New Page June 22, 1999!

WARNING: Strong Language

    It takes more to be an American Patriot than waving a flag or taking part in the various festivities. More is required than proper observance of respect for our flag. An American must have a steadfast desire for freedoms and demand the rights and liberties granted by Our Creator God and acknowledged in our Constitution. Know then that the American Constitution is to limit government, not the rights of the people.

    Regrettably, many in America hate the principles of American Liberty. Most have been so deluded and dis-educated that they may not believe the truth. However, truth does not require belief to make it truth or not truth because fools refuse to understand. Curiously and consistently, these same principles upheld by America's allies bring freedom and prosperity to their country and make them patriots of their homeland.

    The best way I know of illustrating a patriotic American belief system is to begin with a brief of what I see in the candidates and issues for upcoming elections. That will be followed by Perpetual Issues. First in the current candidates and issues; the candidates of the Federal, State, County, and City offices. Then, the same type of commentary for the ballot measures.

     WARNING! The English language is too impotent in some areas, so I must not "scrub" some of the language I deem necessary to use. That would require mincing words at a minimum. Mincing words is dangerously close to lying. This page is not to be politically correct for Political Correctness is the opiate of the Patriotically Challenged. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED SO [BACK] OUT NOW IF MY SERGEANT LANGUAGE MAY CAUSE YOU PROBLEMS:

DEMOCRATS:
    I am unaware of a Democrat candidate who does not have a pattern of un-American activities and who has failed to demonstrate an unconscionable value system.

*     Al "Owl" Gore is not qualified for public office. It has kept its word to use our Bill of Rights for butt wipe when it broke the Senate tie on a bill in the 106th Congress to erode Americans' Second Amendment right even more. Its science is from a strange universe; much different that the work I have done ... I could not have got away with its kind of crap. Also, it knew that there have been "controlling authorities" in spite of what it said about campaigning from its office. It also benefitted from comrade clinton's quid pro quo getting campaign funds in 1996 from the chi-coms ... which lead to treasons greater than what the Rosenbergs were executed in 1953. I give its treasonous soul over to rot and burn forever in the vilest hell as insufficient punishment for its crimes.

REPUBLICANS:

*     A favored possibility is Elizabeth Dole. Many may say its time for a woman in the Office. Perhaps, ... but not this thing! It is not qualified. (As President Ford's Transportation Secretary, it gigoloed us with that abominable 55m/h slowSee footnote 1 limit. That cost me no less than 4m/g for all my road miles because I did not drive some typical gover-gooked piece of crap.) It, like many Democraps, has stated that it will use her Oath of Office as butt wipe. It has stated that it will not support American's Second Amendment guaranteed °(not "granted" ) ABSOLUTE right to have firearms without infringement. It deserves the Monica Lewinski diet. I give "Lizzy Mole's" treasonous soul over to rot and burn forever in the vilest hell as insufficient punishment for its crimes.

*     George W. Bush, son of former president George Herbert Walker Bush, seems to be the party leader. As a governor, he may have done some distasteful things, but I hope that they have not gone over the top in this politically correct culture. Nothing stands out in my mind as I write other than he seems to be dancing around his positions, so as it looks now, I will hold my nose and vote for this candidate. "If you want a good Democrat ... vote Republican."

OTHERS:
    A third party has been a spoiler in the last previous 2 General Elections. There is nothing the DNC loves better than for a 3rd party candidate to come out and split the American vote ... essentially putting their Democrap candidate into office. Some Republicans have rumbled jumping into a 3rd party camp to run, but that will guarantee another crooked democrap president for another 4 years.

*     .

    Senator Slade Gorton was up for re-election , but lost to the democrap. To some, he has not been a "Republican's senator" because of some of the positions he has taken. I was quite angry because he was one of the few Republicans who voted against one of the impeachment articles. However, that proved that the Republicans were not politically partisan by voting en mass for impeachment. Remember? All the political Democraps did vote en mass to keep comrade clinton's perjuring, justice obstructing ass on Air Force One.

    Two years ago, a Republican candidate ran against the other incumbent senator. Democrap comrade murray was defeated in many precincts in Eastern Washington, but the Americans on th e east side of the Cascade Curtain can not overturn the left coast's socialist block. So, we will be screwed by that political slut for another 4 years. It has been comrade clinton's best lackey. Too bad it was not under the desk instead of what's 'er name when comrade clinton had its trousers at half mast. comrade murray Deserves the Monica Lewinski diet.

    God have mercy upon us! We can not survive as a free people with the murray clone we have in the form of senatrix cantwell.

