British Prime Minister Tony Blair: PurePolitics.com's 2005 Person of the Year

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has been selected by our visitors and editorial oversight committee as PurePolitics.com's 2005 Person of the Year.

The Year 2005 was a year very historic year in the realm of U.S. politics and global international affairs.

During 2005 we encountered just some of the following events:

War on Iraq reached 2,000 American Causalities
Iraq holds democratic election
Hurricane Katrina Tragedy
London Transit Bombings
Selection of a new Chief Justice: Judge Roberts
Saddam Hussein is hauled into court
Bird Flu strains found
Guantanamo Bay
Deaths of Pope John Paul II, Rosa Parks, Richard Pryor and Peter Jennings
The Tsunamis in east Asia
Israel leaves the West Bank
Run-away bride Jennifer Wilbanks
Aruba tragedy of 18 year Natalee Holloway
Alan Greenspan retiring from Federal Reserve
Courthouse shootings in Atlanta
Terri Schiavo case
Cindy Sheehan-outspoken critic of the war
CIA- Valerie Plame scandal
Tom DeLay scandal

*The Right Honorable Anthony Charles Lynton Blair (born 6 May 1953) is the current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, First Lord of the Treasury and Minister for the Civil Service. He has led the Labour Party since July 1994, (following the death of John Smith in May of that year) and brought Labour into power with a landslide victory in the 1997 general election, replacing John Major as Prime Minister and ending 18 years of Conservative government. He is now the Labour Party's longest-serving Prime Minister, and the only person to have led the party to three consecutive general election victories.

Blair moved the Labour Party towards the centre of British politics, using the term "New Labour" to distinguish his policies of support for the market economy from the party's previous rigid adherence to nationalization. He has referred to his policy as "modern social democracy" and "the third way". Critics on the left feel that he has compromised the principles of the founders of the Labour party, and that the Blair government has moved too far to the right, placing insufficient emphasis on traditional Labour priorities such as the redistribution of wealth.

Since the advent of the War on Terror, a significant part of Blair's political agenda has been dominated by foreign affairs, particularly those concerning Iraq. Despite public protests, he supported many aspects of George W. Bush's foreign policy, sending British forces to participate in the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the subsequent peacekeeping operations and is known as one of the strongest foreign allies of the United States. In October 2004 Blair declared his intention to seek a third term but not a fourth.

The Labour party won a third term in government at the 2005 general election for the first time in its history, although its majority in the House of Commons was reduced to 66.

On February 6, 2005, Blair became the longest-serving Labour prime minister: his 2838th day in office moved him past the combined length of 7 years 9 months that comprised Harold Wilson's four terms during 1964 to 1966, 1966 to 1970, February to October 1974 and October 1974 to March 1976.

On July 6, 2005, it was formally announced that the 2012 Summer Olympics, the Games of the XXX Olympiad, were awarded to London as host city, as announced by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) during the extremely successful 117th IOC session in Singapore. The last minute surprise win by London over frontrunner Paris was said to have been decided by the presence of Tony Blair at the IOC session, even down to Irish IOC member Patrick Hickey saying "This is down to Tony Blair. If he hadn't come here I'd say that six to eight votes would have been lost and London would not be sitting here today winners".


On Thursday July 7, 2005, a series of four bomb explosions struck London's public transport system during the morning rush hour. At 08:50, three bombs exploded within one minute on three London Underground trains. A fourth bomb exploded on a bus at 09:47 in Tavistock Square. All four incidents are believed to have been suicide bombings. 56 people were confirmed dead, with 700 injured. The incident was the deadliest single act of terrorism in the United Kingdom since 270 died in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, and it was the deadliest bombing in London since World War II.

Blair made a statement about that day's London bombings, saying that he believed it was "reasonably clear" that it was an act of terror, and that he hoped that the people of Britain could demonstrate that their will to overcome the events is greater than the terrorists' wish to cause destruction. He also said that his determination to "defend" the British way of life outweighed "extremist determination" to destroy it.

On July 21, 2005, a second series of explosions were reported in London, two weeks and some hours after the 7 July 2005 London bombings. Four controlled explosions, of devices considerably less advanced than those of the previous attacks, were carried out at Shepherd's Bush, Warren Street and Oval underground stations, and on a bus in Shoreditch. Even though the attacks on the 21st were less severe than those on the 7th, Blair was reported to have said that the bombings in London today were intended "to scare people and to frighten them, to make them anxious and worried". He went on to say how the "police have done their very best, and the security services too, in the situation, and I think we have just got to react calmly and continue with our business as much as possible as normal".

