What is the Purpose of Government, Anyway?

Discussion time, as we head to the next election:

I’ve been called a great many things politically, most of them inaccurate.

But this subject came up elsewhere, and I thought I’d re-post my comments here, since it’s as close as I’ve bothered to write to the subject of what constitutes the original purpose of government, and in fact what the actions of a legit government are.

I am not a conservative per se’ not in the sense that we think of such today. I am, rather, a social conservative, which is a different animal altogether. I have a different view from any of the ‘established’ groups as to the legit purpose of government. That’s because all of them have drifted away from it. And yes, I recognize this is NOT going to make me very popular. So be it. Any time you tell someone they’re screwing up, you’re not going to be popular with them.

So what is the purpose of government, anyway? No, I don’t mean what it evolved into, I mean rather it’s original purpose… the reason the concept of governments of any kind were even conceived of.

Some submit that government exists to protect privileges of a few, preserving a state of injustice for the majority.

Others hold the somewhat more optimistic view that the purpose of the state is to protect rights and to preserve justice. It appears to me that those questions form the arguments among the proponents of liberalism, libertarianism, socialism, conservatism and fascism, all at once.

I submit that all these four basic positions miss the point, because they generally don’t remember who it was who invented the concept of government…government of any kind, I mean… in first place. I should point out that in general, the ones who get it the closest are conservatives, but they are not spot on, either.)

Libertarians, mostly suggest, along with Jefferson, that “No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.”, and that therefore, government exists for only one purpose, and that is to secure the unalienable rights of its citizens against violation.

Well… This is fine as far as it goes, but it ignores who created the concept of rights, and it thereby misses utterly, the best path to protect such rights. In doing so it ironically denies it’s adherents such protection.

And of course each of these groups has tended to abuse the power of government for their own ends.

To the end of answering overriding question of the purpose of government, (And thereby the question of what government needs to be doing today, and not doing, to remain legit) with any logic, we need to ask a few more questions:

1: Who invented the concept of government?

2: What purpose would that entity have had in such creation?

One way we can answer those two questions at once, would be to look at what existed as the most powerful force before government was invented, and therefore what was the most likely inventor of government: CULTURE.

If we make the logical assumption that governments were originally created by the individual cultures, then it follows that each culture constructed their respective governments in their own image… governments that best reflected and advanced each culture’s interests.

The original purpose of government, therefore, is to protect, nurture and defend, and if possible expand the influence of, the culture that gave it life. As such, to the greatest of degrees possible, each government’s laws, on the whole, were the culture, codified. It follows, then, that any government holding to the original purpose of government will perform this task.

Now, notice I said to the greatest degree possible. I freely admit… Trumpet, even, that there are no perfect governments, no perfect laws. No law, or government can ever capture in amber, a culture. Cultures are far more complex than any law, however written, can encompass. So it is that laws cannot be the end-call and be-all to a culture, or to a country. Laws when taken too literally and made to apply to all events uniformly, can instead of being just, will instead dispense injustice. It is said that in hell, there will be law and policy and little else. Yet, this imperfect tool did at least manage to provide a mechanism toward the intended purpose… The furtherance of the culture that founded said government. This understanding that there is imperfection in government implies that other values should supersede governmental power when the tool of government doesn’t fit the task at hand well. I submit the highest value applied here should be the values of the culture, not that of the law.

(Which, I would argue is why there are judges which read not only the wording of the laws but then intent of them.)

Now, I hear some of you balking at this, suggesting the right of the individual are paramount; a noble sentiment. But consider this immovable fact:

Rights are not universal.

Yep. That’s what I said…Read it again, just to be sure.

Rights are not universal.

Clearly, this will raise many questions on the part of some. This should answer most;

When Jefferson wrote that “WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT” he was not speaking a universal truth at all.  The operative word in that phrase is “WE”.

Rather than talking about a universal point of view, a universal truth, if you will, he was instead talking about the point of view of WE the new American culture. With this angle, many of the long-held myths about rights tend to disappear.

