Will's Blog: Dedicated To Presenting Truth and Optimism in the 21st Century

What Has Happened To Our Leaders?

2006-05-23T19:32:00.000-04:00

I created this blog for two reasons.

1. To present a more optimistic view than the one shown in the media.

2. To express the truth and to promote the ideology that I believe is best for America--conservatism. But things have changed.

Our president has completely abandoned the agenda that he ran on in 2000. And things have spiraled downward not only for him, but for his party, and for our nation.

We've seen a pathetic response to hurricane Katrina; we've seen a war in Iraq turn into what has to very close to a quagmire; and we've seen our president encourage the invasion by the illegals, at southern border.The Minute Men are "vigilantes." Our President and Senators want to not only legalize the millions of invaders, but they also want to turn these non-English speaking migrants into US citizens. And one bill introduced by the GOP Senator in Florida would invite some 100-200 million more peasants into the country over the next couple of decades.

Meanwhile, we, the American people are demanding the borders be sealed. But instead we get nothing but political stunts.We already knew that the Democrats were a lost cause. But we thought the GOP believed in the party of Reagan. We were wrong.

So what does this all mean? It means this party is currently being led by neo-cons and RINOs. We must admit that fact, regroup, and then lead a massive grassroots campaign on traditional conservatism.

Let's start with the basics.

1. Promote the traditional family, encourage moral behavior. Teaching Western values is essential to the future of the nation.

2. Reduce the size of government. Maximize freedom.

3. End free trade with nations like China and support American industries.

4. Step up to the plate, show real leadership, and rid the world of radical Islam.

A Letter to a Friend

2005-10-06T16:55:00.000-04:00

Will, I totally agree with you. And I started writing an article about this issue, but I kept getting bogged down in what I was really attempting to say. After giving it more thought as I laid in bed last night, I think I have fully developed my view. And that view is this. To me, and I'd say to pretty much all conservatives, intellectual honesty is key. We would prefer to go down fighting, as long as we stated our view to the American people, than to win with a sneak attack. This below the radar tactic, that Bush has used, is what liberals have been doing for decades. They can't tell us who they really are, because they will lose if they do. We have won election after election by saying exactly what we plan to do! Newt helped gain control of the Congress by clearly stating what the GOP would do; Reagan is known as the greatest ever, because he had a clear conservative agenda, etc.

So I don't understand why, now, after all the success we have had on election day, we would disguise who we are.

Furthermore, and this is a different part of my being against this nomination, is that I am not sure that I fully trust this president at this point. (And I do not mean by this that I don't trust his word. I mean that I do not trust his logic or ability). The way that he sold out Bill Bennett was a crushing blow, in my view. His unwillingness to tackle the border issue and illegal immigration is also troubling. And perhaps above it all was when he said "campaign finance" was "unconstitutional," but then he turned right around and signed it into law! Look, Miers looks like a nice woman, I'm sure she is intelligent, and maybe even conservative. But, we KNOW that Janice Rogers Brown is a nice woman, among the best intellectuals in the law field, and is a strong conservative who will not waiver in the face of the liberal culture in D.C. And that is another point too. Conservatives have been trying so hard to change the culture of the Court. You don't do that by just having someone vote like Scalia votes--if indeed Miers even does that. You change the culture by having those special individuals who can write brilliant opinions--like Scalia writes! Anyways, I have lost all hope in this guy. I can't believe we have to suffer through 3 more years. He has done many good things. But he and Rove are killing the base. And you better believe, the conservative base will not be fired up in 06. They certainly will not swap sides or ever vote for a liberal democrat. They may just simply not vote. We will lose some seats in the House and Senate, come 2006. I assure you. And for no reason other than we did it to ourselves. It sure won't be because of anything liberals did.Rove is the worst political director I have ever seen. So much for his "genius." If he were truly a genius, Bush would have carried 45+ states against the unelectable Kerry. Anyways, I am getting off subject. My main point is that this decision has split the GOP and it will cause heartache for conservative members of the Senate, who want to support the President, but who also don't want to hurt their re-election chances by alienating THEIR supporters. But overall, this sucks for the conservative movement. And it sucks for our country.

Does It Add Up?

2005-07-21T20:55:00.000-04:00

I had intended to devote this week’s post solely to President Bush’s nominee for the US Supreme Court. And briefly, for once, I disagree with Coulter. Judge Roberts looks like a typical American man, with a typical American family, and he holds typical American values. That makes him the perfect nominee. The leftists are going to look ridiculous trying to slander this man. So I say good job done Mr. President. When the rhetoric gets in full swing, I will get back on this issue, because I firmly believe that who is chosen for US Supreme Court seats is the second most important issue facing our nation at this time.

All the above being said, we were reminded, again today, that we are facing a determined group of Islamic Fascists—men who are hell bent to cause mass chaos and destruction. And that is what this commentary will focus on.

What was your first reaction when you heard the news that Islamic Radicals (yeah I will go ahead and predict it was al Qaeda) had again attempted to attack London? If you are a normal American, you probably had the same reaction I had. That being “we need to cut the bull crap and kick some butt.” I am—and I am sure you are too—tired of listening to liberals, leftists, elites, and general American bashers attempt to make America look like the bad guys at every turn. First it was Abu Gharib, then Gitmo, now I am hearing that the London attacks are a result of America and England’s war in Iraq.

This rubbish (to use English slang) makes me sick. I am sick and tired of being sick and tired of having to explain to these idiots that we are fighting a group of people who hate our culture and they will stop at nothing to end Western Civilization.

I would like to ask this group of America bashers—since they are so much smart than the rest of us dumb Americans—what was the reasoning for 9-11? What was the reasoning for the attack on the USS Cole? What was the reason for the dozen or so other terrorist attacks that we have had to deal with over the last 25+ years? Hello, the war in Iraq was launched after those attacks! Perhaps you have it backwards. Instead of the terrorist attacks being a result of Iraq, Iraq was the result of the terrorist attacks. Yeah, I know that is a shock to you elites. (So think about it for a few seconds, before moving on.)

We do not care about the terrorists at Gitmo and “their rights.” What we care about is kicking some butt and winning the war. Today is yet another reminder that until this war is won, we can be attacked.

I will end it with a few questions for everyone to ponder.

1. Why should anyone be so concerned with the “rights” of the terrorists at Gitmo to “practice their religion?” Hasn’t it been made clear that these Islamo-fascists are not “real” Muslims anyways? If it is true that they have “hijacked a religion of peace” why should we care if they get to practice a “hijacked religion”—or more accurately worded, a phony religion.

2. If Iraq is not part of the War against Islamo-fascists, as many liberals and many in the media have repeatedly told us, why then would the Islamo-fascists attack us for fighting that war?
Something doesn’t add up. Or does it?

Today in the News, In Case You Missed It

2005-07-14T22:12:00.000-04:00

In case you missed it—in this highly partisan world of let’s ignore everything else going on to once again attempt to get rid of Karl Rove and weaken George W. Bush—the Senate Armed Services Committee was presented the report from the military investigation into “torture at Gitmo.” The report finds that there was no torture or in-humane activity at Gitmo. What a surprise!

These findings completely discredit Dick Durbin and the so-called email that he received from an “FBI agent,” saying that our soldiers were brutalizing the terrorist prisoners. Durbin described it as committing acts on par with Nazi Germany, Pol Pot, or the Soviet Gulags. (Am I the only one that wonders if Durbin just made up this claim?)

