ARE PSYCHOLOGISTS LOSING THEIR MINDS?

Here at my University we sometimes poke a little fun at our friends in the Psychology Dept. The running joke is,"You want apples? Look in an Apple Tree. You want nuts? Look in Psychology." The joke stems from the fact that some (but not all) of our Psychology faculty are, well, a little unusual. I always say, being too introspective is not healthy, psychologists seem to prove that point. Maybe it's just that a large percentage of them got into psychology to find out what's wrong with themselves, whatever the reason, a lot of them seem to be nuttier than the people they study.

This seems to be proving itself over and over in some of the stories that have been coming out lately about the antics of Psychology professors on behalf of the loony left.

I found this story some time ago and I think it well defines what I'm talking about here. It seems that back in 1999, two University psychology professors and a grad professor, (and I'll gladly call them out by name) Bruce Rind from Temple University, Philip Tromovitch from the University of Pennsylvania and Robert Bauserman from the University of (Gasp, my home state) Michigan, co-authored a study called, "A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples," in which they attempted to justify having child-adult sex by claiming that there was no measurable socio-emotional or psychological damage to the victim. (For those of you who put absolute faith in this kind of garbage, this is a classic example of the kind agenda-driven crap that is spewed by Universities). Further, I had an opportunity to listen to these Profs try to defend their study on-air. Their defense was typical of what you hear around our campus, that morality is Subjective and that other cultures (usually Stone-Age), have sex with their children and since it is accepted, the children and adults see no harm, and with the absence of condemnation and guilt, everyone lives a well adjusted, happy life. Most of these assumptions come from talking with the village elders who do most of the raping and the submissive victims who fear being punished once the outsiders leave. Having seen the result of children who were molested myself, this is either a complete perversion of the truth or the product of sick twisted minds to flat out lie to further their hopeful agenda of being able to have sex with not only college students that they can manipulate, but children as well. I usually try to be as fair as I can be to both sides of any argument, but these people make me sick to my stomach.

The second example I have for you is a little more recent. It comes from a Conference on World Affairs panel at Boulder High located in Boulder, Colorado. Boulder, Colorado has seen great change in it's culture over the last few decades with Liberalism becoming the norm in most of it's school systems. This example is rather typical of some of the changes the left sees as "Progressive". One of the scheduled speakers for that night was Joel Becker, a Los Angeles clinical psychologist, Dr. Becker started his speech to high school students with this sentence, "I'm going to encourage you to have sex, and I'm going to encourage you to use drugs appropriately," Joel went on to say, "And why I am going to take that position is because you're going to do it anyway." This is typical left-wing thought, agree or not, this is a left wing position, that some things are unavoidable, so therefore we should accept it and not even try to discourage it while doing our best to assure that the children do it safely. Dr. Becker went on to say that children should be encouraged to experiment with masturbation, homosexuality, group sex and drugs to enhance the experience. It should be noted here that the Conference was mandatory and that no opposing point of view was given. It should also be pointed out that some of the students were below the age of consent and that the drugs he was encouraging the students to use "appropriately" were illegal. The very worst part of all this was that it was defended by the school administration.

Now, there is an important lesson here that every one should be aware of. On University campuses, advocates are very proud of their efforts to represent oppressed groups. The problem is; as people become more and more accepting of different cultures, sexualities, and ethnic groups, it leaves these people looking harder and harder for anyone to represent. Advocacy groups and the people who lead them enjoy their power, should their goal be met, they certainly are not going to disband their groups and go about their business. A good example is MADD, (Mothers Against Drunk Driving), when it was originally formed, their goal was to toughen drunk driving law. The woman who originally formed the group left several years ago when she felt the group had met it's goal, but the people in MADD weren't about to give up their power, connections, and profitable positions, so they continued on without her to push for more and more drinking laws that can only have one conclusion; the outlawing of alcohol completely. It is the same with these people. As homosexuality becomes more accepted, these people will have no choice but to move on to the next taboo, and the next taboo will be child-adult sex. They will argue, as they already have, that it is our Judea-Christian upbringing that is the cause of us being morally against child-adult sex. They will argue that "Age of Consent" is debatable and they will push to have it lowered and lowered. They will position themselves as being "Progressive" and "Open minded" and those against it as intolerant and oppressive. They will, as they already have, use questionable data designed to further their agenda, and just as MADD's end result can only be the outlawing of alcohol, they're end result can only be the elimination of all judgment and morality. There is a fight over the morality of this country and it is being fought by the left through philosophy and psychology. I'm willing to have that debate because I know I'm on the side of protecting children and being the kind of responsible father, grandfather and citizen that this country needs. I will judge and I invite people to judge me. To the scum-bag people who are now pushing for the acceptance of Child-Adult sex through psychology I give this piece of advice; "Psychologist, heal thy self." H.C.