Consider; if it was in fact a universal truth that all men were created equal, it wouldn’t have been such a radical idea, for the time, much less then to now. Last I checked, it is quite true that a vast majority still do not consider these as any kind of truth, universal or otherwise; they consider them to be anything BUT self-evident. Royalty still exists, as do class structures, and slavery, as well.

Again, I say…Jefferson was speaking of the point of view of OUR culture, not that of others.

The fact of the matter is that RIGHTS ARE A CULTURAL CONCEPT, and are nigh on meaningless outside that construct. Once the culture is allowed to fall to the law, even in an attempt to impose rights where they do not exist, what happens to real rights, which are a cultural concept?

When one says “freedom”, the question should be ‘freedom from what’? The answers that come back will invariably be cultural in nature. They do not make any sense outside that environment.

As I’ve said, the law and government has been abused by some, it has moved away from that intended purpose of supporting the existing culture. They are in fact being used by the left to alter that morality, to alter that culture, and when that happens, the fall of the government cannot be far behind… and the fall of the culture itself beyond that, becomes a larger possibility. Often as not, the downfall of that culture is what they have in mind.

That said, Culture is by far a more powerful force than government, over time. Indeed; Where governments have gotten themselves into problems over the centuries, is invariably where governments have tried to alter the culture artificially, by means of law. Culture eventually triumphs.

Take communism, as an example. Communism attempts to over-ride the culture and basically outlaw many facets of it.

But, (and this is important) everywhere you saw Communism.. Russia, Cuba, Korea, East Germany you saw the same treacherous *political* ideology, not the cultural values of those societies. And in those places where communism has been overthrown, the former USSR for example, the original culture invariably springs back to life.

This affects the concept of what is being called Multi-culturalism, as well. Governments that seek to mandate multi-culturalism do not last. Again, the USSR is a fair enough example.

Now, some would, because of those abuses as I mentioned, like to see all governments fall. They feel that governments have no legit purpose. I suggest this is short-sighted, and seeks, in the case of our republican form of government, to remove the only tool available to the end of supporting rights.

The worst of the abusers of government in our country, our culture, given these original purposes, are on the left end of the spectrum. The most visible American mainstream political group that works against these original purposes of government are the Democrat Party.

Now these are basics, and do not explore such things as taxes for example… and I’ll do this at need. But I’ve given you much to chew on and respond to; which I will ask you to do; Discuss in the comments section, or (given the size limits on my comments section) send me an e-mail, and I’ll post it from here as an update.

My Trusty Palm Pilot, on which I pre-write a goodly portion of this site, just woke up to remind me this is Canada Day.

Spiderman 2 opened with, in terms of screens and dollars, about a four to one ratio over Rotundo Moore’s trash.

Apparently, the American people figure Spiderman 2 the more believable fantasy.

Yep.
I’ve been aware for some time now that the folks over at Paramount had a rather fully developed language for the Klingons, but I’ve never seen it used outside that environment.

All that changed this morning when I noted a Blog called
” bo logh”

It’s available as an ATOM link, too, of course.

Qapla to them.

It’s a part of the Green Party and the site and the group are both products of the Green Party Convention. apparently they’re finally admitting their real motives… They are Luddites of the first order. Sounds weird, to me, but then again, consider the source.

Billy Beck thinks so, too. Follow the links he put up.

