Debunking the culture of lies...

Even after defeat, the self-proclaimed “progressives” continue to promote the culture of lies. I looked into some of these myths prior to the election and here's what I found.

Bush will reinstate the draft:

The fact of the matter is that NY Democrat Charles Rangel introduced a bill to the House of Representatives almost two years ago promoting national conscription which was rejected by a vote of 2 yeas to 402 nays (HR 163). It's Senate counterpart, S. 89, introduced by South Carolina Democrat Ernest Hollings was read twice and never came to a vote.

Late in the 2004 campaign, Democratic supporters began promoting the idea of a Bush administration draft. An email spread rapidly claiming that if Bush were to be re-elected a draft would be established in 2005. Even Kerry made such claims.

The White House and Pentagon denied these claims calling them irresponsible. There is no documented proof to the contrary.

Not being able to validate their claim, the fallback position of those promoting the rumor is that the Bush administration has implemented a “back-door” draft referring the the stop-loss orders by the Pentagon. Undoubtedly, military operations of the last two years have placed strain on our soldiers and their families and the use of stop loss policies are and should be carefully monitored. There will be some instances of volunteers being asked to give more than is reasonable, and I'm sure we'll hear about some of these as they are challenged in court. There will be many more instances where volunteers are simply being asked to do their jobs, and will do so gladly and patriotically. We at home need to continue to support their efforts and their families at home so they can focus on getting the job done and come home. Congress needs to continue to ensure that their needs are being met while in service and after they get home. We have a duty to inform our elected leaders that this is important to us.

In the end, nobody can predict the how the fight against terrorism will play out. Neither party can reliably say how heated the battle will become. Liberals believe we can negotiate and work within the framework of the United Nations. This has not worked. Brutal, tyrannical governments are breeding grounds for anti-freedom, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, sentiment. If these oppressive states are left alone, a draft may not be enough.

We are fighting an illegal war in Iraq

Illegal by who's measure? The United Nations'? The UN has long been nothing more than a petrii dish for anti-Americanism, internationalism, corruption and scandal.

• A still developing scandal with the Iraqi Oil for Food program in which security council member countries opposed to military action were subverting UN sanctions for profit.

• Terrorist sponsor Syria wins seat on security council and then is appointed head of the Security Council in 2003. If this doesn't illustrate the UN's futility, nothing does.

• In 2001, the United States was voted off the Human Rights Commission in favor of human rights pillars such as Lybia, Sudan, and China. By the way, the Sudan was cited in 2001 for human rights violations. The United States criticized the citation because it wasn't strong enough citing slavery, yes slavery, and religious persecution.

• UN drops the ball in Malawi, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Lesotho, Swaziland and Mozambique while hundreds of millions face starvation.

• UN IAEA falls asleep in North Korea only to discover that the despot government has been developing nuclear capabilities under their noses. The United States might have been able to avert the problem were it not for former President Carter giving the despot Kim Jong Il the cover of a treaty in 1994. There is no better case for stopping Iraq when we did than North Korea. It's too bad we couldn't have stopped Iran at the same time.

• UN fails to intervene in human rights abuses in Iran

• East Timor falls into shambles under UN rule (1999-2001)

• UN Chief Koffi Annan personally covers up a 1994 report of an impending massacre in Rwanda (800,000 people died)

• More failures in Angola, Kashmir, Somalia, Bosnia, Israel, Colombia, Korea

The bottom line is that the United Nations is a corrupt and ineffective organization. The United States has refused to pay dues to the tune of over $500 million in leieu of certain reforms. The reforms proposed will not address the inherent corruption and anti-Americanism of the United Nations. Given it's track record, you could argue that the UN has been a barrier and a protagonist to international justice. It is time for the United States to withdraw from the UN and boot them out of New York.

(corrollary, the President rushed to war)

The end of the Gulf War resulted in a permanent cease fire agreement. The Iraqi government never adheared to the cease-fire agreement.

The Iraqi government violated over 17 UN resolutions to comply to the terms of the cease-fire over a period of 12 years. Further, the President prepared the world for several months for this action. What exactly would be accomplished by waiting longer when waiting wasn't working in Iraq, and it hasn't worked in most other places, notably North Korea and Iran.