    A recent special ballot measure was passed handily to convert from the Mayor-commission to a Council form of government. My first reaction was trading 3 for 7 or 9 seemed like an expansion of a big government. However, two facts came to mind quickly: One was that the total salary as proposed was less. Or it is supposed to be.

    Second: A commission of three has the distinct disadvantage of being ruled by a strong arm if there is a "yes" one leaving the "odd" one out. This problem with Triumvirates is known through history. Consider Yalta; Stalin was the strong man, FDR was the "yes" man, and Churchill was the Odd man out.

    There has been very little scuttlebutt about candidates with the exception of a complaint that the Mexican community seems under represented. I suspect the legal ones are interested proportionately. The invaders MUST NOT be represented.

    I have mused running for the council. I have mine own ideas that everyone has a right to hear and this city is in such desperate need for a Patriot.

    This ogre will not stay dead! The facts of this matter are:
1. The effectiveness of municipal water fluoridation is in contention.

2. Any effectiveness in item 1 must be from other causes.

3. Most of our domestic water is used for:
a. Lawn and garden watering,
b. Car washing, laundry, dish washing,
c. Showers, baths, commode flushing, and other chores and tasks that usually does not require potable water. The potable water requirements being very small out of the total are irrefutable.

4. Of that portion of potable water, it is a minute portion that stays near the teeth long enough to mimic a dental fluoride treatment. All other that is ingested goes over the teeth and between the gums, look out stomach here it comes.

5. Obviously the benefits are dubious, to be charitable, for the costs.

6. There are no good reasons for municipal water fluoridation so therefore they all must be bad.

7. It has not been demonstrated that fluoridation is not in violation of the clean water act and the pure food and drug act.

8. Many of the advocates of the position requesting this affront habitually magnify the role of government. That is an abomination to this American. I am provoked to justifiable righteous rage about "people" who are advocating a "nanny state;" to be kind; a communist idealogy to be more accurate. Those big government loving traitors do their crimes without pity and deserve to be punished without mercy. Being flogged with a cat-of-nine-tails and then tarred and feathered is too good for them.

Therefore, in the interests of good government and the American way, their request for fluoridation MUST be summarily denied. There is no justification for any reconsideration. This is simply an American value principle and as such may not be "compromised."See footnote 2

    Do not make the mistake of thinking that I am a good Republican or that I hate Democrats. I am an American by standards of good government. The democraps by and large have bad records and the republiweenies are only marginally better at average. I have voted for a Democrat when I suspected they were better than the Republican candidate.

    There are two litmus tests based upon values that I use to rule on candidate's suitability for office. These are perpetual issues. While a single litmus test may have certain drawbacks in many disciplines, determining who is best for office is not usually a problem. One test is on abortion and the other is on "gun control."

    ONE: Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, normally in the first "trimester." A miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion. The facts of this matter must be examined. "Who" and "Where" may be essential questions in a full dissertation about this matter, but the suspected answers make them moot for my position. One standard question to be deferred now is: "Why must it be?" That answer depends upon having the following:

    What is aborted? That is an initial question for the issue behind the controversy. If one believes that a fetus is a human being, then it is consistent to be anti-abortion for reasons that is not my duty to explain.

    So, toward the main issue is; what is a human being? To answer that in terms of this matter, the issue is: When does a human being begin? How do we determine when?

    Does the human being begin at conception? That would be consistent for anti-abortionists' "murder" charges. In vitro fertilization by its storage and delivery methods suggest to me that for some time after conception it is not even human tissue yet!

    "Life" must be explicitly excluded from the definition of when a human being begins. Why? Because "life" is not exclusive to humanity. Every living thing has life, including the disease organisms eating us. This does not mean that a human being does not need life. A human without life is a corpse. Therefore, being alive is only one requirement to be a human being and the presence of life alone does not define a human being.

    So, what is alive at conception? If it is in corporeal fact human matter that can be froze for later pregnancies or split for more pregnancies, I must conclude that it must not meet the legal or moral requirement for human life.

    When does that legal requirement get met? I hate to use legal requirement because they are so subject to the whims and bigotries of whoever is in power or the driving forces behind lawmaking. If I try to develop this matter, this entire essay will be recursive because I must call what is corporeal and moral facts and what is American into such discourse.

    Finally, the moral aspect remains. Contrary to generations of "politically correct" dis-education, there are bad morals and good morals. It seems consistent to say that bad people have bad morals and good people have good morals. It usually is. However, it must be allowed that bad people can screw up in reverse and do the right thing , and good people can be misled to do bad things. The latter being too common.