“We resent very deeply the false war crimes charges he made coming back from Vietnam in 1971 and repeated in the book “Tour of Duty.” We think those cast an aspersion on all those living and dead, from our unit and other units in Vietnam. We think that he knew he was lying when he made the charges, and we think that they’re unsupportable. We intend to bring the truth about that to the American people. We believe, based on our experience with him, that he is totally unfit to be the Commander-in-Chief.”
— John O’Neill, spokesman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

“I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust — all absolute tenets of command. His
bio graphy, ‘Tour of Duty,’ by Douglas Brinkley, is replete with gross exaggerations, distortions of fact, contradictions and slanderous lies. His contempt for the military and authority is evident by even a most casual review of this biography. He arrived in-country with a strong anti-Vietnam War bias and a self-serving determination to build a foundation for his political future. He was aggressive, but vain and prone to impulsive judgment, often with disregard for specific tactical assignments. He was a ‘loose cannon.’ In an abbreviated tour of four months and 12 days, and with his specious medals secure, Lt.(jg) Kerry bugged out and began his infamous betrayal of all United States forces in the Vietnam War. That included our soldiers, our marines, our sailors, our coast guardsmen, our airmen, and our POWs. His leadership within the so-called Vietnam Veterans Against the War and testimony before Congress in 1971 charging us with unspeakable atrocities remain an undocumented but nevert heless meticulous stain on the men and women who honorably stayed the course. Senator Kerry is not fit for command.”
— Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman, USN (retired), chairman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
.
“During Lt.(jg) Kerry’s tour, he was under my command for two or three specific operations, before his rapid exit. Trust, loyalty and judgment are the key, operative words. His turncoat performance in 1971 in his grubby shirt and his medal-tossing escapade, coupled with his slanderous lines in the recent book portraying us that served, including all POWs and MIAs, as murderous war criminals, I believe, will have a lasting effect on all military veterans and their families.
Kerry would be described as devious, self-absorbing, manipulative, disdain for authority, disruptive, but the most common phrase that you’d hear is ‘requires constant supervision.'”
— Captain Charles Plumly, USN (retired)
.
“Thirty-five years ago, many of us fell silent when we came back to the stain of sewage that Mr. Kerry had thrown on us, and all of our colleagues who served over there. I don’t intend to be silent today or ever again. Our young men and women who are serving deserve no less.”
— Andrew Horne
.
“In my specific, personal experience in both coastal and river patrols over a 12-month period, I never once saw or heard anything remotely resembling the atrocities described by Senator Kerry. If I had, it would have been my obligation to report them in writing to a higher authority, and I would certainly have done that. If Senator Kerry actually witnessed or participated in these atrocities or, as he described them, ‘war crimes,’ he was obligated to report them. That he did not until later when it suited his political purposes strikes me as opportunism of the worst kind. That he would malign my service and that of his fellow sailors with no regard for the truth makes him totally unqualified to serve as commander-in-Chief.”
— Jeffrey Wainscott
.
“I signed that letter because I, too felt a deep sense of betrayal that someone who took the same oath of loyalty as I did as an officer in the United States Navy would abandon his group here (points to group photo) to join this group here (points to VVAW protest photo), and come home and attempt to rally the American public against the effort that this group was so valiantly pursuing.
It is a fact that in the entire Vietnam War we did not lose one major battle. We lost the war at home… and at home, John Kerry was the Field General.”
— Robert Elder
.
“My daughters and my wife have read portions of the book ‘Tour of Duty.’ They wanted to know if I took part in the atrocities described. I do not believe the things that are described happened. Let me give you an example. In Brinkley’s book, on pages 170 to 171, about something called the ‘Bo De massacre’ on November 24th of 1968… In Kerry’s description of the engagement, first he claimed there were 17 servicemen that were wounded. Three of us were wounded. I was the first…” — Joseph Ponder
