Jerhad!com

No Wonder Gore Flunked Law School

Al Gore made it clear this past weekend why he dropped out of law school by calling for the repeal of the Patriot Act. "Where civil liberties are concerned, they have taken us much farther down the road to an intrusive, 'Big Brother'-style government - toward the dangers prophesized by George Orwell in his book '1984' - than anyone ever thought would have been possible in the United States," Gore told a crowd of enthusiastic supporters on Sunday. "These constant violations of civil liberties promote the false impression that those violations are necessary in order for them to take every precaution against another terrorist attack," Gore said.

Apparently, Al Gore either hasn't read the Patriot Act (like virtually all of its critics) or he's showing exactly why it was necessary for him to drop out of law school. I'm curious how Al Gore and the ACLUholes define civil liberties. We hear all kinds of barking about "constant violations of civil liberties" from these people, but where is the evidence? Can they point to a single case where someone has had their civil liberties abused because of the Patriot Act?

Though it's not an exciting read, I would encourage everyone to at least scan through the Patriot Act to see what it actually says. Based on what you read and hear in the media, you might be a little shocked to find that there is no reference to spying on innocent citizens, peering into your library records, or locking you up without due process.

Whether it is ignorance, politics, or both, many radicals on both the left and the right have heavily criticized the Patriot Act as a serious invasion of civil liberties and privacy, and intrusion by government. The problem is that it's a lie. Unfortunately, it's a lie that could cost thousands of lives in this country.

The Patriot Act essentially plugs gaps in various existing laws and adapts many practices used in fighting organized crime to fighting terrorists as well. It also does the important job of allowing information to be more easily shared between various state and federal law enforcement agencies to help prevent future terrorist attacks due to lack of communication time lost trying to connect the dots to diffuse terrorist activity.

So far the security measures taken by state and federal law enforcement, including the Patriot Act, have worked beyond expectations. Who can honestly say after 9/11 that they would expect zero successful domestic terrorist attacks to occur over the next two years? I fully anticipated multiple terrorist attacks to succeed in the months following the attacks of September 11. But they never happened.

And the lack of successful terrorist attacks has not been due to the terrorists taking a break. I asked a former member of the White House counter-terrorism team, who was in the White House on September 11, whether he was aware of any major domestic terrorist attacks that had been thwarted over the past two years. His answer? "Yes, a lot." I clarified that I was talking about attacks that would have been the magnitude of September 11. He then clarified, "Yes, there have been a lot. I can't get into specifics, but let's just say that thanks to some incredible work by law enforcement we have averted a lot of major disasters."

Without the provisions in the Patriot Act, who knows how many of these multiple major terrorist attack plans might have succeeded. Repealing the Patriot Act under the guise of "civil liberties violations" puts everyone's life in jeopardy without cause. How many news stories or 60 Minutes pieces have you seen that document the civil liberties violations of United States citizens due to the Patriot Act? Don't you think these Bush-hating leftists would take every opportunity they could to document these violations?

Not all Democrats are as ignorant and dangerous as Al Gore and the ACLUholes. Senator Joseph Biden, Jr. (D-Del) recently called criticism of the Patriot Act "ill-informed and overblown." Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Cal) thinks there is "substantial uncertainty and perhaps some ignorance about what this bill actually does do and how it has been employed." She added, "I have never had a single abuse of the Patriot Act reported to me."

So don't allow law school flunkies like Gore influence your opinion about the Patriot Act. Unless, of course, you're a terrorist who wants to make it easier to destroy our country.

You can find the truth about the Patriot Act at www.lifeandliberty.gov.

Putting Same-Sex Marriage to Bed

Discussion on same-sex marriage has heated up quite a bit in the last few months with the Supreme Court overruling the Texas anti-sodomy law in Lawrence vs. Texas, legalized same-sex marriage in Canada, a group trying to "de-legalize" marriage in general, and articles by pundits like Andrew Sullivan.

Unfortunately, it is very difficult to have meaningful debate on this topic without being labeled a bigot or a homophobe or a hate criminal. While I readily admit that many individuals against same-sex marriage do fit into that mold, it is a typical liberal tactic to disarm an adversary by labeling him as a racist, bigot or fascist in order to force that individual to defend themselves personally rather than debate their views. I fully expect to be attacked personally for my views on this subject, even though I have several gay friends and do not advocate any discriminatory behavior against homosexuals.

One of the biggest problems I see with many proponents of same-sex marriage is that they are using the legalization of this union as a measurement for the acceptance of the gay lifestyle by society. If society would just accept same-sex marriages, this would show that the walls of bigotry, discrimination, and hatred against homosexuals are being torn down. However, the institution of marriage is an inaccurate and unfair measure of acceptance.

