Taiwan is an independent Nation

Am I the only person on the planet who knows this?

The only reason Taiwan is still an issue is because countries will not acknowledge this. Taiwan is not independent but the US sells military weapons to it? Does this mean that the US is selling weapons to China? Of course not, so what does this mean?

According to the CIA Factbook:

Background: “In 1895, military defeat forced China to cede Taiwan to Japan. Taiwan reverted to Chinese control after World War II. Following the Communist victory on the mainland in 1949, 2 million Nationalists fled to Taiwan and established a government using the 1946 constitution drawn up for all of China. Over the next five decades, the ruling authorities gradually democratized and incorporated the native population within the governing structure. In 2000, Taiwan underwent its first peaceful transfer of power from the Nationalist to the Democratic Progressive Party. Throughout this period, the island prospered and became one of East Asia's economic "Tigers." The dominant political issues continue to be the relationship between Taiwan and China - specifically the question of eventual unification - as well as domestic political and economic reform.”

The country has a President and Vice-President. Ruling positions that do not exist in Communist China. These positions are filled through elections held every four years.

• The CIA lists that 25% of Taiwan’s exports are to China.
• Taiwan has a separate currency than China.
• Taiwan has its own Military.

The CIA summary has a chapter “International Disputes”

“involved in complex dispute with China, Malaysia, Philippines, Vietnam, and possibly Brunei over the Spratly Islands; the 2002 "Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea" has eased tensions but falls short of a legally binding "code of conduct" desired by several of the disputants; Paracel Islands are occupied by China, but claimed by Taiwan and Vietnam; in 2003, China and Taiwan asserted claims to the Japanese-administered Senkaku Islands (Diaoyu Tai) with increased media coverage and protest actions”

Now lets compare Taiwan’s situation with that of Hong Kong.

Background: “Hong Kong became the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) of China on 1 July 1997. In this agreement, China has promised that, under its "one country, two systems" formula, China's socialist economic system will not be imposed on Hong Kong and that Hong Kong will enjoy a high degree of autonomy in all matters except foreign and defense affairs for the next 50 years.”

The CIA lists Hong Kong as a “Special administrative region of China” There are no special notations for Taiwan.

The US Sate Department has Taiwan on the list of “Independent States in the World.” It is listed in the ‘other’ category, but it is listed as an independent state with the following footnote:

“Claimed by both the Government of the People's Republic of China and the authorities on Taiwan. Administered by the authorities on Taiwan.”

So in other words Taiwan is an Independent State that China claims as theirs. This is hardly in line with the claims of the Chinese Government. Nor in line with the "one country, two systems" formula being used for Hong Kong.

Just to clear any doubt on my assertion that Taiwan is an independent country, one can look at the US Sate Department’s “Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty.” To get an idea, here are some ‘countries’ that are not independent:

• Aruba (Netherlands)
• Bermuda (UK)
• Cayman Islands (UK)
• Gibraltar (UK)
• Greenland (Denmark)
• Hong Kong (China)
• Puerto Rico (United States)

China is becoming a stronger military power and with that has been more aggressive. They have demanded that the EU drop its embargo against selling military weapons to them, calling it racist. Passing a law to permit military force against Taiwan if it declares independence. Take the position opposite the US in the Security Council.

Should the US position change and formally recognize Taiwan. Just think of the benefits of this action. It puts China in its place. It provides justice to the Taiwanese people. It would also teach the French a lesson.

The French are most eager to stir the pot and Taiwan appears to be their best bet if forcing the US into a new conflict. How else can we view this? Why would the French Premier support China’s new law authorizing the use of military force against Taiwan to prevent independence? Why was there no protest or calls for the use of only peaceful means to resolve this long-standing situation? Why is there no demand that the Security Council first approve any use of force?

French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin said he supported Beijing's "anti-secession" law on Taiwan, and vowed to keep pushing for an end to an EU arms embargo that could open the door for Paris to sell weapons to the Asian giant.

So the French position is clear. This was said just after the EU Parliament voted against lifting the EU’s arms embargo against China by 431 to 85. But the position of the French Government is to continue to push to end the embargo. Of course the French Premier was making his statement in China with completed deals worth over $3 billion in his jacket pocket. Lucky for the Chinese that some countries have no shame nor any care for the future problems their actions will create.

France Backs China on Taiwan - Deutsche Welle

Signs of a Real Conspiracy

We have all heard the numerous conspiracy theories circling about the President:

• Bush had prior knowledge about the Sept 11th terrorist attack.
• Bush lied about WMD in Iraq.
• Bush stole the 2000 election.
• Bush stole the 2004 election.
• This country is full of citizens who are dying to vote against Bush but somehow are not able to because of some impediment (like a felony conviction) that “disenfranchises” them.
• Electronic voting machines were rigged to vote for Bush.
• The “Iraqi Bloggers” are paid CIA Agents.
• All pro-Bush Bloggers are paid by the White House.
• The vast majority of the country did not vote for Bush

I did not list all of them. There is no shortage of conspiracy theories. There are probably dozens I have not heard of yet. But in all of this noise, lies hidden a real conspiracy. A Liberal Conspiracy that with the exception of the occasional mention of a piece of it in the mainstream media, lies hidden beneath the waves, just like an iceberg.

The Election:

Paid Bloggers - Some bloggers are paid and it is alleged that a number of the conservative bloggers receive money to write good things and the President and his administration and causes, as well as write bad things about those who oppose him. Funny that it turns out that at least two bloggers were paid during the election season, two liberal bloggers. They were paid by the Dean campaign to ensure that their blogs would continue to write favorable stories about Dean or at least not write anything negative about him. This was not a one-time payment like a donation. They were hired as consultants. The bloggers who were paid denied that this affected their writings, but the person who hired them on behalf of the Dean Campaign said that that was the very reason for hiring them. (note: this blogger wishes that he was compromised by neocon benefactors, but alas my check must have been lost in the mail.)

