Profaning the Pulpit

September 1, 2004

Last Sunday three Democrats showed just how far they will go to talk their fellow Americans into voting for their party. They brazenly ascended pulpits in Miami and New York and told flat-out lies to the telling the congregations assembled there to worship the Lord.

In New York, former President Bill Clinton took time out from the European leg of his book tour to come back to address the congregation at the ultra-liberal Riverside Memorial Church, where he dissected President Bush’s faith.

“I believe President Bush is a good Christian,” he said. “I believe that his faith in Jesus gave him new purpose and direction to his life but that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t see through a glass darkly. It doesn’t mean that you can have a bunch of people acting on your behalf and pretending that you don’t know them. To say that the seven people who were on John Kerry’s Swift Boat don’t know what they’re talking about when they say he deserves the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts.”

That is false. President Bush never said that about John Kerry. If anything the president has praised Kerry and the medals he received. On a number of occasions he has said that John Kerry served with honor and praised his service to his country in Vietnam.

But Bill Clinton would have you believe something else. I have a real problem with what he said in, of all places, a church. This is the same Bill Clinton who has never come to terms with the disgusting things he did in the Oval Office, yet has the gall to stand up in a pulpit and question President Bush’s character and his Christianity.

It gets worse. While that was going on in New York, the Rev. Al Sharpton and Democrat National Chairman Terry McAuliffe were desecrating the pulpit at Miami’s New Birth Baptist Church.

The Rev. Sharpton got the congregation revved up by resurrecting the Democrat’s favorite slander that the 2000 election was stolen by the Bush campaign – a charge proven false by a long investigation by a consortium of the nation’s top newspapers, most of them near-house organs of the Democrat party.

“We’re not people who are going to be beat twice,” he stormed.

Not to be outdone in politicizing the pulpit, McAuliffe told the worshippers: “Bush has misled us for four years and will not mislead us for the next four years. Get out to vote and we’ll send Bush back to Texas.”

This is the Democrats’ idea of separation of church and state. This is the Democrats’ idea of how to worship God on Sunday. Lie your teeth out.

Now this was supposed to be a religious ceremony, not a Democrat Party rally. Here you have Sharpton telling the congregation that there was a crime committed there. That they were not allowed to vote. One has to wonder if these two glorified ward heelers had any idea of how offensive their misuse of a sacred place to peddle their lies must have appeared in the eyes of God?

And their claims were not mere fibs. They were lies, bald-faced lies. And that’s how a church in New York and another in Miami observed the Lord’s Day – not with uplifting sermons, but with sleazy political screeds.

In contrast, at my church on Sunday, we did what worshippers are supposed to do. We prayed. We prayed for the suffering people in the Sudan, for our Christian brothers and sisters being butchered by Muslim fanatics in that stricken country. We prayed that we and the rest of the world will be free from terrorist attacks.

There wasn’t a word about politics. And not a single lie was told.

©2004 Mike Reagan. You must contact us if you would like to print this column in your publication or post on the internet. Mike’s column is distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc. Cari Dawson Bartley [email protected], (800) 696-7561

A New Low in Democrat Hypocrisy

August 26, 2004

This latest bit of Hollywood show business – sending former Senator and triple-amputee Vietnam vet Max Cleland in his wheelchair to Texas to hand deliver a letter to President Bush demanding that he disavow the message of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and order them to stop their advertising - is a new low in Democrat hypocrisy.

To begin with, President Bush doesn’t have the power to stop the Swifties from running advertisements, a fact demonstrated by the veterans themselves when they said that they would not stop their campaign to show American voters John Kerry’s true nature even if ordered to do so by the President of the United States.

Kerry and his stooges are fully aware that the veterans are exercising their right to free speech and that the president has no power to repeal that Constitutional right.

They keep asking the president to disavow the veterans’ ads but in order for him to do that he would have to have all the information on everything that is talked about in the ads to learn what is true and what is not true, and what is factual and what is not factual. That’s not the president’s job because it’s not his ad. Nor has the president the power to stop these ads from running, and the Kerry campaign knows that.

Why don’t they ask the president to demand that the sleazy Moveon.org or any of the other 527s that are out there stop spewing their message of Bush hatred? But they wouldn’t do that because they want these ads to stay on the air. But instead the Kerry forces insist that Moveon.org and the others have every right to run their ads. It’s just the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who are to be denied their right to run ads critical of Senator Kerry.

