Everyone holds their breath until the shopping days before Christmas to see if the economy is strong or not, as though that one period of extreme buying is a reflection on the strength or weakness of the overall economy. Well, I would suggest the economic advisors and money mavins get a new yardstick of spending confidence.

Christmas became commercial when very smart businessmen, years ago, realized that the adherents to a belief in Christ, his birth, death and resurrection, took this one time of the year to celebrate the beginning of their religion by giving gifts. It’s a birthday, gifts are given . . . albeit, not to the birthday boy, but to each other in honor of Jesus.

For years many people who still think Jesus is a little plastic baby in a feeding trough, jumped on the bandwagon and used this holiday as a great reason to shop, decorate, sing carols, fire up yule logs, and generally share good cheer and happiness with friends and family.

They were never offended by the term Christmas, because well, it was Christmas. The season was not being celebrated because it was a winter holiday.

If that was the case, why not take Dec. 21 off which is officially the first day of winter. And then, why give gifts or sing of Christ the new born king, born in Bethlehem, with angels we have heard on high hovering over three kings from the Orient bringing gifts to a little baby in a feeding trough?

It seems so interesting to me that the birth of arguably the most perfect man to walk the earth is now considered controversial to the point of whitewashing the meaning, replacing it with drivel that has meaning for no one.

What can “winter holiday” possibly mean for someone in Miami or San Diego? What does “season’s greetings” have to do with shopping?

Everyone is supposed to tip toe around the indiscretions of Mohammed for fear of inciting more terrorist attacks from people who insist their religion is based on peace and love while also claiming they are charged with killing anyone who disagrees with it. But when the discussion turns to Jesus, all bets are off.

He is the father of a religion that has beget the most hateful, prejudiced, bigoted, mean spirited group of people since the beginning of time. Sort of like those innocent Baptist, Christian doctors who were gunned down in Yemen by a, gasp, peace-loving Muslim. And their crime? They had given their lives serving their fellow man the way Christ commissioned those who followed Him to do.

They had saved thousands of childrens’ lives and never once asked what religion they or their parents practiced.

Even though we have proof that thousands of Americans and billions of US dollars have been sent overseas to help even our political enemies, a sitting US Senator, Patty Murray, says we can learn a lesson from the humanitarian efforts of Osama Bin-killing-Americans Laden. Patty, Patty . . . an Osama thug shot and killed these Baptist doctors who were doing humanitarian work in a country that has harbored terrorists.

He wasn’t there on a humanitarian mission to make lives better.

I hear deafening idiocy emerging from the same self-righteous groups who demanded Trent Lott’s head.

Trent Lott talked about a US Senator’s past and implied segregation was good and the rest of the world filled in the blanks.

Another US Senator, Patty Murray, can state without reservation that the US has much to learn from the man who murdered 3000 innocent Americans and excuses are made for her stupidity, and that giant hushing sound is turned on, reminding us not to say anything that might offend those peace loving Muslims.

You know, the ones who didn’t like that a journalist spoke the truth about Mohammed’s healthy and natural penchant for lovely women, so they burned the paper down and killed over 200 people. You’re right . . . that’s peace loving. And those same hushed tones seem to always abound when another Christian church is bombed, or Christians are targeted for death by those same, yes, peace loving Muslims.

In all of this murder and mayhem, Christians are not allowed to even suggest that this is wrong, because that then becomes judgmental and the blame shifts to them for not being open-minded and accepting of the proclivities of a certain religion. To question them is divisive and is the REAL reason why these people feel compelled to kill innocent Christians. They were provoked.

Oddly, you don’t see Christians lobbing grenades into packed mosques, or gunning down Muslim doctors who have committed their lives to helping save the lives of innocent Christian children.

So this brings me back to Christmas and the sagging economy.

Our very enlightened left, who gave us communism, socialism, fascism, political correctness and hypocrisy has unilaterally determined that the Christians are to blame for every ill to befall mankind, and should be summarily silenced, ridiculed, marginalized and penalized. And the Muslims are the new cause Celebes who have been mistreated and misunderstood, ala Patty Murray’s explanation of why so many Muslims love Osama ben Laden, thus justifying his terrorist attacks.

So Christmas is now determined to be just a little too religious and makes people feel uncomfortable, so we are going to arbitrarily change the name to Winter Holiday.

Can you imagine this same group of dictatorial knuckle draggers suggesting we change the name of Rhammadan because it is offensive to none Muslims? Or changing “Kwanzaa,” that new invention to further divide the races in the name of unity?

So Christmas is now winter holiday. Instead of carols celebrating the birth of Jesus, we have songs about snowmen and reindeer. Instead of churches reminding us of why we are spending so much time shopping for people we don’t really care about, we have multicultural displays guaranteed to confuse even the most ardent atheist. And the economic experts wonder why this was one of the worst “Christmas” buying seasons ever?

It’s because it isn’t about Christmas any more . . .and when it stops being about Christmas, there is no longer a reason to celebrate . . . or shop. And when that day comes, which will be either by attrition or dictate . . .

I hope there is something else out there stimulating the economy, otherwise we will end up like all those other countries that unwisely rejected the reason for the season.

So, Senator Trent Lott’s clumsy choice of words, honoring a man whose life has spanned almost three centuries, is the new standard for forced resignation.

Fine then, let’s roll up the sleeves and get going. Ted Kennedy should be in jail for the death of Mary Jo Kopechne at Chappaquiddick.

Robert Byrd should be tarred and feathered, with his old KKK hood, for using the “N” word in THIS century.

