The Imaginary Mandate

Last November's election was proof the American public wants the war to end immediately.

We've heard that line constantly in the media. The Democrats were supposedly swept into power solely to end the war in Iraq. This has been stated so many times that it has been accepted as fact.

The only problem...it's not true. There was no mandate on the Iraq war in November's shift of congressional power. Ignoring the fact that there are no "national" elections on any issue or candidate, the issue of the war had little impact on why the Democrats were able to grab a slim majority. How do we know? Simply look at the facts. For brevity's sake we'll just look at the Senate race.


#1 Republican holds - Fifteen Republican seats were up for grabs. Eight of those incumbents won re-election and Bill Frist's seat was held by the Republicans following Frist's retirement. If the war was the mandate it was claimed, those nine seats would have been affected. But the media chooses to ignore those seats and focus on six others. That leads us to number 2


#2 The Democrat gains - The most obvious point of support for the imaginary mandate would come in seats Democrats took away from Republicans. In those cases the war would have to be the deciding factor in the race. But it wasn't.

Jim Talent - (Missouri) This race was clearly defined by embryonic stem cell research. Michael J Fox's celebrity insertion into this race made it news across the nation. An accompanying state constitutional amendment on stem cell research cemented the pivotal point in the campaign. It was not a mandate on the war.

Conrad Burns - (Montana) Burns was the Republican candidate most closely associated with the Jack Abramoff fund-raisisng scandal. Burns was also the victim of several verbal gaffes. Despite the black clouds he lost to Jon Tester by only a slim margin. Again, the war was not the deciding factor.

Rick Santorum - (Pennsylvania) In a moderate Republican state like Pennsylvania it is possible to be too conservative. Santorum clearly was. He was outrageous even by conservative Republican standards. Santorum's mental state was the question in his defeat, not his stance on the war.

Lincoln Chafee - (Rhode Island) Chafee was a Republican only in the loosest sense of the term. The Label RINO (Republican in Name Only) was created for him. He supported tax increases and other liberal matters in the Democrat leaning state. A win by Chafee may have been considered a Democrat win anyway.

Mike DeWine - (Ohio) DeWine was criticized by Republicans for his vocal support of the judicial nominee compromise. He also found himself swept up in controversies surrounding Ohio's Governor Bob Taft. The war was not the overwhelming factor.

George Allen - (Virginia) This loss for George Allen can be summed up in one word; "Macaca". After being filmed using the phrase to describe a rival candidate's volunteer Allen's words were held over his head until his lead over Jim Webb slipped away. Words continued to be Webb's main attack tool as he questioned Allen's comments on his own Jewish heritage and accusations about racial epithets in college. In the end the race was decided by less that 1/2 of one percent. Hardly a clear mandate for change in Iraq.


#3 Where the war mattered - So if the war was not a factor in those Republican losses, was it a factor in any race? Absolutely, it was the sole factor in the Connecticut race. Senator Joe Lieberman was a vocal supporter of the war. His stance cost him in the Democratic primary where he lost by a narrow margin to anti-war activist Ned Lamont. Lierberman's defeat was the first media salvo in proof that the war would change the elections. Then a funny thing happened. Lieberman ran as an Independent in the general election and won convincingly by 10 percent. If Lieberman's position on the war was the Earth-shaking factor in the primary, why was it just a blip in the election that really mattered?


#4 The numbers game - Currently the Senate balance of power stands at 51-49 in favor of the Democrats. It's certainly not a commanding majority, but since this election was supposedly a referendum on the war that should be enough. However the Democrat lean includes two independents, Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Joe Lieberman because they both caucus with the Democrats. But we already know Lieberman is pro-war. That puts the balance on the question of war at 50-50. With Vice President Dick Cheney deciding tie votes, that puts the pro-war side in control.


So are the Democrats doing the job they were elected to do? We still remain in Iraq. Military funding bills with time lines have failed even with vote-buying schemes for Peanut storage and spinach farmers attached to gain Democrat votes. Looking at how important the war was in actually deciding the November election that looks about right.

Deconstructing The Conspiracy

I love conspiracy theories.

Really, I do.

I love the conspiracy theorists who sit up all night thinking these things up.

I love them because they're fun to watch. Kind of like watching a toddler learning to walk. They try to get things going but always end up falling right on their asses.