The president has disavowed all the 527 ads, including the Swift Boat ads. He said they are bad for the system. But that answer isn’t good enough for the Democrats. It doesn’t really matter to them that he has already disavowed the ads. What they really want is to have the president repeal the right of free speech – for their opponents that is. With their supporters in the 527 category it’s a different matter.

The campaign finance law they all backed says the 527s can run their ads. That law, which stopped such groups as the Family Research Council or the NRA and other groups that have been around for a long time from running ads 60 days before an election, actually created a loophole to allow new organizations to do that. And the Swift Boat veterans are exercising their rights under the law the Democrats wholeheartedly supported.

The president isn’t responsible for the ads, they were created by an act of Congress. The 527s can lawfully do what they want.

Remember it was John Kerry who decided to pick up his medals from the other side of the fence where he threw them and put them back on his chest and run as a great Vietnam war hero.

Did he not recall that the war was divisive 35 years ago? Did he not realize that it is still divisive now?

He chooses to make his Vietnam War service the kingpin of his campaign because he couldn’t run on his record in the Senate. The president is talking about what he wants to do in the next four years. John Kerry brought this problem on by himself by making the war the centerpiece of his campaign and he doesn’t like the consequences of that decision, so he blames it on the president.

He can’t talk about his record as a senator. He spent 20 years in the Senate, but didn’t author or co-author any significant pieces of legislation. Here’s a man who claims he will do all sorts of important things as president who did nothing worthwhile as a senator over 20 years.

He’s learning that you really reap what you sow, and he doesn’t like it one little bit that what he sowed in Vietnam has come back to haunt him, so he blames it all on President Bush.

What a hypocrite.

Democrats and Double Standards

August 18, 2004

Democrats are demanding that President Bush stop Vietnam Veterans for Truth – an organization over which he has no control - from running their TV ad questioning John Kerry’s claims about his Vietnam service. They want him to condemn the ad.

The Democrats, however, refuse to apologize for the ads that are being taken out by Moveon.org and the other sleazy 527 organizations they have doing their dirty work for them. They think that they have every right to do or say anything they want regarding the president, but the president has no right to say anything, nor have groups opposing John Kerry any right to express their opinion about John Kerry.

Senator Kerry wants to go through this election without having anyone talk about his record, or talk about his past. When the news media talk about Kerry’s ads about the president they talk solely about the content of his ads.

When they talk about the Bush ads they always refer to them as “attack ads.” Kerry’s ads in their view are not attacks ads. He’s merely opening horizons to allow people to think seriously about the issues even though the ads are a pack of lies.

The Democrats and the left will not apologize for their ads. They say they are sensitive, educational. They won’t even apologize for Senator Tom Harkin’s disgusting attack on Vice President Cheney, who he called a coward.

Here’s what Harkin said: “When I hear this coming from Dick Cheney, who was a coward, who would not serve during the Vietnam War, it makes my blood boil,” Harkin said. “Those of us who served and those of us who went in the military don’t like it when someone like a Dick Cheney comes out and he wants to be tough. Yeah, he’ll be tough. He’ll be tough with somebody else’s blood, somebody else’s kids. But not when it was his turn to go.”

Calling the Vice President of the United States a coward because he did not serve in the military is really calling all the 14 million Americans who also didn’t serve in Vietnam cowards.

That’s perfectly fine with the Kerry crew who insist that Harkin had every right to make this slanderous charge, but when it comes to charges made by 254 brave men who served in Kerry’s Vietnam unit – charges made by every single officer in the chain of command, many of them highly decorated -and hordes of enlisted men as well, the President is told he must condemn them out of hand.

The fact that the president has already condemned all of the 527 groups’ ads as an abuse of the campaign finance law is not enough for the Kerrycrats. They want him to pull the veteran’s ads off the air which he has absolutely no power to do. They know that, of course, but that doesn’t stop them from shouting it from the rooftops. The truth is not in them.

They always find excuses to accept whatever their own people do, no matter how slimy their attacks are as long as they are pointing fingers at the president. It isn’t enough that the president has denounced all of these ads – they demand that he pull the swift boat ad, fully aware that it is not his ad and therefore can’t order it stopped.

If I recall correctly, it was Kerry’s running mate John Edwards who said if you want to know about Kerry’s war record all you have to do is spend three minutes with anybody who served with him in VietNam. Now come 254 veterans who did serve with John Kerry and the Kerry-Edwards campaign calls them liars.

