Julia Roberts

I was surfing the Internet today and came across Julia Roberts’ inane quote from 2000.

“Republican comes in the dictionary just after 'reptile' and just above 'repugnant'...I looked up Democrat. It's of the people, by the people, for the people.”

No, no Julia! The way a dictionary works is you read the definition for the actual word. You don’t infer the meaning from adjacent words!

This is a great example of a popular tactic of the uninformed: Guilt by association.

(I suppose I should be encouraged that Julia even owns a dictionary - or maybe she borrowed it from her cameraman husband. After all, he has a psychology degree from the University of Colorado while she only has a high school diploma.)

Bush Lied, Kids Died, Part 3

“Bush Lied, Kids Died”

Once again, the anti-war crowd (mostly Democrats) exposes a key aspect of their way of thinking.

The “kids” referred to in the above slogan are the young soldiers in the U.S. armed forces. Anti-war Democrats also use the word “children” to describe these same soldiers.

You have to be at least 18 years old to serve in the United States military. In my mind and by legal definition, 18-year-olds are no longer “kids” or “children”, but men and women. They are young men and women, but men and women nonetheless.

Michael Moore, in his movie “Fahrenheit 9/11”, depicted young military recruits as being coerced into joining the military. Anti-war Democrats do the same.

By doing this, Democrats expose their belief that individuals do not have free will, that none of us control our lives, but must trust the government to protect us and control our lives for us.

The members of our armed forces are not “kids”. They are not “children”. They are men and women. They are soldiers. They prove by their daily actions that they are the best among us.

And we love and support them for doing a job most of us are not brave enough to do.

Bush Lied, Kids Died, Part 2

Next, let’s examine the “Bush Lied, Kids Died” position that the White House lied about WMDs in Iraq:

1) The White House knew there were no WMDs in Iraq.
2) They wanted to invade Iraq anyway.
3) They decided to use WMDs as the reason to invade Iraq.
4) We invade Iraq.

There’s a glaring flaw to this reasoning.

1) If the White House knew there were no WMDs in Iraq, they also knew we would find no WMDs in Iraq.
2) Once we invaded and found no WMDs in Iraq, the White House would be exposed as liars.

Why would the White House want to pursue a course of action that would positively expose them as liars?

Obviously, they wouldn’t.

So let’s follow another line of reasoning:

1) The White House knew there were no WMDs in Iraq.
2) They decided to invade Iraq anyway.
3) They used WMDs as the reason to invade iraq.
4) They knew the military wouldn’t find any WMDs in Iraq.
5) The White House didn’t want to be exposed as liars.

In this case, wouldn’t the White House make sure that WMDs were found? Why didn’t they plant some?

Ironically, the fact that we found no WMDs in Iraq implies that the White House believed there were WMDs in Iraq. Otherwise, they would have planted some for us to find.

This is probably what happened:

1) The White House believed it was a “slam dunk” that we would find WMDs in Iraq.
2) They used WMDs as a reason to invade Iraq.
3) We invade Iraq.
4) No WMDs are found.
5) The White House has egg on its face.

Bush was wrong about WMDs in Iraq, but he did not lie.

An Aside

I'm interrupting my current topic of "Bush Lied, Kids Died" to comment on President Bush's speech last night and his press conference this morning.

A lot of people immediately assume that because I'm a Republican and because I voted for George W. Bush in the last two presidential elections, I support everything he does.

That is not true.

They also think that because I voted for George W. Bush, he is my "dream candidate".

That is also not true.

I do not support everything President Bush says and does. He is not my "perfect President".

I voted for George W. Bush because he was the better of the two presidential candidates. That was true in 2000 when he ran against Al Gore and again in 2004 when he ran against John Kerry.

- Do I wish he was a better public speaker?

You bet.

Sometimes, it is agonizing to hear him speak. He is not a gifted orator. Words do not come easily to him. I constantly wish he was as gifted a public speaker as Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton.

- Do I think his lack of skill in public speaking reveals a lack of intelligence?

No. I know many, many people who are extremely smart but cannot speak or write worth a damn.

- Do I wish he came across as smarter and more intelligent?

Of course.

But I will take George W. Bush's candor and determination over somebody else who can talk up a storm, but whose opinions change with the weather.

I liked his speech last night. I think he said things that needed to be said. A couple of statements stood out:

1) "We do not create terrorism by fighting the terrorists. We invite terrorism by ignoring them."

2) "...there is a difference between honest critics who recognize what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right."

Here is a link to the entire transcript of the speech:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051218-2.html

Bush Lied, Kids Died, Part 1

Sometimes I think people base their conclusions on whether it will make a catchy slogan on a protest sign.

“Bush Lied, Kids Died!”

Catchy and concise, but illogical and wrong.

Let me illustrate.

Example #1

1) Bob tells Ken his favorite color is green.
2) Ken tells Jill that Bob’s favorite color is green.
3) Jill finds out Bob’s favorite color is really blue.
4) Jill calls Ken a liar.

Is Jill fair calling Ken a liar?

No. Bob was the liar. Ken was not. Ken told Jill what he believed was the truth.