    So, what is the source of good moral direction? Many will not like this answer, but not liking does not negate truth: God's Holy Scripture. How can anything be moral contrary to Scripture? It is not.

    What does God's Word say about abortion? The word is not used, so akin to "by indirections find directions out," direction must be learned from The Word by the matters of the issue. This is why the question of when does the human being begin is so important. And yet there is still risk of recursion by using an established premise, the fact that the result of conception is not human tissue and whether it is truly alive is open, averts recursion. There are some things that are clear in Scripture:

*     The Christ lived before The First Christmas. He was in the "We" and "Us" of God since the beginning and Creation. He was with Shadrach, Mesach, and Abednego in the furnace as testified by Nebucadnezzar. This is not to exhaust the topic of the presence of Christ through the Old Testament. Therefore, He existed long before He could have been conceived in Mary by The Holy Spirit. Clearly, He not only had a pre-birth existence, He had a long pre-conception existence.

*     Lucifer, a.k.a. Satan, and many other alias, existed before Adam. Therefore, The AntiChrist will have a long pre-conception existence also (whether or not he is alive today).

*     Adam's creation sequence: The body, the breath, and then the being. We are of his kind and surely came into being the same way: First, our body; it is being created in the womb and only our body. Second, we breath our first breath of air when we are born. Third, like Adam, then we become a living human being only after we take our first breath.

    Many years ago when I questioned my Christian "pro-life" position, I sought Scriptural Truth. I do not have a concordance or index with "abortion" in it so I asked about for leads. Coral Ridge Ministries was kind enough to send a many page listing of proof passages that abortion was wrong. I made the mistake of investigating each passage and made the following discovery: There was not a passage on that list that addressed the matter of whether or not it was morally wrong to terminate a pregnancy other than by birth! Very few citations' text even addressed any facet of the matter. No passage individually or collectively met even the feeblest standard of proof.

    Therefore and in conclusion: I must believe that it is factually, morally, and Biblically wrong to impede a woman desperate to terminate a pregnancy. It is also criminal involuntary servitude to compel her to carry any pregnancy to term. To do so is (which also probably was not addressed in Roe v. Wade) wrongful life for the fetus. The "pro-life" position also condemns someone to be born into a miserable existence. The "pro-life" position is really FOR DEATH because everyone that is born must die and risk their eternal life in a place of torment. This evidence convicts me that any effort or position to delay or deny a desperate woman such a remedy is using God's Name for evil purposes [Ex.20:7].

    Pregnancy termination is a most effective preventive measure. That is why abortion is a needed remedy.

    I DO NOT use this litmus test to determine whether or not a party is American. It does reveal if they can be trusted to make Godly decisions based on facts, morals, or Scripture. I must conclude that an anti-abortionist can not or will not make good moral or legal decisions based on facts, law, or Scripture.

    TWO: The second litmus test is "Gun Cont rol." The alleged purpose of "gun control" is crime control. However, "gun control" is to limit crime like fuckingSee footnote 3 for virginity. The enforcement record of the 20,000+ un-Constitutional "gun control" statutes applied against criminals is dismal! They are selectively enforced against law abiding Americans to deny them their rights.

    I used to consider most supporters of "gun control" laws as fools and idiots. Now I no longer choose to grant them any slack because I expect anything with the intelligence to manipulate an opposable thumb to know better. All are without excuse.

    It is truth beyond a shadow of any reasonable doubt that "gun control" does not limit crime. In fact, it is quite apparent that it exacerbates the reign of terror criminals desire. So, what is the real purpose of "gun control?" What are the real motives for the advocates of more of something that does more damage than good?

    There will be many "expertsSee footnote 4" with all manners of alphabet soup for qualifications tell you reasons why crime continues to rise; in spite of the "official" reports. Some may accidently identify a few contributing factors, but I doubt that. Know then that "qualifications" do not make an "expert" correct ... it leaves them without excuse!

    Therefore, I will be better than anyone's expert! I will tell you the true purpose of those who advocate continuing and stricter "gun control" laws: It is for the sole purpose that "gun control" does not only fail to reduce crime, but exacerbates crime, and having done so, sets the stage for the next step on their real true desire to confiscate lawful citizen's privately owned weapons. This is a necessary predicate to a tyrannical rule by those lovers of big government.

    Does "gun control" work this way? Of course! Consider Hitler, Stalin, Quadhaffi, Saddam Hussein, Castro, and any other tyrant of history or the present.

Want to contribute, comment, etc.? Write me! ... Please inform me if a link gets broken.

as of June 22, 2001, ... Back to my personal home page .