Well a lot of people are heeding Edwards’ advice and spending time listening to men who did serve with John Kerry, and Kerry and Edwards don’t like it. As my colleagues at NewsMax.com reported the other day, 8,000 Americans from all across the nation have already contributed $400,000 to help the vets keep the ad running.

Selling America Out to 13 Democrats

August 11, 2004

For some insane reason the State Department has caved in to the outrageous demands of 13 House Democrats that foreign observers be invited to monitor the fall presidential election. It will be the first time such a team of outsiders has been present for a U.S. presidential election.

The 13 Democratic members of the House of Representatives wrote to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in July, and asked him to send observers.

Has the Bush administration lost its moorings? What in the world could they have been thinking when they allowed the State Department to invite a bunch of foreign busybodies at the Vienna-based Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to monitor the 2004 presidential election?

Did it not occur to the administration that by asking outsiders to come here to make sure that the election will be on the up-and-up they are tacitly admitting that the administration can’t be trusted to run an election and must have foreign observers to make sure they don’t engage in electoral hanky-panky?

That, after all, was the real motive behind the demand of the 13 House Democrats that the U.N. be asked to monitor the election. They made it quite clear that they believe that the 2000 election results in Florida were rigged in Bush’s favor and that the election was stolen from Al Gore. Thus outsiders had to be imported to keep us honest.

When Kofi Annan turned them down on the grounds that the request had to come from the administration, and House Republicans amended a foreign aid bill to bar any use of federal funds for the United Nations to monitor U.S. elections, the 13 asked Secretary of State Colin Powell to invite the U.N. to send observers, and the State Department came to the Democrats’ rescue.

In a July 30 letter Assistant Secretary of State Paul Kelly told the Democrats the OSCE, not the U.N., had been invited.

The Democrats were jubilant. And they should have been. The administration had all but told them that they were right about the 2000 election being stolen.

Crowed Texas Democrat Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, “I am pleased that Secretary Powell is as committed as I am to a fair and democratic process. The presence of monitors will assure Americans that America cares about their votes and it cares about its standing in the world.”

An equally ecstatic California Democrat Rep. Barbara Lee chirped, “This represents a step in the right direction toward ensuring that this year’s elections are fair and transparent. I am pleased that the State Department responded by acting on this need for international monitors. We sincerely hope that the presence of the monitors will make certain that every person’s voice is heard, every person’s vote is counted.”

In other words, that’s not what happened in 2000. Every person’s voice was not heard, and every person’s vote was not counted.

Just what’s going on here? Did the president approve of this knot-headed idea? What the administration has done, in effect is to give credence to the Democrats’ false charge that the Bush campaign stole the election from Al Gore.

The OSCE’s job is to look at Third World countries and banana republics and monitor their elections. The United States is neither a Third World country nor a banana republic, and we can run our own elections, thank you.

We have the freest and fairest elections in the world, and what Washington has now done is to tell the world that we have done something terribly wrong and must be watched.

But that’s not all. The president should realize that whoever got this outrageous idea has put his re-election at risk. He is wrong in thinking that conservatives, who are always being asked to carry the weight no matter what he does, will continue to back him no matter how much he seeks to make the Democrats happy by buying into their stupidity.

At what point does the last brick crumble and bring the administration’s house tumbling down? At what point will conservatives simply stay home on Election Day, not vote and help John Kerry win?

Sacrificing the sovereignty of this nation to placate a handful of 13 far-out Democrat liberals comes close to that point.

The Implosion of the Kerry Campaign

August 4, 2004

You wouldn’t know it from the reaction of the Kerry-worshipping media, which is bent on sending the Massachusetts senator to the White House, but his much-vaunted campaign is headed for the rocks.

In the wake of the no-bounce convention which the media is at a loss to explain, the polls stubbornly cling to the notion that the race between Kerry and President Bush will go down to the wire as a neck and neck tie. Given the fact that the only bounce thus far went to the Bush campaign in the post-convention days, there’s every reason to believe that the president’s chances will continue to improve and Kerry’s will continue to dwindle.