In December 2005, the Prime Minister was presented with the "Statesman of the Decade" award by the East West Institute, a Transatlantic think tank that organizes an annual Security Conference in Brussels.

"We are proud to name Prime Minister Tony Blair as PurePolitics.com's 2005 Person of the Year," said Robert Ragsdale III, CEO of PurePolitics.com. "He follows in the footsteps of past heroic British Prime Ministers. History will someday look favorably upon Britain's true Statesmen. He is a leader who chooses democracy and freedom as his guide versus choosing political polls."

Official Site
10 Downing Street

*Background information provided from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Ariel Sharon polled second with Chief Justice John Roberts a close third out of eight finalists for the 2005 Person of the Year. The other five finalists were: Families of Hurricane Katrina, Peter Jennings, Pope John Paul II, Lance Armstrong and Rosa Parks.

To select nominees for the PurePolitics.com 2005 Person of the Year, we utilized our greatest asset -- our visitors. We conducted a comprehensive assessment, of the most searched-for people, the most frequently viewed photos and news articles in this year. The results of this comprehensive overview were compiled to create an initial master list of nominees. An editorial oversight committee, made up of PurePolitics.com employees who are experts in tracking and identifying user interests and trends, then reviewed the data collected and used it to determine the final list of 8 nominees.

History of Thanksgiving

Throughout history mankind has celebrated the bountiful harvest with thanksgiving ceremonies.

Before the establishment of formal religions many ancient farmers believed that their crops contained spirits which caused the crops to grow and die. Many believed that these spirits would be released when the crops were harvested and they had to be destroyed or they would take revenge on the farmers who harvested them. Some of the harvest festivals celebrated the defeat of these spirits.

Harvest festivals and thanksgiving celebrations were held by the ancient Greeks, the Romans, the Hebrews, the Chinese, and the Egyptians.

The Greeks

The ancient Greeks worshipped many gods and goddesses. Their goddess of corn (actually all grains) was Demeter who was honored at the festival of Thesmosphoria held each autumn.

On the first day of the festival married women (possibility connecting childbearing and the raising of crops) would build leafy shelters and furnish them with couches made with plants. On the second day they fasted. On the third day a feast was held and offerings to the goddess Demeter were made - gifts of seed corn, cakes, fruit, and pigs. It was hoped that Demeter's gratitude would grant them a good harvest.

The Romans

The Romans also celebrated a harvest festival called Cerelia, which honored Ceres their goddess of corn (from which the word cereal comes). The festival was held each year on October 4th and offerings of the first fruits of the harvest and pigs were offered to Ceres. Their celebration included music, parades, games and sports and a thanksgiving feast.

The Chinese

The ancient Chinese celebrated their harvest festival, Chung Ch'ui, with the full moon that fell on the 15th day of the 8th month. This day was considered the birthday of the moon and special "moon cakes", round and yellow like the moon, would be baked. Each cake was stamped with the picture of a rabbit - as it was a rabbit, not a man, which the Chinese saw on the face of the moon.

The families ate a thanksgiving meal and feasted on roasted pig, harvested fruits and the "moon cakes". It was believed that during the 3 day festival flowers would fall from the moon and those who saw them would be rewarded with good fortune.

According to legend Chung Ch'ui also gave thanks for another special occasion. China had been conquered by enemy armies who took control of the Chinese homes and food. The Chinese found themselves homeless and with no food. Many staved. In order to free themselves they decided to attack the invaders.

The women baked special moon cakes which were distributed to every family. In each cake was a secret message which contained the time for the attack. When the time came the invaders were surprised and easily defeated. Every year moon cakes are eaten in memory of this victory.

The Hebrews

Jewish families also celebrate a harvest festival called Sukkoth. Taking place each autumn, Sukkoth has been celebrated for over 3000 years.

Sukkoth is know by 2 names - Hag ha Succot - the Feast of the Tabernacles and Hag ha Asif - the Feast of Ingathering. Sukkoth begins on the 15th day of the Hebrew month of Tishri, 5 days after Yom Kippur the most solemn day of the Jewish year.

Sukkoth is named for the huts (succots) that Moses and the Israelites lived in as they wandered the desert for 40 years before they reached the Promised Land. These huts were made of branches and were easy to assemble, take apart, and carry as the Israelites wandered through the desert.

