Speaking Out for the USA

My brother sent me his poem that laments me for believing in using violence against the Jihadists and for abandoning utopian liberalism and new age spirituality. My response follows:

Norman,
Your poem is logically incoherent: to speak about unconditional love and then call me narrow and reactive and to call President Bush a dolt speaks volumes for your New Age Fundamentalism. Yes, you are a Fundamentalist: All forms of Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, or Moslemism or whatever religious expression that do not fit into the lens you believe as the Truth -- as you 'feel' it -- it is reflexively partitioned and condemned by your mind as being a delusion and just plain wrong -- a pure black and white judgement parading around as 'enlightenment'. In your narrow-mindedness (as it allows no alternatives) if someone disagrees with you, then they are a lost fool. What arrogance and silliness this self-contradictory argument displays. You see the world in black and white: people who 'love' in your prescribed way are right and all else is wrong. This has not humility and not openness to explore how someone can think or believe differently. You would not survive in an intellectually challenging environment because you are simply afraid of any alternative. You defend against this observation by stating defensively that you are right because you 'feel' it; thus, I am wrong for the same reason. You don't know true love. All you have are utopian delusions and judgmentalism parading around as open-mindedness: this is your fundamentalism and it is as closed minded as any fundamentalism you yourself condemn. So please don't pity me. Your patronizing 'caring' for me just demonstrates you inability to deal with a multidimensional reality. It is a cleverly disguised form of intolerance and an act of emotional violence. You ultimately deny differences as being real and thus you pigeonhole those who have valid and justifiable disagreements as lost souls. Take a look in the mirror to see who is lost. I am tired of 'open-minded' people calling me narrow-minded because I do not agree with this sly and cunning fundamentalism.

In the future, leave me alone with talk of politics and religion. From my perspective, you don't know what you are talking about, you don't know me, and 'frankly, madam, I don't give a damn' about your good intentions.
Just deal with me as a person who loves gardening, computers, good food, and insightful and investigative discussion. But I will not be you 'Stepford brother' programmed with and parroting post-modern deconstructive incoherence.

Before I begin my brief discussion of why I choose George Bush overJohn Kerry, let me just say that 4 years ago I simply and unequivocally loathed George W. Bush and, if asked, I would have given a positive assessment ofJohn Kerry. But this has been a momentous 4 years as we all know. As others have stated so eloquently elsewhere (for example, see http://www.ejectejecteject.com/ ), 9/11 was a watershed experience in my life and since that day I have experienced a slow but steady metamorphosis from a deeply held liberal attitude to the conservative political viewpoint I have today.

I know that one can create a large list of issues where the two presidential candidates differ and I let others articulate them but, for me, my preference for George W. Bush comes down to one basic reason: he gets what true evil is and what must be done to prevent its rise to power and success in the world. And wedded to this clear view of evil is a character built upon action, resolve, and steadfastness in the midst of extreme political opposition. This is a truly great man. And the history of his administration after 9/11 reflects this energetic action to destroy Islamo-fascism at its physical support structure before it has a chance to become an unstoppable nightmare. I completely agree with his doctrine of pre-emption, and not waiting for the danger to become to impossible to contain or stop. It is immoral to be a sitting duck and not protect your loved ones and way of life. George Bush has shown the conviction, the courage, and a grand vision of the power of democracy and freedom, you don't see very often in a politician. It is so sad to that he has been so villified by his enemies.

For John Kerry it appears that the war on terror is all just a political game to him with not one iota of genuine conviction about absolute self-defense. Remember, he claims 9/11 hardly changed him. Only someone deeply alienated from reality could claim this. He wants to live in the world of an imagined international utopia where we all look out for the benefit of the world community and where national and personal self-interest are not the actual facts on the ground. The Oil-for-Food program totally invalidates his foreign policy stance. His is an unreal fantasy of self-defense: work with the international community at all costs to avoid the inevitable confrontation. I don't get that John Kerry understands evil and I would proffer the assertion that John Kerry and the actions he took post Vietnam come awfully close to the realm of evil: he knew that many of the Winter Soldier conference participants were full of BS and yet he would support them over his own 'band of brothers' still serving in Vietnam and held in North Vietnamese prisons. The fact that he would not see how his actions could give aid and comfort to the enemy displays a vast character flaw. For all his high intellect, he is morally bankrupt. Even today, he still refuses to apologize to his fellow veterans. John Kerry doesn't have the character for the job. Just the way he has run his campaign from its inception with all of its calculation, flip-flopping, and over-nuanced explanations of contradictory stances demonstrate that he will do or say anything, endanger and mislead anyone and everyone just to get elected and this lack of character invalidates, in my mind, any other quality someone might deem positive in him. It has been said before: John Kerry is not fit for command; George W. Bush most definitely is the man for the job. Four more years!