This story received nowhere near the attention as did the story of the gay reporter who somehow managed to get into the Whitehouse press briefings to supposedly asked softball questions. Funny that the press got suspicious of him because he did not ask questions critical of the administration….

Then we have “Wonkette.” While not a paid blogger (as far as we know,) she made the comment that Jenna Bush drank “Jew baby blood” which the MSM ignored, as they normally do with racial comments made by the left. Perhaps that was because they often ran to her to participate in news programs as a operator of a “leading” blog. People have been crucified by the media before for less controversial statements. But then again, it would not be in their best interest to knock her down.

The 527’s, George Soros and the homemakers - This election brought us 527s. They are essentially a way for people and groups to get out their message independently of the political parties. I am sure everyone will agree that the majority of the 527s were liberal and Democrat friendly in nature. They also received the lion’s share of the donations received by all 527s. It has been said that the Republicans and their supports were well behind the curve in setting up their own 527s in support of the President. Some of the largest 527s were/are the following:

• Moveon.org
• Media Fund
• America Coming together

The Website OpenSecrets.org has very good accounting of the 527s and who funded them. (see the Top 50) It does not take very long to see that Mr. Soros had his hand in all of the well-funded 527s through the Soros Fund. Well you will not find Mr. Soros as one of the contributors to the Media fund, but their biggest contributor was the Joint Victory Campaign, which the Soros Fund gave $12 million.

So whatever 527 you aligned yourself with, you sided with Mr. Soros. I would not think that this would be something that a Liberal would approve of. After all he really is the poster child of the abuses of capitalism. At the very least, the way he obtained his fortune is hardly in the spirit and fashion of the ideals of the Democratic Party. Mr. Soros has recently been convicted of insider trading in France. Yet, to this day, Mr. Soros, or at least his money, is welcome when it comes to advancing Liberal causes.

The one 527 that received more attention that all the rest, is the (in)famous Swift Vets. They did have the most impact, but then again the truth often smarts when your smacked in the face with it. Looking at the data, it clearly shows that the Swift Boat Vets have very few big money contributors, as opposed to the 527s listed above.

A large portion of the Swift Boat money came from small donations of under $1,000. Those who identified themselves as “Homemaker” were the 13th highest donor class for the Swift Vets. Contrast that with those who gave to America Coming Together (ACT) who identified themselves as “Homemaker” which was the 44the highest donor class. Perhaps it ranked so low because only 15 homemakers gave to ACT. Still those fifteen gave $214,500. The Swift Vets had 224 homemaker donors who gave $80 thousand. Which sounds more grass roots to you? Which groups seems to have more disposable cash to you? I would swear that this data should be reversed. Every single Homemaker that gave to Act, gave at least $1,000. Don’t take my word for it, click on the two links and look at the data yourself.

Pollster Bias - Aiding the Democratic Party were the pollsters. They recently released a report explaining how they overestimated the Kerry vote. They determined that they hired mostly Kerry supporters who were more likely to question people like them who also happened to also be Kerry supporters. It also turned out that Bush supporters were less likely to talk to pollsters. What a shocker! At least the pollsters now know this and can take this into consideration for the next election. But wait, I seem to remember that the pollsters completely blew the 2002 mid-term election. If I remember correctly, people who tended to vote Republican did not bother to answer the pollster’s questions when they called them at home. Obviously they did not bother to factor in this characteristic into the calculations for this election. It is strange though that many (liberals) were very concerned that the election polls were not taking into account the many newly registered first time voters. My guess is that the pollsters will blow the next election too.

Election Fraud - There were many allegations of voter fraud but only those benefiting Bush got any coverage. Those accusations tended to be off the wall, such as voting machine rigging and fact-less claims of disenfranchisement. However, the news makes almost no mention of massive voter fraud in places like Wisconsin where Kerry won with a slim lead of fewer than 12,000 votes. The state allows same-day registration and voting. Part of the process involves mailing a confirmation card to the registrant’s address. As it turns out, the same-day registrations were so poorly checked by the election workers in that thousands of registrations did not contain a mailing address or addresses so bad that they could not be mailed. Many more Thousands were returned as undeliverable. This just screams abuse. Where is the press? Where are the investigative reports tracking down these “missing” registrants? It is very possible that the number of illegal votes was much higher than the difference between the two candidates. The press was all over Florida in 2000. Where were they in Wisconsin in 2004? Now the are trying to enact legislation to prevent this in the future. But at least one 527 still had some of soro’s money left over to fight the state’s Voter ID bill. Why, because it is partisan.

Then there is Detroit, where the Republican observers were kicked out of the counting room. Apparently the election officials were protesting vote enhancement as well as stacks of blank ballots on the counting table. Then there is my favorite, in 2000 democrats were rounding up homeless people in some city and offering them cigarettes in exchange for them voting. Talk about the party that delivers!

Democrat Politicians and the DNC - The Democrats Demand that Bush and the Republicans reach across the congressional aisle to mend fences with the Democrats. Yet they do nothing to help mend fences and they still take the opportunity to fight the President at every turn. Some of the recent examples of this behavior include:

• Delaying the nomination of Roberto Gonzalez
• Delaying the nomination of Condoleezza Rice
• Delaying judicial nominations
• Attempting to kill any changes to Social Security

Now that Howard Dean has become head of the Democratic National Party, he is doing everything possible to kill whatever good-faith the Republicans really have for bi-partisanship, saying that "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for." He has also has called Republicans evil. We have yet to see Mr. Dean actually try to sabotage progress in congress, but I am sure that when he does go into action, it will be a real show-stopper.