When celebrating Sukkoth, which lasts for 8 days, the Jewish people build small huts of branches which recall the tabernacles of their ancestors. These huts are constructed as temporary shelters, as the branches are not driven into the ground and the roof is covered with foliage which is spaced to let the light in. Inside the huts are hung fruits and vegetables, including apples, grapes, corn, and pomegranates. On the first 2 nights of Sukkoth the families eat their meals in the huts under the evening sky.

The Egyptians

The ancient Egyptians celebrated their harvest festival in honor of Min, their god of vegetation and fertility. The festival was held in the springtime, the Egyptian's harvest season.

The festival of Min featured a parade in which the Pharaoh took part. After the parade a great feast was held. Music, dancing, and sports were also part of the celebration.

When the Egyptian farmers harvested their corn, they wept and pretended to be grief-stricken. This was to deceive the spirit which they believed lived in the corn. They feared the spirit would become angry when the farmers cut down the corn where it lived.

The United States

In 1621, after a hard and devastating first year in the New World the Pilgrim's fall harvest was very successful and plentiful. There was corn, fruits, vegetables, along with fish which was packed in salt, and meat that was smoke cured over fires. They found they had enough food to put away for the winter.

The Pilgrims had beaten the odds. They built homes in the wilderness, they raised enough crops to keep them alive during the long coming winter, and they were at peace with their Indian neighbors. Their Governor, William Bradford, proclaimed a day of thanksgiving that was to be shared by all the colonists and the neighboring Native American Indians.

The custom of an annually celebrated thanksgiving, held after the harvest, continued through the years. During the American Revolution (late 1770's) a day of national thanksgiving was suggested by the Continental Congress.

In 1817 New York State adopted Thanksgiving Day as an annual custom. By the middle of the 19th century many other states also celebrated a Thanksgiving Day. In 1863 President Abraham Lincoln appointed a national day of thanksgiving. Since then each president has issued a Thanksgiving Day proclamation, usually designating the fourth Thursday of each November as the holiday.

Canada

Thanksgiving in Canada is celebrated on the second Monday in October. Observance of the day began in 1879. (thanks to holiday.net)

Why Do We Run?

Why? Why do we run from a fight? On pain of irritating those who hear me doing it often, I quote from the Mel Gibson’s timeless classic, Braveheart, the heart wrenching, yet inspiring epic based on the life of Sir William Wallace. In the movie, Wallace and several other Scottish nobles have amassed an army that stands opposite the hoards of Edward Longshanks, the King of England who is set upon annihilating Wallace and forcing the people of Scotland back into submission. As the military leaders of the respective sides ride towards the center of the field to discuss possible terms, Wallace rides off after them in a fury. When one of his lieutenants calls after him, asking where he’s going, he turns back, and with an expression of childish mischief yet deadly purpose, he replies, “To pick a fight.”

Wallace must have prophetically heard a phrase uttered some centuries down the road by one Mr. Edmund Burke. He said, “All it takes for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Die he might, but Wallace would never have been accused of doing nothing.

Why then do we, as conservatives, rather than welcoming the opportunity to defend our opinions with a fiery passion, we continue to run from fights? Time, and time again, we have had opportunities to win political, policy, and philosophical battles, and time and time again, we turn and run the opposite direction. I think those of us who have called ourselves traditionalists, Christians, conservatives, Republicans…whatever label you put on yourself, you know who you are. And what I’m about to say applies to most, if not all of you. For years, decades, really, we have been those who did nothing to enforce our claim to political ground. Absolutely nothing. So, when Hillary becomes POTUS, we deserve it. Had Miers been confirmed, we deserved it. If they take away our right to take our children to Mass, Sunday School, or Synagogue, we deserve it. If they take away our national anthem because it glorifies the Biblical ideals of freedom and liberty too much, we deserve it. In similar fashion, American conservatives stood idly by as our courts paved a highway for the murder of untold millions of unborn children. We stood idly by as they removed prayer from our schools, took the Ten Commandments out of the courthouses. We said nothing when they tried to take the pledge of allegiance out of our schools. We stand idly by as they, even now, try to increase their holds on our lives by restricting the practice of the principles upon which this country was built and by which it is sustained.