Bill Clinton should be drafted for declaring he “loathes” the military.

This is after he has served time in jail for lying under oath, as many other citizens who have committed the same crime are now doing.

His wife should have to tell the truth for once about what her husband knew about the potential attacks on America instead of demanding to know what George Bush knew, when it was her husband who let Osama Ben Laden get away.

Al Gore should be forced to write 500 times on a black board “I will not lie,” for every wacky exaggeration that has ever issued from his confederate mouth.

He should of course have to apologize publicly for his father’s support of racial segregation, because he is accountable for his father’s actions, much as Trent Lott is accountable for Strom Thurmond’s political positions.

Jessie Jackson should have to wait tables for a year and promise not to spit in anyone’s salad, no matter their race, creed or religion.

He can afford to do that with all the money he has extorted from corporations by playing that tired, old race card.

And Alec Baldwin should have to spend the same weekend with Henry Hyde’s family that he has incited people to drag them out of their home to be stoned.

It would be fun to see how discriminating that crowd would be when tossing stones in hate and anger.

Gee, this is a long list . . . where does it stop. It doesn’t, until every single person who is capable of speaking and uttering words that are not always pleasing to every listener, are added to this list. Because it is everyone.

If Jessie Jackson, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, et al, want to cast their stones, then let the games begin. But in the interest of things more important to a nation, I would suggest they back off, and get their own houses in order.

This is not the time for rank hypocrisy and political posturing.

You can read a myriad of things into what Senator Trent Lott said, like you can read a myriad of things into Hillary Clinton blaming the vast rightwing conspiracy for her husband having sex with a girl her daughter’s age.

You could say she is in denial, paranoid, nutty, not fit for public office, deserved what she got . . .etc. etc.

Or you could say, ok, this was a hurt woman who was embarrassed by her jerk husband and can’t really face that he would humiliate her like this in public.

So the vast right-wing took it in stride, even laughing at the image of them ushering Monica into the Oval office and giving them a how-to manual.

So, in the spirit of Christmas, let’s remember the words of the One whose birth we are celebrating . . . .”Let him without sin, cast the first stone.”

As we analyze the results of this midterm election, it is important to remember a few key incidents that highlighted the distinctions between the two parties, and specifically pointed to blatant hypocrisies by one.

For two years, the Democrats continued to beat that old dog of a stolen Presidential campaign, even though every single, heavily monitored, recount, showed that George W. Bush did indeed win, in spite of the games played with the absentee ballots.

The assumption was that every Floridian believed the Democrat spin and was just as outraged as Al Gore, who implored people all over the country to “remember where they were when the race was stolen from him.”

Well, now the playing field has been leveled with a legitimate hand of voter fraud dealt to the Republicans in New Jersey.

They can now, forever, trump the bogus claim of an election being stolen, with the historic proof that a Senate seat was not only stolen, but the Supreme Court drove the getaway car.

And while the Democrats beat the drum of a failed economy, the stock market kept rising. But the lock-step unions assisted in giving the appearance of a sagging economy by staging work stops across the country to allow a visual for the Dems to point to when placing the blame of unemployment at the door of the Republicans.

And speaking of that . . . the claim by the Dems that special interest groups were the force behind the Republicans, was lost on the populace who had witnessed millions and millions of dollars pouring into their states from national special interest groups like NARAL, labor unions, environment groups, anti-gun and anti defense groups, etc.

They got no traction on the corporate scandal claim because the head of their party, Terry McAuliffe looked like the poster boy for insider trading with his $100,000 investment in Global Crossing suddenly re-merging as an $18 million dollar profit.

No one begrudged him the profit, although it was hard for the average American squaring their favorite decorator maven, Martha Stewart sitting behind bars while a man who seemingly committed the same crime, is running around calling all Republicans crooks and in the pocket of large corporations.

The hypocrisies just kept piling up in the race and the American people diligently held their noses, picking through the false accusations to find the morsels of truth.

It was very difficult to weigh the accusation against the Republicans of dishonoring the fallen Senator Wellstone by even suggesting that whomever the Democrats chose to take his place should debate Norm Coleman.

The Dems stood in aghast at this highly irregular, and very insulting suggestion while they proceeded to gleefully dance on his grave, giddy with the prospects that now, they might actually have a shot at the seat.

The most interesting aspect of this celebration of death was that it allowed the country to see the party without makeup, without spin-doctors, handlers and typical media sycophantry.

Even the media were temporarily appalled. It was an unglossed view of the leadership of the Democrat party, which has co-opted a party that had traditionally been known for compassion.

But even that mantra has been wearing thin through the years as the country has witnessed the billionaires in Hollywood, and corporate America almost solely finance a party that parades the “little guy” out during an election, and when they are a useful statistic for increased spending.

They serve as a useful prop in an agenda that does not include improving the plight of the working class because it would shift the power base from being categorized as depending upon government handouts to realizing that the opportunities for personal growth are the true solutions to moving from dependency to self-determination.

Another issue that quietly rallied people to the polls to pull the lever for the Republicans was the blind assumption that all women are pro-abortion, thus pro-Democrat. With over 40 million abortions since 1972, that means there are almost that many women who have been touched, personally by the government’s indifference and politicization of a very heart-rending and intimate decision.

When rich white men stand up demanding a show of support for women by proudly espousing a women’s “right to choose,” he is saying a number of things.

He is saying he is in the pocket of a special interest group that has convinced him that this is not an emotional issue and that his callous attitude hits at the hearts of over 40 million women when he dismisses it as a given that all women should feel like he, a man, does on this issue.