The officials

Sandy Berger – What on earth was Mr. Berger smuggling out of the archives in his pants? The press so far has no interest in doing any sort of investigative reporting of Mr. Berger’s document smuggling. Mr. Berger has recently pleaded guilty to the charges of theft and destruction of government secrets. I am still waiting for the 60 Minutes report on Mr. Berger. Surely they can find enough material to fill 20 minutes investigating what Mr. Berger might have been trying to hide. Or are they not interested in investigating convicted felons? Perhaps they forgot how to investigate a story that actually has facts.

Ambassador Joseph Wilson - Supposedly his wife was “outted” as an undercover CIA Agent by an unnamed member of the Bush Administration. Ambassador Wilson claims that this was punishment for his report that Iraq was not attempting to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger. Now the reporters who published that his wife was an agent are only being pressed for the name of the official who told them. Am I the only person who knows that it was the press who outted her? It is one thing for one person to tell a secret to another. It is another thing for the person to turn around and turn the secret into a news story.

Then there is the central issue that Ambassador Wilson played in discrediting the President. Mainly by saying that the Iraqi’s were not trying to buy uranium from Niger. Well it seems that the Iraqi’s were attempting to do exactly that:

• “It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.” - UK Butler Report.

Now Mr. Wilson has disappeared just like his website http://www.restorehonesty.com/. The website now redirects to John Kerry’s website, but you can get a glimpse of what it used to be HERE.

• “George Bush's Administration has betrayed our trust - I know that personally. I am honored to endorse John Kerry and to commit myself to his campaign to wrest our democracy back from those who have so squandered the public trust.” – Joe Wilson

The press never seriously investigated Mr. Wilson, especially after his work was shown to actually support the government’s position. I am still waiting for the 60 Minutes report on Mr. Wilson. Surely they can find enough material to fill 20 minutes investigating what Mr. Wilson and his ulterior motives, like perhaps helping Mr. Kerry become President. What cabinet position was he promised? Mr. Wilson is not a convicted Felon, but should he be?

Current and Former Ambassadors – These are the gentlemen (and Ladies) who are representatives of the government in other countries. Normally they are the ones who carry out US policy. They are not the ones who make policy, or who feature prominently in the news. They are also not normally the ones who are heard during a presidential debate. However the hate for the President is so strong in the State Department that a number of diplomats felt compelled to write a letter against the President. Basically, because their jobs would be so much easier if we had a president that the countries they work in would like.

The original letter did not do much good, but that did not stop them from writing a second one opposing the President’s appointment of John Bolton to the United Nations. Perhaps the signatories were more bitter that they were not selected for the position. At any rate, I do not see this as acceptable behavior for our diplomats. They serve at the pleasure of our President and if they find that too bitter, then perhaps they should look for more rewarding employment elsewhere. At the very least, it tells the other countries that our diplomats do not support our President. That is a nice thing to know, that the person negotiating on behalf of the US hates his boss.

Senator John Kerry - This is the Senator who wanted to be President. During his campaign, among other things, he charged that President Bush was reckless for taking care of the Iraq “problem” without including the international community. The Senator also charged that the President has been reckless in his dealing with North Korea. Instead of taking care of the North Korea “problem” like the cowboy others portray him to be, the President has been insisting that the international community participate in negotiating with North Korea. This is the method Senator Kerry and the world preferred for dealing with Iraq. So now the President is willing to do it the World’s way. The Senator, who is very astute when it comes to listening to the demands of our enemies, is calling for one-to-one talks with North Korea, just like the North Koreans want. Perhaps he is looking to get a free trip to Paris to listen to them in person, since he has the experience with this type of work.

Senator Kerry is also the Senator who won three purple hearts and a Silver Star during a short tour of Vietnam. There are questions surrounding the awarding of some (if not all) of these medals. There are also serious questions surrounding the Senator’s actions after he returned from Vietnam. He illegally negotiated with North Vietnamese in Paris. He attended a meeting where the assassination of members of congress was discussed. (it is not clear if he was in the room during that discussion, but there has been no serious investigative reporting to determine what was discussed when the senator was in the room.)

Senator Kerry has also been caught in some statements that are not very truthful. There is the now admitted mistake in his memory that he spent Christmas in Cambodia. It was “seared” into his memory, but in the end that was not true. There are some questions about Senator Kerry’s Navy service (or lack of) after he returned from Vietnam. Senator Kerry keeps promising to sign the form to release his full military record. Two months later, he has yet to do so. My guess is that there is some truly embarrassing document in there that he will never sign it. If the documents ever see the light of day, they might just kill the careers of anyone who backed Senator Kerry for President. We hear the cries of the left that “BUSH LIED!” but Kerry lied too, and in his case there is even proof.

Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) - Recently Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) on 19 February (at a community meeting on Social Security) accused Karl Rove of planting the CBS Bush guard memos. This story got play with the bloggers but has since died, never turning into a real story. Congressman Hinchey is the type of person who will say anything that he thinks his supporters want to hear, and they want an authority figure to take a stand against the President, because they know he is a “draft dodger.” Who cares if there are no facts to support the charge, and now thanks to the CBS Report there are even facts supporting that the President did fulfill his commitment. But no matter, if the truth does not fit in supporting the conspiracy, then it should be ignored and the lies should be repeated as fact as people want to believe that it is true, even if it is not. Mr. Hinchey, member of Congress.

Read more at LGF.

Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) – congresswoman McKinney is a perfect example of the fact that we have a representative government. A certain portion of our country fits into the “extremist” category s some of them are bound to end up in congress. Now I have no idea if the congresswoman believes what she preaches, after all, we know that politicians stretch the truth. But looking at what she advocated when talking during an event sponsored by the extremists of International A.N.S.W.E.R:

• Cutting all recruitment funding for the military
• Teach teens to complete their Selective Service Registration as conscientious objector
• That white men disenfranchised blacks from voting in 2000 (dis-proven in court)
• That electronic voting machines were rigged in Bush’s favor (No evidence)
• US is waging war solely to enrichen a few.
• And that the Administration is still hiding the true September 11 story.
• Ms. McKinney, member of Congress.

Read more at LGF.
Listen to her question Rumsfeld at prisonplanet.com

Unnamed Administration Officials – No good anti-administration story is complete without a quote from some “unnamed official.” The better ones have a spare copy of an internal memo or classified report to pass on to the press. There are no shortage of unnamed officials, that if you cannot find one who will help you with your story, I doubt anyone (other than the White House) would notice that the source does not really exist. I dare bet that most stories in the press start with some disgruntled government staffer. Just think about it, DC is full of government employees working at all levels as well as a ton of reporters. They are bound to mix.

The Protestors - Then there are the anti-bush, anti-war protestors. They yell for access in order to express their free speech, then when it is given to them they tear up protective fences, toss garbage cans. These are also the same people while demanding to have their voice heard, become the most violent when others who disagree with them want to express their right to free speech too.

The “Left” decries Bush’s mythical “Brownshirts.” There is no evidence of Bush attempting to crush Free speech. There was even an editorial in the Wall Street Journal pointed out that the staff in the National Archives bookstore were openly pleased with their selection of Anti-Bush propaganda that they offered for sale. So if Bush cannot limit dissent in his “own” bookstore, how can he do it anywhere else. Anyway, he has been heckled before and far from looking annoyed; he would comment that he loves free speech. Sure they are dragged out of the event so that the president can continue, but they are not shot on the sidewalk, nor are many arrested, and those who are, are released soon thereafter. After all, the President has the right to talk too. And those listening to him also have the right to decline to listen to you.

The Extremists - The great thing about the many Liberal fringe persons and groups is that the Democratic leadership can rightfully disavow of their activities. They are however able to take advantage of the actions, claims and press that these groups generate.

• Michael Moore - Nothing like having members of congress ignoring the lies and distortions in your movie while lending creditability to his work.
• Anarchists. - Their behavior is not denounced by the Democrats. Anarchists are the “Brownshirts” of the Left. Just try to have a debate with them to confirm this.
• International A.N.S.W.E.R. – Great at organizing a protest to paralyze a city
• Ted Rall
• Maureen Dowd.

The ACLU - The legal arm of the conspiracy. They fight to protect our privacy at any cost. The terrorists on Sept 11th took advantage of their right to privacy to do us harm. They play a very important role in the conspiracy. For example, some September 11 widows get on TV to demand that congress approve the changes recommended by the Commission investigating the attacks. So congress does this. Now that the President passed it into law, the ACLU is out fighting the provisions, some of which are called “Patriot Act II.”

I explained to my wife who is a foreign national (a citizen of the EU.) She had the most enlightening comment about the possible threat of the government thumbing through our underwear drawer and checking out or library choices; “like anyone in the government has time to do that!” Two years (almost three now!) on and we are still waiting for her green card. Perhaps they can’t pick open our front door. I also have a history of living overseas and travel around the world. Surely the government should suspect me. But there is no indication that they are interested in the least with my life. I obtained security clearance without a problem. Might it be that they are busy elsewhere investigating really suspicious people? Lets say the FBI sneaks into someone’s house and finds a head in the freezer. Do we fight to get the person off the hook because his privacy was invaded? What about the rights of the victim? Which right is more important?

I myself did not hear about Patriot Act II until the President signed it into law. The story gave the impression that the government (read Republicans) was sneaking this by everyone. Now I have read the Patriot Act and have yet to find a person who can walk me through the parts that are against our rights. I encourage you to read it too. Perhaps you might become familiar with something so evil. Read it here.

The NAACP, Gays and other Minorities – “The Republican Party is anti-Black.” Yet it is President Bush who appointed two Blacks to head the Department of State, third in line for the Presidency. Now the excuse the left gives is that these are “token” appointments or even that the President is using minorities to advance illegal activities. Well they were not the only two minorities the President has appointed. As it turns out, he has a fistful of “tokens” working for him. Some sources claim that the President has appointed more minorities than any other president in history. (Bet we won’t see that on 60 Minutes anytime soon.) Would the Kerry Administration have appointed a diverse mix for his cabinet? We will never know, but the internet does have a number of articles on who might have ended up in his cabinet. Minorities and women do not feature very prominently.

The President refused to show up to NAACP meetings. The press reports on this but neglects to report that the President does meet with other minority groups. Now being a white person, there is no way that I can accurately analyze the complex issues of the Black Community, so I won’t. But if you would like to read what at least some blacks think of the NAACP, then read HERE.

Gays and Lesbians were most decidedly against the President. Yet he had one as a senior member of his reelection committee, the Vice President’s daughter. Did he use her to try and sway some of the gay and lesbian vote? Nope, from all accounts they were not interested in taking advantage of the situation. It did not stop the Democrats from trying to use her. After the election, a secret tape of the President came out. It should have been heartening for the gay community as it documented that the President was against using any position against Gays as a way to win votes. But no, this appears to have been ignored.

Mainstream Media (MSM) - The press in general has been biased against President Bush since he won the Republican nomination for President (in 2000.) They employed an obscene double standard when it came to the recent presidential campaign. This is now the second election in a row where post election, the press freely admits that they were decidedly slanted against President Bush.