So what is next? Will the democrats come out and say that were wrong for disparaging our military? Will they admit that our soldiers are fine people, who are making a major sacrifice to defend this great county, instead of the savages that folks like Dick Durbin and Michael Moore have made them out to be? Will the media craft front page news, day after day, out of the fact that their reporting on “torture” at Gitmo was erroneous? I doubt it. We already know what to expect from the mainstream media and from liberal democrats. Both are predictable; both are shameless; more to the point, both are worthless entities.

But more importantly it needs to be pointed out that when Durbin said his piece on the Senate floor, he knew that his claims could not be confirmed. He was even cautioned by John Warner that the claims may be bogus and that he should wait until more was known, if he were planning to make such an accusation. But Durbin ignored Warner and made the charge despite its lack of credibility, and he ignored the potential harm that it could cause US servicemen and women. Then, under pressure from outraged citizens, he said his speech was taken out of context. No it wasn’t. He also didn’t misspeak, as he was reading when he made the Nazi comparison, which leads one to deem that he had thought out precisely what he was going to declare—thus making the whole situation all the more repulsive.

It is my hope that those like Durbin, who have politicized this war since its start, will now alter their conduct and become steadfast to winning the war on terror. If they do not, we must all be prepared to win it without them. It does make it more difficult to keep a high morale in this type of heated climate, but our soldiers remain exceptionally optimistic, hence so should we.

Update

2005-07-13T17:21:00.000-04:00

Well, I am getting settled into my career job. Being a Dawg, I kind of thought that moving to "The Swamp" was going to be a little strange. But all is well thus far.

And now that I am getting settled in--although as I write this I am in a hotel room--I plan to begin keeping the Blog up to date, with all the lastest topics, as it was in the months before my senior project began. And it appears that there is quite a bit to discuss. The US Supreme Court debate is my main domestic focus at this time and that will likely be the focus of my blog postings for the immediate future.

If you are interested in the Karl Rove story, you are in the wrong place. I could not possibly care less about this story. The only important aspect of it is not even being covered--that being the fact that a reporter has went to jail over such nonsense--which just takes us right back to the big issue, The Courts!!! They are the ones that ruled a source must be disclosed in criminal cases. Ah the mess these justices are creating.

Anyways, that will be the main focus for the forseeable future. Stay tuned.

Impeach Bush

2005-06-08T11:44:00.000-04:00

Do you get the feeling that we are heading in the direction of liberals attempting to impeach President Bush? I do. And if you have been listening carefully to the news, over the last few weeks, you feel the same as I.

Ever since Watergate and Vietnam, the liberals in this country have had one playbook or template that they use. All Republican Presidents=Nixon and all wars we get involved in=Vietnam. And very soon the talks of impeachment will soon be the topic of all the big shows, like Hardball. I can picture Chris Matthews trying to act professional about such a silly accusation. "What did Bush know and when did he know it?" and blah blah blah.

And don't forget the liberal street, which I compare very much with the Arab Street. I know you remember all the wild claims that "10's of thousands of US soldiers would die in Iraq." They warned of blood flowing through the streets and all kinds of other nonsense. And one of my favorites: "Bush is evil," just like Nixon. (I wasn't alive during Nixon's terms, but to hear the bad things that liberals say about him, as compared with what they say about Bush, I wonder if he was really that bad after all!)

And what are they going to try and impeach him for? Abu Ghraib, of course! What about the fact that "Bush lied and kids died." And don't forget that he went into Iraq "for oil." And let's definitely not forget the horrible things that he has ordered our soldiers to do down in Gitmo, Cuba. Oh, those things are worse than Abu Ghraib.

Mark my words, impeachment talks are coming. The liberal media will eventually create this story.

But the good news is that it will not work. We no longer live in the 1970's, a time when the liberal media had the power to dictate the information that Americans would receive, a time when they were able to convince Americans that Vietnam was not worth the effort, a time when they could lie about things such as the Tet offensive. Yes, those days are long gone. Their effort won't work. But that will not keep them from trying.

Stay tuned...

Hillary The Liberal

2005-06-07T13:35:00.000-04:00

Hillary is a Liberal
William T. Stewart
6-7-2005

Sometimes you just get tired of hearing this nonsense. Senator Hillary Clinton has now come out and made the same charges as every other liberal democrat. At a fundraiser today she said that President Bush is terrible on “Women’s rights and the environment” among other things. Well, let’s examine those two issues.

On so-called “women’s rights” we have liberals like Clinton who love abortion. To them it is the Holy Grail of politics, along with the great piece of Socialist legislation of our time—Social Security. Somehow the right to murder the unborn is one of the fundamental values of all liberals. (And they wonder why they can’t get the morality vote!) But why? Why does abortion mean so much to liberals? I keep hearing the claims of “women’s rights.” But what great empowerment did the legalization of abortion give women? I have never heard a good argument for it. It sounds an awful lot like the crowd that tried to validate slavery or rationalize segregation. Oh wait, it is that crowd. I forgot.

Liberals have nearly always been on the wrong side of history. Whether is was defending slavery, siding with “Uncle Joe” Stalin, fighting to keep Blacks out of White colleges, spitting in the faces of soldiers returning from Vietnam, siding with Communist leader Daniel Ortega, removing God from the public square, raising taxes, failing to stand up for America in the War against Islamic Terror, or the great abortion debate, liberals always try to preach to us that they know best. Well, I don’t think that they do. With such a terrible record, why should I trust them now? And why should anyone listen to their 2008 Presidential Candidate Hillary?

She said in her speech that President Bush has ignored the facts. I would disagree. I think it is Mrs. Clinton and her liberal friends who are ignoring the facts. Because I can not fathom to think that anyone—not even a liberal—who knows the fact that over a million babies are aborted in the United States each year could say that in the name of Women’s Rights, it is a good thing!

And what are the facts about “Global Warming?” Is it the fact that it is junk science; the fact that in the 1970’s these very same scientists who now cling to Global Warming were warning of a great Ice Age caused by humans? Or is it the fact that like their claims of the world overpopulating, acid rain, and destruction of all the forests—I even heard a liberal the other day say that Bush was destroying all of America’s rainforests—have all been wrong? They have made these claims so long that I might just start calling them “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” Party.

Hillary Clinton and the rest of the liberal democrats are the ones on the brink of destruction, not our environment. Too many Americans are tired of the failed system of Social Security—a system where you can expect to get a 0% return on your investment; too many Americans are tired of 1/3 of their paychecks being stolen to support worthless social programs such as the abused welfare state, too many Americans are tired of a party that seeks authorization from the UN before we can take actions to defend our country; and too many of us are tired of liberals with no moral values trying to tell us that abortion is ok, that we are dreadful human beings driving SUVs, and that children have no right to mention God at school. That is why this party called the Democrat Party is on the verge of destruction. It is party who is out of touch with Americans and our values. Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Howard Dean, and the rest of these clowns just don’t get it. But thank God the majority of us do.

I'm Back

2005-06-07T13:33:00.000-04:00

Well, the last few months have been a really busy time for me. I was working on my senior project at college. I plan to get back to keeping this blog updated. So I hope you enjoy my future posts.

Sincerely,

Will

Pope John Paul II: A Message For The Future

2005-04-05T00:58:00.000-04:00

On Saturday, one of the greatest men of the 20th Century passed from this world, and went to meet his Savior in Heaven.

Pope John Paul II was criticized for years for holding firm to his strict Biblical principles. But he was a man of great character, a man who saw things in "black and white," and a man who never backed down from his moral ideology. Often criticized for being "too simple," he never made a compromise on issues of right and wrong. He spoke out against the evils of our time--communism, sexual perversion, and finally the culture of death. He helped the sick, the needy, and those less fortunate than we.