There is no compassion in a blanket statement by a man who says, “I support a woman’s right to choose.” What he is saying, is I support the right of men to continue having free sex with any woman he wants without consequences of that union.

At least that is how millions of women, Democrat and Republican, hear it.

So this issue is beginning to backfire on the Democrats, especially as pro-life people are summarily silenced and dismissed by them. So much for tolerance.

The American people are witnessing a bulge in the pockets of Democrats special interest groups, forcing them to tolerate and even embrace all types of divergent lifestyles, beliefs, proclivities and perversions, while they are marginalized and ridiculed if they quietly present a list of beliefs and ideologies they would like to have honored by the left.

And the constant claim by the Democrats that the Republicans are controlled by the religious right, what ever that is, fell short of their intended affect when Americans saw a party so hungry for power that they aligned themselves with every far left, socialist group and cause in the country.

There are environmentalists from both parties, but when the environment is more important that the farmer who grows our food . . .that is extreme.

There are animal rights people and then there are those who believe animals should be given the same constitutional rights as people, yet they have no problem killing a viable human baby in the womb.

This strikes most Americans as a tad bit hypocritical and yes, quite extreme. They claim to hate assault weapons and all things ballistic, yet actor, Alec Baldwin can go ballistic on national TV, screaming that we should drag Congressman Henry Hyde from his house and kill him and his whole family and he is applauded. OK, he didn’t say shoot them, but it certainly wasn’t a display of the kind of touchy feeling compassion the left would like to be known for . . . and counts on being known for.

And probably one of the biggest reasons the Republicans prevailed over the Democrats was the issue of taxes. Almost every bill, across the nation, calling for a rise in taxes, was soundly defeated.

In spite of the constant claim by the Dems that only the top one percent of the people received a tax rebate, millions of Americans at home, remembered where they were when they deposited that check, knowing they, by no means were in that “rich” category the Democrats kept trying to put them in.

And as every American is forced to balance their own check book and manage their own affairs, they no longer buy the argument that taxes are the answer to fiscal problems, they reply that perhaps a cut in spending would be more in line with the way most of us live our lives.

So a serious analysis of the election needs to be done by both parties and lessons learned all around. When people see positive, hopeful leadership, they respond. When they see candidates who believe in something beyond popularity and regardless of power, they are inclined to vote for integrity and substance over political blather and partisanship.

So what are we going to see from both parties in the next two years as they both posture to either regain or take over the Congress and the White House?

Watch the Democrats pull out the old “it’s the economy stupid” page from their ancient handbook and do what they can to make the economy “seem” worse than it is.

They will resort to class warfare, pitting the wealthy Barbara Streisand’s of the world against their maids and the people who clean their houses.

They will play the race card and point to Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and Clarence Thomas as examples of how the Republicans never include African-Americans in positions of power.

They will point to corporate greed while counting on their contributions to their party and candidates and turning tiny investments into bonanzas while claiming to be the party of the poor and downtrodden.

They will talk about tolerance and compassion while trashing Christians, pro-lifers, gun owners, and even homeschoolers. They will continue to insist that they know best how to run your kid’s lives and if you disagree they will tar you as a right wing fanatic.

And the Republicans, hopefully will write a new playbook that begins with the word “courage.”

They need to finally exhibit courage in the face of the onslaught of dirty tricks and power plays and draw the line in the political sand and say, enough is enough.

They need to put their banner clearly in the ground to show people what they truly stand for to provide a welcome contrast to the divisiveness and class warfare that motivates the Democrats.

They need to be inclusive but not moderate their beliefs. They need to be consistent in their message but flexible and open to new ideas.

They need to just show leadership and cajones and understand that politics is a full contact sport.

They need to stop being shocked and amazed by the Democrat dirty tricks and understand that the Clintons will not slink away quietly into the sunset and will stop at nothing until they “control” the country again.

And the Democrats have a choice to wrench that self-appointed power from them, or allow them to continue to co-opt a party, redesigning it with an unmistakable socialist agenda.

And the voters . . .bless the voters who have graduated from the “push-over” class, and are now able to deftly and courageously tip toe through the minefield of politics, and spot hypocrisy, double standards and inconsistencies in mid-stride.

They are the future of a democracy that would be hijacked by a party that has nothing but disdain for anyone who does not follow lockstep in line with their ideologies, and displays total intolerance of real diversity.

But voters have shown they are not so easily duped or categorized and they let their voices be heard on November 5, 2002.

And these voters are the future of America . . . not the politicians.

All weekend long, the Democrats have been on national TV basically daring the Republicans to campaign in Minnesota following the death of Senator Paul Wellstone. Every spokesman for the party repeated the claim that the Republicans lacked the decency to respect the memory of this poor man and his family and were dishonoring him by even discussing his replacement pawn candidate, Walter Mondale.

And the dutiful Republicans sincerely agreed that yes, the man should be honored, and even Norm Coleman, unilaterally suspended his race out of respect for the family. Well boy were the Republicans sucker punched . . . again. The Democrat party used the occasion of his death . . . to party. The memorial was full of cheers and applause, campaign speech and political rhetoric. It was basically a deplorable display of hypocrisy personified. Everyone was glad-handing and smiling, while King and Queen of the Democrats, Bill and Hill sat laughing and applauding as though . . . well, as though this was an occasion of great victory for their party. (They almost beg the average viewer to ask the question in the midst of such revelry . . . “WAS it an accident?”) Even one son, who has lost his mother and father and sister spoke of his deceased dad like a friend who had left the room to get a coke. It was the most appalling, despicable display of unvarnished, shameless politicizing in the history of our country.