The only trouble is, there are plenty of people out there who see the toddler take a step and immediately insist the kid is a marathon runner. And since I have no evidence to prove their wild theory wrong, then they must be right.

Conspiracy theories are easy to come up with. Take any subject; Pearl Harbor, Jon Benet's murder, New Coke, or the mother of all conspiracies, the Kennedy assassination. Doesn't matter. There's always a dark underside you can turn over and someone willing to believe it.

Then you just have to come up with three points; Who, What and Why.

That's it. Blend together serve cold and you have yourself a nice little plate of blog fodder for the national news or some liberal college professor to pick up on and you're in.

Let's try it out. How about the latest fave or conspiracies, the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon. A college professor in Colorado made the accusation that it was actually an inside job. That's right, we did it to ourselves. So let's put that through the conspiro-meter and see what it looks like.

Who? The United States Government, of course. They're an easy target. So big and clandestine. You never actually have to point a single finger. Just kind of look in their direction and whistle.

What? Shot a missile into the Pentagon on 9/11. Wow, that's pretty bold, maybe we should tone that down and just say they blew it up with explosives from inside the building. Either way, doesn't matter. Both theories have been floated. Let's just see which one sticks.

Why? Ahh, the final piece of the puzzle. That's always the most insidious part. Nobody ever does these things for good reasons, right? In this case, the Bush Administration wanted to make 9/11 even worse and, therefore, rallying the nation into believing that we had to attack Iraq all in the name of revenge since, after all Saddam insulted Bush's daddy, remember. It was highly unlikely that killing over 2,000 people at the World Trade Center would be enough. We needed bigger...badder...better.

There you have it. An instant conspiracy. The media loved it. It was broadcast on every news channel from CNN to ABC, CBS, MSNBC, NBC. Of course those news channels never actually stated the story as a fact. They just felt it was important that this theory and its originator get some air time. That's all you need with a conspiracy, anyone. Just a little validation and the window-lickers will come following right in line.

But here's where everything falls apart with conspiracy theories. They are so clever coming up with the "who", "what" and "why", but they forget the most important part..."how".

Lets go back to our little theory here, The Pentagon inside job. Since you can't prove a negative hypothesis, let's play their game and just assume for the moment that it is absolutely true. Everything they theorize is correct. It was an inside job by the Bush Administration to blow up the Pentagon with a bomb inside the building or a missle. Here's what would have to have happen for that to occur? In other words the "how".

They (the executors of this evil plan) would have to have been prior knowledge that the attacks were going to occur.

They would have to know that a group of Saudi national Muslims were involved and that they would be flying planes into the World Trade Center towers and possibly the Capital Building on the morning of 9/11 (but not the Pentagon).

They would have to know what planes they were on and where they were heading.

They would have to have begun a bogus construction project in that area of the Pentagon several months ahead of time. That helps to mitigate collateral damage.

During this set-up to the big day, they would have to smuggle hundreds of pounds of explosives into the most secured building in the world without anyone knowing. Those who would be doing the placing would have to never say a word. Either that or set up a missle for the attack. (shhhhhhh. Don't blow it now).

They would have to identify another plane that was flying from the East Coast (Boston or New Jersey preferrably) on that 9/11 morning with several innocent Saudi born Muslims on board who also happened to have had previous contact with the actual terrorist highjackers and taken flying lessons, but had no intentions of doing any terrorism that day.

After the planes hit the World Trade Center and every air traffic controller watching every single plane, they would have to successfully make that one innocent plane with the Muslims on board suddenly disappear. Maybe send them out into the sea and shoot it down, or just force it to land somewhere covert.

The pilots probably shouldn't know what was going to happen. They might prove problematic. Let's just make sure they don't use the radio to send any distress signals about being diverted or attacked by a US military plane.

They would need to either launch their missile, or detonate their explosives. Again, anyone involved in either task has to promise not to tell.

Also, make sure that if you do the missile, no one on the ground ever sees the missile in flight. Anyone who does see the strike has to promise to say it was a plane. That should be easy since we'll know exactly who was standing within, say, twenty miles of the Pentagon at that exact moment.

We'll have to include some airplane parts in the wreckage. They would make a nice photo-op wouldn't they?

Have I forgotten anything? I hope not. That should be enough. And lucky for us it worked like a charm. No loose strings. Everything went just as planned. The nation rallied. The war's begun.