Now, we must seek to learn from his great wisdom and character. Like Ronald Reagan, there are some who will never understand what the Pope was all about—why he was so beloved, what made him influential, and how he was able to bring peace and liberty to lands that had never experienced democracy before. But for those of us who do get it, there is always more to learn from this or any great leader.

Reagan and John Paul have both passed on. And we must now venture forward without them. But they have left us with an enduring model. That model is their lives, their legacy, and their genius. They proved that a single man can make the world a better place. With courage, determination, optimism, integrity, and most importantly faith in God, we can continue down the path of freedom that these two great men helped build.

While The Good Men Do Nothing

2005-03-30T22:44:00.000-05:00

While the Good Men Do Nothing

Terri Schiavo has now lasted 13 days. Most healthy people would have already died from two weeks without any food or water. It sounds like Terri is a fighter. But what is she fighting for? Our leaders, the “good men,” are not going to do a thing to help her. They talk big talk, but when all is said and done, we will simply have an innocent woman murdered because of the testimony of an estranged husband and the ruling of a corrupt judge—and when asked what he did to help Terri, Jeb Bush can simply say “I did nothing.”

Edmund Burke once said "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Jeb Bush is about to authenticate that statement.

He has said that he does not have the power to save this woman's life. That's wrong; he just does not have the guts to save her. That is not leadership; that is a cowardly act. And he should be ashamed of his lack of will and for his lack of respect for a citizen of his state. A human life is soon to be taken because the "executive" did not "execute" his powers.

No doubt this is a horrible moment in our nation's history. We are about to cross a road that I never imagined we would cross. Our leaders have failed us. They failed to protect a human life; and next time it could be you or someone in your family who is murdered because of a court order—and the “good men” will do nothing to help you.

But as depressing as this case is, we can not give up the fight. If we are to preserve this nation for future generations, we are simply going to have to take it back--take it back from the liberals who will ruin it at its very core. And take it from the "good men" who are afraid to stand up to liberalism, evil, and tyranny.

We must stand up for the rights of Terri Schiavo. We must stand firmly against the liberal at work who embraces the culture of death. We must convince the conservatives who are balking on this very important issue that we have to always stand up for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If we do not stand up for these things, no one else will.

But most importantly don’t lose hope. We can still win; good can still prevail. This nation can still remain the greatest nation in the history of the world. But it is now apparent that the fight will be even more difficult then we envisioned just 14 days ago.

It's time for the “good men” to “do something” or get out of the way of those who will.

The Clock is Ticking

2005-03-24T01:10:00.000-05:00

It is now just after midnight on Wednesday night. The courts seem to not care, the legislature turned down the bill that was so close to passing, and the feds say they are out of options. It appears that it has all come down to two options.

1. The US Supreme Court will decide to hear the case and follow the bill passed in Congress which calls for a hearing of all the evidence.

2. Jeb Bush will figure out a way to take custody of Terri Schiavo. He would be putting his political future on the line, but if he feels in his heart that giving Schiavo a chance is the moral thing to do, he may very well take that risk--and he should. Reagan would, Lincoln did. Honestly, I am not a big fan of the idea of another Bush running for President, but I would find it difficult to not vote for a man with that kind of moral courage.

I am still optimistic that something good will come of all this. Somehow, Terri will not starve to death. But the hour is late; she is close to being a full week without food or water.

In closing, I just would like to ask those who say that she needs to die...IF this woman is in the condition you say she is in, if she is completely unaware and has no thought or understanding of the outside world, then why not let all the evidence be heard. Why not let the dozens of doctors who say she can get better be allowed to testify. For if she is in the condition you claim she is in, then sustaining her life a few more weeks will not matter--Terri would not realize either way. If you are wrong, and you starve this woman, you will have committed murder.

A Few Facts on Schiavo

2005-03-21T15:57:00.000-05:00

Many Americans have been lead to believe that Terri Schiavo is in the process of dying, that there is no hope of her getting better, and that she is living by artificial means such as life support. I would like to clear up these mistakes and list some facts that we do know.

1. Terri Schiavo has been connected to a feeding tube. She is not connected to heart pumps, respirators, or "life support." Simply put, this is not a matter of "pulling the plug" as we have been lead to believe. It will take several days for her to starve to death. She will suffer if starvation continues.

2. Her husband only made the claim that "she would not want to live this way," years after the fact. One would think that if she had not wished to live in a vegetative state (which she actually is not even in, more on this later) he would have mentioned that fact at the beginning of the process.

3. Michael Schiavo has already moved on. He has a common law wife and two children with a new woman. I am not condemning him for "moving on" but the very fact that he is already married to someone else should legally exclude him from being Terri Schiavo's "guardian."

4. Michael Schiavo discontinued Terri's therapy the very day that he received the funds from the medical malpractice lawsuit that was filed. At the time of the discontinued therapy, Terri could speak and her therapist says that with therapy Terri could possibly again talk.

5. Terri is not in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). The following is taken from http://www.cwu.edu/~chem/courses/Chem564/finalpapers/PVSfinal.html

Eye tracking and Emotional responses are the most common ways of determining whether a patient is responding, and therefore no longer in a vegetative state. The first sign of a patient emerging from PVS is the localizing of the eyes on a visual stimulus. This can be observed because persons in a vegetative state are unable to track moving objects or fixate their vision on an object, and as a patient recovers they regain this ability. This type of a response if most often detected by family members or caregivers that have worked directly with the patient. Eye tracking is not necessarily enough to show that a person is recovering from PVS because patients may not show any other evidence of other meaningful response to the environment. More difficulties with eye tracking may come into play because of the possibility of other neurological or ophthalmological damage that may prevent a patient from tracking stimuli. This means that a patient may actually have a degree of recovery that will be missed because it cannot be detected through eye tracking.

Anyone that has seen videos of Schiavo can clearly see that her eyes followed the balloon placed in front of her. Her family has told other such stories, but the balloon video is just one good example.

6. A Noble prize nominated Doctor that has spent over 10 hours with Schiavo contends that she could be rehabilitated.

7. She is not in a coma and she does comprehend things.

8. Terri could go outside in a wheel chair; she could go home, or even be taken other places.

After reading these facts, if you still think Schiavo should be starved to death, you should check your sanity. To support death for this woman is nothing short of evil--if you are aware of the above facts. To starve someone to death is nothing short of torture. Where are the loving and caring liberals at on this one? Where are the so-called human rights groups like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the ACLU? I tell you where they are; they are on the side of those who support this culture of death.

Knowing the above facts and still wishing the death of this lady is quite simply EVIL. Thank God the American people have put Republicans in charge of this country. Now, let us pray that the Clinton appointed Federal judge appointed to this case, will rule in favor of life.

The Modern Day Little Red Hen

2005-03-08T19:23:00.000-05:00

Some friends of mine recently debated me on the subject of capitalism. They, in typical liberal fashion, spouted out claims like "capitalism is great for us college boys, but ask the have-nots if capitalism is best." The left hates this great system, but they must realize that only in capitalism can a black kid from a farm grow up to own a pizza company (www.hermancain.com).

So what economic system does the left prefer? Well, it is called "socialism." And what is "socialism?"
socialism: The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

So to put it simply, socialism is only a predecessor to communism. Now, I am sure you have heard claims from liberals that "communism works in theory" or other stupid remarks like that.

I could sit hear and write 1000 words and never describe the reasons why capitalism is great and the liberal's ideas on economics are terrible, but the great Ronald Reagan beat me to it. Here is a story he wrote for one of his radio addresses, in the 1970s. Enjoy...