.
“While in Cam Rahn Bay, he trained on several 24-hour indoctrination missions, and one special skimmer operation with my most senior and trusted Lieutenant. The briefing from some members of that crew the morning after revealed that they had not received any enemy fire, and yet Lt.(jg) Kerry informed me of a wound — he showed me a scratch on his arm and a piece of shrapnel in his hand that appeared to be from one of our own M-79s. It was later reported to me that Lt.(jg) Kerry had fired an M-79, and it had exploded off the adjacent shoreline. I do not recall being advised of any medical treatment, and probably said something like ‘Forget it.’ He later received a Purple Heart for that scratch, and I have no information as to how or whom. Lt.(jg) Kerry was allowed to return to the good old USA after 4 months and a few days in-country, and then he proceeded to betray his forme r shipmates, calling them criminals who were committing atrocities. Today we are here to tell you that just the opposite is true. Our rules of engagement were quite strict, and the officers and men of Swift often did not even return fire when they were under fire if there was a possibility that innocent people — fishermen, in a lot of cases — might be hurt or injured. The rules and the good intentions of the men increased the possibility that we might take friendly casualties.”
— Commander Grant Hibbard, USN (retired)
.
“Lt. Kerry returned home from the war to make some outrageous statements and allegations… of numerous criminal acts in violation of the law of war were cited by Kerry, disparaging those who had fought with honor in that conflict. Had war crimes been committed by US forces in Vietnam? Yes, but such acts were few and far between. Yet Lt. Kerry have numerous speeches and testimony before Congress inappropriately leading his audiences to believe tha t what was only an anomaly in the conduct of America’s fighting men was an epidemic. Furthermore, he suggested that they were being encouraged to violated the law of war by those within the chain of command. Very specific orders, on file at the Vietnam archives at Texas Tech University, were issued by my father [Admiral Elmo Zumwalt] and others in his chain of command instructing subordinates to act responsibly in preserving the life and property of Vietnamese civilians.”
— Lt. Col. James Zumwalt, USMC (retired)
.
“We look at Vietnam… after all these years it is still languishing in isolated poverty and helplessness and tyranny. This is John Kerry’s legacy. I deeply resent John Kerry’s using his Swift boat experience, and his betrayal of those who fought there as a stepping-stone to his political ambitions.”
— Barnard Wolff
.
“In a whole year that I spent patrolling, I didn’t see anything like a war crime, an atrocity, anything like that. Time and again I saw American fighting men put themselves in graver danger trying to avoid… collateral damage. When John Kerry returned to the country, he was sworn in front of Congress. And then he told my family — my parents, my sister, my brother, my neighbors — he told everyone I knew and everyone I’d ever know that I and my comrades had
committed unspeakable atrocities.”
— David Wallace
.
“I served with these guys. I went on missions with them, and these men served honorably. Up and down the chain of command there was no acquiescence to atrocities. It was not condoned, it did not happen, and it was not reported to me verbally or in writing by any of these men including Lt.(jg) Kerry. In 1971, ’72, for almost 18 months, he stood before the television audiences and claimed that the 500,000 men and women in Vietnam, and in combat, were all villains — there were no heroes. In 2004, one hero from the Vietnam War has appeared, running for President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief. It just galls one to think about it.”
— Captain George Elliott, USN (retired)
.
“During the Vietnam War I was Task Force Commander at An Thoi, and my tour of duty was 13 months, from the end of Tet to the beginning of the vietnamization of the Navy units. Now when I went there right after Tet, I was restricted in my movements. I couldn’t go much of anyplace because the Vietcong controlled most of the area. When I left, I could go anywhere I wanted, just about. Commerce was booming, the buses were running, trucks were going, the waterways were filled with sampans with goods going to market, but yet in Kerry’s biography he says that our operations were a complete failure. He also mentions a formal conference with me, to try to get more air cover and so on. That conference never happened…” — Captain Adrian Lonsdale, USCG (retired) .