The 2000 election in Florida. Bush “stole” the election. Well the news organizations paid to inspect all of the questionable ballots in Florida. Their final tally showed Bush winning Florida. Well that was not as newsworthy as finding that the total favored Gore so the press recount never really made headlines. Not that it would have stopped the masses that truly believe that Bush stole Florida. Even after he won Florida a second time by a landslide.

Then there is the anal investigation of President Bush’s reserve service. There was never a serious investigation of Kerry’s service record. (After all, he was a Vietnam War hero.) President Bush signed Standard Form 180 (SF-180) releasing all his military records to the world. These have been put under the microscope. At the same time Kerry charged that Bush never released all his records. Once he signed his Form 180, it was no longer up to him. Senator Kerry has to this day refused to sign Standard Form 180, while claiming that he has released all of his military records. This despite a statement from the Navy that there were still about 100 pages that are still not public. Again, why is the press not hounding him on this point? Certainly a good reporter can come up with 20 minutes worth or material for 60 Minutes. “Senator, President Bush signed the form authorizing the release of all his military records, when so you plan to do the same thing?”

The press ignores Democrat racists and racial remarks made by black members of congress, but if a Republican makes a racist remark, it runs non-stop in the press. There is an ex-member of the Klu Klux Clan serving in Congress. Now before you try and guess which Republican it is, I will give you a hint. He is a Democrat.

Also ignored by the press were numerous past statements by Democrats about what a danger Saddam Hussein was and that he needed to give up his weapons programs. The impression you get from the press is that Bush was the only person who considered Saddam a threat and believed that Iraq had WMDs.

The press often serves the function of a foreign intelligence service. There are reporters in the US working overtime to undermine our government’s secrets. How about going into North Korea and doing an investigative report there on the millions who are starving, or on their “peaceful” nuclear energy project? Why not? Perhaps they know that they just might end up executed because they found something interesting, or even just for looking. So really the press might just be spending so much time investigating our own government because it is not likely to endanger their lives. Perhaps the press appreciates due process after all.

Now there is much more that I can add to the accounting of this conspiracy of the left, but I think I have made my point, without even adding a paragraph on the legend of the President’s puppet master Karl Rove. But even that is an example of how the left fails to think things through. After all Rove is just a decoy. (It is so obvious that the real puppet master is Andrew Card.)

I will probably be call a neocon (Even though I am an independent) This piece will be called hate speech. I will be called a racist too, but that’s all right. It will not be the first time. People who know me know that this is not true.

One thing about this conspiracy is that to this point, it has not worked. Bush is still in power. The Republicans are still in control of both houses of congress. And those opposed to them just seem to be getting more and more irrational. Hopefully, some of them will read this and reflect on what has been going one. What they are doing is not working, so perhaps it is time to try something new. After all, the President is looking for partners to reform Social Security and cut Federal Spending.

We Must Take a Harder Line Against Criminals

Somewhere in the world, there is a person who stole the license plates off of my car while it was parked in the middle of Washington, DC. Also out on the loose is another person who broke into my wife’s car and ripped the stereo out of it. Yet another criminal on the loose managed to obtain and use my credit card number. Over the course of three days he charged over $1,200 in AMTRAK tickets purchased over the phone. As far as I know, the people who committed these crimes were never caught. At least I never have had the satisfaction of knowing that they have been caught. Even if they were, I am fully aware that the punishment they would have received for these crimes is nowhere near what I would sentenced them to. Most recently, a locked cabinet in my office was broken into, and $160 was stolen. My company later learned that the thief had also stolen a copy of a canceled company check from elsewhere in the office. With that he created fake company checks that were cashed to the amount of $10,000.

Crime and crime fighting always comes up around election time. Normally the issue is centered on which candidate is tougher on crime and whether their state should approve capital punishment or a ‘three-strikes’ law. However, last year the mainstream media was busy reporting how a portion of the population has been unfairly disenfranchised of their right to vote. Of course, this “disenfranchisement” was of their own making. They have ended up in this situation due to a felony crime conviction. These same individuals are also not eligible to serve on juror duty, but I have yet to see any ex-cons complaining of jury-duty disenfranchisement.

In addition to the cries of those determined to restore voting rights to convicted criminals, there are also relatives of criminals sentenced under three-strikes laws fighting to have these laws weakened in order to get their three-striker out of their prison sentence. These family members are very concerned and very involved, working with groups attempting to overturn these laws. I wonder where these family members were before, when their loved ones were out breaking laws and collecting their second and third strikes. They could have at least tried to keep their loved ones from doing things that landed them in prison in the first place.

A Felony is a crime that carries a punishment or at least a year or more of jail time. Examples of felonies include crimes such as murder, rape, burglary and arson. Murder, by my definition, is when a criminal disenfranchises another person from his life, forever. And as we all know, dead people, good and bad, cannot vote.

Not all convicted felons are created equal. Some criminals have multiple felony convictions. In some of the better/stricter states, three felony convictions, or two felony convictions and a conviction for any third crime will result in the criminal being sentenced under a mandatory sentencing law, commonly known as a “three-strikes” law. These laws have also come under attack for being unjust to criminals, ineffective in preventing crime, and expensive. However, no matter the cost, these career criminals are removed from society, unable to create more victims, except possibly victimizing those they meet while behind bars.

FACTS: the Families to Amend California’s Three Strikes Law has the slogan on their website, “Let the time fit the crime.” Their “Top 150 Unjust 3-Strikes Stories” is a great list of criminals where in many, but not all, cases the third strike was for a petty crime. Third-strike cases included:
Theft of razor blades
Theft of a package of AA batteries
Shoplifting a lock (of all things!)