Example #2

1) Bob tells Ken that their store did $101,000 in monthly sales.
2) Ken tells Jill that monthly sales are $101,000.
3) Jill checks the receipts and finds that monthly sales were really $110,000.
4) Jill calls Ken a liar.
5) Ken checks Bob’s calculations and finds a typo. The $101,000 should have been $110,000.

In this example, neither Ken nor Bob are liars. Bob was wrong and Ken believed him.

I’m sure that you’ve figured out my analogy by now.

I believe example #2 is indicative of what happened prior to the coalition invasion of Iraq. The White House received bad information. They (wrongly, as it turned out) had confidence in the efficiency of our intelligence services. The information was corroborated by multiple foreign intelligence services. The White House believed, in former CIA director George Tenet’s words, that the case for finding WMDs in Iraq was a “slam dunk”.

But “The CIA gave the White House faulty information and Bush believed them” isn’t a very catchy slogan. Try painting that on a sign!

Coming Soon: Part 2!

Kill the Innocent and Save the Wicked

Democrats want to kill the most innocent and helpless among us and save people who have committed heinous crimes against mankind.

I know that’s a shocking statement, but stick with me here. I will support this conclusion with an analysis of the general position of the Democratic party on the death penalty and abortion.

(Note: I dislike when political discussions turn into name-calling. “Liberal”, “Democrat”, “Conservative”, and “Republican” become swear words. In this post, I use the word “Democrat” for simplicity’s sake. I know there are a wide range of beliefs and values among people who vote Democrat, but I use "Democrat" instead of "the majority of Democrats” to reduce my risk of developing carpal tunnel.)

My analysis goes something like this:

1) Democrats oppose the death penalty.
2) The death penalty is given to people who commit the most heinous crimes.
3) Democrats support abortion.
4) Abortion is the destruction/killing of fetuses in the womb.
5) Fetuses are powerless and helpless. They are completely dependent on the mother for their safety and well-being.
6) Most fetuses, if left undisturbed in the womb, will become baby human beings.

I think you can see where this is going.

The Death Penalty

Democrats oppose the death penalty.

Consider the current uproar about whether Stanley “Tookie” Williams should be executed for killing 4 people in cold blood. Mr. Williams is also the founder of the violent drug gang, the Crips.

A number of celebrities are trying to persuade California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to halt Mr. Williams' execution. Their argument is that Mr. Williams has reformed and is using his position to persuade children not to join gangs.

I can’t look into Mr. Williams’ heart and judge the sincerity of his reformation. I also can’t say that I’m 100% certain he is guilty of the crimes for which he has been convicted. But he has appealed his case numerous times and his conviction has been upheld by the California Supreme Court. The evidence against him must be pretty convincing.

Also, for the purposes of this column, we will accept the fact that the death penalty is legal and that the strict criteria by which it can be applied have been fulfilled in the case of Mr. Williams.

But all of that is irrelevant to the point I’m trying to make. Mr. Williams is an example of a typical inhabitant of Death Row.

Mr. Williams founded the ultra-violent drug gang, the Crips. The gang is responsible for countless deaths and other acts of violence. He has also been convicted of murdering 4 people in cold blood.

The four people he killed were:

1) Albert Owens - A clerk at a 7-11.

During a robbery, Mr. Williams ordered Albert Owens to lie down in a storage room in the back of the store. Mr. Williams then shot Owens twice in the back. Mr. Williams later made fun of the gurgling noises Owens made as he died.

2) 76-year old Yen-I Yang
3) Yang’s 63-year-old wife Tsai-Shai Yang
4) The Yang’s 43-year-old daughter.

During a motel robbery in which he stole $120, Mr. Williams shot Yen-I twice at close range, shot Yang’s wife in the face and shot the Yang’s daughter once in the back and once in the stomach.

These are heinous acts, yet this is the kind of man who opponents of the death penalty believe should not be executed. In their mind, he deserves to live, regardless of his crimes.

Abortion

Most Democrats support abortion.

Abortion is the destruction of a human fetus in the womb.

Fetuses are completely helpless. They are fully dependent on the mother for their safety and well-being.

Most human fetuses, if left undisturbed in the womb, will develop into baby human beings.

Abortion methods include:

1) Using a powerful vacuum tube to rip apart and suck the fetus out of the womb.

2) Injecting a powerful saline solution into the womb that the fetus swallows, thus poisoning the fetus. The saline solution is so powerful that it burns the skin off of the fetus. It can take over an hour for the fetus to die. This process may also induce labor and the mother will give birth to a dead or dying baby. If the baby is alive, it will be left to die.

3) Using forceps to dismember a fetus in the womb, ripping off its arms and legs, breaking its spine and crushing its skull in order to remove it from the womb.

4) Using chemicals to induce violent contractions in the uterus to eject the fetus from the womb. Sometimes the contractions are so violent that the fetus is decapitated.

Pretty gruesome, eh? Yet this is what the pro-abortion or “pro-choice” movement supports.

Conclusion

So, who deserves to die?

1) The unborn, innocent, helpless and unwanted fetus.
2) The cold-blooded murderer of four innocent people and the founder of a violent criminal gang.

In the Democrat’s mind, it’s the murderer who deserves to live and the fetus who will die.

My conclusion? Re-read the first line of this post.