What do President Clinton, Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, and Slobadan Milosovic have in common? They can all act unilaterally without having to clear decisions with the citizens of their country. The other leaders use their dictatorial power and authority, that was obtained through force or revolution, and our President uses the power of the Executive Order.
When President Clinton released the Puerto Rican Terrorists from jail last week, he basically thumbed his nose at congress, at the citizens, at the judicial system, at the law enforcement agencies and said he could do anything he wanted.
Does that mean if he wanted to give clemency to Timothy McVeigh… also an avowed terrorist… that he could without any accountability?
This is the type of action we have seen and spoken out against in other countries as being irresponsible and inconsistent. But we expect it from Saddam, Fidel, and Slobadon… but we don’t expect the national security of the United States to be put in jeopardy by our Commander in Chief.
This is an action reserved for dictators who care about no one in their country, but themselves.
I just returned from China where I made an incredible discovery. The government there is less involved in people’s lives than in America.
In the large metropolitan city of Anshan, with a population of about three million, there are no traffic lights or stop signs. Everyone is just expected to know how to drive carefully, merge into traffic, slow down at intersections and just use common sense.
It is amazing how creative they can be in accomplishing this. It may entail driving between two lanes of oncoming traffic to finally be able to merge… but it works. And guess what… there are rarely accidents in this city. Seat belts aren’t mandatory, there are no policemen giving tickets for jaywalking, riding bicycles in traffic, or riding in open trucks
. For a communist country, they sure do seem to place a lot of trust in their citizens… at least they hold them accountable for their actions. You may think this is irresponsible… but only if you have allowed the term responsible to be redefined by the government.
When the Iowa Caucus revealed that George W. Bush won a majority, there seemed to be a collective sigh of relief that the right-wing extremists were defeated.
That is not the case though. If you add the numbers of Gary Bauer, Pat Buchanan, Alan Keyes and Dan Quayle, clearly the collective voice of conservatives… the total is almost 25%, putting them second behind George W.
This doesn’t even take into consideration the “right-wingers” who voted for the top three vote getters. So in reality, the right-wing was well represented, which dispels the idea of extremism.
While liberals applaud moderation, they should be reminded of someone who said, “Though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist… I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label.” He goes on to list other extremists in history, Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, Abraham Lincoln. And he himself wrote these words from jail when his fellow, moderate clergymen tried to rebuke him for his extremism.
This man was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and his extremist views changed the course of history.
So this is Nina May challenging moderation.
California Democrats have decided that the fairest way to reflect America is to have a quota system for all their delegates.
The breakdown is as follows .. . twenty six percent will be Hispanic, sixteen percent black, ten percent disabled, nine percent Asian-Pacific Islander, five percent gay, five percent lesbian and one percent Indian.
That’s seventy two percent and they haven’t even mentioned Caucasoids. What do they do if someone qualifies on two or three counts? Which quota is filled? What happens if they accidently get six percent gay because one percent is Hispanic and gay… will they be told they don’t qualify because they are over the gay quota? Won’t that be illegal to ask about someone’s sexual orientation and then dismiss them because of it? And what if two percent of the men are cross-dressers and qualify as women and then it is discovered they are men… will they be told they can’t be delegates? It is interesting that there is no quota for the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy… shouldn’t that small minority be represented in order to truly reflect the face of America?
This is Nina May suggesting that the Democrats shouldn’t try and make their party look like America… either it does or it doesn’t.
In an incredible show of partisan hypocrisy, the Democrats are huffing and puffing and insisting that George W. Bush answer the question of the century… “Has he ever done cocaine?”
He should of course respond he would be glad to answer that as soon as Bill answers the questions… “Did he rape Juanita, expose himself to Paula, know the Chinese were being given classified information, and… what is in his medical records?”