“I was in An Thoi from June of ’68 to June of ’69, covering the whole period that John Kerry wa s there. I operated in every river, in every canal, and every off-shore patrol area in the 4th Corps area, from Cambodia all the way around to the Bo De River. I never saw, even heard of all of these so-called atrocities and things that we were supposed to have done. This is not true. We’re not standing for it. We want to set the record straight.”
— William Shumadine

“In 1971, when John Kerry spoke out to America, labeling all Vietnam veterans as thugs and murderers, I was shocked and almost brought to my knees, because even though I had served at the same time and same unit, I had never witnessed or participated in any of the events that the Senator had accused us of. I strongly believe that the statements made by the Senator were not only false and inaccurate, but extremely harmful to the United States’ efforts in Southeast Asia and the rest of the world. Tragically, some veterans, scorned by the antiwar movement and their allies, retreated to a life of despair and sui cide. Two of my crewmates were among them. For that there is no forgiveness. ”
— Richard O’Meara
.
“My name is Steve Gardner. I served in 1966 and 1967 on my first tour of duty in Vietnam on Swift boats, and I did my second tour in ’68 and ’69, involved with John Kerry in the last 2 1/2 months of my tour. The John Kerry that I know is not the John Kerry that everybody else is portraying. I served alongside him and behind him, five feet away from him in a gun tub, and watched as he made indecisive moves with our boat, put our boats in jeopardy, put our crews in jeopardy… if a man like that can’t handle that 6-man crew boat, how can you expect him to be our Commander-in-Chief?”
— Steven Gardner
.
“I served in Vietnam as a boat officer from June of 1968 to July of 1969. My service was three months in Coastal Division 13 out of Cat Lo, and nine months with Coastal Division 11 based in An Thoi. John Kerry was in An Thoi the same time I was. I’m here today to e xpress the anger I have harbored for over 33 years, about being accused with my fellow shipmates of war atrocities. All I can say is when I leave here today, I’m going down to the Wall to tell my two crew members it’s not true, and that they and the other 49 Swiftees who are on the Wall were then and are still now the best.”
— Robert Brant
.
“I never saw, heard of, or participated in any Swift boat crews killing cattle, poisoning crops, or raping and killing civilians as charged by John Kerry, both in his book and in public statements. Since we both operated at the same time, in the same general area, and on the same missions under the same commanders, it is hard to believe his claims of atrocities and poor planning of Sea Lord missions. I signed this letter because I feel that he used Swift boat sailors to proclaim his antiwar statements after the war, and now he uses the same Swift boat sailors to support his claims of being a war hero. He cannot have it both ways, an d we are here to ask for full disclosure of the proof of his claims.”
— James Steffes

The Instant One has come up witha beaut, and is herewith saluted:

NORM GERAS notes that another anti-war pundit has admitted she hoped for failure in Iraq, regardless of the cost to Iraqis. 

Glenn goes on to note that:

Fortunately, Iraqis — even Iraqis interviewed by the BBC — seem to think it has all been worth it.  Even Iraqi communists are praising Paul Bremer.  Will Western communists follow this lead? . . .

I assume this is a rethorical question…. you know darned good and well they won’t, Glenn.

FOXNews has the story we’ve been waiting for.

“BAGHDAD, Iraq – Saddam Hussein (search), as defiant as ever, appeared in an Iraqi court Thursday but rejected war crimes and genocide charges against him.
‘I am Saddam Hussein, the president of Iraq,’ Saddam said, according to a pool report from inside the proceeding. ”
…

“He’s the bully he’s always been …. It sounds like he’s been getting defensive advice from George Soros and Michael Moore,” former U.S. attorney Joe DiGenova told Fox News after the court proceedings were over.

Does he ever!
One claim of his to the court that I found interesting was that his trial was all theatre and the real criminal was George W. Bush.
So, Sadam and Rotundo Moore are on the same side, as are the rest of the Anti-American Left?
So it would seem.

As such, It’s interesting to watch the discomfort of most of our press. Drudge, for example, hasn’t touched the story, yet..

AP is reporting::

“NEW YORK (AP) – Stocks pushed back into positive territory in late trading Wednesday as the Federal Reserve announced a widely expected 0.25 percentage point increase in interest rates.”

What caused all this?

The economy is recovering in leaps and bounds.
Go ahead, John Kerry; Tell us all about how the economy is on line with the Great Depression of the 30’s.

QandO takes the time to judge Rotundo Moore by his own standards.