You feel shame for them and for everything they stand for and quietly realize that no one is safe in this country when these people want you destroyed. They have ice water running in their veins but have banked for years on the compassion currency which has covered their personal and ambitious indiscretions for too long. Like the handwriting on the wall, they have been weighed in the balance, before the eyes of the world, and they have been found wanting. The true nature of the beast has been exposed for all to see and sadly for America . . . it is an ugly, disgusting picture of greed, power, hypocrisy, deceit, phoniness and dilution. I can only hope the American people saw this horrific display of grave dancing and realize that not only is the Democrat party bankrupt of ideas, it is bankrupt of a soul.

Three reasons why the Democrats have abandoned the gutter

© Exegesis 2002
http://www.page1news.com

In case you’ve lost count, or haven’t yet learned to ignore the mainstream media, in two years, there have been two election campaigns, two plane crashes, two consequential deaths of two Democrats about to lose a close Senate race, and two replacements to safeguard the seat for the Democrats.

The stakes are high: control of the Senate and, as a result, control of the next decade or more of many judicial and especially, Supreme Court decisions. Behind the scenes lurk two infamous people: America’s notorious Ceaucescus. He may be out of office, but she’s not, and they both still run things at the Democratic National Committee, via their hand-picked front man, Terry McAuliffe. The United States is too genteel a nation to make the Clintons share the fate of the late Romanian dictator and his wife, whose just desserts were dispensed by a firing squad after a national uprising against them. The best we can do is to help expose the facts.

Nobody is suggesting that the Wellstone and Carnahan plane crashes were anything but tragic accidents. However, there is no evidence to prove that yet, so we must reserve judgment until the real facts are known. Don’t hold your breath: nearly 40 years later, we’re still waiting to find out who killed President Kennedy. Given the manner in which the Clintons ran America, no event from which they could benefit can be regarded as an accident. After their unparalleled record of plane crashes, “suicides”, church burnings, bombings and the miscellaneous deaths of many of their political and business associates, we know that nothing is beyond the capabilities of this ultimate power-crazed couple, whose every action is solely designed to garner them more power.

Is the very idea of the Clintons’ machinations too harsh for our cultivated ears? Maybe so, but, faced with breathtaking incarnations of evil, what are good Christian folk supposed to do? Just smile sweetly and pour another cup of tea? Ignoring the truth is an act of folly, especially when everything in which we believe is at stake.

Would the Democrats, under their present management, really do this kind of thing? Absolutely. They got away with breaking the law in New Jersey by replacing a losing sleaze-tainted candidate with a 78-year old retired Senator, well after the deadline for changing candidates had passed.

They maligned Montana’s Senate Republican candidate so badly that he quit the race in disgust. And now they plan to replace the late Senator Wellstone, who was heading for defeat in Minnesota, with former Vice-President Walter Mondale, the distinguished party elder who brought America Geraldine Ferraro as his running-mate, and who brought upon himself the worst electoral defeat in modern presidential elections. Of course, Minnesota voters may not fall for the sympathy game again, and might just thwart their plans. We’ll see.

When the game goes against the Democrats, they simply change the rules. And it is an illustration of the party’s redundancy that when things get difficult, they turn to their golden oldies. It isn’t just their dull, collectivist policies which have made them outdated. It’s the ethics, stupid! Frankly, theirs are reminiscent of the mafia, which is why it’s so easy to detect the guiding hands of Bill and Hillary behind the scenes.

These manipulations are crucial when you’re trying to hold on to a fraudulent single-seat majority in the Senate. It’s a majority they shouldn’t have had in the first place, and one they obtained only because two years ago, they cheated in Missouri by electing a deceased candidate, and got away with that too. And because they then used vast amounts of taxpayers’ money to bribe Jim Jeffords into betraying his party. Even the Florida Supreme Court acquiesced in their attempt to steal the presidency, but fortunately Chief Justice Rehnquist and his genuinely moral majority saved the nation, another good reason why Supreme Court appointments are so important.

The Democrats’ tactics are interesting to observe, not merely for those seeking lessons in mischief and deception, though they certainly afford both. Why have they had to resort to this kind of behavior? Oh sure, vote rigging is nothing new for them – look at the way they run things in Chicago, Hillary Clinton’s home town, a city as synonymous with illegal voting as is Florida’s Miami-Dade County, over which Janet Reno long presided, for vote-counting fraud.

Yet we have to look beyond all their petty crimes and misdemeanors to discover the real reason why the Democrats have had to make their recent ethical descent from the gutter into the uncharted depths of the sewer. There are three plausible answers.

The first might be to suggest that the concept of tax and spend, over-bloated, centralized liberal government has been revealed as an outdated delusion. And indeed, that would be correct. Socialism has been tried and tried, and it has failed and failed. And it will always fail because, among other things, it quenches the human spirit and the basic human yearning for liberty. In short, their raison d’etre has expired. But that’s not the whole answer.

The second answer might be to suggest that the unethical excesses of the Clinton era have made the party unpalatable for voters with moderate to weak stomachs. That too would be correct, but again, their ethical shortcomings do not represent the real reason either.

The third and real reason is the overwhelming imperative to maintain the great delusion of the two-party system, the Hegelian dialectic which has fooled the American people into believing they can elect anyone – just so long as it’s a Republican or a Democrat.