The Modern Day Little Red Hen

Once upon a time, there was a little red hen who scratched about the barnyard until she uncovered some grains of wheat. She called to her barnyard neighbors and said, "If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?"
"Not I," mood the cow.
"Not I," quacked the duck.
"Not I," grunted the pig.
"Not I," whistled the goose.
"Then I will," said the little red hen. And she did. Her wheat grew tall and ripened into golden grain. So the little red hen asked her neighbors,"who will help me harvest my wheat?"
"Not I," grunted the pig.
"Out of my classification," whistled the goose.
"My seniority will be lost," quacked the duck.
"Unemployment compensation would be jeopardized," mood the cow.
"Then I will," said the little red hen, and she harvested her wheat.
And it came time to bake the bread. "Who will help me bake the bread?" asked the little red hen.
"That would be overtime for me," mood the cow.
"I'd lose my welfare benefits," whistled the goose.
"Dropping out I never learned how," quacked the duck.
"If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination," grunted the pig.
"Then I will,"said the little red hen, and she did. She baked five bread loaves and held them up for her neighbors to see.
Her neighbors saw their beauty, and smelled their freshness and they all wanted some. In fact, they demanded their rightful share. But the little red hen said, "No, I and my chicks can eat the five loaves ourselves."
"Excess profits!," squealed the pig.
"Profiteering leech!," honked the goose.
"Equal rights!," demanded the cow.
And the duck quacked in too!
And the animals painted "unfair" picket signs and marched round and round the little red hen, shouting their slogans, and their obcenities.
When the government agent came, he said to the little red hen, "You must not be greedy."
"But I earned the bread," said the little red hen.
"Exactly," said the agent. "That is the wonderful free enterprise system. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants, but under our liberal government regulations, the productive workers must contribute their product to the idle."
Well, the barnyard calmed down, and the animals lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, "I am grateful, I am grateful."
But her neighbors wondered why she never again baked any more bread.

More False Claims, From Environmentalists

2005-03-07T04:35:00.000-05:00

More False Claims, From the Environmentalists
Will Stewart
3-7-2005

In 1972, America banned one of the greatest inventions of modern times, DDT. By banning this great product, “environmentalists” have caused mass destruction. One of the greatest diseases known to man, malaria, has again started spreading across Africa, as well as many nations in South America.

Thanks to DDT, malaria was eradicated from the United States; however, the disease is a very real problem for less fortunate nations—so real that it has killed more people than AIDS or even the Bubonic Plague. In 2003, in Uganda alone, over 80,000 people died of this horrible disease, and it has been estimated that 3 million people will die from malaria in the coming years.

Like the other radical claims of the environmental extremist wing of the democrat party—overpopulation, forest destruction, acid rain, and global warming—DDT was banned because of lies, because of false fears that were placed on the citizens of Europe and America.

Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring was the book that created this mass fear across the West. She made the claim that DDT would cause the extinction of birds and cause cancer in humans. It is a historical fact that men and women freed from Nazi concentration camps, as well as American soldiers, were immersed in DDT. No reports of cancer, death, or even the sniffles ever surfaced. It is also fact that DDT can impede the spread of malaria by 98%. The "extinction" claims were also absolutely false.

Unfortunately, the bigoted, anti-human, anti-capitalist radicals of the left have once again—as they do when they degrade this country’s war on Islamic terror, press for the elimination of gun rights, murder the unborn, and suppress the spread of freedom and democracy—caused harm, though they always claim to have good intentions. Well, that sure is nice to hear!

Developing nations want to use DDT to stop the mass deaths of their people, but the EPA and European leaders have threatened to ban the import of the product if it is used to fight malaria. These “environmentalists” claim to “love the environment” but humans are a part of the environment and millions of us are dying each year of a disease that could easily be avoided.

If liberals really are concerned—if they really have compassion for Earth and its inhabitants—stop creating lies and myths that cause the very destruction you claim to seek to abolish. The people of South America and Africa deserve the same basic human rights that we benefit from in the United States. They deserve the right to use this environmentally safe product, to end the mass deaths caused by a disease we eliminated from our country decades ago. You should never forget that others need our help; others are not as fortunate as we.

Death Penalty

2005-03-03T17:32:00.000-05:00

In yesterday's piece I wrote the following statement:

If you are old enough to beat your family to death with a baseball bat (see Stephen McGillberry, Mississippi), you are old enough to face the consequences; if you are old enough to murder innocent civilians by means of “sniping;” you are old enough to die for it (see John Lee Malvo, Sniper Case.)

This may have lead the readers to believe that I am pro-death penalty. I must state that I am not. I differ with most conservatives on this issue, but in my heart I do not feel that exectuting criminals is the best way to go about the process of removing them from society.

It is my belief that when you execute someone you are taking away their chance to find Salvation through Jesus Christ. And although a part of me says that violent criminals deserve to die, I realize this is just the revenge factor in me and that their fate should be in God's hands, not mine.

I must add, however, that I am not in favor of the Supreme Court's ruling to end the death penalty for juveniles. If we are going to end this practice, and I think we should, it should be done through the legislature--not the courts.

This nation's courts, including the US Supreme Court--have taken it upon themselves to be a law-making branch of government, when that is not what the judical branch was created for.

Liberals are extremely satisfied with the results of many recent Supreme Court cases, but they need to remember that liberals will not always control the courts--just like they no longer control the legislative and executive branches, when the Amerian people tire of socialism and political correctness run amok, they put conservatives in office. The same will soon be true of Supreme Court justices.

I look forward to the day that Roe v. Wade is overturned. I also look forward to the day that our legislature will find a better way of reducing crime--hardtimes should not include weight lifting equipment, color tv, and basketball courts.

Supreme Court to Decide Our Fate

2005-03-02T14:17:00.000-05:00

Supreme Court to Decide our Fate
March 2, 20005
Will Stewart

The Supreme Court will decide whether or not the Ten Commandments can be displayed in public places, today. How will they rule? Well, that is anyone's guess, because the court has become so liberal that it would not be surprising to hear them rule that the Ten Commandments should be outlawed completely. This nation's courts are out of hand; they do not follow or cite real laws, they create law—a power that was not given to the judicial branch. Yesterday this very court ruled that there can be no Death Row for people who are under 18 years of age when they commit a violent act. If you are old enough to beat your family to death with a baseball bat (see Stephen McGillberry, Mississippi), you are old enough to face the consequences; if you are old enough to murder innocent civilians by means of “sniping;” you are old enough to die for it (see John Lee Malvo, Sniper Case.)

This ruling is just another disturbing trend set by the various courts across the Land. Recall, American courts have recently ruled the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, they ruled against the Boy Scouts being allowed to continue certain practices on public lands, because they are a “religious group,” they de-legitimized sodomy laws, they upheld internet child pornography, and they have claimed that the terrorist thugs in Guantanamo Bay are subject to the same rights as American citizens. Is it just me, or have the various courts, including the US Supreme Court, proved to be irrational and incompetent?

As I write this, I do wonder, how will they rule? We should not have to wonder. Anybody that understands the Constitution should have the ability to predict the outcome of the decision. But this is where the problem lies; the court does not care about "the law of the land." They have decided that the Constitution is a "living document," which basically gives them the right to rule how ever they see fit, on any subject.

Thomas Jefferson eliminated judges that he felt were making rulings and judgments not consistent with real American beliefs and policy. It is time for this President to follow the precedence started by Jefferson. It does not really matter how this court rules on the Ten Commandments, they have lost the support of Americans from Georgia to Oregon, and every state in between. And since they are making laws, do they want to enforce them?