Two problems with that. Two really simple, logical problems. First, we have the “firepower” to win. We have majority in Congress. We have a President with three more years. We have a Supreme Court ripe for the picking. We hold a majority of the governorships around the nation. We have a massive grassroots organization that outnumbers the Democrats by over a million. Second, we’re right. It’s that simple. We, as conservatives, hold the value systems, beliefs, and the platform that most accurately reflects correct moral principles, the beliefs held by the founders of this country, and the standards that are truest to truth, justice, equity, life, liberty, and the pursuit of the happiness that so many of us so strongly desire.

That, my friends, is why my jaw dropped in absolute amazement when I heard about Harriet Mier’s withdrawal. I was unabashedly, unequivocally against her nomination. I do not think that someone who’s qualifications are relatively unknown, and who’s convictions and philosophy are in question, should even be considered. Hence, as you may assume, my surprise when I learned that Miers was to withdraw her name, and another, more conservative nominee to be offered. My question is this: why did we have to go through the pain of a failed nominee to get to this point? More importantly, why weren’t conservatives heard and heeded during the initial selection, instead of in the withdrawal consideration? Put simply, it is our job to influence the influencers, and we have not been influencing.

In short, I think conservatives need to take just a moment and review the events of the last month. We need to cognitively take stock, and realize something. I’ve said this for years, yet few seem to comprehend what it really means. If Christian conservatives will unite, band together, and exert the political and government influence that is duly theirs, our citizen lobby would outnumber the liberals, the pro-abortionists, the environmentalists, the sodomites, and the anarchists…put together.

In the alternative, I’ll reference the chilling words of the late Reverend Martin Niemoeller. “In Germany, the Nazis first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I didn't speak up because I was a protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak for me.”

Incentive Programs Gone Wild: By Nathan Tabor

When I consider the concept of “incentive programs,” I’m reminded of the old adage, “It looks good on paper,” but then you are faced with the inevitable question of how will it work in practice? The basic premise of state-based business incentive programs is as follows: Company X needs a new headquarters or production plant, States B and C have the needed land and workforce, and would both benefit from having Company X move their way. So each state tries to entice Company X with a “sweetened” offer, making it financially beneficial to come to that state. The payoff to the state’s outlay comes ostensibly by Company X’s long-term investment in the state by employing locals, and bolstering the local economy through the purchase of goods and by paying their taxes.

Some would argue that the proper perspective with which to view these programs would be the axiom that you can give a man a fish and he’ll eat for a day; but if you teach a man to fish, he can eat for a lifetime. Or put another way: By investing in this company now, the state is investing in the long-term health of its citizenry.

Local and state governments are rolling out the red carpet to big corporations and are willing to fulfill just about every corporate demand in exchange for jobs. Currently, over two-thirds of the states have incentive programs that collectively offer over $3 billion in incentives.

Essentially, this once “well-intentioned” program has degenerated into a huge scam that has corporations hop-scotching from state to state once their current “fix” is exhausted

Indeed, such a program may look good on paper and, at first glance, might even appear to be consistent with a conservative ideology. But when you add 21st century politics and ethics—or lack thereof—to the mix, you quickly realize that these programs amount to nothing more than a welfare program for multi-million dollar corporations at the expense of the already overburdened U.S. taxpayer.

Note to Michael Moore and friends: this is not a rant against capitalism or business. But these programs expose a fundamental misunderstanding of how our economy works.

As a small business owner, it deeply disturbs me that our elected officials are so willing to chase after these big businesses at the expense of helping the “little guy.” The fact is that small business owners are the backbone of our economy; therefore it is only logical that their existence, success and growth should be nurtured—not dismissed. This isn’t high-level business strategy. It is merely common sense. But then again, that may be part of the problem. As a professor once quipped to me, “If sense is so common, then why doesn’t everyone have it?”

For example, take a look at my home county, Forsyth County, North Carolina. Recently, they voted to give $125,000 to Hayward Industries—a New Jersey-based company. Just a few months ago, however, they voted AGAINST giving $105,000 to a local company that was seeking to improve our local hospital. How can it make sense to help an outside corporation that will take the county for whatever it will give at the expense of growing the local industry.

By now, it must be pretty obvious that I am 100 percent against incentive programs. But I am 150 percent against multi-million dollar corporations, like Hayward and Dell, reaping financial windfalls at the expense of the individual citizen’s bottom line.


These programs get you coming and going. They are not only adversarial to the local small business owner by nature, but like any form of welfare they quickly devolve into a bloated bureaucracy that reinforces an entitlement mentality that is nearly impossible to terminate. The minute a local government seeks to scale back or cut off continued funding to these companies, they pull up stakes and look for their next sucker town and tax base that will swallow the “jobs” bait—hook, line and sinker.