On November 10, 1998, we wrote: “In reality, America has become a one-party state with two emphases, which are rigidly maintained by the power-brokers in order to perpetuate the delusion that voters have a choice.” Should this delicately balanced duopoly be disturbed, it is argued that discontent with the two-party system might be manifest. And that, in turn, might ruin the cozy one-party-disguised-as-two arrangement with all its bought-and-paid-for politicians, and that might endanger the prospects for global government and the New World Order. That’s the underlying reason why events happen as they do. For those who pull the strings, the stakes couldn’t be higher.

Those who cannot see, those who refuse to see, and those who are skeptical will dismiss all this as non-conformist nonsense, and will take their comfort from the Three Stooges on the so-called Nightly News, those airheads of the air who imply that Americans really secretly yearn for socialism and for its dull stifling of the nation’s creativity. Contrarily, we believe Americans actually yearn for liberty, less government, little or no taxation, an ordered, well-educated, low-crime society, with due reverence for God and the Constitution.

Meanwhile, the truly enlightened will do what comes naturally: fall to their knees, and pray for themselves, America and the world.

As we celebrate All Saints’ Day, we recall the life and example of great Christians of the past. Centuries later, the saints we often remember are those who displayed great courage, great compassion or both. Those are precisely the qualities we need to emulate as we stand together to reclaim the America we love.

True, it’s more comfortable to remain in blissful ignorance. And there is risk in the heat of battle. But, the Bible has a word for us: “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” (2 Corinthians 12:9) And as we recall the fine examples of those who have gone before us, and thank God for His grace and mercy to us, let us ask for His power and His Kingdom to be manifest in our lives.

Steve Myers × Editor

Thank you for the opportunity to address this Committee on the issue of self-determination and sovereignty for the people of Western Sahara. The first time I addressed this body, my son was running around in diapers. He is now studying Algebra in 7th grade. And the wisdom of children is such that he has asked why should it cost 500 million dollars, and 10 years, to register 85,000 people to vote.

You might cluck and say, well, we don’t expect a child to understand the bureaucratic machinations of such a comprehensive and complex body as the United Nations, nor the intricacies of the issue we are discussing. But it does seem that a child, removed from the machinations of this august body has a greater grasp on the pure elements of the problem than perhaps the participants of this distinguished body have. Granted, many of you are new to the issue and perhaps have not heard the arguments through the years so I will reiterate some of the points I have made in the past.

Originally, the controversy surrounding the potential, and never materializing referendum, was, who should be allowed to vote as an officially recognized citizen of Western Sahara. In 1974, the Spanish Census showed that there were 74,000 Saharawi. Based on the birth rate, and existing mortality rate, I determined that even if ever single woman of child bearing years, gave birth to one child every 9 months, it still would not have increased the original number in the census by more than 30,000 people. And of course, that does not mean 30,000 new voters, it just means new inhabitants. The voters would be determined within a much smaller group. So, instead of the 170,000 that the Moroccan government insisted upon, the UN, after screening over 200,000 individuals, determined that about 85,000 were certified as genuine Saharawis, in keeping with the natural statistics and demographics of the people.

The referendum was delayed, year after year, in order for the Moroccan government to manipulate the outcome of this finding, trying to certify people who had not lived in Western Sahara for years, or people who had only passed through.

The other questions, that I have posed to this body in hopes of drawing clarity to the issue, concern the origins of Western Sahara as a colony of Spain. If Western Sahara had always been a part of Morocco, why then, over a hundred years ago, when the Spanish invaded Western Sahara to annex it as a colony, did Morocco do nothing to prevent it from happening? Why did they not take up arms with their brothers and fight back the invading forces? And Why, if they were the same country, was Morocco never considered a colony of Spain? The boundaries were clearly drawn and can be seen on a variety of maps around the world, some even referencing the current Western Sahara, as Spanish Sahara.

Why was it only during the decolonization of Western Sahara in 1974 did the Moroccans suddenly realize that this was part of their territory? They had not previously questioned the control by the Spanish, but now that they were withdrawing, they saw a perfect opportunity to interject their rule on this country that was being decolonized under the watchful eye of this very Committee.

What it looks like from this observer’s position, is that this body has been manipulated and controlled by a country that never had intentions of abiding by the findings of a referendum or acknowledging the certified voters as being eligible to determine their own destiny.

How difficult is the question, “Would you, after being separated from your family, denied the right to travel freely, forced to live in a refugee camp with the bare necessities, suffering inhuman treatment at the hands of those who would be your conqueror, vote on a referendum that would allow that body to control your destiny?” And at every step of the process the Moroccans have known this simple and most obvious fact. So for them, the most effective way to insure that this referendum does not take place is to stall the process until they can convince the powers that be of another means by which they can subject themselves into the will of this sovereign nation.

It seems as though the process has accommodated Morocco’s patience by creating what is known as a Draft Framework Agreement, that essentially gives them five years to move people into the area, set them up in residency for one year, while the territory is under the sovereignty of Morocco, and THEN issue the referendum. First, if it has already taken ten years for a referendum, why do they think it will happen in another five, unless this time, they are assured of the outcome, and the body that has been prolonging the inevitable is also satisfied that that will be the outcome? The problem is, the Draft Framework Agreement contradicts the UN resolutions on Western Sahara, and the verdict of the International Court of Justice, Oct. 16, 1975 which states: “The materials and information presented do not establish any tie of territorial sovereignty between the territory of Western Sahara and the Kingdom of Morocco. Thus the Court has not found legal ties of such a nature as might affect the application of General Assembly resolution 1514 in the decolonization of Western Sahara and, in particular, of the principle of self-determination through the free and genuine expression of the will of the peoples of this Territory.”