As I write this, the ruling on this case has not been made. My guess is that this court will rule that the Ten Commandments should be allowed in public places. By ruling in favor of traditional values—in this one case—they believe it will relieve them of some of the pressure the Court has recently faced. They are wrong. Americans will not allow the courts to continue the practice of mocking and abolishing our way of life. We realize that the single most devastating threat that we face in this country is not Social Security going bankrupt, not socialized Medicare, not even the terrorists (although all three are very dangerous threats), the real threat comes from these holier than thou men and women in black robes, sitting high upon their thrones, dictating what is allowable and what is not. This court must be replaced; and it will be replaced. It may be a difficult struggle, but in the end, if we fight long enough and hard enough, we will win—in God I trust.

Rice Approved

2005-01-19T18:10:00.000-05:00

January 19, 2005

Did you watch the Senate hearings on the confirmation of Condi Rice? You would think we were in November, two weeks out from the election, to hear some of the democrats speak. You can take the comments of Barbara Boxer and John Kerry two ways. You could look at them with disgust and get angry that these socialists are unfairly attacking Rice. Or, you can look at it the way I look at it--with a smile on my face. These people have lost their minds and I love it. The democrat party is on the verge of collapse.

Boxer showed her lack of intellect when she made the claim that we could have removed Saddam the same way that Milosevic was removed from power. "Not one soldier died taking Milosevic..." Milosevic was arrested after a 26 hour standoff with police--police! Does she think police would have ever been allowed to surround a Saddam palace? Does she remember that he had already lost an election? Saddam received 100 percent of the "vote," in the last Iraqi "election." To claim that Hussein could have been removed by means other than war is ignorant at best.

Then we have Kerry who said that he thought Rice was capable of doing the job, but we was still voting against her. Joe Biden cited the legitamate reasons for voting against a President's cabinet members, and Condoleezza Rice did not violate any of those reasons. Could it be that Kerry voted against her because she is a powerful black woman who has achieved her level of success without needing the liberal crutch called affirmative action? Liberals claim to support the advancement of minorities, when in reality, they only care about advancing liberal minorities. One can not accurately debate the qualifications of Clarence Thomas, Miguel Estrada, or Condi Rice, yet they are still hated by liberals. Thomas has been called an "Uncle Tom," and Rice was recently compared with Mammy, the slave from Gone With the Wind.

History will remember that it was a republican that appointed Thomas, Powell, and Rice. History will remember these facts. When democrats have had the opportunity to appoint highly qualified minorities they balked.

For too long democrats have been accusing republicans of being "racists." Well, history is beginning to catch up with them. It was a republican who ended slavery; it was the republicans who pushed LBJ's Civil Rights Act through congress (while Al Gore Sr. and Bill Clinton's mentor, William Fulbright, and most other democrats were against it); it was a republican who made Martin Luther King Jr. Day a national holiday; and it was a republican who appointed the first black Secretery of State and the first black female Secretery of State.

History will remember...

more on this later.

Herman Cain Announces Future Plans

2005-01-06T13:55:00.000-05:00

Herman Cain, who I consider to be one of the brightest political minds of our time, has announced his future plans. As many of you know, Mr. Cain lost in his bid for the U.S. Senate in the state of Georgia, but had a very impressive showing. After the loss, he was larger than before. At the RNC he made many impressions and the GOP of Georgia had encouraged him to run for Lt. Governer in 2006 to set himself up nicely for a run at Governer in 2010.

Well, Mr. Cain has decided against the Lt. Governer rout. Instead, he will be the host of a weekly radio program. It will be based from WGKA 920 in Atlanta. But it is thought that the show will soon be nationally syndicated. http://www.920wgka.com/ is the site if you would like to stream it live on the internet.

If you have never heard Mr. Cain speak, you are in for a treat. He is one of the greatest speakers and communicators you will ever find. And he is not a rookie at hosting radio shows either, he has filled in for Martha Zoller on numerous occasions.

But the radio program is not the whole story! Mr. Cain also has a new book (this one is about politics) in which he will give his views on how and why the tax code must be replaced and how social security needs to be reformed. He also takes a shot at the NAACP, saying that the organization has "deceived and sold out black people."

Like Zell Miller's book "A National Party No More," Mr. Cain's book is sure to cause a political firestorm, because he writes that while Democrats are losing their base, Republicans are not doing a good job of picking them up. He says the GOP has a "major brand-identity problem."

Cain has also set up an organization called "A New Voice." The organization is designed to present the needed tax code and social security changes to America.

He also has two new radio ads in which he supports President Bush's new domestic agenda and he will be setting up a political action committee to raise funds for the group.

It sounds like he will have a busy schedule, but like President Ronald Reagan, a man of principal must spend those "years in the wilderness" getting his ideology and campaign plans formed.

I look forward to the book, the radio show, and a position that he may land at Fox News. All of this will be an integral part of establishing his base for his run at the Governer's office.

Stay tuned, I will keep you updated on any further announcements.

A Quick Update

2004-12-29T11:08:00.000-05:00

I apologize for the blog not being updated in the last couple of weeks. First, I had finals. Second, I had surgery on my knee. I tore my ACL a few months ago and I was waiting until the semester was over to have the surgery.

I had planned to write an article about Christmas, but I figure I have now missed my chance for this year. I promise to write a piece on Christmas next year.

As for my next article, I will most likely write on the disaster in Asia. What a horrible event. I hope that people will be generous and help the victims.

Also, I will be writing op-eds for The Georgia Forum, starting in January. The Forum is a fairly new paper at the University of Georgia. Check it out at www.thegeorgiaforum.com

And finally, congratulations to John Kerry on winning the Liberal of the Year Award. I honestly thought it would be close, but he won BIG--for the first time in recent memory, liberals weren't demanding a recount! Thanks to everyone who voted on Freerepublic, email, and this site. And look for more awards to be given out during 2005.

Ok, I promise to get my new article up soon. It is just difficult to sit at a computer for very long, right now. But I promise, it will be up soon.

And finally, thanks to all who read this blog and send me emails. I plan to add lots of new content in 2005.

Sincerely,

Will

The Wonderful Voting Record of John Kerry

2004-12-02T22:19:00.000-05:00

This is an article I wrote back in October. I am re-printing this piece, because we need to take a step back from time to time and reflect on what kind of person could have been elected President.

The Wonderful Voting Record of John Kerry

By: William T. Stewart

October 12, 2004

Last Friday night, in the second debate, President Bush finally called John Kerry “the most liberal Senator” in the U.S. Senate. Kerry responded by saying “labels don’t fit.” Conservatives take no issue with being called “conservative” (we’re actually proud of the label). Why is it then that liberals are opposed to a label describing who they are? We are reminded--about once a month--in the press that this country is split fifty-fifty, right down the middle, between liberals and conservatives. If that is true, then Kerry should take no issue with his voting record being mentioned.

But, the facts are that Kerry--like most liberals--is afraid to admit his voting history. (I can not say that I blame him.) I would be ashamed if I had spent my career voting against bills that would re-affirm American values. This is a record that Karl Marx himself could be proud of.

Let’s examine his stances on several key issues:

Abortion: Supports federally funded abortions “for the poor.” Voted against the ban of partial birth abortion (which is the harsh procedure where the nine month old baby’s brains are sucked out by a vacuum), on three seperate accounts. He voted against a ban on sending money to the UN that gives money to China to pay for forced abortions in that nation.

BUDGET: Claims to support a balanced budget but continuously voted against a bill that would require a balanced budget.