FIXING A HOLE

Here in Michigan, we are in the middle of a financial crisis. At last count, the State is 800 million dollars in the red and growing. It seem our beloved Governor, Jennifer Granholm, can not for the life of her, figure out a way to balance the budget. It is now the fifth budget in a row that Buffy The Job Killer has turned in that is in the red. To be sure, there are a lot of problems here in Michigan that are contributing to our crisis; manufacturing has been running out the door, high gas prices are keeping our tourism down, and we have to deal with the reality that we are viewed on the world stage as a pro-union high wage state. Still, other Governors in other Rust Belt states have found a way and their states are rebounding rather nicely. Since our Governor can't seem to see an answer outside of cutting schools and vital services, I've decided to help her out by pointing to something that could save our budget.


Since Jennifer became our Governor, she has been embracing a Socialistic idea as a way of fixing our economy. She has been dumping billions into "Work Projects" ala Hoover and Roosevelt after The Great Depression. Jennifer's idea is that if you create jobs though the government, those jobs will lift the economy. This is, in my eyes, such an outdated idea that it's really not even worth debating anymore. If you want to see how badly it works, come to Michigan. Ms. Granholm has spent ten years worth of Federal money on highway projects in just three years. (I wonder how she would have felt if Engler had done that to her?) On top of that, she announced last year an additional $618 million dollars of state money for even more highway projects and increased transportation's general budget by 100 million. The end result? Unemployment that is the highest in the United States.


So where do I suggest we find the money to balance our budget? Let me ask all of you a quick question; have you ever seen so many highway projects at the same time in Michigan as you have under Governor Granholm? If you think that orange barrels have been springing up like dandelions every spring in unprecedented numbers, you'd be right. Governor Granholm has increased her spending on transportation every year she's been in office even as our debt continues to grow. It's now at a record $2.3 billion dollars. She then has the audacity to call herself a Fiscal Conservative! Did they change the definition since I looked last? I thought the idea behind being a Fiscal Conservative was not spending money you don't have! I'm going to come right out and say it, "Our debt has been created directly by increased spending on highway projects with most of that money going to private contractors." Just look at her budget where, on page 10, it demonstrates how the condition of our roads has increased from 75% rated good to 92%, we no longer need to continue this handout to contractors!. Granholm's plan was to increase our spending on roads to attract businesses, but so far all I see is businesses using those roads to leave.


When John Engler took office in 1991, he inherited a 1.5 billion dollar debt and promptly halted all contracted highway spending to help balance the budget. It's time the Senate and House here in Michigan do the same. For us to increase spending when we're in such a fiscal bind even while our highways are in the best condition they have been in for 20 years is ridiculous! Governor Granholm; stop rewarding your contractor buddies and give us a summer without traffic backups. Upper Michigan needs the tourism, we all need to save the gas, and you need to finally admit your plans are a failure and balance the first budget since you've been in office.


On a side note; After repeatedly researching the Governor's office I was amazed at the lack of openness about the State of Michigan's highway contracts and how many of those companies gave to Granholm's campaign. Rest assured, I will be searching for any ties I can find and will be writing about them as soon as I find them. H.C.