That is until some damn damn liberal college professor had to go and open his mouth.

6-6-6, A Date That Truly Matters

Today is June 6, 2006. To the media and the public at large this day will best be remembered as 6-6-6, the day of the beast. To me it means something much more important. Today is the 62nd anniversary of D-Day, when our forces stormed the beaches of Normany in an effort to rid the planet of the threat of Nazism.

I can’t help but think of exactly what things were like back then. We were in a war we didn’t start. We were attacked in a bloody assault that killed many of our citizens. We went to war to stop the spread of the threat against Democracy and to establish that same form of government in countries that had only know tyranny and oppression. On D-Day, six-thousand six-hundred of our bravest fighting men and women died that day. Another three-thousand or so from other allied countries died as well.

Does any of this sound familiar? Remember, Germany never attacked us but we went to war against them. I can only imagine if we could have won that war if the news media were to show us every bloody detail, every minor misstep. What exactly was our exit strategy back then? What was our timetable? What would our world be like today if the peace-loving activists had gotten their way back in the 1940’s. Would we even be here today to remember the sacrifices that our forces went through?

Let’s hope that 62 years from now we can remember the sacrifices our current soldiers are offering and enjoy the freedoms they are providing now.

Nobody Expects a Spanish-American War tax

Is it truly possible for government to eliminate anything? Take the telephone excize tax for example. You probably never noticed it. It's on your phone bill. Go ahead, grab it. I'll wait

dum,de, dum,dee,dum

Got it? okay. Look at the breakdown of charges on the bill. You'll see the excise tax. Its three percent of your bill. No what that's for? It's a tax on the wealthy. That's right! We finally got the bastards. Those well-to-do scum are finally paying their fair extra share.

What's that? You're not wealthy? Then why do you suppose it's on your bill? Well maybe you need a bit of history then my friend...

Our chief weapon is apathy and ignorance...ignorance and apathy. Our two main weapons are apathy, ignorance and a complete incomprehensible tax code...Our three...our three main weapons are....I'll come in again

A short while ago (okay it was 108 years to be exact) your federal government was fighting a war. A war with the Spanish. To help keep all these wars from becoming jumbled we'll call this...the Spanish-American War. That's a good name. Anyway, wars are expensive. We know that. So how did the government decide to be fair to everyone and pay for a war that benefited everyone? That's right, they taxed the rich. In this case they added a tax onto phone service. After all, back around the turn of the century only the rich had phones. Made sense.

Then something strange happened that the government never planned on. We actually won the war quickly. In eighteen months to be exact. Seems as though the Spanish were not quite the formidable foe they are today.

So with the war over, the tax was unnecessary, right? **cough, cough** unnecessary? There's no such thing as an unnecessary tax.

So the tax stayed. The government kept collecting it. That is until the people started wising up. In 2000 Congress decided to repeal the tax. End of story, right? Nope, Bill Clinton decided that any tax was a tax worth fighting for so he vetoed the action. So the courts got involved. They decided the tax was wrong and ordered it removed. End of story then, right? Nope. the Bush Administration appealed and delayed its repeal. Nice to see Democrats and Republicans agreeing on something, hunh?

So now the appeals are over and the tax is officially dead. Not only that but the federal government has been ordered to send a refund to all phone owners for the past three years that they've been dragging their feet. Neat, hunh? The Bush administration has figured out a way to roadblock a tax cut and then turn it into an election year positive by sending you a nice little tax refund.

Now, all is not rosy in the excize tax world. They can still impose the tax on local calls, just not on long-distance calls. So a partial victory is all that you can hope for.

So the next time you hear someone claim that the best solution to solve a problem is to tax the rich (that's right, I'm talking to you alternative minimum tax) remember that today's wealthy my just be tomorrow's you.

Now, where is that comfy chair?

We Are French..Why Do You Think We Have This Outragious Riot?

As we speak a million French people are fighting in the streets. Now that in and of itself I find entertaining. After all, the French have not exactly been known for fighting. Now they seem to be doing a very good job of it but only amongst themselves. Couldn't these cheese-eating-rifle-droppers have thought about this...I don't know..About 65 years ago?