MILITARY: Voted against the first Gulf War, but then voted for the second Gulf War. He then voted against the funds to support the war. Only 4 Senators in the entire US Senate voted for the war but against the funds, Kerry and John Edwards are two of the four. He blames the Bush Administration for intelligence failures, yet he voted for a $2.6 billion decrease in intelligence spending. He has voted against many of the nation’s major weapons, including the B-2, F-15, and F-16. He also voted against the Patriot Missile (a major tool in the first Gulf War). Kerry was a member of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). This group made claims that American soldiers were committing war crimes against the Vietnamese. His testimony was used against American Prisoners of War. It should be noted that many POWs who survived the prison camps held Kerry responsible for the torture they faced while in the prison camps--many others never made it home. Kerry supported Nicaraguan communist Daniel Ortega as leader of that nation, while President Reagan was fighting communism and desperately trying to bring an end to the Cold War.

Other Policy: Kerry voted against a ban on human cloning. He voted against the Defense of Marriage Act (this act allows states to decide on whether or not they will recognize gay marriage). He opposes an amendment that would clearly define marriage between a man and a woman.

How could any American vote against a ban on human cloning? How could any American vote to allow partial birth abortion? These acts are unethical practices, at best.

How can a person lead the U.S. military in combat, when he was the spokesman of an organization that was tied to Leninist groups? How can a man lead this country who said that all of the troops fighting in Vietnam committed war crimes—including him-self? How can a person lead this nation who sends his running mate onto television to tell America that President Bush is responsible for the death of Christopher Reeves and says “if you elect John Kerry, people like Christopher Reeves will get up and walk again?”

Labels do fit, but the more one thinks about it “most liberal senator” may not be the most accurate way to describe John Kerry. Perhaps “disgrace, traitor, turn-coat, internationalist, war-criminal, Marxists, Leninist, or "treasonous" would be a more appropriate description of the "New Solider"—John Kerry.

Liberal Of the Year Award

2004-11-19T17:20:00.000-05:00

It is time to name the finalists for the First Annual "Liberal of the Year" Award. This award will go to the liberal who made the finest attempt to take advantage of what America has to offer, to supress our freedoms, to produce filth so they can claim they are protecting freedom of speech, etc. I think you get the point.

And, in typical liberal fashion, they failed. President Bush won--BIG, Tom Daschle was booted out of the Senate, and the most important issue to voters was "moral values." But, for their great effort, I feel that one lucky liberal deserves the award.

Please cast your vote for one of the candidates by posting a comment or by sending me an email.

1. George Soros--spent over $20 million of his own money to bash President Bush, in an attempt to help John Kerry win the election. He also was a big supporter of the campaign finance laws, so that he could voice his opinion--while normal Americans could not.

2. Michael Moore--Director and star of Farenheight 911--the film that would cast George W. Bush as an American-hating, Osama bin-Laden loving, idiot. He also made lots of speeches for the DNC, partied with Jimmy Carter, and degraded our troops.

3. John Kerry--Ran against George Bush, but we never really learned what his views were on anything. He claimed that the Bush administration "screwed up" (he actually used a different word) everything, but he never offered any real solutions. He was also a major player in the anti-Vietnam War effort after returning home from that war. Was a member of the VVAW--a group who (like Michael Moore) is famous for degrading our troops. He also lied--under oath (and you thought Clinton was the first)--about war crimes in Vietnam. He has also been known to negotiate with America's enemy--Viet Kong, Daniel Ortega, etc.

4. Dan Rather--Ran numerous stories in an attempt to subvert the Presidential election. Stories included the famous 60 Minutes program in which George Bush was presented as a "deserter." The program relied on faked documents and was proved false--again. On election night, he would not call Ohio for Bush, but what he didn't realize was that nobody was watching his network anyways--everyone already had lost their faith in the sleezy CBS.

5. The Writers at the NY Times--Day after Day, page after page--they took on the same strategy as Dan Rather, but in print format rather than television. This paper broke a story in the final week of the campaign, claiming that the Bush Administration and our troops allowed several hundred tons of weapons to be stolen in Iraq. This--like the AWAL story--was an attempt to destroy Bush, but it did not work--because Americans were smart enough to realize it was a biased story.

Well, there you have it. These are the finalists for the Liberal of the Year Award. Please cast your vote before December 15th. The winner will be announced in late December.

2004-11-16T16:49:00.000-05:00

Liberals boast that there are "Two Americas." They like to claim that our nation is evenly divided. Hopefull this picture will give you an idea as to how divided we are.

Red areas are counties that President Bush won. Blue areas are those that John Kerry won.

The Battle of 2008 No.1

2004-11-09T14:41:00.000-05:00

The 2004 Presidential election was decided one week ago. I guess that means it's time to start looking ahead to the future. I plan to update this section when there is something to report. Right now, it so early that anyone's guess is simply that--a guess. But, it is fun to think about our options and who could be the next leader of the free world. So, here is what I am going to do. I will have the top 5 Republican options and the top 5 Democrat options. I will probably update the Top 5's every month. So, here goes...

Top 5

Republicans

1. Dick Cheney--I know, he has said that he won't run. But, the VP has to be considered a top choice. I still think there is a chance.

2. Rudi Giuliani--Many in the GOP feel that the mayor is too liberal. But, he wants a shot and after his reaction to 9-11, he may get his chance.

3. Bill Frist--the Senate majority leader will be a top contender. I don't think he will end up winning the nomination, but he will certainly be on the list.

4. John McCain--Bush may have defeated him in 2000, but McCain has the name recognition and he is very popular.

5. Jeb Bush--He says he does not plan to run. Also, I don't think that America cares too much for the idea of a dynasty. But, you have to put a governer on the list and Jeb sounds like the best of the bunch at this point. I would not be surprised to see him fall off the list and another governer find his way on here, at some point.

Democrats

1. John Kerry--He just lost, but he wants another shot. The Clintons still run this party, so Kerry might not should be #1 on my list, but this party is falling apart and Kerry is as good of a #1 as any other option.

2. Hillary Clinton--She wants it and everybody says she will be the candidate. I still have my doubts. She could lose her Senate seat in 2006, if Rudy runs. If she were to lose that seat, how could she run for President?

3. Barak Obama--This guy seems impressive. He is an optimistic democrat and there are few of those out there. But, he is a Senator, which hurts his chances. Also, he will have only been in office for 4 years. This is a tough call, but with his level of charisma he has to be on the list.

4. John Edwards--What a joke. Edwards has to be the laughing stock of the DNC right now. His performance as VP candidate was not very strong. Personally, I think Edwards career as a politician is over, but we will see.

5. Bill Richardson--He may be too moderate for this party, but that is what they need at this time. Also, I don't think he wants to run, but if pressured to do so he could. Like Jeb, he could very well fall off the list, but a good Democrat governer has to be considered and Richardson is one of the best they have to offer.

So there you have it. That is my first rankings. Look for lots of changes over the next 4 years!

Liberals Admit They Believe in a Different America

2004-11-05T23:53:00.000-05:00

Liberals: We Believe in a Different America

By: Will Stewart

November 5, 2004

Note: words in italics are from Thomas Friedman on November 4, 2004 in the NY Times.

I have always said that liberals are not officially "unpatriotic," they just don't believe in the same America that I believe in. You may ask "what's the difference?" I would reply "not all that much, in practice."

In his latest column, Thomas Friedman (a liberal) writes "what troubled me yesterday was my feeling that this election was tipped because of an outpouring of support for George Bush by people who don't just favor different policies than I do - they favor a whole different kind of America. We don't just disagree on what America should be doing; we disagree on what America is. "

This nation was founded by a group of people who packed their bags and set sail for a world different than the government dominated society in which they lived. Once they arrived in the “New World,” they began to build a nation with their ideas of “freedom.” Years later—when challenged—they were even willing to fight and die for the new nation they had built.