TAKING IT IN THE GAS

Some time ago, I wrote a piece called "An Inconvenient Truth" where I detailed our dependence on Big Oil, how it will get worse, and how there is very little we can do about it. A lot of people accused me of defending G.W. (again) and being a shill for the oil companies. At that time I felt that considering the War in Iraq, troubles in Iran, Venezuela, Nigeria, and the destruction of oil refineries by Katrina, the high prices weren't all that out of line. Further, I demonstrated for you how, like it or not, it wasn't G. W.'s fault and the prices were consistent with rises in other countries. Well, as you all know, the price of gas has gone through the roof again just in time for summer vacations. (surprise, surprise) This time I have a few problems with it that seriously should be looked into. If G.W. won't do it, then let's get the Democrats off their collective asses and see if the Big Oil CEO's can lie their way out of this one.

So what's so different this time? Plenty. Oil production in Iraq is now about 2 million barrels a day nearly twice what it was this time in 2006 when oil prices peaked at $78 a barrel. Despite what you hear on CNN, things are looking better for the region that produces most of Iraq's oil. (The Sunni's control very little in their deadly triangle) Analysis by petroleum firms put the possible export figure as high as 4 million barrels a day . The War in Nigeria is pretty much settled with Shell Oil set to resume pumping out an estimated 2 million barrels a day, Iran is settling down a little and Venezuela, well, is still Venezuela. The big news for petro-watchers is that there were no major hurricanes in the 2006 season to slow down refineries. It seems the stage is set for a summer of low gas prices, right? Wrong. With an absence of problems to blame their yearly hike on, Big Oil has decided to create its own problems by shutting down at least a dozen of it's refineries for reasons ranging from repairs to they needed the window screens dusted and dandelions were all over the yards. (O.K. I made the last one up). The fact is, this time they're gouging us pure and simple.

So how can I tell that their not justified like the last time when I pretty much defended them? I went back to my old friend Math.

Back in July 2006, when gas was going for $3.015 here in Michigan, (according to AAA) oil was going for $78.40 a barrel, now, according to AAA, gas is at $3.271 and Oil at last check was going for $63.85 a barrel. That makes no sense at all. But wait, don't they say it's because of refining costs? O.K., let's look at refining costs and see if their argument holds up. Refinery costs, for some strange reason, are always lumped together with profits. (hmmmm, I wonder why?) But, even at that it doesn't make sense. In 2006, refinery and profit was only 19% of the cost of a gallon of gas, so, if we do a little math (God I hate Math) it makes sense that we should be able check the past gas prices at $63.85 a barrel and see how much more they're charging us for refinery and profit. (my guess is mostly profit.) The last time oil was at roughly $64 was mid September, 2006 and gas was at $2.60 a gallon. That means the refinery and profit on that price was $.494 at 19% in 2006, and when you subtract that roughly $.5o from the 2006 price of $2.60 you get a net cost of $2.10 before refinery and profit. That means refinery and profit is now $1.17, ($2.10 subtracted from $3.27) more than double what it was a year ago! My guess is a large percent of that will show up as profit in the next quarter. What are the Democrats doing about this you ask yourself? Well, a quick check of DNC.ORG shows them more concerned with the Gonzales firings, Paul Wolfowitz, (honestly, does anyone care?) and the appointment of the new War Czar than what your paying at the pump. In fact, the only mention of it is in a blog.

So what can we do about it? Nothing. Thanks to the Democrats who forced the CEO's of Big Oil to testify in front of Congress when they didn't do anything wrong (instead of waiting until they did) and G.W. and the Republicans acting as a force field against any future Congressional over site, Big Oil sees this as their chance to rape and pillage to their hearts content. I guess there is an offhand chance that G.W. may see this as a chance to improve his sagging poll numbers and ask his buddies to lay off, but frankly, I think Big Oil is now so global, so powerful, and so free to sell their wares where ever they please that they don't care what America, G.W., or anyone else thinks. The only good solution I see is screaming at the top of our lungs for an end to our dependency on oil and maybe our grandchildren will see the day when Big Oil will go the way of buggy whips and kerosene lanterns. Until then, bend over and touch your toes. H.C.