Moore a Sex offender?
Moore responsible for the death of John Candy?
Moore a NABMBLA member?

The facts on these and more do not look good for the Rotund Liar.

Oh, and while I have the subject open, let’s make note of the support Moore is getting from Hezbollah terrorists. Mark Noonan has the details on that one.

I’ve been saying for months that these bozos were going to get desperate. The best example so far this week isThe Irish Trojan’s Blog:

“All the external factors seem to point in Bush’s favor: the economy is improving, gas prices are finally falling, and the transfer of sovereignty in Iraq seems likely to shift the terrorists’ focus away from American targets and more toward the Iraqi ‘collaborators’ who now hold power and will soon commence cracking down hard on the insurgency. That should mean fewer American deaths, which (let’s be honest here) is all that the public really cares about. Meanwhile, with Ahnold and Rudy facing off against Algore and Teddy, the conventions seem certain to help the Republicans, as discussed earlier. Then we have the two great festivals of patriotism, the Olympics and the 9/11 commemorations, both of which seem likely to put the country in a mood that’s much more favorable to Bush’s Gipperesque optimism rather than the Kerry/Gephardt(?) ticket’s miserable-failure-ism. And then, just as that GOP-friendly period begins to wrap up, just when Bush has finished building a double-digit lead in the polls, whoosh!, the trials of Kobe Bryant and Michael Jackson begin (on Aug. 27 and Sept. 13, respectively), and everyone stops paying attention to politics altogether and starts watching the new ‘Trials of the Century’ instead. John Kerry could run through the Rose Garden naked, but no one would notice, as they’ll be too glued to Court TV. Next thing you know, it’ll be October, the election will be fast approaching, the horse-race coverage will self-fulfillingly prophesy a Bush landslide, and voila, John Kerry will have become Bob Dole.

Ladies and gentlemen, we’re going to lose. Not because Bush is unbeatable — because we have a crappy candidate who can do no better than tying Bush when he’s at his absolute low-point.”

Add to that the Saddam trial/ public execution, Hillary “We’re gonna take away your tax cuts” Clinton, Bill Clinton, and of course Ralph “The Democrats aren’t socialist enough” Nader, and Michial Moore’s lies not being denounced by the Democrats, and he’s got a pretty fair list of the reasons Kerry will lose big come November.

But the writer misses the biggest point of all…

Kerry’s problems also involve a lack of ideas the American people actually agree with!!!

Ya know, at some point, the Democrats are just going to have to admit that they’re out of favor with the American people, simply and directly because the ideas they represent are not accepted by the voters.

To admit that single glaring fact, would be a total defeat for the Democrats, were they to do it today. But it won’t be nearly the losses they will suffer come November for their hanging onto the pro-socialist, anti-American agenda they’ve been preaching.

Mondale and Dukakas will no longer be the worst Democrat defeats when the dust settles on this one. Consider that what those two losers were preaching, back in the day, is not at all unlike what Kerry and his ilk are pushing today. And the funny part is that like the people who claim in spite of all history that socialism will work, (“it’s just not been done right, yet”), the Democrats still won’t learn from the experience… they’ll just keep trying to sell the same bilge.

And the American people, God Willing, will never buy it.

Dan Drezner the other day, posts a link to a Boston Globe Article that by some weird methods tries to give us some sense of the Iraqi street..  The article is a lot less informative than it attempts to be, at least in a literal sense, and there’s certainly an anti-Bush, Anti-American bias in the way things are worded. (What would one expect from a paper that’s been in John Kerry’s hip pocket for the last decade, after all?) But it does at least give us a glimpse:

“Sa’ad Saddam, a merchant in the Iraqi capital’s notorious Thieves Market, normally has nothing polite to say about his country’s rulers.
So he was surprised yesterday to find himself hopeful about interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi’s new Iraqi government — not because he cared about the symbolic passing of sovereignty, but because he was thrilled to see Iraqi police officers pistol-whipping suspected carjackers near his clothing stand the day before.”