Why? Because when you get down to it, all the Kerry-Edwards campaign has in its issue arsenal is their hatred of George W. Bush, and that’s not a theme that will get you elected. You have to be able to stand for something and have a background that will enable you to achieve it. Hating Bush, showcasing my misguided younger brother Ron at the convention, dragging Ben Affleck around on the campaign trail, pretending to eat lunch at Wendy’s just like regular folks when your real gourmet lunch is waiting for you on the bus outside, and recalling for the umpteenth time that you served in Vietnam just won’t cut it.

So what we are watching now is the implosion of the Kerry campaign and it’s happening three months before the election. If his campaign continues to roll down the hill at its current speed by the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November there will only be bits and pieces of it left.

Missing 38 out of 49 Senate Intelligence Committee meetings, Kerry displays a startling ignorance of just what is going on in the war on Islamic terrorism. His current spiel is that the president hasn’t reacted quickly enough to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission that just came out. That ignores all kinds of things the president has been doing since 9/11 to tighten our security such as the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and a drastic reorganization of the FBI. And testifying to the effectiveness of these reforms is the fact that we haven’t been the victims of any terrorist attacks here at home in the last three years.

There’s a reason for that. The president kept our nation safe by taking the fight to the enemy’s homeland, rather than having the battle fought in our streets and cities here at home. The public understands all this, but poor John Kerry thinks that the American people really are as dumb as he and his buddy Michael Moore portray us.

Kerry is going around pledging to get NATO involved in Iraq. The problem for him is that NATO is already involved, training Iraqi troops. This is what happens when you don’t go to the meetings.

Since going out on the campaign trail Kerry has made a point of sharing the podium with his outspoken wife Teresa Heinz Kerry (what’s all this insisting upon having your maiden name inserted in all references to yourself – Heinz Kerry, Rodham Clinton, all about?). By showcasing her he simply emphasizes the stark difference between his wife and Laura Bush, a genuine, honest-to-goodness lady. It’s simply no contest. As the old time movie characters were wont to say, “I like you baby, you’ve got class.” Laura Bush has class.

When you watch this campaign you realize that there is no choice – George Bush is the only choice. The contest is between people who have class and people who are just angry, and the only phrase they can think of to describe Bush supporters is “goons.”

John Kerry is starting to make his former boss Michael Dukakis look presidential.

The Sesame Street Convention

July 28, 2004

Desperate to look like sensible, middle-of-the-road moderates, the Democrats have managed to put on one of the most boring political conventions in history.

Why anyone would bother to watch it is a puzzle – there’s no fire, there’s no brimstone, there’s no fireworks, just a lot of far-out liberals trying to convince the voters that deep down inside they’re really moderate conservatives who share the values of the majority of the American people.

In the past, Democratic National Conventions were almost always real down-in-the-gutter slugfests. This time around the people running the show have gone out of their way to make the gathering look like Sesame Street.

You can just imagine the frustration of the feature speakers at having to have every single word in their speeches carefully scrutinized so they won’t give voters the impression that they are the left-wing bomb throwers that they have always been.

As they stand on the podium uttering their sanitized, pre-approved remarks one can imagine what it is costing them to suppress the urge to let fly with the angry rhetoric that is their stock in trade. It must have been boiling up in their guts and it had to have taken an extreme effort to bottle up the suppressed bile before it boiled over.

In the end, they were forced simply to recycle all the usual Democratic claptrap and flat-out lies that underlie their party line and everybody has heard a thousand times. As a result, those masses of delegates who came to Boston hungry to satisfy their need for raw meat are finding themselves being fed a diet of political fat-free yogurt.

Take for example the appearance of Mrs. Heinz Kerry on the same platform as Senator Kennedy who she once called a “perfect bastard,” and insisted he is not to be trusted.

Noted for her tendency to be less than genteel - she recently told a reporter to “shove it,” - Mrs. Kerry was all sweetness and light … and as dull as a cake knife. If the convention officials thought that by confronting the voters with a sanitized version of this spitfire they could clean up her image and make her look like little Mary Sunshine they were wrong. It would take a lot more than that to remake her image. They should have kept her under wraps instead of parading her before the voters.

They should have also realized that Americans want their first ladies to be … well … ladies. They want the president’s wife to be in the same mold as Jackie Kennedy, or Nancy Reagan or Laura Bush, none of whom would ever have told anybody to “shove it.” The voters are not looking for a modern version of Tugboat Annie, even if she’s worth a billion dollars.

The main reason Barack Obama, the keynote speaker was so widely acclaimed is due to the fact that the people who came on before and after him were just flat-out boring.