ARMING THE ABUSED

Females in this country are being abused and even killed at an alarming rate. Among females in the U.S., approximately 1 in 3 homicides are intimate partner homicides. The nonfatal rate of sexual assault for females is 4.8 times higher than that for males. In 2004, 1,157 women were killed by their intimate partner. In addition, 4,450,807 women were assaulted in 2006 in this country. According to estimates from the NVAWS, 322,230 rapes occur against women each year. Slightly more than one-third of these rapes (36.2%) result in physical injuries. Women, it seems, are the preferred target for aggression by men, and it's no wonder, women are far less likely to be armed.

I speak to this issue from experience, when I was young, my Mother was an abused woman. The amount of fear and physical abuse that women can suffer at the hands of an abusive man can not be overstated. John Lennon once said that "women are the nigger of the world". I have to agree, while black people at least have some countries where they are in power, women are mistreated everywhere, and here in the U.S. is no exception.

The answer to women being seen as easy victims, at least from my point of view, lies in this quote; "God made men and women, but Sam Colt made them equal." If you really want to see an asshole guy change his tune, point a gun at him. Better yet, load up some of the available rubber bullets and knock him on his ass. Women; you want true equality? Buy a gun and learn how to use it. I have two daughters and both of them have used shot guns and know the safety lessons to handle them correctly. I do not want my daughters to be defenseless should some ex-boyfriend come around looking to assert his dominance. Say what you want, they know how to defend themselves.

I know what some of you are thinking. H.C., if you give these women guns, they'll just be taken away from them and then used against them. That only happens in a small percentage of armed conflicts despite what you see on T.V. However, in order to make it happen even less, follow this advice. First off, you should never pull out a gun unless you feel that you are in serious danger. Second, when you pull one out you should have every intention of using it if the person your pointing it at does not retreat. This is where rubber bullets excel. I recommend using one in the chamber for the first shot, then backed up by the real thing. All the rubber bullets I've seen come plainly marked so that you can't confuse them with the harder hitting stuff, but just the same, they should only be used if you feel your safety is seriously threatened. You don't necessarily need to get a handgun either, (although if you are being stalked you should consider getting one.) Shotguns come in a variety of sizes and a small .410 will do the job with very little kick. Loaded up with rubber pellets, it will take a man off his feet at 20 yards. The trick to not getting your gun taken away from you is to never allow your adversary to get close enough to try it.

Gun control advocates are constantly trying to convince women that arming themselves is a bad idea, but as the evidence in my first paragraph demonstrates, not arming yourselves is not working out very well. Women are lolled into a false sense of security by alarm systems or by getting a Personal Protection Order (PPO). None of that will protect you if your problem is determined to have his way.

In fact, as I often do, I have a little solution to the problem of guys (or even girls sometimes) who figure the best way to get you to love them is to make you fear them. After you have sought and received a PPO, I believe that your State should then allow you to apply for a express CCW (your right to carry a gun on your person). You would have to get the normal background check and a one day training exercise with a gun on a range. Now the best part of my plan; after you receive your CCW, a postcard would be sent to the person who is terrorizing you informing them that you are now armed and that it is recommended that they obey the PPO. I would be willing to bet the vast majority of assholes will rethink their stalking ways. The rest of them we will bury, thereby improving the gene pool.