Apparently invading bands of Nazi's aren't enough to get them armed and into the streets. What is? Jobs. Do I mean the possibility that jobs might be eliminated and unemployment might go up? Nope, the youth of France are rioting because they will now be able to get more jobs. Apparently that's bad when you're dealing with a socialist government.

The deal is this. France was painfully aware that their youth made horrible employees and were getting fired before they had a chance to suck off the corporate teet. So the government installed a law several years ago that told any business that if they hired anyone under the age of 26 they couldn't fire them. Doesn't matter the reason, they can't be fired. Sounds like a pure Democratic plan doesn't it?

The unintended result of that well-meaning, well-thought out law was that businesses simply stopped hiring anyone under the age of 26. They weren't interested in taking the risk of hiring an incompetent who had immediate "tenure." As a result, youth unemployment skyrocketed.

So the government decided to rescind that law, thereby allowing more job opportunities for the youth. Their reaction? Riot.

So there you have it. The youth of France finally standing up to oppressive forces. Like work.

There...now leave before I riot a second time.

Any Port In A Political Firestorm

Well, well. The Democrats seemed to have found themselves a new plaything. In their constant search to find things no one really knows or cares much about and use it to lynch the current administration, the party of consistency has selected the sale of port administration to United Arab Emerits as their latest crucible.

The Democrats say that we shouldn't sell the rights to the ports to the UAR because they have shown some shoestring connection towards terrorism. (After all, a couple of the 9/11 highjackers were from there so that's makes them all terrorists) So what they're saying is, we should profile a country because of propensity for terrorism. However, the Democrats also refuse the same logic in our airports. (Ignore Habib, do a full body search of Grandma over there. We have to be fair after all). So, profiling a potential terrorist based on quantifiable facts, no can do. Profiling a country based on four people. That's fine.

The Democrats are also pointing fingers over the claim that we are not inspecting every single crate that comes through our ports. That's a threat to national security after all! In the mean time, the Democrats don't want us to clamp down on our Mexican border. "Jose, Maria, come on in. No problem. That carton of Tickle Me Elmos? Hold on just a darn minute!"

To be fair, several Republicans have also jumped on the shipwagon. Personally I have yet to hear any solid reasons against the move. Don't get me wrong. I think that we should take every measure of due diligence to make sure we are doing the right thing regarding our ports. But here's some reality to consider. Most of our ports are already run by foreign interests. They have been for many, many years. There simply aren't any US firms who are interested in handling such ventures. I can't buy the "security is at stake" argument either. US Customs and the Coast Guard have been and will always remain in charge of our security. None of that would change regardless of who signs the checks for the ports.

And having the Democrats attempting to take the high road on an issue they have declared a matter of national security? That's just silly.

So we file this issue away with the Bush National Guard and Valerie Plame matters that, once the true stories came out, no one really cared that much in the end.

We have met the enemy......

It's time for the Democrats to rejoice. The war against Iraq is over. Yes it's official! We are no longer fighting against Iraq. Actually that has been true for quite some time but the liberals seemed to have not noticed. So it's time we told them.

Liberals continue to pound away saying it's "unjust" for us to be at war with Iraq and that our soldiers are dying in vain. They didn't attack us, there are no weapons of mass destruction, blah, blah, blah. The only problem with that logic is, we're not at war with Iraq. To be at war with someone they have to be fighting against you. Let's check the scorecard shall we?

We're not fighting against the Iraqi government. They want our military there. We're helping them stabilize their government while they get on their feet. No enemy there.

We're not fighting against the Iraqi military. They want us there. In fact we are the ones training the Iraqi military. No enemy there.

We're not fighting the Iraqi people. They want us there. Bless there purple stained fingers. No enemy there.

The Iraqi government is not the enemy, the Iraqi military is not the enemy, the Iraqi people are not the enemy.

So exactly who is our enemy if it's not one of them? Simple, it's the terrorists. Those stabile rational idealists who have pledged life and limb to destroy us and anything we're associated with. Where are those pesky terrorists right now? Why they're in Iraq! Lookie what we found! An enemy.

If the terrorists moved out of Iraq do you think we'd still be fighting there? Nope, no need. If the terrorists moved to Libya would we be fighting them there? You betcha. How about if they moved to Iran? In a heartbeat. What if they moved to New York City? We'd fight them with every ounce of energy that we have. Let's do what we can to keep that last one from every happening.

Right now, I'm pretty happy to have them in Iraq.