Despite that ruling, Morocco invaded and has been there ever since.

Now, it becomes clear to the casual observer that there are a number of international bodies that have been established through the years to prevent just this sort of hegemony, but unfortunately, they don’t seem to be effective in preventing it. So what is the solution?

Well, it appears that the UN Secretary General has given the participants in this conflict four options available to the Security Council without seeking the concurrence of both parties, which, in basketball terms, means it is a slam dunk for the aggressor.

Morocco rejected the options of Implementation of the Settlement Plan and the referendum process, and the option of partitioning the territory. They prefer the Draft Framework Agreement which virtually guarantees their acknowledged dominance over the sovereign nation of Western Sahara.

The fourth option, which is to proclaim the failure of the United Nations and withdraw the UN mission from Western Sahara, serves as a redundancy to an obvious fact. But the question is, would that be a viable option? It is quite evident that the citizens of Western Sahara would vote for sovereignty if given the chance, so why not apply that de facto conclusion to the original International Court of Justice ruling in 1975, and determine that yes, indeed, Western Sahara is a sovereign nation, separate and apart from the sovereign nation of Morocco, and they have a right to self-determination, apart from the dictates of a world body that has been ineffective in reaching this logical conclusion about their de facto status.

It is tempting when addressing a distinguished body such as this to rely on eloquence, and the international language of diplomacy. But often times, a more simplistic, understated approach is best to make a point. So, I would ask you to indulge this mother an analogy that many of you might relate to.

A mother has two young sons who are arguing over the boundaries in their room, because their older brother has moved out and now just the two of them share the room. The younger one had been forced to share a bunk bed with his older brother who usurped it a few years ago, but now it was all his. The middle brother sees that one of the beds has been bandoned, and decides to establish residency. The younger brother protests and a fight ensues. The mother comes into the room and tries to resolve the conflict. But instead of doing what is right, by telling the middle son to go back to his side of the room, she allows him to take over part of the younger son’s portion of the room, set up a berm in the middle so it is impossible to move around, and take all the toys of the younger son. She then tells the younger son he has to wait until his father gets home to resolve the problem. But ten years pass, and no one in authority comes home. And now, the younger son is older and wiser and says, I don’t need someone telling me how to resolve this problem. I will solve it myself and in my own way.

What can she do? What can you now do when you have determined that one of the four options is for the United Nations to proclaim failure and withdraw from the area? You too must realize that you have squandered the authority given to you by this small, besieged nation who has only asked for one thing from this distinguished body, and that is an opportunity to fairly, and openly, choose their own destinies through a referendum that would determine that they are indeed a sovereign nation.

Even Secretary James Baker told the Security Council in February of 2002, “that an independent Saharawi state would be viable and would contribute to the creation of stability in the Maghreb.” So that demonstrates an understanding that the child has grown and can function fully, and productively as an autonomous state, if given the chance.

So it seems that the most logical solution to this situation is to go back to the original ruling by the International Court of Justice and abide by that decision which states that Western Sahara is indeed a sovereign nation, and allow these people to get on with their lives. They have been in limbo for almost 25 years hoping and praying for closure, while the rules of the game keep changing.

When my son asks me what the outcome of this hearing is, he will expect an answer that suggests that adults see problems and create solutions in a relatively short period of time. It will be hard to continue explaining to him that after 10 years and 500 million dollars, that it was impossible for such a grand and distinguished body of world scholars and leaders to register 85,000 people in a very small geographic area, and allow them to vote for what they have all been fighting for, and praying for, for 25 years. He will expect me to have an answer. But more importantly, the people whose lives have been hanging in the balance for a quarter of a century, will expect you to have an answer . . . or will determine that there never was a question.

Thank you

The most recent evidence of the smoldering hate against women by the Democrats is their refusal to even vote on Texas Supreme Court Justice, Priscilla Owens, who has been nominated for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. She joins a long list of other women who have been summarily dismissed because of the great crime of having compassion for unborn children and the women who are intimidated and coerced into aborting them. Women such as this, who oppose the exploitation of women are ridiculed, belittled, sabotaged and rejected by the Democrat party. If you are pro-children, pro-family, and pro-life, you are not welcome in this good old boys club that has determined on several levels that women are mere chattel created merely for the enjoyment and pleasure of men.

They have determined this by refusing to prosecute hard core pornography that demeans and debases women and children. They have belittled the role of mothers by determining that the government knows best in how to raise these children and that their little boys should be taught that women are not worthy of their affections, but other men are.

The good-ol’ boy network of the Democrat party has summarily silenced every woman who dares contradict their strict litany of philosophical edicts. Not only are they silenced, but they are made to suffer if they in any way complain that these chauvinists are harassing them or silencing them with intimidation tactics, i.e., Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Kathleen Wiley, Jaunita Broderick, etc. And the women of the Democrat party have become the sweet little women who stand three paces behind their men allowing them to reduce women to nothing more than statistics to be dragged out when discussions of health care and welfare surface.

Democrat men, and their dutiful little women in power have taken women to a time and culture where women are nothing more than chattel. Their ideas, if they contradict or condemn those of the men are dismissed and ridiculed. Their very person is described and marketed as a package for sexual pleasure, while at the same these men claim to protect, feed and care for them like you would a pet poodle.