On the other side, many opponents of same-sex marriage make the mistake of attacking the straw man issues of claiming same-sex marriage will usher in bestiality and pedophilia. Or that same-sex marriage violates religious beliefs and standards. Using these topics to oppose same-sex marriage is both unnecessary and counterproductive.

Most arguments I've seen in favor of same-sex marriage have been similar to the approach recently taken by Canada. The definition of marriage in Canada has been changed to be as follows: the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others. The redefining of marriage is not meant to include polygamy or bestiality. Curiously though, it leaves the door open for pedophilia. But for argument's sake, let's assume the intent is for two "adults" to be engaged in a lawful union.

So, why did Canada change the definition of marriage? Taking the radical step of redefining one of the most important building blocks of a stable society must have come with some serious consideration. One Canadian Justice wrote in a legal opinion "The restriction against same-sex marriage is an offense to the dignity of lesbians and gays because it limits the range of relationship options available to them." It is further argued that restrictions against same-sex marriage violate both human and Constitutional rights in Canada.

But if we are to assume that the new marriage definition is to be between two consenting adults, that would allow related individuals to marry as well. There are laws against incest marriages in both Canada and the United States, so would same-sex marriage advocates argue that those individuals have had their rights violated too? If there is concern about the risk of birth defects between related adults, then what about two sisters or two brothers or a mother and daughter getting married? By definition, their rights are being violated as well.

Next, we need to address polygamy. I know the new definition of marriage isn't supposed to include more than two adults, but why not? If we're going to change the definition of marriage because of a violation of rights, then polygamists have also had their rights violated. It is quite discriminatory to say that heterosexuals and same-sex couples have the right to make a marriage commitment while polygamists do not. Heck, even the Bible makes reference to polygamy within a marital definition.

There is a reason we use the terms same-sex marriage, polygamy, incest, and even common law marriage when describing these relationships. It's because there is actually a difference between these relationships and traditional heterosexual marriage. Changing the definition of marriage doesn't make that difference go away. Instead, it weakens the institution of marriage.

I know most same-sex marriage supporters disagree with that last statement, but I'll explain. Grouping such different relationships under the same definition for marriage erodes the meaning of marriage. An institution that has been the core of family and society in this country for centuries no longer carries any real meaning. Marriage essentially refers to whatever each individual wants it to mean. This is a dangerous development.

A similar assault on the definition of "family" happened over the past 25 years. Liberals throughout the country insisted that the traditional family definition was inappropriate, bigoted, and in need of modification. Dan Quayle ignited a firestorm of controversy when he criticized Hollywood for glorifying the non-traditional family structure portrayed in the show Murphy Brown. But like it or not, the vast majority of our societal problems stem from the breakdown of the traditional family. When you look at murder, rape, suicide, drug addiction, teen pregnancy, and homelessness, the vast majority of those afflicted by these societal ills are from single-parent homes.

Same-sex marriage is not about homosexuality or gay rights. It is about marriage. It is about changing the definition of the most important institution in our society. It is about the prospect of raising a generation of children some day who will hear the word "marriage" and make no distinction between the current definition, a same-sex couple, four men and fifteen women in a polygamous union, or two adult sisters bound in marriage. For those who don't find this to be a troubling concept, just wait to see the effect on society in fifteen or twenty years.

I strongly oppose discrimination against the gay community, but equating same-sex marriage with breaking down the walls of discrimination is a mistake. If denying same-sex marriage is a violation of human rights, then so is denying polygamy and incest marriage. Marriage is not a right. It is an institution that is essential for a healthy environment to raise children. Radically changing that institution carries a terrible cost to society.

Rush is Wrong

Things are getting a little hot in the kitchen for Rush Limbaugh right now. I don't believe that Rush Limbaugh is a racist or that his comments on ESPN were racist. However, I do believe that Rush made a serious error in judgment with his recent comments. While he doesn't deserve to be crucified, he does deserve to be criticized. For those who have been hiding in a ditch for the last few days, here is what Rush said during ESPN's NFL pre-game show:

"I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."

If you take out the second sentence in that quote, most of you reading this article would still today not realize that Rush Limbaugh even had a job on ESPN. But the reason I find that sentence so inflammatory isn't because it's racist; it's because it's wrong.

I'm not sure what I have more passion for, sports or politics. I run a fantasy football league and follow the NFL very closely. While Donovan McNabb might be off to a slow start this year, he has been one of the league's top quarterbacks for the past two seasons. He's exciting to watch, and he scores touchdowns both passing and rushing. He puts up great stats, which is why he was the first quarterback drafted in my fantasy league this year.