The left wants you to believe that protecting yourself is a bad idea, but the truth is criminals prefer unarmed victims. From 1993 to 2001, the number of murders in the U.S. dropped 36% and the murders by firearm dropped 41%. Is it just a coincidence that during that time we started issuing Right To Carry permits in states? Violent crime rates in 2004-2005 were lower than anytime since 1976. (Crime victim surveys indicate that violent crime is at a 31-year low.) Since 1991, 23 states have adopted Right To Carry, the number of privately-owned guns has risen by nearly 70 million, and violent crime is down 38%. In 2005 RTC states had lower violent crime rates, on average, compared to the rest of the country (total violent crime by 22%; murder, 30%; robbery, 46%; and aggravated assault, 12%) and included the seven states with the lowest total violent crime rates, and 11 of the 12 states with the lowest murder rates. There may be other factors that contribute to these successes, but it's hard to ignore the impact of armed citizens. The way I see it, we can arm the abused women in this country and save lives or we can do the Politically Correct thing and watch them be terrorized. I can not see how any Feminist can stand idly by while women hide and submit simply because their left-leaning tendencies won't allow them to back something they know in their heart will save lives. It's time for all women to take a stand and say, "On this day, I will hide no more. Any man who thinks he can terrorize me will meet his equal. Thanks to Sam Colt." H.C.

BY HIS OWN HAND

The convulsing cough gave way to resignation. With each attempt by my body to expel the water from my lungs, more came in. I now laid flat, face up, as light streamed down through the water in blades all seeming to come from one central point. I felt strangely relaxed, almost euphoric, as life slipped from my body, my eyes dimmed just as two arms reached down toward me.

It could have been construed as a religious experience except that the two arms belonged to my Dad and not God. The next thing I remember I was on shore, the coughing had returned along with a vicious headache. My parents and brothers stood all around me as my body ejected the last of the Silver Lake water from my lungs. It was close, so close that I had shat my swimming shorts. Even at four years old, I was embarrassed. It's the second oldest memory I have, the oldest being watching my Grandfather trying to get up after suffering a heart attack that would soon take his life.

Those memories flashed in my head as I swam down the ten or twelve feet to Bernie's body, laying flat and face up, seemingly lifeless, as air bubbles trickled from his mouth. Despite my experience, I loved the water. Whereas most people would have become terrified of it, I found a weird connection with water. If that was how drowning felt, I reasoned, it really wasn't so bad, and I had became a powerful swimmer.

It's a good thing too, our day of skipping school to enjoy some of Summer's last breaths had taking a bad turn. Squire Lake was nothing but a gravel pit, but with it's secluded position, crystal clear water and sandy beach it was a school-skippers paradise. Bernie had taken a large piece of Styrofoam out towards the deep water and suddenly starting slapping it with flaying arms. His screams of "help" were taken by all of us as an attempt at a joke, he could, after all, swim fairly well. One by one though we became more concerned as he disappeared under the surface and didn't come back up. Mitchel and me were both members of the swim team (Any white kid that could swim was forced to) so we told everyone to stay put as we swam out to where we had last seen him. I found him first, and thankfully, moments later we had him on shore coughing up Squire Lake. He was lucky, he didn't even shit his pants.

Bernie was, in my eyes, everything I wished I could be. He was witty, smart, and had Jim Morrison-esque good looks. He was a hit with every girl we knew when his parents moved into our school district. He hated our school, but then again, we all did. Bernie was also a good friend, when girls would come around with their doe-eyes, Bernie would introduce me as a great person worthy of a second look despite my average appearance. After Mitchel and me pulled him from the water he told everyone we were heroes and he would thank me to a point where it was embarrassing. I started hanging out with him regularly and would walk over to his house on my way to school even though it was out of the way. In the short time we had known each other we had become fast friends.

Unfortunately, as way too many of my personal stories do, this one took a bad turn. As I rounded the corner one day toward Bernie's house, I saw the kaleidoscope of red and blue lights in the early morning haze. Police vehicles and ambulances gathered en mass around his house. One of our mutual friends, Craig, was standing at the edge of the crowd. "What's going on?" I queried. "Don't know." Craig replied, "I think something happened to one of Bernie's parents." That made sense, he had mentioned that his dad drank way too much, he probably fell. I was totally unprepared for what happened next. The side door burst open and a whole entourage of police, paramedics, and crying people spilled onto their driveway. In the middle was a black bag on a gurney, zipped all the way up. Bernie's parents rode alongside, his mother wailing in a way only mothers do. They damn near ran to the ambulance and in a second they were gone. Another mutual friend, Dean, worked his way to me and Craig. "Did you hear?" he gasped, "Bernie shot himself!" My knees went weak. "He took his dad's shotgun and shot himself." he continued, "My mom said he died, she ran over to Bernie's house when she heard his mom screaming." My heart sank to my feet, I looked out at the crowd dispersing. The world seemed suddenly emptier, darker, and every word people were saying seemed to come from a very far away place. We were just kids, How could this happen?

