill Clinton won the Presidency promoting "change." That's all we got. And change for the sake of change isn't all that desirable. We're a great nation and we must preserve some of our values; we can't change everything. We don't need a regime change or a Constitutional change. We need to uphold our Constitution and the values that America was built on.

The Democrats must know that the American people cannot be duped one more time by voting for a liberal politician that wants to solve all the world problems by wonderful speeches. The Age of Liberalism is gone. The 20th Century is history now. We face a new reality after Nine Eleven. The defense of our freedom should not be a matter of political debate. Presidential candidates should debate differing approaches, but not betray the very cause of freedom. Pulling out of Iraq would leave our allies in the Middle East defenseless. It's not just the case of freedom for one people, but for everybody and ourselves as well. The terrorists aren't going to quit if we abandon Iraq.

Funny thing is that the Democrats used to support freedom and equality for everybody, but today this new generation of Democrats wants to unionize the Americans who live at poverty level. Essentially that's what their idea of Social Security and Medicare will achieve. We'll all be forced to live at the poverty level or be horrendously overtaxed. I think it's crazy to think that we can return to the Hippie days. Socialist ideas have never worked for us in America and even the Russians abandoned them finally. I know there's something intoxicating about the solidarity of poor people, but we can't return to a system that has played itself out.

As I watch the Democratic candidates running for the Presidency, I see a bunch of raggedy hippies reenacting the Civil War, charging against their opponents. I recall the Irish brigade that charged across the field of battle, with their music playing and banners flying, to be faced by their Irish brothers on the other side of the line. The tears rolled down those usually smiling Irish eyes, as they were forced to open fire on their own brothers in the Irish brigade. That's what I see as those candidates come charging across the field of battle, the battle for freedom of all. As tears stream from our eyes, those wonderful songs of the sixties blaring from their speakers and their colors flailing in the wind, let's take sure aim and punch them out of our ballot cards. No more hanging chads, just a clean sweep for conservative candidates. Let's play their songs on Broadway and celebrate their sense of optimism in Hollywood, but enough of their bleeding heart liberalism and generosity with other people's money.

It is sad that a group of suicidal maniacs can change the course of history in one day. Nineteen fanatics who had given up the hope of accomplishing anything worthwhile in their lives, recruited by underground terrorist organizations, hijacked four airplanes and destroyed the twin towers of the World Trade Center, a portion of the Pentagon and killed thousands of people. They achieved nothing, except for arousing the wrath of the Western World.

The real issue behind the terrorism is the perceived favoritism of the US for Israel. The US favors the survival of Israel because six million Jews died in the Second World War in Nazi concentration camps. The US has dealt with great crises of racism in its history. Six hundred thousand Americans died in the Civil War because the US doesn't believe in racism. Even though the US has no desire to enter into the conflict between Jews and Arabs over the Palestinian issue, a number of US Presidents have attempted to mediate the issue. There have been agreements and treaties signed as a result of these mediations; US interests are best served when there is peace in the Middle East.

There is no clear justification for blaming the controversies between the Arabs and Israel on the US government. There is even less justification for holding the American people responsible for the differences between Jews and Muslims. America started out as a refuge for the Protestants of Europe. It's a nation where Christians came to enjoy freedom of worship. When other religions came, they found Americans to be generous in sharing their freedom and hard-earned values -- as long as others respected them. The US is, therefore, a different society. It's called the "great experiment," because America accommodates all religions and races. Here we have freedom of religion. Americans want no part of religious controversies that lead to mass murder and genocide. Americans were content in the past to serve as an example for all nations that peace between races and religions was possible. Now we must fight to protect our way of life from murderous maniacs who want to impose their madness on America.

When Michael Moore heard that he was the winner of the Palme d'Or for his non-film, Fahrenheit 911, he put his hand over his mouth and his nose in shame. The announcement was made over-dramatically by Quentin Tarantino that the Cannes Film Festival jury had decided to give Michael Moore the highest award for his propaganda documentary attacking President George Bush. That this film was not even an artistic movie like the Festival rules require was a sign that there was something very wrong here.

I was in Cannes, watching the award ceremony, as the announcement was made. When he lowered his hand from his mouth, Michael Moore's eyes rolled up in disbelief and his mouth dropped open. He got up from his seat and rolled aimlessly toward the podium. He crawled up the red-carpeted steps and approached the microphone.

I've never seen a more incredulous award winner in my life. At the podium he began to hyperventilate and put his hand over his mouth and his nose again. He finally turned to Quentin Tarantino and asked accusingly, "What have you done?"

Quentin Tarantino smiled from ear to ear and stared at Michael Moore steadily. Michael Moore then turned to the Cannes Film Festival audience who were applauding him madly. They rose to their feet and gave him a standing ovation. The camera picked up the face of Harvey Weinstein, the President of Miramax Pictures, a subsidiary of Disney Studios. He was beaming with pride for picking up the distribution rights to Michael Moore's movie.

Michael Moore muttered some words of thanks to the audience, then he turned again to face Quentin Tarantino. He asked him, "You're trying to mess with me, aren't you?" Quentin Tarantino couldn't hold himself any longer and burst out laughing and slapped his knee. But then he quickly recovered his composure and turned to Michael Moore with a confident smile that indicated that the jury was really serious in giving him the award.

I couldn't make any sense of it at all. How could everyone in the Cannes Film Festival jury decide to give the top award to this ridiculous film that was nothing more than an attack on President George Bush and his policy on Iraq? How could they make a mockery of the Palme d'Or and the Cannes Film Festival at the same time? Was it an elaborate hoax or an attempt to appease the haters of America?

At a time like this, when the US is at war with terrorists, was Michael Moore's attack against US policy an act of treason? Then it occured to me; this could be a deliberate intelligence strategy. By producing this despicable propaganda movie against President Bush, Michael Moore may have been attempting to mollify the French leftists and safeguarding the US against more attacks by terrorists. If this were the case, one must commend Michael Moore for destroying his own reputation as an American for the sake of peace in the world.

May 22, 2004