So while I do not think Rush Limbaugh or his comments are racist, I do believe that Rush went too far by drawing a connection to favorable media accolades and McNabb's race. I never gave much thought to the race of quarterbacks in the NFL until that comment, and now it's unfortunate that I do. Especially since I have not seen the "social concern" Rush mentions in the media. I have seen several articles recently questioning McNabb's ability to remain a top quarterback in the NFL. But I've also seen those same articles written about a white quarterback, Rich Gannon.

If you're going to make such a potentially controversial statement linking someone's race to the media coverage they get, then you'd better make damn sure it's as obvious to everyone else as it is to you. This is where Rush fails in his analysis.

Is McNabb overrated? Quite possibly. But you could argue that Kurt Warner, Tom Brady, and Jeff Garcia (all white, All-American guy, quarterbacks) are overrated as well. Did sports writers become desirous to see nice, clean-cut, white guys successful in the NFL? Maybe, but you'd be hard pressed to make a serious argument about that. Just as you'd be hard pressed to make a serious argument that sports writers are desirous to see a black quarterback successful and would skew their coverage based on that bias.

Donavan McNabb isn't breaking any color barriers here. We've had successful black quarterbacks in the NFL for many years now. Even a Superbowl winner. The circumstances and motivation behind overrating Donavan McNabb based on his skin color simply don't hold up to scrutiny.

This might just be Rush's opinion, but an opinion on such a controversial and sensitive subject should have solid facts to back it up. One could argue that McNabb is overrated because sportswriters want to see a young, clean-cut guy who loves his mother become successful. Or because the new fad of running quarterbacks is in vogue right now. Or because they want to see a successful quarterback from Syracuse. Who knows? But an intelligent man like Rush should know better than to throw out the comment he did without better facts to back it up.

Does this make Rush a racist? No. Maybe he forgot that he was talking to NFL fans and not just the ditto-heads on his radio show. Unfortunately, his comments will only give fuel to his worst critics to attack him with accusations of racism that are as baseless as his claim about McNabb.

91 Dead and Counting. An Iraq Analysis

It was very disheartening to read that we've already had our 91st casualty shot dead. Ninety-one people killed in cold blood, and there's not even a war going on. I can't believe that there's nothing we could have done to reduce or minimize that number. How can our government allow this to happen?

No, this isn't the number of soldiers killed in Iraq. This is the number of murders in Oakland so far this year.

Oakland isn't a war zone (though some might argue that it is), yet they have more casualties so far this year than U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq since the end of major combat. Why isn't the New York Times or CBS News doing a story every night to announce the death of yet another Oakland resident who was murdered in cold blood? Certainly ninety-one people killed in a U.S. city that isn't in the middle of a war zone is more newsworthy than announcing the death of every soldier in Iraq's dangerous military conflict.

In fact, only sixty-nine U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraqi combat since the end of major conflict was announced. And that's across the entire country of Iraq, not just within one city.

My intent is not to minimize the deaths of these brave soldiers in Iraq. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Our media has done an excellent job of creating an image of death and extreme danger in Iraq on a daily basis. Why is it necessary to create an atmosphere of extreme stress and panic for the families and friends of soldiers in Iraq?

Let's take a look at the actual numbers to see what's really happening. The U.S. had about 250,000 troops deployed in Iraq during the major combat, and there were approximately 185 combat deaths. That's a casualty rate of about .074%. Since major combat ended, the reduction of troops has been in the neighborhood of 150,000 (which was reduced last week to approximately 120,000) with 69 combat deaths. That's a casualty rate of about .046%. Oakland has an adult population of approximately 300,000. Based on murders to date in Oakland, the casualty rate is about .030%. Extrapolating the current murder rate for a full year yields a casualty rate of about .052%.

Compared to Oakland, Iraq actually appears to be relatively safe. Why could it be that the major media outlets insist on creating doom-and-gloom news stories about casualties in Iraq while ignoring Oakland? Or better yet, why hasn't the news spin been focused on how few casualties there have been in Iraq given the enormity of the task and the dangers lurking there with terrorism and Saddam's leftover loyalists? Surely these media outlets aren't trying to create failure out of success. No, that would be totally out of character.

The families and loved ones of our brave soldiers deserve better. It is disgusting how much the media focuses on creating failure in Iraq. As much as they wish this were Vietnam, it isn't. Almost 50,000 American soldiers died in combat in Vietnam. We won this war with some of the lowest casualties in the history of war, including civilian casualties. Our fallen soldiers should be held up as heroes by the media, not used as props for creating an aura of failure and endless quagmire.