We can all agree that these are truly petty crimes, but crimes nonetheless. The website was nice enough to list their first two (or more) strikes which reveals that these same criminals have convictions for residential burglary, robbery, and assault with a deadly weapon, among other crimes. There were also a number of third strikers whose third conviction was drug related and those who had no convictions for violent crimes. A point that some of them are using to appeal their long prison sentences.

So what if their final strike was not for a serious, violent crime. The idea of these mandatory sentencing laws was to put repeat offenders away for a long time. Being caught for any crime is evidence enough that these persons are a continued threat in society. In all fairness, I do not see why the first two strikes need to be for felonies. Too cruel? How about five strikes? Ten strikes? At some point repeat offenders should be put away for life. It is just not fair to the rest of us that these people are out free, taking advantage of the rest of us. One of the top 150 unjust three strikers plainly states"

• “My crime of receiving stolen property of 30 dollars worth of womans jewerly is called a wobbler which could have been probation or county time, but instead I got a life sentence.”

See. Even with prior convictions, he still expected the system to go easy on him, simply because he was being a petty criminal.

I am in my early thirties. I have never been charged or convicted of any crime, let alone a felony. I have never been arrested. I have no strikes against me. I have never tried any illegal drugs. The one thing I am guilty of is speeding. I am not a pious person. I live a normal live just like most Americans who also have no strikes against them. Despite the lawful life that I (we) try to lead, there are no limits to the number of crimes that can be committed against me.

Groups in favor of restoring voting rights to ex-felons believe that these people have served their time in prison and paid back their ‘debt’ to society. The problem I have is that they have not paid back their ‘debt’ to me. The same goes for the victims of serious and violent crimes, or their families in the case of murder.

The license plates were stolen from my car the night before a driving vacation to South Carolina. Instead of beginning my drive at seven-thirty in the morning, I spent the next four hours with the process of reporting the crime at a police station since the police would not come to me and then to motor vehicle to obtain new plates and a registration, which I had to pay for.

My wife and I can never get those four hours back. I was also out the cost of the new plates and registration. That was slightly less expensive than repairing the damage and replacing the radio that was stolen from my wife’s car. Again four hours lost dealing with the police. One day lost to repair the car door, and another three hours to replace the radio. I was also out the cost of the radio and repairing the damage to the passenger side door, not to mention repairing the emotional damage done to my wife.

I was most ‘lucky’ when it came to the fraudulent credit card charges. The bank quickly reversed the charges, but we were without a credit card for a week until they could send us a replacement card. All of our automatic monthly payments had to be updated. The big loser in that crime was AMTRAK, who failed to notice that none of the multiple names provided in the fake charges belonged to me, the cardholder, instead blindly accepting many charges against the same credit card number. This was probably something the criminal was aware of. You would think that a company that has it’s own police force would be able to track down these criminals.

The crimes committed against my wife and I were all non-violent. The assets of my wife and I are like a bank account for criminals, occasionally tapped for their benefit. I almost would have preferred a violent crime, as it would have given me a chance to defend myself. But here in Washington, DC I cannot even do this properly due to the country’s most restrictive gun laws. And as we all know, these laws do not stop the criminals from obtaining weapons. Washington, DC is awash in illegal weapons. It is hardly a shining example of the benefits of gun control. One of the arguments of those fighting to return the vote to ex-felons is that many of the felony convictions were for non-violent crimes. Gun possession, for example, is a non-violent crime, as opposed to actually using the gun during a crime.

Many are felons due to convictions for drug possession. I take issue with stating that any drug dealer can be described as non-violent. After all, even the least violent drug dealer, has customers who commit all sorts of crimes to support their drug habits. Lets not forget that the drug industry as a whole unleashes all sorts of violence upon Americans. The theft of my license plates was a non-violent crime. Were they stolen and used to commit other crimes? I do not know, but it did concern me for a while, especially since that was the same week the DC sniper started his reign of terror. I am sure the proceeds from the fraudulent credit card purchases did not go to any noble cause.

Whatever the crime, each one degrades the standard of living for all Americans. I believe that minor non-violent crimes affect society more than violent crimes. DC Might have the reputation as the murder capital of America, but I have not witnessed any. However, I walk by cars with broken windows almost every week. These non-violent criminals, even when caught, spend little or no time behind bars, leaving lots of time to create ever more havoc upon society. Where is the deterrent to encourage these people to walk away from a life of crime? In the case of minors, where are their parents? It is their responsibility to know what their children are up to. IF the children is doing something illegal and is caught, then the system should try and help the family show the child of his ways. If the child is caught again, then the system should treat them like every other adult criminal.

It is good that we are discussing crime and voting rights. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the mere threat of losing your right to vote turns out to be an effective crime deterrent? Well that is not likely to happen, but at least children should be taught to value their right to vote. They should also be taught how hard it is to fully re-join society once you have betrayed it. And this points to where everyone should be concentrating our effort, preventing people from breaking the law in the first place.
With education, (as if the public really needs to be taught right and wrong) should come much harsher penalties for those who decide to break our laws. The “time” should never fit the crime. Prison sentences should be an overkill in relation to the crime committed. Sound unfair. Sure it’s unfair. It is very unfair. Tell your children, tell your friends, and surely, tell all those who have one and two strikes, that their next crime, no matter how petty, just might result in spending the rest of their life behind bars. After all, each one of these persons has infringed on our right to live a life free from crime. And that is the biggest crime of them all.

Before you move to Canada

There are few things more annoying, other than having your candidate lose his bid for the White House, than deciding to move to Canada and discovering that you need to wait in line for up to a year in order to get a work permit. So while you are waiting, I would like to suggest that you take advantage of the wait to check out some other options before you pack up and leave.