Over the next few days the details started coming in. His arguments with his dad, the condemnation that he wasn't living up to their Mormon beliefs and even his last few moments. His chair sat empty in one of my classes as a reminder that he was no longer with us.

Suicide is the plague of the white male. We kill ourselves at a rate that is higher than any other group. I myself, have had suicidal thoughts, although my optimism that the future will be better and logic always pulled me through. It is introspection that feeds it. If you focus on the people who will be hurt the most by your leaving, or those who have it worse than you, and focus less on yourself, it becomes less likely.

Bernie was, I think, typical of the kind of white males who kill themselves. He kept his problems to himself, hidden behind jokes and a facade that everything is fine. Women share their misery, minorities can blame someone else, but in the white male world we are told we are the fortunate sons. If there is a problem, it is yours to solve and yours alone. If there is blame, it is you. It certainly doesn't help that we hear constantly that we are the bane of mankind, the cause of oppression, imperialism and prejudice. Bernie's death shook me to my soul, I worried constantly for my friends and always tried to look for any warning signs. In our effort to affix blame in this society we seem to care not at all for the children who are born white and male. If they are to commit suicide, so be it. It almost seems that once again we are to blame. If it should happen that one of us should kill himself, who really cares? It will be by their own hand anyway. H.C.

RAGE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT

As most of you know by now, I'm a big proponent of free speech. Time and time again I've railed on about the squelching of free speech by advocates, Universities, schools, conservatives and even the Internet. Here's a great example of how Universities are doing it again, thanks to Nic for providing the link. http://www.cnn.com/2007/EDUCATION/04/23/professor.fired.ap/index.html

However, if you've been reading me for very long, you also know that I always include this caveat when talking about free speech, "Except for calling for direct violence." We all know that free speech has some limits, and where those limits are is open for debate. My University, for example, writes limits on me into my contract. I can not call my University out by name on anything that it does or I'll risk being terminated. (The reason I write under a pseudonym and hide my face). I guess I really don't have that big a problem with it, they do, after all, pay me. The question is; what would they consider to be problem speech? I basically worry every time I mention my opposition to gun control, gay marriage, or radical advocacy. I do however agree with them on one issue, no one should be calling for direct violence.

Which leads me to why I'm writing this post.

It seems the other day (4/30) Rage Against the Machines' current frontman, Zach De La Rocha went into a tirade against the Bush Administration during one of their concerts. Now, I really don't care in the least what a band that is so pitiful they couldn't even write good music with Chris Cornell, a gifted voice and songwriter, has to say about politics. But, there is an issue here that is far larger than the rantings of a third tier singer. During their song "Wake up", Mr. De La Rocha called for the Bush Administration to be "tried, hung and shot.". That, I feel, is a clear violation of the limits of freedom of speech, and I'm going to tell you why, and why I feel all of us, even you Bush-Haters, should not tolerate it.

As I pointed out in my post on dehumanizing, there is nothing scarier then the act of reducing someone to a group and then using that dehumanization to justify violence against them. This is true no matter who you're doing this to. By reducing Bush, Cheney, Gates, Rice and all the rest of the executive branch to "The Bush Administration" you have separated yourself from the reality of Bush, the father to his twins, Cheney, the father of his daughters, or Rice the daughter of her mother. It's O.K. to dislike what the Bush Administration has done, to disagree with their policies, or to even organize and fight against the policies of the Bush Administration that you disagree with. Hell, I would even go so far as to say that makes you patriotic. But to call for the death of someone because you disagree with them in a country where an avenue is available to have non-violent change is despicable.