This isn’t just my random theory. Look at what happened in Tampa Bay, Fla. The government promised to give J.P. Morgan $100 million to help them “create” jobs. One hundred million dollars to a company that made over $4.5 billion in 2004 alone. This is an absurd abuse of taxpayer dollars. Are you ready for the shock of your life? It didn’t benefit anyone but J.P. Morgan’s bottom line. This year, the investment behemoth laid off 1,900 workers. So, in the end, the state of Florida financed J.P. Morgan’s “right-sizing” effort. Now that’s a good deal if you can get in on it.

Credit card company Capitol One also had a sweetheart deal in Tampa, Fla., worth several million dollars. Everyone was happy until a better offer came along. Capitol One took the bait and added 1,100 names to the local economy’s unemployment list.

It is only a matter of time before this reality comes to roost in North Carolina. It seems to me that our elected officials could spend more time lowering the corporate tax rate, then dreaming up new ways to give our hard-earned money away to corporate raiders.

When all is said and done, it is small business owners who are left to pick up the shattered pieces of the local economy and put it back together again. Just imagine how strong local economies would be if the millions of dollars being wasted on corporate welfare instead flowed back into these markets.

America once prided herself on self-responsibility and for being a manufacturing giant that set the world standard. If we needed it, we made it. Now we punish the industrious, reward the greedy and wonder why domestic manufacturers are being kicked around by the communist Chinese production machine.

If we truly want to turn our economy around we must first correct our attitude and philosophy on business itself. Our elected officials must create a fertile environment for small businesses to thrive by lowering taxes and regulations on these businesses, and stop robbing the “poor” to reward the “rich.”



Nathan Tabor is a conservative political activist based in Kernersville, North Carolina. He has a bachelor’s degree in psychology and a master’s degree in public policy. He is a contributing editor at www.theconservativevoice.com. Contact him at Nathan@nathantabor.com.

Politics of the Belly

In a failed state on the West African coast, fallow fields and an oligopolic import market mean many are going hungry. In this year's elections, rice is used as a political tool.

In Liberia, devastated after 14 years of a senseless civil war, talk is cheap. Any aspiring politician this election years knows he needs rice – and lots of it – if he wants a crowd at his stump.

The impoverished masses of this country, founded on the West African coast 150 years ago by freed slaves from America, view campaign season as a boon time. This is politics in the Tammany tradition. And though a voter may think twice about selling his vote, at least there is no question as to what the currency will be. “A Liberian man may put food in his mouth all day,” says Vincent Klede, for three years a driver for Firestone, which maintains the world's largest rubber plantation outside the capital Monrovia. “But if he hasn’t eaten rice, he’ll say he hasn’t eaten.”

In a country so broken it can't even offer the statistics that show its neighbors have the lowest quality of life on earth, the staple food is a vivid image to the hungry. Liberians date the beginning of their political awakening to the rice riots of 1979, when frustration over rising prices and the one-party state brought the public to the streets. Monrovians associate the worst periods of their many years of conflict with the concomitant spike in the price of a cup of rice. Chea Cheapoo, former chief justice of the Supreme Court, opened his unsuccessful senatorial bid in River Gee County in September by explaining his reasons for retiring from the bench: “That judiciary is so rotten,” he told a dancing, drumming crowd in one of the least developed regions of the countryside. “They bribe just like how you cook rice every day.” And while only one warlord, Sekou Conneh, was among the 22 candidates in the political free-for-all that was the first round of the race for the presidency, his estranged wife over the border in Guinea is an eerie reminder of darker forces in the wings. The International Crisis Group, which monitors West Africa closely, reports Aisha Keita Conneh is luring throngs of former fighters to her home by cooking 100 50-kg bags of rice every week.

In the country’s last experiment with democracy, citizens overwhelmingly elected the country’s leading warlord to the presidency. Six years after the 1997 elections, Charles Taylor, alienated by the international community and with two rebel movements at the gates of Monrovia, fled into exile. He had been elected by turning his fighting forces into a well oiled political machine, with feasts of grand proportions at the precinct and district level. Many see their choice then as a mistake, but would only be so happy to live through his campaign once more.