Moving out of the country is a pretty drastic way to escape from under the President and his supporters. If you are willing to take such drastic action, perhaps you do not need to actually leave the country, why not just move to a bluer part of it?

If you happen to be the only one who voted for Kerry on your block other than your husband, wife or partner, than perhaps moving is a logical solution for you. As we all know, some parts of the country already embrace the ideals of the Democratic Party. Take Washington, DC for example. Sure, the president lives here, but it is not like you are going to be his neighbor. He spends very little time in the city at all and he spends most weekends either at Camp David or home in Texas.

So what about moving to Washington, DC? Sure, it’s no Canada, but it does have some good points. First, the city is and has been controlled by Democrats. Many of the District’s residents are foreign nationals, which has the same effect as moving out of the country to an international utopia. The residents who can vote overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party. With the Federal Government being the biggest employer in the region, I would guess that a majority of them do not like their boss considering the local election results. My one Bush vote was canceled out ten times over by Kerry votes.

While District income taxes are high, they are progressive to impact the rich much more than the poor. There are tax breaks for people with low income, including subsidized housing and reduced rent if you are under set income limits. DC has one of the country’s strictest gun bans in the country. There is no ‘state’ death penalty. DC also has a European-quality public transport system. With it you can take the metro not only to work, but also to all the protests downtown.

Another benefit would be having your government at arms reach. Instead of sending flaming emails and just showing up at a weekend protest, you can go right to the offices of all the members of congress to make your feelings known in person.

Of course all of the basic things would be the same; the language, monetary system. There are no international dialing codes to call friends and relatives, and you can still use regular stamps.

If you are still dead set on getting out of the country, then I highly suggest you visit where you want to move to first. If you have lived outside the country before, then you already know. This suggestion is for those who have never been anywhere outside the country. So get yourself a passport and experience life outside the US. We all remember the phrase “the grass is always greener…” well you might be surprised at what you see.

I spent over four years living in Finland. I was told numerous times that Finland is “The most American Country in Europe.” Don’t let that fool you into thinking that it is anything like the US. I was amazed at how often I felt stupid for not understanding how the system there worked.

One of the most annoying tasks while living there was finding a job. I was pretty lucky as I managed to find three jobs. The work was offered because I had a specific skill in demand. So if you have a specific skill in need, you might manage to find work in your new country. The most common rejection reason I heard was that I needed to be able to speak their language. You can expect the same excuse. Now before you go and learn it, I have a warning for you. Once you learn the language, they will find other excuses not to hire you. It just so happens that the language excuse is the easiest one to dismiss you with. Learning Finnish only got me to the second excuse which was if I could speak their other national language, Swedish. Even though Swedish is the native language of about 6% of Finns, I suddenly was confronted with the fact that it was the more important of the two languages. Strange that it was not mentioned before I mastered the now completely useless Finnish. The last time I checked, Canada has two official languages, so be prepared.

There are some other serious problems in finding work in other countries besides language. Most other countries have a higher unemployment rate than the US. According to Statistics Canada, Canada’s unemployment rate in October was 7.1%. Unemployment in the EU averages about 9%. If you can find a job, there are two differences you can expect from your present job, lower salary and higher taxes. Not only are income taxes higher but so are sales and ‘value added taxes’ or VAT. The VAT for purchases in Finland was 22% and was applied to almost everything.

Some people will not need to look for a job because they own their own internet business and can run it from anywhere. For those in this situation, I highly suggest that you carefully research the tax implications of your move. You may end up being taxed in both countries. The IRS generally excludes the first eighty thousand in income not generated in the US. This probably would not apply if your internet business is generating revenue from purchases made in the US. I am not sure how Canada would view this income. In Finland, all of your global income is taxable, once you have been a resident there for six months, subject to double taxation treaties.

Don’t expect that the locals will like you just because you share their hatred of our president. Europeans hated Bush before he was elected president the first time and they hated America well before they ever heard his name. In a bar in Belgium, an attractive woman from the Netherlands heard me speaking English to a woman had I met there. She came over and interrupted the conversation to tell me how much she hated Americans. With nary a thought, the reply “get in line” came out of my mouth as I quickly returned to trying to convince my new friend that she really did want a tour of a merchant ship. The Dutch woman quickly walked away, clearly agitated that I could care less about what she thought. That was in 1992. I have since been confronted by Germans, Finns, Brits, Canadians, and Australians who shared the same opinion. I have been to a number of countries in the Middle East and was always received warmly by the locals, who all seem to have a relative or two already living here. I was confronted once in the UAE, by a Brit who hated Americans because they earned much more than he did there. The last time I checked Great Britain is our ally. My guess is that not all in Canada will welcome you. You might want to find out where the Red and Blue provinces are before you move up there. I bet that you do not want a Bush supporting Canuck for a neighbor.

Speaking of Canada, there are some basic differences that you would have to adjust to if you do move up there. Now I have never been to Canada, but I understand that Finland shares a similar climate. Anyway, if you are moving from the southern US, you are going to need a new wardrobe for starters. The further north you go the less sun you’ll see in the winter. Anyone who has drive up and down I95 has seen the cars with the Canadian license plates headed to Florida for the winter. This would have me believe that Canada’s ‘Banana Belt’ is somewhere inside the Sunshine state.

We have all heard that prescription medicine is much cheaper in Canada. What you have not heard is that not all medicines are available, especially the newest drugs. About three months after arriving in Canada legally, you should qualify for public health care. The good news is that everything that is covered is free. The bad news is that you might have to wait months for treatment. Prescription medicine just happens to be one item that is not covered.