That’s the “America” that I love. Friedman gives his readers some insight into the America he (and other liberals) believes in. And he is correct; my America is much different than his.

Friedman: "Is it a country that does not intrude into people's sexual preferences and the marriage unions they want to make?”

I would argue that “intrude” is a misleading word. People are free to make their own sexual preferences, but we will not allow homosexuals to destroy the foundation of marriage laid out by the Judeo-Christian God. That is not "intrusion.” If you do not believe in God or that God is against homosexual behavior then you have a different view than that of the Founders or that of the 11 states who just said "no" to gay marriage! We are a nation founded on Christian values and those values are still important to the majority of Americans. However, we are also a tolerant nation. If you do not hold those values, you are still free to live your life in this great nation, but you will not change or infringe upon those values that we hold dear.

Friedman: "Is it a country that allows a woman to have control over her body?”

Yes, it is Mr. Friedman. It is also a nation of people that believe the unborn should have control of their bodies too! We allowed liberals to violate the freedom of the unborn, and now we plan to give that freedom back to them. Yes, that means overturning Roe v. Wade and ending the slavery of our time.

Friedman: "Is it a country where the line between church and state bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers should be inviolate?”

"Separation between church and state," come on Mr. Friedman, you need to read your history. The "Founders" intended to keep government out of the church, not church out of the government. I would encourage you to do a Google search of how the term "separation of church and state" actually came about. You might be surprised that those words are not uttered in the Constitution, rather they are found in a series of letters between Thomas Jefferson and a Baptist preacher. The letters are famously called the "Danbury Letters." Do your research and get back to me on that one.

Friedman: "Is it a country where religion doesn't trump science?”

No, but it sounds like you are in favor of a nation where science trumps religion. Maybe you have put too much "faith" in science. As a Christian, I can say that I do not have “blind faith.” I have read many scholarly books and given the subject of faith a lot of thought. God actually encourages one not to have "blind faith." All of the great men of the Bible had their times of doubt: Abraham, Moses, Job, David, and others all expressed their true feelings toward God.

I agree that religion should not simply "trump" science, but there is an awful lot of junk science out there. Do you suggest that I just believe Charles Darwin when he says that one species evolves into another? Today, many top scientists take issue with the theory of macro-evolution. Most Americans simply would like to see both views of the “beginning times” presented in high-school science books. Is that too much to ask, let people hear the evidence and make their own decision.

Friedman: “And, most important, is it a country whose president mobilizes its deep moral energies to unite us - instead of dividing us from one another and from the world?"

There has been "division" since the beginning of time. Speaking out against Hitler caused "division," but it was needed. Standing up against slavery caused "division," heck it caused a war!, but it was essential to the future of our nation. As an American and a conservative, I am not going to give up my principles to simply end that divisiveness.

We will not change our values because Thomas Friedman, John Kerry, Michael Moore, Europe, the UN, or the Taliban tells us we must. This is a nation of people who have strong principles--faith, optimism, freedom, and the American Dream. "…it felt as if we were rewriting the Constitution, not electing a president. I felt as if I registered to vote, but when I showed up the Constitutional Convention broke out" wrote Thomas. Well, in a sense, it did! For too long, Americans have sat quietly while liberals imposed abortion on demand, social programs, taken God out of schools and courts, taken away gun ownership rights, raised taxes, and spit in the faces of soldiers returning from war. Now, Americans are taking their country back and you and the rest of the liberals will not stop us.

For all those of you who do not like who we are--don't like our values, our religion, our hard work, and our dreams—we would love for you to not be so “divisive” and just be normal Americans. But, if you hate our culture of freedom as much as you say, perhaps you should "pack your bags and set sail" for a place that appreciates your values (or lack there of). I'm sure France or Germany would welcome you with open arms.

A Review of an Article from September

2004-11-04T04:32:00.000-05:00

In late September, CBS ran its 60 Minutes story claiming that President George W. Bush was AWOL during his National Guard service. I wrote this column a few days after the story was originally aired. When you read it, you may say "well some of his predictions have not come true."

I am still certain that in time my boldest predictionwill still become fact. But, if it does not, I was correct in my basic thesis. The days of the "main stream media" dominating the airwaves is "officially over."

William F. Buckley began the wave of modern conservatism. I will also give him credit for setting in motion the early stages of the "new media." Well, now the new media is a dominate force in the universe. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have the two most listened to radio programs in the country, Ann coulter is selling so many books you would think that paper was as valuable as oil, and Matt Drudge is getting millions of hits per day on his website.

These great Americans have gained our trust. Their work--as well as the work of many other fine Americans--is a large part of President Bush's success in the presidential election.

Dan Rather and the NY Times have lost their influence and in the process the patriots mentioned above have become house-hold names.

Here is my article from late September.

Rather Gate, MemoGate: Whatever the Name, The Story Will Not Go Away

September 22, 2004

By: Will Stewart

Americans are on the verge of witnessing a political scandal not seen since the likes of Watergate. It is oh so ironic how history repeats itself, is it not.

Because of his work on the House Un-America Activities Committee (HUAC) and for exposing communist Alger Hiss, liberals became determined to destroy Richard Nixon. It took almost 30 years, but eventually he was destroyed by the Watergate scandal. Now, Dan Rather--who was a major force in bringing down Nixon--finds himself at the center of a political scandal intended to change the outcome of a Presidential election. In a sense he has become what he hated; now he is the "crook."

Many in the "old media" (term for big elite media) wish that the story would just go away, but it continues to heat up and soon it will reach a boiling point. All of the big media types have been on CNN, FOX NEWS, MSNBC and other programming saying something along the lines of “Dan Rather is a fine journalist, he made a mistake, now let's drop it.” It's so easy to see through these phonies it makes the fact that the National Guard documents are forged seem like the biggest discovery since the Dead Sea Scrolls.

But what the old media does not fully understand is that there is a brave new world out there called the "new media." Out: are the days of liberal journalists running stories that tell us how pathetic America is; In: are the days of talk radio, Regnery Books, Fox News, and the internet, gaining our trust with each passing day.

Despite their (big media) wishes, this story will not die, because there are folks out there who anticipate being a part of history. Some ordinary man or woman will become the next Bob Woodward or Carl Bernstein.

It may have taken 30 years, but when the new "Woodward-Bernstein" emerges, Dan Rather will have finally been exposed to the entire nation to be what conservatives have known he was for years--a partisan liberal hack, hell bent on running trash that re-defines the America the rest of us love. I just never imagined he would be caught committing a felony in the process.

William Safire noted in a New York Times op-ed piece on September 23, 2004 that U.S. Criminal Code, Chapter 63, Section 1343 clearly states whoever, having devised any scheme or artifice to defraud transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. We already know this list includes--but is probably not limited to--Dan Rather, Bill Burkett, and Mary Mapes. Rather and Mapes are a part of the conspiracy to subvert the 2004 Presidential Election because they ignored the warnings of the document experts that were hired for this story. This is a failure to conduct adequate Due Diligence. Two of those hired (Emily Will and Linda James) have both come forward and said that they found several problems with the document's authenticity.