When a qualified judge, such as Priscilla Owens is denied an opportunity to be considered for another position in the same profession . . . .because she is principled, effective and qualified enough to be recommended by the ABA, it can only mean one thing . . . Democrats have no respect for women who are not Stepford Democrats, scurrying behind their men with their heads down, and their opinions labeled as irrelevant and insignificant.

Is this the great legacy that the feminist movement has left America? Is this where the champions of equal rights and justice imagined women after thirty years of struggling to get women acknowledged as being as capable, as intelligent, as worthy of advance as men? All this to find that if they do not adhere to the strict dictates of Democrat men and women in power . . . then they are castigated and discarded as so much excess baggage on society.

Where are the feminists with heart? The ones who understand that divergent views were not something to fear but a challenge to embrace? Where are they?

Let me guess. They are now members of the American Library Association lobbying for unfiltered internet access for children, and no restrictions at all on child pornography. They are the teachers who feel girls are too dumb and sexually driven to be able to abstain from sex so they might as well go straight to the “how to” manual. They are the ones who turned a blind eye to Bill Clinton exposing himself to women, cheating on his wife and daughter, seducing young girls and sexually harassing countless others. They are the ones who refuse to give women an informed choice before she makes a decision that will change her life, could render her infertile and even kill her.

So what was the feminist movement all about? It was a failed experiment that has turned back the clock on women and placed them at a point in time where women had no say, no rights, no control, no power, no meaning, and no respect.

What hope does a young pro-life women in law school have in a world that has relegated her to a position lower than the rest of society? Is she supposed
to abandon her principles in order to secure a job in the profession she has given her time and money to enter? Should she be denied access because of her beliefs? Should she be discriminated against because she does not follow the dictates of a party controlled by men who claim to know what is best for women? This is discrimination of the worst order, in a free country where divergent views are expected, applauded, promoted and . . . protected.

What kind of political party promotes the actions of a president who demeans the office, is impeached for lying under oath, is caught, literally with his pants down as he is sexually harassing innocent women . . . while at the same time they are destroying the reputation of a woman who has held to the highest standards of civility, intellect and professionalism? It can only be a political party that hates women, and applauds the actions of men who demonstrate they hate women.

The Democrats find it offensive and discriminatory to profile people who might be involved in terrorist activities, when these terrorists are easily identified, but they consistently resort to philosophical profiling. If you are pro-life in this country you are made to either sit at the back of the political bus or are denied a seat on the bus altogether. And where are the open minded liberals who embrace any and all ideas, behaviours, actions, beliefs, and claim to abhor any and all discrimination? Why on this very issue of life, that has claimed over 40 million Americans, and personally affected more than half the nation, do they make an exception to their very hard and fast rule against discrimination? Are there no liberals or Democrats who believe in free speech and real choice? During the civil rights movement, it was not only blacks that saw the incredible injustice in racism . . . whites marched against it too even though they had never felt its sting. Where are men and women of courage who are bold enough to face this leviathan of discrimination that segregates and labels pro-life people as less than full citizens, having fewer protected rights and privileges, no matter how qualified or honorable they may be? Where are the new women to challenge this paradigm?

McAuliffe says, “This administration just doesn’t get it, our economy is adrift today, they want to see leadership . . . . The President has not talked about how we get the economy going.” But despite what Terry says, The American people think the President and Republicans have led on the economy. In a recent Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll, 55% of voters disagreed “with those who say Republicans are . . . not paying enough attention to the economy.”

Then, while throwing stones at Bush and Republicans, Terry denies he made millions from an Enron/Worldcom style free-for-all, by saying on ABC’s “This Week”, “First of all, you have no idea if I made one penny, Sam. I was merely an investor in a company.” But, that’s not what he told the New York Times. “[I]n 1997 . . . Mr. Winnick offered Mr. McAuliffe an opportunity to invest in a new Internet-related venture that would own and operate undersea fiber-optic cables. The venture, now known as Global Crossing Holdings, had potential risks and rewards. It also faced myriad regulatory issues in Washington and around the world. For Mr. McAuliffe and all the other early investors, Global Crossing turned out to be a bonanza. Mr. McAuliffe says his initial $100,000 investment grew to be worth about $18 million, and he made millions more trading Global’s stock and options after it went public last year. And recently, Mr. McAuliffe said he took a telecommunications deal to Mr. Winnick that Global Crossing will put money into. Mr. McAuliffe says he is a dealmaker and a matchmaker.”

And again, while Terry is castigating Bush for touring the country we forget that HE was the moving force behind the infamous Lincoln Bedroom fund-raisers at the Clinton White House. McAuliffe’s first fundraising] project was to organize breakfasts, luncheons, and coffees with the President for about twenty ’major supporters’ at a time – to ’offer these people an opportunity to discuss issues and exchange ideas with the President. McAuliffe’s second [fundraising] project was to offer the very top supporters ’overnights’ at the White House.

Then, referring to the President’s Economic Forum in Waco Texas this month, Terry McAuliffe claimed that “The problem is no Democrats are invited to the Economic Forum” . . . . but at least 43 of the Forum attendees have donated to Democrat candidates and party organizations. Since 1990, Forum attendees have given over $255,000 to Democrats.

The PACs Of Economic Forum attendees the Teamsters, Seafarers, Carpenters, And Operating Engineers Unions have contributed more than $8,000,000 to Democrats in the past two election cycles, over $6,600,000 more than they have given to Republicans.

The PACs of some corporations whose CEOs are attending the economic forum have given approximately equal contributions to both Democrats and Republicans, including The American Medical Association (AMA), American Express, The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), And Hewlett-Packard.