Obama’s main theme – that there is only one America and we’re all a part of it - is just plain deceptive once you realize that the Democrat idea of oneness is not most Americans’ idea.

His party believes in one America only if it is their America and that America is a socialist America.

Let’s look at who is supporting John Kerry. The U.S. Communist and Socialist Parties and the head of the communist Sandinistas in Nicaragua, for example. If you cast your vote for John Kerry these are the people who you’ll be joining.

Is that the one America the American people want? The day after the election do they want to wake up realizing that they were on the same side as the Communists and the Sandinistas who brutalized Nicaragua before they got thrown out?

The convention would have been better if the Democrats had shown their real selves and engaged in shouting and screaming and shaking their clenched fists as is their usual practice, instead of trying to look like a bunch of loveable pussycats who won’t really tax you down to your last dollar or surrender our sovereignty to France and Germany as soon as they get to the White House.

Berger Fries And Wilson Stews

July 21, 2004

What a quandary the Democrats and their media allies are facing. Both have to explain the inexplicable – how in just a matter of a week or two, top Kerry advisers Sandy Berger and Joseph C. Wilson IV have been immersed in muck and driven off the Kerry reservation.

Sandy Berger lifted a whole bunch of top secret documents, reportedly stuffed them in his pants and socks, misplaced some of the purloined items and says it was all an honest mistake.

Mr. Wilson now stands revealed to be the liar he falsely claimed President Bush to be. In both cases, the muck sticks to the Kerry campaign, which doesn’t appear to be too choosy in picking advisers to their candidate.

To the mainstream media - now trying either to explain away what authorities insist is a felony by terming Berger’s theft “inadvertent,” or simply avoiding covering the incidents altogether - when Democrats cross the line and commit a crime it is a “mistake.”

On the other hand, should a Republican transgress in a manner similar to Mr. Berger’s behavior, it would be alleged to be a heinous crime, preferably punishable by a long period in the slammer.

Allowing Berger to claim his action was “inadvertent” is comparable to allowing a bank robber who stuffed his pockets with a bank’s money in his pockets before fleeing to claim his robbery was simply “inadvertent” or an “honest mistake.”

Apparently the Feds don’t see it in exactly those terms. As revealed by NewsMax.com, practically alone in a media suddenly deaf and dumb to anything dealing with the Berger and Wilson disclosures, U.S. Deputy Attorney General James Comey “raised the specter of a jail sentence” for Berger, saying that if he is found guilty of removing top secret documents from the National Archives that were supposed to go to the 9/11 Commission, he could go to prison.

As NewsMax.com wrote, even though his comments were widely quoted, the U.S. media edited out his reference to a possible stint in the big house for Berger.

Only Agence France Presse - quoted the Deputy AG in full, including this key observation on the Berger security breach: “It’s our lifeblood to keep secrets,” Comey told reporters in Washington. “All felonies in the federal system bring with them the promise of jail time, that’s all I can say about that.”

I can just hear a judge telling Berger that he had been found guilty of committing an inadvertent honest mistake.

Berger and his lawyer deny that he stuffed his pants and socks full of the documents, claiming he merely put a few of them in his suit pockets, but the Feds say they have witnesses. I would not be at all surprised if it turns out that Berger inadvertently starred in a few videos filmed by the omnipresent surveillance cameras as he went about stealing the documents.

In the face of the disclosures that Joe Wilson lied about both the role of his wife in getting the CIA to send him to Niger, and his claims that there wasn’t a shred of evidence that Saddam Hussein was trying to get his hands on yellow cake nuclear material, John Kerry and John Edwards and much of the media continue to charge that the president lied to the American people about this matter.

The Kerry-Edwards campaign plan is to present the president as a liar and if their charge itself turns out to be a pack of lies, it doesn’t deter them. After all, when Mr. Kerry can’t seem to get his own facts straight about anything, how can he be expected to shy away from propagating others’ lies about his opponent?

These latest disclosures have disclosed just how shoddy the Kerry campaign is, and should give Americans a glimpse of what an ungodly mess a Kerry administration would prove to be.

Chopping Off Their Noses

July 15, 2004

A lot of Reagan conservatives are threatening to cut off their noses to spite their faces, as the old saying goes. They think that because President Bush hasn’t done every single thing they want, or has done things they didn’t want, they should punish him by staying home on election day or voting for some third party candidate who hasn’t got a chance to win in November.