The next time you see our "unbiased" media parading dead soldiers across the screen to raise the flag of failure in Iraq, just remember to keep things in perspective. Being a resident in Oakland isn't much safer than being a soldier stationed in Iraq.

No Public Urination? That's Just Mean!

Las Vegas is the meanest city in the country. At least it is according to a new report issued by The National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH). Apparently, cities that enforce quality of life laws are just plain mean to homeless people.

These cities are making it illegal to perform "life-sustaining" activities in public places according to the report. I guess that means you're not allowed to urinate or defecate in public, and somehow this makes your city "mean" to the homeless population.

The shocking part of the report to me was that San Francisco was listed as the second meanest city. If mean is defined as getting $400 cash each month, being allowed to live in any park or street corner you wish, doing drugs openly without being hassled, and dealing with a district attorney who would rather give you a medal than a jail cell for assaulting a police officer, then I guess San Francisco really is mean to homeless people.

After San Francisco passed the Care Not Cash measure that was supposed to significantly reduce cash payments to the homeless, the welfare payments went down 12% the following month (before the measure was actually put into place). Which essentially means drug addicts and bums were leaving San Francisco in anticipation of having their free lunch taken away.

I can only pray that San Francisco actually lives up to its billing as the second meanest city in the country some time soon. Maybe our residents could walk more than half a block without being accosted, tripping over a homeless tent, stepping over human waste, or avoiding used drug needles.

New York City is number three on the list of mean cities, and Rudy Giuliani performed nothing less than a miracle in turning around that city's homeless problem. Since Rudy is a free agent right now, I would suggest cities begin hiring him as a consultant to show them how to be mean to homeless people. Being mean (as defined by NCH) apparently cleans up homelessness.

I'm making fun of the NCH report, but this is actually an important lesson on how to pursue your agenda if you're a liberal activist organization.

Step 1: Make your issue emotional, not logical.
Notice that the report didn't use objective language like "cities that spend the least amount of money on homeless services relative to their overall budgets." Instead they use a label like "mean" in an attempt to pass judgment that is based on subjective analysis, not objective statistical information.

Step 2: Refer to criminals as victims
Apparently, being punished for breaking quality of life laws makes you a victim. The law-abiding public who has to deal with the mess caused by drug addicts and drunks sleeping in their own vomit are the true victims, but they are never mentioned. Maybe NCH thinks the general public is just too stupid to notice this slight of hand.

Step 3: Blame the system, not the individual
NCH makes it clear that these victims of "meanness" are there due to high unemployment, unaffordable housing, and limited government services. Just like drug addiction is caused by a lack of drug treatment programs. Or burglary is caused by poor economic conditions. No need to ever take personal responsibility, because you are always the victim of your environment.

So the next time you see someone shooting up in the park, urinating or defecating on the street, or setting up an encampment at your public playground, just ignore him. You certainly don't want to be labeled as mean.

Meanest Cities:
1. Las Vegas
2. San Francisco
3. New York City
4. Los Angeles
5. Atlanta
6. Cincinnati
7. Key West
8. Austin
9. Orlando
10. New Orleans
11. Sacramento
12. Milwaukee
13. Santa Cruz
14. Miami Beach
15. Jacksonville Beach
16. Hollywood, FL
17. Santa Monica
18. Nashville
19. Honolulu
20. Boulder

Meanest States
1. California
2. Florida

It's Bastille Day. Be French!

Today marks the anniversary of Bastille Day, the beginning of the French Revolution. On July 14, 1789, the French prison of Bastille was stormed by the French people to overthrow the monarchy ruling at the time. This moment symbolized the end of French monarchy and the beginning of a new form of government. This day is honored with parades and celebrations similar to the 4th of July in America.

But the beginning of the French Revolution is not the most important historical item to recognize on this day. When you think about it, this is a war that the French actually can claim to have won! The monarchy did wave the white flag and surrender, but the majority of people living in France at that time could actually consider themselves winners in a war. Is it any wonder this is such an important day for the French? They had to fight themselves to win a war, but hey, that still counts, right?

To honor such an important occasion, I would suggest that we all help the French in their celebration by acting French for a day. For those of you who may not have a good idea of how to express your Frenchness, I've made a convenient "Top 10" list of ways to show your French appreciation today.