Guest speakers at the forum are respected leaders in their fields – not just “A bunch of donors.” Panelists include Doug McCarron, General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters; Tom Donohue, President and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Michael Novak, business ethicist at the American Enterprise institute; Charles Schwab, Chairman and CEO of Charles Schwab, Inc; Karen Kerrigan, President of the Small Business Survival Committee; John Chambers, President and CEO of Cisco Systems; Glen Barton, CEO of Caterpillar; and Charles Vest, President of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Attendees include more than twelve university professors who are experts in their fields – Not just “A bunch of donors,” as Terry classified them. These experts, among others, include Michael Useem, Director of the Center for Leadership and Change Management at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business; Terry Maness, Dean of Baylor University’s Hankamer School of Business; Susan Dudley from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University; Richard Burkhauser, a Cornell University professor and expert in Social Security, disability, retirement and pension policies; John Shoven of Stanford University; Jonathon Skinner, a professor of economics at Dartmouth College; Jagdish Bhagwati of Columbia University; Jim Henderson and Joe McKinney, professors of economics at Baylor University; and Mark Pauly, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

It must be difficult for liberals to decide, from minute to minute, which moral high ground they are going to perch their hypocritical dynasty upon. Where to begin? In no particular order let’s just plumb the depths of their inconsistencies. One minute the news is abuzz with the brilliant findings of sex experts that sex with children is not only normal, but alas, healthy. Except of course if it happens to be with Catholic priests. That sin is then far more egregious than Muslims who imprison women and force young girls to marry as young as eight, keeping millions of people in virtual oppression, while, of course extolling the virtues of Islam over Christianity. (You guys saw this coming didn’t you?)

Then, while President Clinton uses our military as a cover-up for his sexual indiscretions, authorizing the bombing of two sovereign nations, with showing no hard evidence that either were culpable of a crime, Bush is attacked for a fourth generation sale of a photo he has probably never seen. Forget all the rose garden ceremonies with Bill Clinton, and every victim of every crime ever committed against man, since the beginning of time, appearing not only on the DNC website, but in their money-for-photos mass mailings. Did I hear someone say Columbine and . . . guns are bad? Any crime committed with a gun, and Bill was there mugging for the cameras and getting a piece of the photo action on the side.

So Reagan is the only one with Alzheimer’s? Did we all forget that when Bill Clinton, on several occasions had the opportunity to not only kill Osama Ben Laden, but extradite him to America for trial, he refused because he didn’t want to get big bad Saddam Hussein mad at him? Now that is courageous. But somehow, it is George W. Bush’s fault that 20 crazy men, training here in America, under Bill’s watch, with his immigration group asleep at the wheel, fly planes into buildings? The same people castigating him for his lack of prophetic skills are the very same voices chiding Tom Ridge for telling us of the plans they have foiled. He is met with, stop scaring the American people. We don’t want to hear what you stopped or prevented, or what might happen . ..that is not good for the economy.

So, let’s get it straight . . .do they want to know when an attack might occur or not? Do they want it to be foiled so lives are saved . . . or not? Or do they just want to continue collecting faux political arrows for their pathetically empty quiver to try and skewer a president trying to protect them . . . .and the rest us.

And now Mr. Rogers goes to Cuba under the same delusional cloud that hovers over Bill Clinton, that somehow he is still relevant. I guess during his trip they didn’t bother to take him to the prisons filled with people who have voiced disagreement with his charming host. He was not told that, in spite of the embargo by America, that the rest of the world still trades freely with Cuba and guess what . . . nothing has changed. Free trade has not flung wide the prison gates and set the captives free, it has done exactly what every Republican president has said it has done since the imprisonment of millions of people . . .it has served to prop up a petty dictator whose ideas died with the dinosaurs but who still receives the hushed whispers of adoration by Communists/Fascists who get a strange tingle around power.

And let’s not forget the poster boy of the radical left . . . the one and only . . . Yes Sir, it’s Arafat. In short, he is Israel’s Timothy McVeigh. He felt he had a just cause, worthy of taking out hundreds of lives, but the citizens of this civilized nation saw differently, and in their very civilized fashion, without a peep or boo from the usual anti-capital punishment suspects, he was fried. (Short diversion into “Inconsistentville”). .. capitol punishment is ok, IF, they agree that the crime is horrible enough …and not before.) OK, so, we have yet another petty little dictator who was not real good at either history or geography, holding an entire nation hostage by blowing up school buses and pizza parlors, and guess what . . . the liberals of the world love this guy. Now, why didn’t they rally behind Timothy McVeigh? Why didn’t they champion his cause of the struggle against the oppressive, successful, western bastion of democracy . . . the USA? His PR guy obviously was not as cunning and clever as Yes Sir’s.

So, I leave you with this. As we dissect every single meeting that President Bush has had with people who told him that Osama Bin Laden was armed, dangerous, and aimed, yet once again at the US . . . will we do the same for the man who REALLY caused all this to happen . . . Bill Clinton? I think the dems have bitten off a little more than they can chew in their total and absolute disdain and abhorrence of the American people. They see us as willing sheep to the media slaughter, believing every little tail and fiction they spin in their webs of hypocrisy. But this time, it is up to the American people to say, ok, we might be comatose, and have the attention span of a gnat, but we aren’t stupid. And . . . if the American people buy into this, and believe the spin and decide in two years that the Republicans are bad and they need a new president like Jimmy Carter or Billy Clinton, then I guess I just wasted 20 minutes of my life by writing this. Better that, than 3000 more innocent people killed with spins, lies and hypocrisy.