It should be obvious to them that they will therefore help elect the Kerry-Edwards team that will do nothing they want and everything they don’t want. Somehow this idiocy seems to make sense to them – dump a conservative president for a pair of socialists who given four years in the White House will wreck this country’s economy and in the process probably lose the war on terrorism as well.

What bothers me is the insistence of these dissident conservatives that they are devoted to the legacy of Ronald Reagan, who understood the truth of the old adage, “Politics is the art of the possible.” In other words you get what you can and wait for a chance to get the rest of what you want.

These people think that if they don’t get everything they want they are willing to accept nothing, but that’s not what my father stood for. My father would say if I can get 80 percent or 60 percent or 50 percent of what I’m looking for I’ll take that and I’ll go back later on for the rest of it.

A lot of conservatives who say they espouse Ronald Reagan’s values forget a whole lot of his history, and his willingness to take what he could get was an important part of that history. They should recall that he kept moving the ball ahead, sometimes by just a few feet at a time, but almost always would end up crossing the goal line. This is how great things get done, by persistence tempered by patience and realism.

For Reagan conservatives to say that because they don’t like this or that thing that President Bush has done or has not done, they will even the score by walking away from the most conservative president since Ronald Reagan and thereby ensure the election of John Kerry, who is 180 degrees the opposite of my dad.

One of the things that is upsetting these conservatives is the preponderance of so-called moderate Republicans scheduled to be featured speakers at the Republican convention.

If the GOP relied on conservatives alone to win elections we’d never get elected to anything. Whether we like it or not, we need the moderates, we need the liberals in the party, we need to attract cross-over Democrats, if we want to elect Republicans and conservatives to office.

We may not like everything that is done, but we have to understand it’s the nature of politics - the art of the possible. As far as the lineup of convention speakers is concerned, we have to understand that national political conventions are essentially show business. This year, for example, there is no question about who the nominees will be so the main concern of the parties is to use the conventions as showcases for their political wares.

Part of that is the effort that will be made to win over those who don’t support the party but can be won over if they are attracted by what they will see and hear at the convention.

The Democrats are using my brother Ron at their convention. They may claim that they really want him as an advocate of embryonic stem cell research, which they support, but what they are really trying to do is to attract all those Reagan Democrats who have been voting Republican by saying, in effect, look, here’s Ronald Reagan’s own son lending his name to our party’s convention. They are saying c’mon home, Reagan Democrats and join with Ronald Reagan Jr.

Dissident Republican conservatives need to stay home, in the party of Ronald Reagan. After all, think how silly you’ll look without noses.

Isolate Internet Porn

July 7, 2004

Okay – the Supreme Court says the 1998 law that was meant to protect children from internet pornography is a threat to free speech, but there is a way to achieve what the Child Online Protection Act sought to do without endangering anybody’s right to free speech.

The Act was designed to keep kids under 17 from accessing sexually explicit material online, but the Supreme Court now says that you can’t do that by violating the First Amendment, which the court insists the act does. As a result, in the words of the Family Research Council’s Patrick Trueman, “Because of the Supreme Court, now, every hardcore porn site in the world is open to our children, no restrictions.”

That does not have to be. The same result can be achieved without running into a roadblock in the courts.

How? Simply Isolate porn, shove it into a dark corner on the web where youngsters under 17 will be unable to venture.

Congress must enact a law which provides a specific domain solely for pornographic sites. This idea has been kicking around Capitol Hill for a long time, but nobody has done anything about it. The time has come to revive it.

I have a web site, hordes of individuals and groups have their own web site, dot-com, dot-org you name it. So why not establish dot-XXX and quarantine pornographic filth?

By doing this the smut peddlers will have their free speech rights protected, adults who get their jollies from viewing porn would still be able to satisfy their addiction, and children will be protected from filth in their homes. Parents could buy the software that will block access to the porn domain, as the court suggested parents do when it said technology may be best way to protect children. Wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy, “filters are less restrictive” while avoiding putting a damper on free speech.

If the porn industry were intellectually honest they’d welcome the idea, but they’re not honest. They probably would oppose having their own domain because they can then be blocked from the home. They want children to see porn. It is a well known fact that children can be aroused by viewing porn and as a result, will get into an addiction to pornography when they get older.