Bush is going to cut Social Security benefits:

Another campaign scare tactic. In fact, Social Security was mostly ignored during the campaigns by both parties, probably because both recognize what a mess it has become. The fact is that the President has been working with Congress to study Social Security options. The President has only ever mentioned his support for individual accounts for young workers. We can all expect that many options will be debated. Let's hope that our representatives get something accomplished.

The Bush tax reform only helped the rich.

It's true that the rich can employ armies of lawyers and accountants to help find loopholes in the current tax code. This fact was evidenced by both Kerry's and his wifes (what we got to see of it) 2003 US tax returns. Check out the table at www.factcheck.org.

The top half of the tax paying public pays an enormously disproportionate share of the tax burden. It has to be this way to fund our existing commitments. However, our tax system should not be converted to an entitlement program.

The President ran on a platform of simplifying the tax code. Let's hope that we see some real simplification that will keep the millionaires from cheating the system as well as the social leaches from getting their pockets filled. I don't have a problem helping those in need, but the tax code isn't the place for it.

America needs a national (socialized) health plan

This is another example of addressing the symptoms rather than the problems. Perhaps ultimately we could develop some level of basic health services for those that can't afford them. However, there are a miriad of problems that prevent people from having this capacity that simply socializing health care won't resolve.

Neither candidate had or has a credible plan to address health care problems in America.

No matter who pays for it, health care insurance costs have skyrocketted in the past several years. The insurance companies say it's partly because we're using health care services more, which is true and should be expected. We have an aging population and we have been developing a culture of preventative health care, for which we still have a long way to go.

Another reason for the escalating costs is the cost of health care services themselves.

• No doubt, medical liability insurance costs have some part in the costs, but it's not the only issue, and maybe not even the main issue.

• Health care suppliers have been and continue to gouge health care providers especially for pharmacueticals and diagnostic equipment and the trickle up effect costs all of us.

• There remain some remarkable inefficiencies, misuses and fudiciary abuses in health care.

• With medicare and medicaid coverage limits and uninsured patients, providers need to recoup losses of uncovered costs somewhere.

• The Federal government has had health care organizations preoccupied recently (last 10 years) with privacy legislation. This legislation will cost real money and the costs for protecting yours and my privacy will be passed on to us.

It's important to remember this too. Like it or not, right now health care is not a right (unless you are retirement age). Health care insurance is not a right. Subsidizing insurance will not make health services cost less. It would increase the already high tax burden on those paying taxes. Without addressing these issues we will be faced with another entitlement program that we'll be trying to save later because we didn't address the fundamental problems.

Bush is responsible for outsourcing American jobs

Manufacturing jobs have been going overseas for decades. Why? To keep product costs down due to cheap labor and favorable FOREIGN tax laws. FOREIGN tax laws. And what amazes me is that in the same breath that Kerry acuses the President for the outsourcing problems, he says he wants to import cheap drugs from Canada? So, it's OK to outsource our drugs (except for flu vaccine), but not OK to outsource a very small percentage of our jobs to keep the price of consumer products down? How would you like to pay $1000 for your DVD player? Or $6000 for your desktop PC? America can only create jobs by developing a competative environment for jobs. We've experimented in the past with subsidizing industries (such as farmers) and it hasn't worked well. Strong growth economies create jobs and the reality is that alot of the skill sets need to change to meet the needs of the growth industries. There are alot of industries that have shortages in skilled workers. For example, it's extremely difficult to find qualified American IT professionals, and it will get worse every year if we don't begin to focus on developing a more skilled workforce.

Bush is violating the separation of church and state.

The first Amendment to Article I of the Consitution guarantees freedoms of religion, speech, writing, assembly, and to bring greivances to the government.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The founding fathers didn't do us the favor of being more specific about what this was supposed to mean. Given the religious persecution they escaped from, they were more interested in protecting religious freedoms, rather than preventing it. You can read President Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 here.

Our forefathers desired a nation of religious tolerance. Unfortunately, we are now frequently witnesses to the opposite.

To claim that believing in God, and even taking moral direction from God violates a separation of Church and State is rediculous. And what is wrong with someone having a real relationship with God? I thought “progressives” were supposed to be the "tolerant" ones.