1. Don't shower or use deodorant. You really shouldn't shower or use deodorant for at least a week to get the true aroma, so you might want to go for an early morning workout in an effort to get that ripe flavor for today. Your co-workers might not appreciate it, but you're French right now. You'd actually prefer that people be annoyed by what you do anyway.
2. If you're a woman, don't shave anywhere on your body. Make sure you wear sleeveless shirts and short skirts to show that you're proud of that body hair. If you're a man, shave everywhere on your body. The gender roles seem to be reversed in France, so you should just pretend to be the opposite sex for the day.
3. Smoke cigarettes every waking moment of the day. Don't worry about "no smoking" areas either. Those signs are only for people who care what anyone else thinks. If anyone complains, just pretend you don't speak English.
4. Make a lucrative business deal with a known murderer or felon. This is especially effective if you make this deal with a person who has murdered or injured someone who was your friend or relative. If your other friends or relatives get upset with you for making a business deal with this person, just accuse them of being bloodthirsty and belligerent. But make sure you give them the impression that somehow you're still taking the moral high ground.
5. Don't tip anyone. Go out for an expensive meal and pay the exact amount of the bill. Tipping is a tradition of those useless Americans, so don't be bothered with it. Make sure you complain about the meal and the service before leaving too.
6. Act like Jerry Lewis all day to try and get your friends to laugh. If you're unsure how to act like Jerry Lewis, just think of the dumbest movie you've ever seen and act like one of the characters.
7. Make anti-Semitic jokes. Don't worry if anyone is offended. Be proud of your history of cooperation with the Nazis and hatred of Israel.
8. Be a jerk. You might have to make a serious effort on this one, because the French have it down to an art form. Start by telling everyone they suck at their job. Especially if they really don't. Then yell at people for no reason. Just make something up, and try to make them cry if you can. Call everyone you meet an "idiot", even if you've never met them before.
9. Go to a sporting event and heckle all known American players as loudly as possible. Don't discriminate your heckling based on race, skill level, or personality. If Serena and Venus Williams were fair game at the French Open, then it should be open season on all American athletes.
10. Introduce yourself to everyone today by saying "Hi, I'm _________. I surrender." Instead of shaking hands, give them a white flag and run as fast as you can in the opposite direction. Don't be concerned if this feels awkward when meeting women, children or the elderly. If you really want to be French, you can't go half way and not surrender to someone just because they appear small or weak.

Have a very happy Bastille Day.

The True Meaning of Patriotism

The anti-war leftists took great offense to the fact that so many Americans called them "unpatriotic" people while they protested against the war with Iraq. How dare anyone question the patriotism of someone simply because they protest war. These zealots were adamant that they were not only patriots, but they were more patriotic because of their courage to stand up and protest against our leaders. Natalie Maines of the Ditzie Chicks said in an interview "I believe that me speaking out is the most patriotic thing I can do."

I also found it interesting that once the war began, these hippie throw-backs wanted to make it clear that they "supported our troops" even though they were against the war. Isn't that kind of like supporting crack dealers even though you're against drug use? Or supporting pedophiles even though you're against child molestation?

Unfortunately, these lost souls have no idea what "patriotism" and "supporting our troops" really means. Living in the occupied territory of San Francisco, I too had been sheltered from the true patriots in this amazing country. I've already had two American flag stickers torn from my car bumper, so it's sometimes easy to forget that there are a lot of people out there who truly love America and everything she stands for.

Patriotism is about loving your country and those who would die to protect it. It's not about "speaking out" in protest. Or marching in the streets. Or signing anti-war petitions. Or having the "courage" to use your celebrity status in order to express your hatred of war and of our President.

I recently received an email that reminded me what real patriotism is all about. The pictures below were taken during a funeral procession for a fallen American soldier in a small Texas town. The pictures were taken by the soldier's aunt, and there was a note (below) from the aunt to accompany the pictures.

In short, this entire town came out to mourn a brave soldier's death. Men, women, and children of all ages and ethnicities lined the streets with American flags. People in shops and on the side of the road stopped in silence as the procession went by and held their hands over their hearts.

The next time you hear leftist Hollywood or media types talk about their patriotism, think of the people in this small Texas town. These are the patriots that our brave men and women died for, not the delusional "Not In Our Name" crowd.

Note from Aunt:

What follows is a message from Vicki Pierce about her nephew James' funeral (he was serving our country in Iraq):

I'm back, it was certainly a quick trip, but I have to also say it was one of the most amazing experiences of my life. There is a lot to be said for growing up in a small town in Texas.