Don’t think that paying for treatment will help you receive better service. If the national system treats the illness you are suffering from, than it is illegal to pay for better treatment, as it would be unfair to those who cannot afford to pay for better care. You might end up back in the US for treatment, without the medical insurance your former job provided you with. However, you can probably find a Canadian doctor to treat you as many have migrated to the US.

As far as I am concerned, I can care less if you move to Canada. I would rather have you move there than to DC. The last thing I need is yet another person asking me if I have a minute to help kick Bush out of the White House. However, I ask that you take a minute to realize that we are all Americans and it is simply impossible to get two hundred plus Americans to agree on most anything. I managed to survive eight years of Clinton in the White House; I am sure you can survive another four with George running things. This country is by no means perfect. I am sure that Canada is a nice country too. I look forward to visiting there sometime in the near future. Would I want to live up there? Perhaps, but that decision will be based on what is best for me, not whether or not I like the persons running the government. If moving north is best for you, than I wish you good luck on your adventure. I look forward to greeting the Canadian that moves south to take your place.

Seeing things in Black and white instead of in shades of gray.

There is no shortage of complaints about President Bush. One specific criticism that I heard recently really got me thinking; The President is a poor leader because he sees issues only in terms of Black and White.

President Bush calls things as he sees it. After September 11, he stated to the World "You are either with us or against us." The President's statement is a perfect example of not only his black and white view of the world, but also of the President applying that view to American Policy. His innumerable critics say that this type of thinking is not appropriate, as the world is a complicated place where issues must be seen in shades of Gray.

I started thinking about the differences between the two ways of seeing things. Looking at our daily lives, I was surprised at how often we all take advantage of looking at things the gray-way. It seems that the main reason to apply this way of thinking to our everyday life is simply that this way of seeing is to our benefit. Unfortunately, this way often allows us to reason away being on the wrong side of the law.

Take speeding for example. The roads are highways of gray. Most cars on the highway are speeding. How fast is too fast? How often do you end up in the passing lane behind a car going too slow for you? The slower car should move right to let you pass but often does not. Perhaps they do not because they are already speeding. In the world of gray, who is wrong and who is right? Other than the fastest car and the super-aggressive driver, the rest of us can speed by the police with no risk of any of us getting a ticket.

Is it wrong to pace a group driving on the Interstate when they driving twenty miles over the speed limit? Is it wrong to jaywalk across a busy street interfering with traffic? What about littering, tailgating, driving drunk, double parking, and all those other activities that people should not be doing but have somehow decided that it was alright for them to do it. These actions degrade the standard of living for all of us. Over three hundred million people live in the United States, many of us take some liberties and often the outcome is a decrease in the standard of living for all of us.

What is the result when governments see issues in terms of gray and not in black and white? Israel building settlements on land that they occupy and theoretically should eventually de-occupy. Palestine failing to institute needed reforms for self-rule and put an end to suicide bombings. Iran concealing information from UN Nuclear arms Inspectors. India failing to hold a referendum in Kashmir on its future because they know that the Muslim-Majority their will vote to join Pakistan. The Sudanese Government permitting genocide within their own country. North Korea failing to care for its citizens.

France and Russia Take full advantage of gray for personal gain. Both countries were racing to be the first to violate Sanctions against Iraq with direct flights to Baghdad in 2000. The spokesperson of the French delegation on the first flight that arrived in Baghdad stated "There is no need for permission from the United Nations'' concerning France's actions in the matter. That's a good thing to know, especially coming from a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

Governments of many countries are not behaving in a responsible manner. They are not properly educating their children. Their leaders are parties to questionable transactions that enrich secret bank accounts around the globe. They prevent free travel out of their country. They spend limited government resources on their military while ignoring the social wellbeing of their people. Failing to provide health care for their people. Blaming other countries for their problems.

We should all care about the people trapped in these countries. Governments of countries like North Korea use collective hate and fear of a menacing United States to maintain control of their population. Any questions concerning their government's own criminal activity is explained away with a reference to how all of North Korea's problems are the fault of the United States.

Where is the United Nations to stop all of this bad behavior? The UN is the international body entrusted to preserve world peace, and enhance the lives of all people living on this planet. Unfortunately, the UN does not appear to be able to act effectively in making the world a better place. Its members have infected the Organization with the gray way of viewing the world. Every country is able to gray-away whatever they are accused of.

This is why a number of countries have UN Resolutions that they are in violation of. Where is the threat against non-compliance from the United Nations? Why was there no real action after the first resolution was violated? There is none. The 'good' countries do not have the determination and will to force the 'bad' countries into doing good things. Countries are quick to condemn horrible deeds committed in other countries but their words ring hollow.

President Bush's words ring loud and clear. The world pays attention to what he says. Ex-President Taylor of Liberia listened and stepped down from office to go into hiding in Nigeria. Without a word spoken in their direction, Libya got the message of the Bush Administration and decided to re-establish normal relations by handing over their complete WMD program. Afghanistan and Iraq are both under new management. Saddam is behind bars and years later, Bin Laden still does not dare to walk openly, even in areas sympathetic to his cause. These results were all because of the actions of the United States and those Countries willing to stand with her.

There is still much to do. Countries like North Korea, The Sudan, and Iran all have leaders who count on the world community to view their activities in shades of gray. Unfortunately, when we see things in shades of gray, the result often ends up much closer to the black position than the white one.

I am sure that President Bush knows this and he does not find it acceptable. I wish more or the world's leaders would too. We have a coalition of the willing, now we just need to win over the unwilling. Once that happens, the bad apples of the world will have no excuse to hide behind. The world may be a complicated place, but it is because the leaders make the world it complicated by refusing to implement the simple solutions to most of the world's problems.