The Liberian officials and international experts overseeing this year’s election have devoted much hand-wringing to its needless concurrence with the rainy season. Less attention has been given to the anachronistic constitution’s placement of campaigns during the hungry season, when hampers have run dry and children grow thin. In these months, the cost of feeding a family on imports from China and Pakistan, 80 percent of which are controlled by two Lebanese businessmen, can soar as high as $40, more than the monthly salary of many civil servants. Families grouse by on cassava or the much-maligned bulgur wheat, imported from the American heartland.

The campaign feeding frenzy has mellowed since October 11, when the first round of voting decided the races for the Senate and House. The two candidates in the second round - required because none received an outright majority of votes in the first - don't want their heightened profile to get them in trouble with the country's oft ignored campaign finance regulations, which outlaw vote buying.

Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, a former World Bank official and chair of the Special Executive Rice Committee, has been part of the political landscape since the final days of the True Whig Party in the 1970s. But with her advanced Harvard degree and years abroad, she is far from the Liberian mainstream. Her runoff competitor is George Manneh Weah, the 1995 world soccer play of the year. He can’t boast a high school diploma, but his supporters say he’s too rich to be corrupted.

It's a stark choice for voters, but both candidates claim to offer the one thing Liberians want other than rice. A way out of the senseless war that has ravaged the country. Round two takes place on November 8.

By: Jeff Austin contributing writer to PurePolitics.com

The Southern Vent: I am not a conservative

I’ve got news for you, folks. The blame game in natural disasters can go all around in a vicious circle if it pleases, but the god honest truth is that the blame rests in the societal and cultural shift we’ve seen in the last decades towards a welfare state. If I may wax philosophical but for a moment, I’ll return us in memory to the principles upon which this country was founded: freedom, honesty, HARD work ethic, national pride, and patriotism.

I’m not even talking about philosophies or ideals…I’m talking about the character qualities that formed the core of our nation’s people. I’m a firm believer in the concept that those qualities that forged the strength and iron will of our nation’s people have been slowly but surely weaned out of us. Formerly, we were a “crock pot” nation. We are now a “microwave” nation. We were fitted with patience, cunning, and the ability to wait things out. Now (and I even include myself in much of this analysis), we are a microwave oven nation. We want our pop – tarts immediately, we want direct deposit for our paychecks, we want the paper on the front porch every morning, we want a coffee maker that will make coffee on a timer so we don’t have to turn it on in the morning, and we want to be able to buy movie tickets online so that we don’t have to stand in line.

Formerly, we were an enterprising nation. We are now a nation outsourced all over the world. A wise politician in our country once said that our country was equally formed by the bravery of our soldiers, and the sweat and toil of the farmers who stayed home. That’s not at all to detract from our men and women of arms; it’s simply a recognition of the hard work that made us great. Now, many people spend four years in college learning how to outsource, delegate, sub contract, and automate. The internet is plagued with a plethora of get rich quick schemes…we even have seven minute abs.

Formerly, we were a nation without fear. When this nation was founded, boys grew up just waiting for the opportunity to join the military. It was an honor, a desire, to serve our country in uniform. Nathan Hale regretted that he had “but one life to give for his country.” Now, fear permeates even our armed forces and law enforcement, and men and women desert the armed forces and quit their jobs as law enforcement in droves. It seems the sons of Benedict Arnold have returned. Formerly, a man was shamed and placed in stocks who refused to work for his food and his family. Now, we pat him on the back, give him a government check, and send him home to watch TV. When these same people are unable to receive the government handouts, they resort to violence, shooting, and crime. I know it’s harsh, but it’s the cold hard truth. I’ve talked to enough high school aged young men who PLAN, not stumble upon, but plan to drop out of high school, find a single girl with a child and a welfare check, woo her, and move in.

For those of you who’s ire I’m beginning to raise, I have a question for you: that sorry excuse for a young man is taking your hard earned dollars through your tax money: where’s your pride in a job well done? Why don’t you care to keep the money you worked hard to make? We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare; we have abused power and called it politics; we have coveted our neighbor’s possessions and called it ambition; we have become a generation of learners, not thinkers; we have become a generation of consumers, not producers; we have become a generation enslaved to a system who attempts to even the playing field and giving us everything we want, when we want it, and how we want it…on a silver platter.