The service itself was impressive with wonderful flowers and sprays, a portrait of James, his uniform and boots, his awards and ribbons, his boots. There was lots of military brass and an eloquent (though inappropriately longwinded) Baptist preacher. There were easily 1000 people at the service, filling the church sanctuary as well as the fellowship hall and spilling out into the parking lot.
However, the most incredible thing was what happened following the service on the way to the cemetery. We went to our cars and drove to the cemetery escorted by at least 10 police cars with lights flashing and some other emergency vehicles, with Texas Rangers handling traffic. Everyone on the road who was not in the procession, pulled over, got out of their cars, and stood silently and respectfully, some put their hands over their hearts, some had small flags. Shop keepers came outside with their customers and did the same thing. Construction workers stopped their work, got off their equipment and put their hands over their hearts, too. There was no noise whatsoever except a few birds and the quiet hum of cars going slowly up the road.

When we turned off the highway suddenly there were teenage boys along both sides of the street about every 20 feet or so, all holding large American flags on long flag poles, and again with their hands on their hearts. We thought at first it was the Boy Scouts or 4F club or something, but it continued .... for two and a half miles. Hundreds of young people, standing silently on the side of the road with flags. At one point we passed an elementary school, and all the children were outside, shoulder to shoulder holding flags ... kindergartners, handicapped, teachers, staff, everyone. Some held signs of love and support. Then came teenage girls and younger boys, all holding flags. Then adults. Then families. All standing silently on the side of the road. No one spoke, not even the very young children. The last few turns found people crowded together holding flags or with their hands on their hearts. Some were on horseback.

The military presence...at least two generals, a fist full of colonels, and representatives from every branch of the service, plus the color guard which attended James, and some who served with him ... was very impressive and respectful, but the love and pride from this community who had lost one of their own was the most amazing thing I've ever been privileged to witness.
I've attached some pictures, some are blurry (we were moving), but you can get a small idea of what this was like. Thanks so much for all the prayers and support.

Liberals Play the WMD Card

So where are the weapons of mass destruction? Did the President lie to us in order to attack Iraq? Is there a major problem with our intelligence services?

The liberals and their collaborators in the media have become all too predictable. I wrote in an article on April 14, 2003 the following prediction:

Then the questions will be raised about weapons of mass destruction. We're not finding them, and the media will become critical of our justification for invading Iraq.

And then there was my explanation in that same article:

The timeline for finding well-hidden weapons of mass destruction has also been set out at a year or more. There are over 3,000 sites that must be carefully searched in a country the size of California. The weapons will be found, but it won't be done overnight. Again, the media will criticize the searches as failing after only a few weeks of looking, but the expectation is not valid.

The anti-war Democrats have been waiting for this one to materialize. They've thrown everything they possibly can against the wall to knock Bush off of his pedestal, but nothing has worked. Some even had the temerity to question the methods used to rescue Jessica Lynch from hostile enemy territory. Now enough time has passed that they can ask about WMD's and try to spin the story that this war was a sham.

Remember who these individuals are who are taking this approach, because it will fail miserably just like the other political schemes. Instead of actually supporting ideas that the American people might get behind, the struggling Democrats continue to poke and prod unsuccessfully at Bush's armor.

The reasons this new attack will be unsuccessful are two-fold. First, the existence of WMD's was not the only reason for invading Iraq, and the majority of Americans know this. While I have been hawkish about invading Iraq, I have been very clear from the beginning that the existence of WMD's was not even the most important reason for invading.

The reasons I gave were in another article I wrote on March 19, 2003:

There are two main arguments for why Saddam Hussein is a problem. First, it is undeniable that Saddam is seeking weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. While he may not have a nuclear weapon today, the world faces a grave danger when (not if) Saddam procures a nuclear weapon.

The second reason that Saddam Hussein is a problem is due to his horrific rape, murder, and torture of tens, or possibly hundreds of thousands of his own people. The United Nations and human rights organizations have undeniable proof of ''rape rooms'' used by Saddam's henchman to rape the wives and even children of dissidents while they are forced to watch. Electric shock torture is administered to male genitalia. Men are fed through machines normally used to shred plastic. The list is endless, and the details are gruesome.
As you can see, the current threat of WMD's was not the main reason for attacking. The probability that Saddam would acquire those weapons and use them or blackmail with them was a more accurate portrayal.

The second reason this liberal scheme won't work is because WMD's will eventually be found within Iraq. We will also find that Saddam has been plotting the acquisition of nuclear weapons and that he has been cooperating with multiple terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda.

Let's get back to reality here. The people of Iraq can now talk freely about the details of Saddam's rapes, tortures, mutilations, murders, and absolute terror. Does this sound like the kind of man who would willingly relinquish himself of all WMD's without the presence of a United Nations inspection team over the last four years?