We seem to have survived as a Republic not knowing the answers to these questions, and we certainly won’t perish if we don’t know if Bush did cocaine as a young man. More serious questions to ask George Bush would be, “How many sovereign nations does he plan to bomb while covering his back side? How many times will he lie to the American people about reducing taxes while vetoing the largest tax cut in history? How many times did he dodge the draft and declare his loathing of the military?”
These questions are far more important to ask of George W. Bush than whether or not he did cocaine. This is Nina May suggesting that the Democrats get the logs out of their own eyes first.
During the tax debate, Senator William Roth asked a question of the President when explaining why he supported a tax refund to the American people.
He said, “Mr President, is it right for Washington to take from the taxpayers more money than is necessary to run the government? Individuals and families are due a refund, and that, Mr. President is exactly what we do with this legislation.”
But the president has already told the American people they don’t deserve it and he will veto the tax cut measure. The question is… how much of the refund that the citizens deserve will go to pay Al Gore’s $7 million dollar ride down the Connecticut River in New Hampshire? How much will go to rebuild cities in Yugoslavia that we spent millions bombing? How much will pay for Hillary’s repeated trips to New York? How much will pay for lost technology given to the Chinese?
Obviously, this administration thinks that these are worthy expenditures that the American people should gladly shoulder.
What do you think? Do you want your hard earned money returned and your tax rate lowered, or are you content to be taken advantage of, lied to, and stolen from?
At a recent graduation ceremony, President Clinton mentioned the need for families to spend more time together. It was reminiscent of Dan Quayle calling for a return to family values. Although the response to both was entirely different.
When Dan Quayle suggested it, he meant that the family should be responsible for instilling values in their children by monitoring the shows they see on T.V. that undermine these values. He was mocked and ridiculed.
Today, Bill Clinton suggests that families should spend more time together, and his solution, is to spend state reserves to pay workers for extra time off. Basically, the government will pay families to spend time together. The only reason there is extra tax money is because families are being taxed so much now that both parents have to work to create this reserve that the president so generously suggests giving back to them.
Here is a solution: Mr. President… lower taxes so that taxpayers can voluntarily, without compensation or award, spend time with their families. Now wouldn’t that be a novel idea? I wonder what all the presidential candidates think of that? Call them and ask them.
In a Better World Campaign ad, the headlines say, “Great Nations Pay Their Bills.”
Out of 183 countries in the United Nations, 170 pay less than 23% of the total bill. 29 countries paid as little as $10,516 for 1998. Yet they each get one vote, just like the U.S. which pays 25% of the entire U.N. bill.
This doesn’t even include 30% of the cost for peace-keeping missions, or $900 million to the UN affiliates, and $2.9 billion diverted from the training and readiness of our armed forces, and given to the U.N. Security Council.
So in spite of what the Better World Campaign says, the U.S. voluntarily gave almost three times as much as required in 1998. The UN building in New York is rent free, they pay no property taxes, the foreign employees pay no taxes… and only 7.1% of the employees are American.
So instead of asking why we are paying so little, perhaps the question should be, why do we pay so much? And, what do we get for the money we pay, besides insults?
A couple of years ago, when Congress was trying to return power to the states by restructuring the school lunch program, the Clinton Administration claimed that Republicans were starving poor school children.
No one ever asked what these starving kids ate on weekends, holidays or during summer break. And then the evil tobacco industry was targeted for selling a legal substance that might appeal to kids. And on T.V. nightly, faces of homeless Albanian children are shown to justify the continued bombing of a sovereign nation.
But if kids really are that important to this Administration… where do they stand on the report published by the American Psychiatric Association that says that pedophile may actually be healthy for a child. This blatant lie should send shockwaves throughout the entire nation.
Those not shocked should be classified as pedophiles and kept as far away from kids as possible. If the Clinton Administration that has exploited children for their political purposes, refuses to denounce this lie, then they are as guilty as those who destroy the lives of innocent kids each year.
This is Nina May, speaking for kids, who’s cry for help, has been silenced by lying adults.