And pornography has been having an adverse effect on parents themselves. Husbands are becoming addicted and marriages are being destroyed because of the easy access to pornographic websites. Wives are being devastated by porn but the porn merchants are laughing all the way to the bank.

Unfortunately, up until now, the burden of shielding children from porn has been placed solely on parents. And parents have been helpless. The fact is that the only way to stop this onslaught on children’s morals is Congressional action – by having Congress isolate porn by enacting a bill to mandate the creation of a separate internet domain where all pornographic websites would be required to locate. No porn site would be allowed to use any other domains to peddle their wares.

Once that is done parent can go out and buy the software that would block access to the porn domain and their children will be protected from falling into the clutches of the porn merchants. This makes the choice the parent’s choice. What the courts have done is to take our choices away and let the pornographers run wild.

It’s time for Congress to stop this idiocy and tell the pornographers “You’ve got your own domain. Get inside and stay there.”

It’s Not a Campaign, It’s a Hate Crime

June 30, 2004

America is witnessing one of the most despicable political campaigns in our long history – a presidential race filled with lies, distortions and outright hatred – and the offender is not the mythical Republican attack machine the Democrats keep talking about, it’s the national Democrat party itself.

If anybody doubts the truth of this I invite them to look at one Michael Moore – slime master extraordinary, a practiced prevaricator, hater of America and radical socialist who has produced what nobody can deny is nothing less that a Democrat campaign commercial masquerading as a documentary.

Moore, however, is simply a symbol for an angry party gone mad. Utterly convinced of the fiction that President Bush stole the 2000 election from Al Gore who by divine right as a Democrat was entitled to occupy the White House which his party regards as their private property, the Democrats are in a state of uncontrolled rage. The symbol of the Democrat party is no longer a donkey, it’s a crazed jackal.

Consider the thrust of the Democrats’ campaign rhetoric – that when it comes to the president, to his administration, and to Iraq there is no such thing as good news. To them, the only good news is bad news for America. They want us to fail in Iraq so they can blame the president. They want the economy to go into the tank so they can blame the president.

Twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, they bash the president no matter he does. They don’t, of course, tell you how they’d do things differently, they only tell you that everything President Bush does is wrong and then assure us that they could do it better. They demand that the president pay more attention to the U.N., for example, and when he does work with the U.N. they give him no credit.

They demand that the President turn Iraq over the Iraqis, and when he does they growl and mutter because he didn’t do it the way they say they would have done it – but they won’t tell us how they would have done it.

They are giddy over Michael Moore’s hate film. Yet they have the nerve to claim that the discourse in politics is getting meaner and meaner and they point their fingers at the Republicans as the culprits. It’s not the Republicans, however, who are supporting films such as Moore’s incredibly deceptive “Fahrenheit 9/11,” filled with false charges and cleverly distorted images such as showing President Bush interrupted by reporters during a golf game allegedly attacking terrorism when he was really talking about the Palestinian bombings.

But the Democrats so hate George W. Bush that they are willing to believe anything negative about him, even to the extent of supporting Moore in his exercise of slander and deceit when they should be condemning it and disassociating themselves from the film as decent people would do when confronted with its deceptions.

The fact is, it has never been about truth with the Democrats – it’s always been about lies because they still believe the Bush-stole-the-election canard, and as a result they are willing to believe anything about the president even if it goes beyond the realm of reason, as Moore’s film does.

Face it, Michael Moore hates America. He goes abroad and tells the people in Europe that we are the dumbest people on earth. ”We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance,” he told the British press. “We don’t know about anything that’s happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing.”

He explained 9/11 by blaming the United States: ”We, the United States of America, are culpable in committing so many acts of terror and bloodshed that we had better get a clue about the culture of violence in which we have been active participants.”

He insisted that the terrorists currently killing our soldiers in Iraq can be compared to our Revolutionary War heroes who fought off British oppression: ”The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not ‘insurgents’ or ‘terrorists’ or ‘The Enemy.’ They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win.”

This goes beyond hate crime - it is nothing less than treason. And the Democrats by aiding and abetting and praising this traitorous person, share his guilt.

That’s how far their hatred has taken them.

Michael E. Reagan

> New York Times' Bestselling Author - More...
> Son of President Ronald Reagan - More...
> Political Consultant - More...
> Highly sought after Public Speaker - More...
> Founder of @Reagan.com Email - More...

Category Archives: Articles