Why in the world would he take such a grave risk by not cooperating with inspection teams, threatening scientists if they spoke to inspectors, and creating elaborate mobile labs that could serve no other purpose than to create biological weapons? It is inconceivable that Saddam would cause the destruction of his country and regime if he didn't have anything to hide.

We all knew that Saddam Hussein was not an immediate threat to our national security when we invaded Iraq. The purpose of invading now was to ensure that Saddam never became the kind of threat that could result in the destruction entire American cities or the ability to hold the world hostage under possible nuclear attack of Israel or beyond.

They haven't located Saddam Hussein or his dead body yet either. But that doesn't mean he never existed. All will be uncovered in due time, and the world is unquestionably a safer place thanks to the brave men and women of the United States military and a President who had the courage to do the right thing.

The Road to Hell

A few years ago I got a disturbing fortune in my fortune cookie that said "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions". Not the usual "today will bring you good luck" or "you will soon take a long journey". I was fascinated by the quote and believe it is an interesting statement about the liberal mind.

The quote can actually have two meanings. First, it can imply that regardless of your good intentions, you are on the road to Hell if you do not follow through with them and put them into action. But it also can mean that good intentions without logical direction can lead you down a dangerous path to Hell. The latter meaning is how I see the liberal view of the world.

The crisis of homeless derelicts in occupied territory (San Francisco) is a prime example of this mindset at work. Anyone who has visited here in the last five or six years knows that the street vermin are everywhere. And I mean that literally, not figuratively. There is not a single area of refuge within San Francisco to escape these drug addicts, criminals, and thugs. San Francisco has more homeless people on the streets than New York City, a place more than ten-times its size in population.

Recently, these lovely citizens have been getting more and more violent, randomly attacking a few people on the city streets in broad daylight. The "Care Not Cash" initiative passed overwhelmingly by San Francisco residents to significantly reduce cash payments to drug addicts was also overturned by the court system. And my friends in the real estate industry tell me developers are running scared from San Francisco due to the significant requirements for "affordable housing" units required by the city for every new development (as high as one-third of all units in some cases).

The approach of most politicians and self-appointed "homeless advocates" has been what appears on the surface to be compassionate. The people need money? Give them cash. They need a home? Force builders and landlords to give them housing. They need clean needles to do their illegal drugs without dying from AIDS? Give out free needles.

All of these actions were well-intended by the liberal politicians and activists. The intention was to help these poor souls out and to give them a better life. Instead, they are shocked that the results have been the exact opposite. The homeless population increases every year, and more money is dumped into program after program every year. One study last year estimated that San Francisco spent over $30,000 per homeless person in 2001. So how can the problem be so out of control?

San Francisco is in Homeless Hell right now thanks to the good intentions of these misguided politicians and activists. While handing out cash might "feel" like the right thing to do, the practice has only fed drug and alcohol addictions and attracted bums from all over the country who know that San Francisco gives out free money. All of their solutions "feel" like the right thing to do, but they have the exact opposite effect.

Liberals seem to have a very real mental defect that does not allow them to see the difference between problems and symptoms. The fact that these people don't live in a home is a symptom, not a problem. Handing out cash or creating low-income housing does nothing to treat the actual problems faced by these people, which are usually drug and alcohol addiction or mental illness.

One would think that the obvious complete failure of this approach in San Francisco, not to mention the miracle pulled off by Rudy Giuliani in New York using the opposite approach, would wake up these politicians and activists. Instead, their mental defect still prevents them from seeing the truth. The answer to any failed social program in their mind is always a lack of money. Even though San Francisco spent over $30,000 per homeless person on services and handouts, they still believe the answer has to be more money.

This mentality (or mental defect) is evident in other areas as well. The clueless masses who marched for "world peace" over the past few months would be slaves to ruthless dictators if not for the strength and resolve of courageous leaders in our history. The cry for disarmament and world peace almost allowed Hitler to destroy an entire race of people. War is not the problem, but the symptom. Declaring world peace is meaningless and dangerous.

These well-intended do-gooders also want to eliminate guns from society to stop violence. Yet they fail to see countries like Australia who experience an increase in violent crime when guns are confiscated, and states like Texas who experience a significant decrease in violent crime when concealed carry laws are enacted. Again, guns are not the problem. Eliminate known and suspected gang and drug shootings from gun violence statistics in this country, and suddenly we're comparable to the rest of the world.