Ms. Will: "I found five significant differences in the questioned handwriting, and I found problems with the printing itself as to whether it could have been produced by a typewriter," she said.
Will says she sent the CBS producer an e-mail message about her concerns and strongly urged the network the night before the broadcast not to use the documents.
"I told them that all the questions I was asking them on Tuesday night, they were going to be asked by hundreds of other document examiners on Thursday if they ran that story," Will said.
But the documents became a key part of the 60 Minutes II broadcast questioning President Bush's National Guard service in 1972. CBS made no mention that any expert disputed the authenticity.
Miss James: "I did not authenticate anything and I don't want it to be misunderstood that I did," James said. "And that's why I have come forth to talk about it because I don't want anybody to think I did authenticate these documents."
Before the "Memogate" story ends, I am confident that others will be found to be a part of the conspiracy as well. Look for names like Max Cleland, Joe Lockheart, and John Kerry to continue to be brought up.
Make no mistake about it, the new media smells blood and it's going for the jugular. Woodward, Peter Jennings, or the folks at CNN may not do the investigative work, but the Liberal Empire will fall.
In the end, Dan Rather is finished and other outlets will begin to watch their backs in fear of the new media. They will gripe and moan about "blacklists" and "lib-baiting" (term I just made up that is similar to "red-baiting but implies liberals instead of communists). But that is not what this is about. Conservatives are not "out to get" Dan Rather or any other liberal journalist. Conservatives only ask for fairness in reporting and we will always point out liberal bias whenever and wherever it may occur.
Perhaps now, ABC, NBC, and CNN will realize that they have a chance to save what little trust is left in the old media. There are a few American people still out there--skeptically watching this liberal programming. But if these media outlets do not straighten up--soon--even these few remaining loyal costumers will turn their dial to Fox News or tune their radio to Sean Hannity. Either way, the days of liberals dominating the media are--thank GOD--officially OVER.

America Comes Through in the Clutch

2004-11-03T12:32:00.000-05:00

What a night and morning. I am so tired; I am going on adrenaline at this point.

I am not going to waste your time analyzing the facts that everyone else has repeated, such as Bush winning the largest vote total ever, and such.

To me, the most interesting thing that occurred last night was that AMERICA--not the “deep south,” but AMERICA--said that the most important issue facing our nation is "moral values." Sure, we are concerned about the economy and terror (as we should be), but if we lose our morality these issues become mute points.

The Democratic Party must now take a look at themselves, do some soul searching. This nation is against gay marriage, partial birth abortion, and government funded stem cell research! And if the party does not soon realize this fact, it will fade into oblivion. They are now forced to move back to the center, or face that harsh reality.

That being said, it is now time for the Republican Party to start pushing some of their CONSERVATIVE agenda. Last night, the America people gave them permission to push that agenda.

It is now time to push a ban on abortion. It is now time to push a real tax restructuring--um um...the Fair Tax!!! It is now time to clear up the "Separation of Church and State" issue. Put the Ten Commandments back in the schools and the court houses. Once again, allow prayer in schools.

In conclusion--despite what we have heard in the press--Americanism is alive and well. This nation is not "stupid" and we are not "internationalists." We are still the same America that George Washington dreamed we would become. We are still the nation that Ronald Reagan spoke of; America is still that "shining city upon a hill."

September 11th did not change America; it reminded us of whom we are.

My Predictions for the 2004 Presidential Election

2004-11-02T13:31:00.000-05:00

November 2, 2004

I made the following predictions last night. After getting a little sleep, I can't believe that I predicted Ohio to go to Kerry, but I will stick to my original predictions. I will say, however, that I feel very confident on this Tuesday afternoon.

Any state that Kerry wins, I believe he will win by a very narrow margin (with exception to CA, MA, and NY). That being said, I will add that it is possible that this election could be a blow out. There are alot of states that Kerry could narrowly lose such as (PA, MI) among others.

So, it is not impossible for Bush to get over 400 electoral votes. But, I will also add some criticism to President Bush, he is not the communicator that a Ronald Reagan was. And, that will cost him some votes in this election. It is strange that the president can look so strong on an interview--like the one he did with Bill O'Reilly, and then not be able to get his point across during the debates.

Had he projected himself at the debates the way that he projects himself in most interviews, he would have won all but three or four states.

Also, had the President decided not to go to war with Iraq, he would have won in a landslide. But, I believe that it shows alot about this president's character that he believed Iraq was so important that he decided to fight the war--even if it cost him the election!

In the end, I will say that I have been critical of some of President Bush's decisions (mostly domestic) but in the last four years he has done alot of good. We changed Afghanistan, we are changing Iraq, we caught Saddam Hussein, Mummar gave up his weapons, and the economy is doing pretty well. For this, I thank the President, and that is why he deserves four more years in office.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

November 1, 2004

One day from the 2004 Presidential Election. I—like everyone else—am making my predictions.

I think the final tally will be 296-242 in favor of President Bush.

If Bush wins Ohio then the total will of course be 316 for Bush and 222 for Kerry. But, since all the other rules have been broken in this election season--Red Sox win World Series, Georgia beats Florida in college football, and the Redskins lose before election-day--I say that Bush will be the first Republican president to lose Ohio and win the election. He will also become the first president to lose the popular vote and then end up winning re-election.

I am predicting that Bush will win New Jersey in the closest of races. That is my upset or sleeper pick of the election and it will be the final nail in Kerry’s coffin.

Even though Michigan will be close, Kerry will end up pulling through in that state, mostly because there is still some union influence on elections.

Minnesota will have turn Republican, however. And this will likely become a trend there as it has in the entire South.

That gives Kerry a total of 18 states, which is 10 higher then I predicted back in November of last year. But, I thought Bush would have been a little stronger than he has been. I thought he would be able to make a better case for the war in Iraq--especially after catching Saddam! But, I think that we have seen he is not quite the communicator that a Reagan was. And that will cost him some votes.

I also predict that the kooky liberals will riot in the streets because of this and for a few days some will wonder if America has become Iraq. But, after that they will calm down and Bush will lead our nation for 4 more years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, there it is. Complete details are below.
Red equals a Bush state. Blue equals a Kerry state. The number beside the state is the number of electoral votes the state is worth.

If you want to fill out your own predictions just go to www.november2004.com, it is a really good site and will keep a running total for you.

Alabama
9
Alaska
3
Arizona
10
Arkansas
6
California
55
Colorado
9
Conneticut
7
Delaware
3
District of Columbia
3
Florida
27
Georgia
15
Hawaii
4
Idaho
4
Illinois
21
Indiana
11
Iowa
7
Kansas
6
Kentucky
8
Louisiana
9
Maine - At Large*
2
Maine - 1st District*
1
Maine - 2nd District*
1
Maryland
10
Massachusetts
12
Michigan
17
Minnesota
10
Mississippi
6
Missouri
11
Montana
3
Nebraska - At Large*
2
Nebraska - 1st District*
1
Nebraska - 2nd District*
1
Nebraska - 3rd District*
1
Nevada
5
New Hampshire
4
New Jersey
15
New Mexico
5
New York
31
North Carolina
15
North Dakota
3
Ohio
20
Oklahoma
7
Oregon
7
Pennsylvania
21
Rhode Island
4
South Carolina
8
South Dakota
3
Tennessee
11
Texas
34
Utah
5
Vermont
3
Virginia
13
Washington
11
West Virginia
5
Wisconsin
10
Wyoming
3

Bush 296
Kerry 242

The First Day

2004-11-02T13:22:00.000-05:00

I have finally decided to create a blog. I have been writing for myself for quite a while, but I have made the decision to reveal my opinions to the world.

Today is Election Day 2004, and later I will post my predictions for the Presidential Race. Also, I will start uploading some of my earlier pieces to the blog. So, if you wish to read any of the older material, it will be here as well.

Thanks for visiting my BLOG,

William T. Stewart