We are no longer a nation of tested, tried, and true, enterprising, proud individuals. We are, and have become, a culture of egalitarian parasites. “In modern socialist theory, socialism is the pursuit of the goal of creating a democratic society that would form the backbone of an ideal welfare state.” That’s one dictionary’s definition of socialism. What did this “welfare state” bring us to, in one small example of the breakdown of the ideal American societal system? From the Washington Times: “Storm victims are raped and beaten; fights erupt with flying fists, knives and guns; fires are breaking out; corpses litter the streets; and police and rescue helicopters are repeatedly fired on. “The plea from Mayor C. Ray Nagin came even as National Guardsmen poured in to restore order and stop the looting, carjackings and gunfire…. “Last night, Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco said 300 Iraq-hardened Arkansas National Guard members were inside New Orleans with shoot-to-kill orders. ” ‘These troops are…under my orders to restore order in the streets,’ she said. ‘They have M-16s, and they are locked and loaded. These troops know how to shoot and kill and they are more than willing to do so if necessary and I expect they will.’ ”

That’s why we had to send in thousands of battlefield hardened troops in APCs to the streets of New Orleans. That’s why the stories reported brought news of violence, rioting, rape, and anger in conjunction with floods, wind, destruction, and devastation. That’s why there were some reports of cannibalism taking place in New Orleans. That’s why the news feeds have contained images that could be confused with movies such as Hotel Rwanda and Black Hawk Down. That’s why, according to early news reports, New Orleans had no plan for getting all the criminals out of the city. So, they just let many of them loose. That’s why Drudge later reported: “Even as Americans rally to make donations to the victims of Hurricane Katrina, the Internet is brimming with scams, come-ons and opportunistic pandering related to the relief effort in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama — and in greater numbers and varieties than any past disaster, according to Thursday editions of the NEW YORK TIMES.

Florida’s attorney general has already filed a lawsuit against a man who mounted one of the earliest networks of Web sites — katrinahelp.com, katrinadonations.com and others — which purported to collect donations for victims of the storm. In Missouri, a much wider constellation of Internet domains — with names like parishdonations.com and katrinafamilies.com — displays pictures of the flood-ravaged south and drives traffic to a single site, InternetDonations.org, a nonprofit entity with apparent links to a white supremacist group.” That’s why, folks. Joseph Farah, in his article Why I Am Not a Conservative, speaks to this issue: “Conservatives, by definition, seek to conserve something from the past—institutions, cultural moores, values, political beliefs, traditions…No, it takes a radical agenda to defeat a radical agenda.

Conservatives have no stomach for fighting—the sort of fighting that it takes to restore real freedom in America. It’s not time for timidity or compromise. It’s not a time for defensiveness and conciliation. It’s time to take an offensive in this struggle. Was Washington a conservative? No. He was a revolutionary. He is known throughout the world—or was when people appreciated such concepts—as the “father of freedom.” Was Thomas Jefferson a conservative? No, he was a radical, a visionary. He wasn’t interested in preserving the status quo. Like his contemporaries, he risked everything to expand freedom, not just to preserve the limited freedoms that existed in his time…” “We can see these symptoms of materialism throughout our society, but the most visible one is the loss of courage. Our political leaders watch communism gobble up other nations, and they do nothing. They are afraid. People complain in private about the state of affairs, but will not speak out. They are afraid…” General Lewis B Walt

This being said, I will write to you from the perspective of one who lives and breaths this larger than life chess game we call politics, from the perspective of one who was raised on the fundamental principles this country was founded upon, from the perspective one of the few, perhaps, who still believes that patriotism rest secondarily only to devotion to one’s God and family.

I am, however, far from radical, as “pragmatic” seems to be an ever increasing part of the vocabulary that describes my personal, religious, and political beliefs. You will most of the time find me commenting on matters related to faith, family, and freedom; politics in the United States, or politics in the state of Georgia.

You’re welcome to contact me at smillican@gmail.com. I’d be honored to hear from you.


Seth Millican is a contributing writer for PurePolitics.com as well as other local and national news organizations. He resides in Macon, Georgia. He can be reached at smillican@gmail.com.