Sometimes good intentions lead us in the exact opposite direction and into Hell. Anyone who doubts this need only walk two blocks on San Francisco's streets and fight off the drug addicts, alcoholics and criminals who approach them at every step. Yes, the road to Hell is indeed paved with good intentions. Unfortunately, the liberals leading us down that path are too blind to see this even after they have already arrived.

The Democrat Dilemma

A couple of years ago I attended a show by Greg Proops, a radical left-wing comedian. While I found much of his act to be annoying, he made a comment that was quite interesting. Greg was lamenting about the fact that Republicans will always beat Democrats, because Republicans are united in their causes while Democrats are so diverse that they can never agree on anything.

At first, I wrote off this comment as more complaining from a crybaby who was still smarting from the election controversy. However, the war with Iraq has brought to light just how fragmented the landscape is for the Democrats.

Living in the occupied territory of San Francisco, I witnessed first-hand the numerous anti-war zealots who filled the streets and the television screens. Although they represented a small minority view in the United States, they were very effective in portraying a much more popular movement with the liberal media who would rather have been marching next to them than covering their story.

While attending one of the anti-war rallies undercover, I also noted the endless Socialist/Communist/Leftist causes being promoted by the marchers that had nothing to do with war or Iraq. Worker's rights. Queer youth programs. Solar energy. Universal healthcare. The evils of capitalism. The list goes on and on.

While the supporters of these causes are a minority in this country, they are very passionate and aggressive. And taken as a group, they make up a fairly substantial portion of the population who will never vote for a Republican. The only problem is that the pseudo-Socialist Green Party is attracting more and more of these individuals due to the perception that the Democrats are too moderate for their taste.

Many political pundits have been arguing recently that the Democrats don't stand "for" anything, and that they only stand "against" whatever the Republicans represent. Given the fragmentation of their current target audience, it's easy to see why Democrats have such difficulty in creating a message that resonates with enough people to actually have any meaning.

Mainstream Democrats had no choice but to support the war against Iraq for the sake of their political future. Even the leftist Nancy Pelosi had to downplay her opposition to the war, since around 60% of the residents of the San Francisco area supported the war effort. In the end, all she could muster was some lame comment about how we could have taken down that Saddam statue for a lot less than $90 billion. I still haven't heard her reveal what this brilliant plan might be though.

Several of my more radical friends voiced their disgust with the Democrats for not taking a stronger stand against the war. But this is where the Democrats find themselves today. Coming out united against the war would likely have been political suicide for all but the few politicians who hail from truly leftist parts of the country. But by not protesting the war, they might alienate a large minority of angry and vocal constituents.

So what did most them do? They hedged their bets by supporting our "troops" and nitpicking about the way in which the war was being fought. They also focused on the perceived failures of foreign policy that would have shown a more united world front in dealing with Iraq. In the end, it created a convoluted and mixed message that really didn't mean anything.

Now that the war in Iraq is over, the Democrats are really on the ropes and grasping at straws. The recent whining about Bush's aircraft carrier landing was so ridiculous that the liberal pundits weren't even willing to run with it. And now some Democrats are even criticizing Bush's war on terrorism. Personally, I'm shocked that no other terrorist attacks have occurred in the United States since 9/11. Whatever has been done to prevent future attacks has obviously had a strong positive impact thus far. To attack Bush's record on the war against terrorism is like criticizing Tiger Woods for his lack of success on the golf course.

All of this bodes very well for the Republicans today. Democrats feel continued pressure to move further to the left thanks to the hippie roots being awakened from the Iraq conflict. Meanwhile, Republicans can strengthen their core constituency by focusing on patriotism and shining a spotlight on the discord within the Democratic Party.

Democrats have some very difficult decisions to make about the future of their party. The war on Iraq and terrorism has polarized the nation, and a large portion of the Democrats' reliable constituency is now firmly opposed to the actions taken by the Bush administration. Unfortunately for the Democrats, that constituency is also a decided minority compared to those on the other side of the polarized situation.

By pandering too much to this growing vocal minority of anti-war Socialists, the Democrats risk alienating their core following. By ignoring this minority, they risk strengthening other groups like the Green Party and losing key voters.

Adding to this dilemma is the fact that Martin Sheen seems to be a stronger leader for the Democrats than any of their current elected members. The Clintons appear to remain the most powerful figures within the Party. But as Susan Estrich pointed out in a recent column, the egomaniacal Clintons refuse to leave the stage in order for other Democrats to emerge as leaders within the party (oddly, not a single newspaper that carried the article in print published the article on their website).

So what's a Democrat to do? What should be their strategy? I guess they either need to become Republicans or move to France. And if they move to France, maybe they can take all of the protestors with them.