This documentary put out by Dick Morris is a devastating repudiation of all of Michael Moore's lies and inuendos and goes further to demonstrate what a truly vile human being he is, someone who will try any technique to make it seem that the evidence supports his hatred of George Bush and his supporters. See it, share it.

Dr. Sanity: The Left's Rainbow Hypocrisy

Good reading as it demonstrates that those who consider the Right as a bunch of bigots should take a hard look in the mirror of Reality.

When John Kerry was in the process of explaining his belief that homosexuality is a genetic condition, one you are born with, most of us had our eyes bulge out at the mention of Dick and Lynne Cheney's daughter.

What really hit us in the gut was this: Here is a candidate for the office of the President of the United States and he dares to demonstrate such poor judgement and insensitivity in such a nationally televised forum, a forum where such behavior crosses all formerly recognized lines of decorum and decency. It was not the uttering of the word 'Lesbian' that caused this gasp of disbelief, it was Senator Kerry's display of a heretofore unparalleled hubris that stunned us. You could see that he felt, knew, or calculated that he could get away with this violation of protocol because he was John Kerry and normal rules of society do not apply to him. Amazingly, he would mention the daughter of one of the candidates to use as an example for making his political and social points -- against his adversary's (her father's) political party. It is his hubris that stunned us. People who were not completly Democratic-blinded partisans or apologists got this immediately ... in their "gut", as Kerry often likes to say. And this is why, I believe, there has been such an tumult of outrage. "Who does this guy think he is?" is a question many of us asked out loud or silently.

And then today we received Senator Kerry's explanation for his actions at the debate. He now wants us to believe he did it out of a Christ-like intent to display -- and share with the audience -- the Cheneys' love for their daughter --and most of us reacted with a 'Give me a break; you did it for political opportunism on multiple levels.' But he obviously miscalculated again how this explanation would be received -- as people with such hubris often do. Again, this elevated pride was on display for us to see if we were not fooled by his smooth and seductive words.

From my experience and observation, I have come to think of John Kerry as a pathological liar/opportunist, someone who gets a thrill from his power to affect people with his words and actions and see them jump around in reaction like puppets -- such as warning people about Bush's secret plan to reinstate the draft. I once knew an admitted recovering pathological liar and he told me that when he came to realize how naturally gullible people are, it became such a thrill for him to watch them react and respond to stories (lies) he made up out of his imagination and cunning. I think John Kerry seeks this same thrill; for example his oratorical skills have led many to believe that his mother said "Remember, integrity, integrity, integrity" on her sick bed, especially considering that there is no way to check out the truth of this confession. Yet this power intoxicates and sometimes he stretches it too far: his 1971 Senate testimony about atrocities, for example. He sometimes believes his own lies. This is why I consider John Kerry so dangerous. He can make any lie sound so reasonable and consistent with other lies that all appear as one truth to the gullible. He is a very scary politician and we need to work to get President Bush re-elected so that such a one as Senator Kerry never controls the power of the White House. For me, one Richard Nixon was enough.

I believe that the gut check that many people across the nation have performed in response to Kerry's protocol gaffe and then to his explanation/excuse has probably pushed a significant number of Undecideds to finally make a decision in this election. They witnessed a candidate make a sizeable miscalculation, show poor judgement, and display a deep insensitivity during a national public event (in a setting with a clearly defined tradition), but most of all, I think they saw a hubris that crossed their inner line of safety and trust, forcing them to reject him as a viable candidate for the presidency of the United States.

Eject! Eject! Eject! This guy can write! A former liberal like myself.

Petition