To which I respond, rather off the cuff:

I don’t have this lightbulb fully thought through yet… but I’m bothered by the undercurrent of these comments. Could this be showing us something of the Arab mentality… Something that bears directly on the supposed abuses at Abu Girabe, by way of Arabic Culture in general?

Clearly, the slimeballs there don’t react well to what we would consider lawful arrest and confinement. It’s simply ineffective. Hell, these people are willing to kill themselves in the process of taking out small numbers of their opposition. What would stop or even slow such a misguided thought process, and the actions resulting from it?

And just as clearly, the gent in the article is pleased someone is willing to take steps to gain control of the situation… Steps which would be considered excessive in our own country and culture. Possibly, this is due to the way things have been run there for the last 20+ years under Saddam, and further back under his predecessors… Or perhaps it’s due to some other aspect of the Arab Psyche, or a combo of the two, I don’t know… Something cultural, perhaps.

But is it possible, that our judgments about what is and is not excessive and abusive, be somewhat out of touch with the realities of the situation, there?

Sometimes, in a noisy environment, one needs to shout, just to be heard. Can it be that in an admittedly violent environment such as many Middle Eastern countries are these days, one needs to be more violent than usual to gather any respect?

This seems an important question not only when assessing Abu Girabe, but also in assessing what it will take to gain and retain control of the situation over there going forward.

Put another way, the rebels there are desperate for control. Given the propensity for violence noted, what form will that desperation take, and what will be required to control it?

It’ll be interesting watching what goes forward with Iyad Allawi’s new Iraqi government in place. How will our own left react to the actions of his government as they try and sit on the Islamo-Facists our left has been a cheering section for, for so long?

Mona Charen answers the question.

But more; She actually proves it.

She points out, as regards one of the biggest haters of all, both in terms of impact and sheer poundage… one Rotundo Moore. She makes the case that far from denoucing his lies, the Democrats are party to them:

What should not go unnoticed however is that Michael Moore’s drivel is endorsed by leaders of the Democratic Party — indeed, by the ex officio leader of the Democratic Party, Terry McAuliffe. He attended the opening and emerged to declare the film “very powerful, much more powerful than I thought it would be.” He later told CNN, “Clearly the movie makes it clear that George Bush is not fit to be president of this country.” Other Democrats in attendance were Senators Tom Daschle (D., S.D.), Tom Harkin (D., Iowa), Max Baucus (D., Mont.), Ernest Hollings (D., S.C.), Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.), Bill Nelson (D., Fla.), and Congressmen Charles Rangel (D., N.Y.) and Jim McDermott (D., Wash.). As Byron York points out, all of them, and John Kerry as well, should be asked by reporters if they endorse the conclusions of this movie.

Consider the question asked, Mona.

Second challange for my readers this morning: Can anyone find a Democrat willing to seperate themselves form the demonstrated fat liar, Rotundo Moore? Post it in comments.

World Net Daily is reporting this morning:

“Following the formal handover of sovereignty to Baghdad, 15 Iraqi and Iraqi-American groups have issued an open letter to the American people, thanking them for the sacrifices they endured to liberate their country. ”

So, where is the mainstream press, in terms of spreading this word? The story gets buried, because it helps a Republican President.

Here’s a challange for my readers this morning; If any of you notice this ad, or notice a story covering the ad buy, let me know in the comments section, I’ll post it, in an update.

But, I doubt you’ll see the press doing much with it other than accepting the ad revenue.

SFGate.com reports a quote from Hillary Clinton:

“‘Many of you are well enough off that … the tax cuts may have helped you,’ Sen. Clinton said. ‘We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.’ ”

The common good?  In truth, that would be best served by the removal of the Clintons from the planet. I suspect John Kerry is thinking much the same, given this is as good a description of Kerry’s political record, and his agenda, as one could possibly find. His election chances don’t look as rosy when little snippets of truth come out like this.