non bill of rights

"We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to helpeveryone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots,keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure theblessingsof debt free liberty to ourselves and ourgreat-great-great-grandchildren,hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common senseguidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and otherliberal bed-wetters. We hold these truths to be self evident: that awholelot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim theyrequire a Bill of NON-Rights." ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV,orany other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquirethem, but no one is guaranteeing anything. ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. Thiscountry is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- notjust you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a differentopinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always willbe. ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If youstick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expectthe tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independentlywealthy. ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing.Americans are the most charitable people to be found and will gladlyhelpanyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizinggenerationafter generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing morethan the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. Thatwouldbe nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interestedinpublic health care. ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm otherpeople. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't besurprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair. ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions ofothers.If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of othercitizens,don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in aplace where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or alife of leisure. ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us surewantyou to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but weexpect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education andvocational training laid before you to make yourself useful. ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being anAmericanmeans that you have the right to PURSUE happiness which, by the way, isalot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic lawscreated by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights. ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don't care whereyou are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to whereveryoucame from!ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country'shistoryor heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. Andyet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, ornofaith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST ispart of our heritage and history and if you are uncomfortable with it,TOUGH!!!! If you agree, share this with a friend. No, you don't have to, andnothing tragic will befall you if you don't. I just think it's abouttimecommon sense is allowed to flourish.Sensible people of the United States, speak out because if you don't,insensible people will.

Katrina Exodus Could Change Political Mix

Population shifts caused by the exodus of hurricane victims from the Gulf Coast could have ripple effects for years to come in Louisiana political races and perhaps beyond.How big depends on how many people stay away, which ones stay away and where they end up putting down roots.The early thinking is that the evacuees least likely to return to their homes in Louisiana may be the poorest — and thus, Democrats for the most part. That would hurt the party in a state where Republicans already were making inroads.If the lion's share of those leaving settle in Texas, that could work to the advantage of Democrats in President Bush's home state."I'm believing that the greatest displacement occurs among those who are traditionally Democratic voters," said Elliott Stonecipher, an independent political consultant from Shreveport, La."Based on sheer demographics, those who are Republican voters have the wherewithal and, we believe, the will to go home and rebuild," he said.Stonecipher sees the New Orleans area losing Democratic voters and a political network that was of great benefit to Sen. Mary Landrieu and other Democrats."On Election Day there is a well-oiled machine that knows how to turn those votes out from specific neighborhoods and in specific ways," Stonecipher said.Landrieu was elected in a 2002 runoff by a 52-48 margin, a difference of just 42,000 votes. New Orleans was the base of her support."If that's compromised, that could be a problem for her," said John Maginnis, who publishes a political newsletter in Louisiana.Landrieu is not up for re-election until 2008. Kathleen Blanco, the Democratic governor, who also won by a 52-48 margin, faces re-election in 2007.Ray Nagin, the Democratic mayor of New Orleans, is up for re-election in February. No one knows if the city could even hold an election by then.Overall, said Maginnis, Republicans have made gains in Louisiana in recent years and "the effects of the storm aftermath probably will help them." President Bush carried the state in 2000 and 2004; Democrat Bill Clinton did so in the previous two presidential elections.Still, demographic shifts within the state could work to the Democrats' advantage in some cases, Maginnis said.For example, if the sizable evacuee population now in Baton Rouge, the capital, decides to settle in, that could make the 6th Congressional District, a politically competitive one now held by GOP Rep. Richard Baker, more Democratic.In Texas, which stands to gain the largest number of evacuees, analysts do not expect much impact on statewide races. But local races — for everything from school boards to legislative seats and perhaps even congressional districts — could be affected.The place to watch is Houston, which has taken in the most evacuees, at least temporarily.Richard Murray, director of the Center for Public Policy at the University of Houston, said Republicans hold every elective office in Harris County, which takes in most of Houston, but do not win by much."This could accelerate the tipping of the county, which was expected to happen in the next four to six years," he said.While politics is taking a back seat for now to the urgent needs of the hurricane victims, "my Democratic friends are smiling," Murray said.Bob Stein, professor of political science at Rice University in Houston, said the political impact on Texas depends in large part on how concentrated or widely dispersed the evacuees are.He noted that sprawling Houston is one of the nation's least segregated big cities because it has no zoning laws, so hurricane victims could well be broadly scattered, diluting their impact in any particular race.In any event, though, with Texas' Hispanic population surging and its black population growing faster than the white population, demographic shifts already are pushing the state toward the Democrats. Katrina could help hasten the trend."Our politics may be Republican," Stein said, "but that's just a temporary condition."The thought is echoed by David Bositis, a senior political analyst at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a think tank focused on black issues. He said adding a substantial number of blacks to the state could "potentially make Texas more competitive in the not-too-distant future."As for Louisiana, Bositis said, "If proportionally more whites come back than blacks, it'll make Louisiana somewhat whiter, which would statewide be to the advantage of the Republicans." But he, like other political analysts, said it will take time to see where evacuees end up settling and how many ultimately return home.NANCY BENAC, AP