I would also like to point out how far that could take us.

I don't really care for Bill Maher. I know he's just a comedian, but that smirky, "I'm way smarter than anyone" attitude makes me desperately want to see someone, anyone, slap that smirk off his face. Should I therefore call for people to kill him? No, I don't think I should encourage that kind of behavior. Lot's of people can get on your nerves in this life and what kind of a civil society are we running where people are attacked, even killed, just because we don't like them? It also encourages more bad behavior. If it's O.K. for me to want the President killed, why not my parents? Why not my boss? Why not anyone who pisses me off in any way? As much as President Bush is a failure in my eyes as a President, we did in fact elect him to do the job. And it's not an easy job. It's entirely possible that he's simply over his head and can't handle what we put before him, in that case, push for impeachment. If it should happen that you can't make a case against him that warrants removing him from office in the eyes of the majority of the people, that does not give you the right to be disrespectful or violent. When did we get so misguided that we started thinking that we had the right to be disrespectful, even violent towards anyone we disagree with? Is it any wonder you have kids attacking their teachers? Attacking their parents? Picking on old people? Calling women bitches and hoes?

As we look out over the landscape of the society of this country, isn't it time we started holding people responsible for encouraging people to act out as opposed to settling things civilly? Is it any wonder young kids think people deserve a beating, or to be shot, over minor disagreements? If we can't even show some respect in our disagreement with the President, how can we expect anyone to show us any, when we are far less important. I'm sure that there will be a lot of people who will try to defend Rage Against the Machine, in fact I've already seen them, but just as I would not advocate people calling for violence against Jews, blacks, homosexuals, or anyone else, I can't defend what can only be described as hate speech by a hateful, hypocritical, left-wing nut. H.C.

THAT WASCALLY WABBIT "W"

The Democrats have finally found something that G.W. does really well....he fools them. In fact, by putting together an administration that's absolutely brilliant in comparison to what the Democrats can put together to counter, he's managed to completely fool the Democrats on just about everything they've ever believed. It's not their fault really, all they did was completely trust him. They had absolutely no reason to believe he was up to no good, that's clear from the way they treated him in the run-up to the 2000 elections. (Sarcasm added for flavor). And what did they get for their trusting ways? A war in Iraq, a ballooning Federal deficit, and faulty intelligence that the Democrats had no way of knowing was wrong. Pa-leeeaase.

First, let me go back to what the Democrats were saying about attacking Iraq way back before the reign of G.W..

"There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us." Bill Clinton-February, 1998 speech - Sounds to me like Bill believed his intelligence, was that the same intelligence that Bush inherited?

"If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He's already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons. He poison-gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors."-Al Gore Dec. 1998 on Larry King Live- Gee, Bush was convincing these people that Saddam was a problem even before he was in office.

O.K., so maybe the Democrats had a little help from their own, but Bush still used his conniving brilliance to falsify the urgency of the threat, right? Yeah, I suppose you could use that argument, but didn't the Democrats have enough evidence to doubt Bush's honesty? Here's some of the things they were saying Bush lied about way back before he was even President.

G.W. was AWOL from the Nation Guard for 18 months.

G.W. hid a D.U.I. he got back in 1976

And then they claimed he lied all through the election debacle

Now, what I'm not understanding is this; If Bush was such an outright liar all through the run up to the elections, (According to the Democrats themselves) lied about most of his life, and then cheated and lied to steal the election, why would any self-respecting Democrat believe him when he inflated the facts on why we should go to war with Iraq? The way I see it, if John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and the rest of the Democrats supported the war before they were against it because they believed anything that came out of Bush's mouth, does that make them naive at best or stupid at worst? How can we trust them to deal with the real bad guys who are going to lie their asses off when they trusted a guy they themselves claimed was nothing but a liar?? Maybe the Democrats should take some of Bush's advice, "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." or something like that. H.C.