Why Jews And Blacks Should Vote For Bush, Part 2
By Irwin N. Graulich (10/28/04)
To quote Martin Peretz, editor and chief of The New Republic and a well know Jewish liberal, "....Democrats will vote for a baboon over George W. Bush." Actually, that analogy may be precise come November 2nd. The real differences between the two candidates are almost as significant.
How is it that President Bush represents Christ to Jews and the anti-Christ to Blacks? Both groups voting agendas are not primarily to elect Kerry, but to rid the world of a frightening religious icon from Texas. Jews want to "bury" Bush and not "let him rise," while Blacks want to "exorcise the little devil" from the White House. Blacks and Jews seem to have bought into the Democratic story lines, inspired by the creative staff of professional wrestling.
The 2004 presidential race can be summed up as a battle between "The Practical Businessmen vs. The Scheming Trial Lawyers," or "people who build things versus people who tear them down. So how is it possible that such street-wise groups as Jews and Blacks have been misled so easily?
Big Jewish Issue: Israel--President Bush refused to meet with the father of modern terrorism, Yasser Arafat, even under pressure from Arab countries. John Kerry likes to solve everything with talks and summits, a la Neville Chamberlain, and has already spoken about reviving peace talks. President Bush explained that Israel had a right to defend itself when it targets terrorist leaders from helicopters. John Kerry called the Israeli fence, "a barrier to peace." Shalom guys and girls. It's a no brainer. Stop listening to your mommy and daddy already, and try voting Republican.
Big Black Issue; Race--Republicans say, "Race doesn't matter." Democrats say, "Race matters." Republicans say, "Blacks are as capable as anyone else. Your skin color has as much relevance as your eye color." Democrats say, "Without us, you cannot succeed. We will lower standards for you, except in the NBA. Skin pigmentation means a whole lot in a racist country like ours." Talk about patronizing. When will Blacks realize that the 21st century Republican does not have a white robe and hood in his basement?
Jews and Blacks have failed to see how the firm of Kerry-Edwards has turned the presidential campaign into an OJ-like trial spectacle, where tactics and rhetoric have replaced truth. The game is called "Gotcha," where lawyers are taught in law school how to show someone is wrong no matter what they do. Welcome to the Democratic Party of 2004 or "Legal Heaven."
The Iraq issue tells an important story. Jews and Blacks do not like any wars, even if necessary. Jews have been terrible victims of past wars and Blacks feel they are disproportionately represented on the battlefield. Therefore both groups have learned all the wrong lessons from our military. Instead of realizing that war is sometimes necessary to fight evil, Jews and Blacks have learned the foolish lesson that fighting war is evil.
President Bush, rightly or wrongly, made a decision to go into Iraq. His judgment was based upon numerous factors with Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) being only one, although certainly essential. What seems to be overlooked by the legal investigators was the fact that Saddam was the only man on the planet to have attacked four of his neighbors without provocation (Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel). Iran and North Korea are certainly dangerous, but are all talk for now.
In addition, the former Iraqi leader signed an agreement after Gulf War I, allowing our planes to fly over his country in order to monitor future dangers. Saddam continually broke that "cease fire" treaty by shooting at our aircraft, thus attempting to kill our pilots.
Doesn't a past history and record of evil deeds go into a trial judge's decision? What about three strikes and you're out? Saddam proved he would stop at nothing to hurt innocent people, by creating the greatest environmental disaster in history for no apparent reason. His army was already in full retreat, yet he gave orders to blow up the Kuwaiti oil fields.
George Bush made it clear in his State of the Union address that "you are either with us or with the terrorists." The dictator of Iraq paid each Palestinian terrorist family $25,000, in order to encourage more terrorism. Defying the UN and throwing out its inspectors cannot be overlooked, except by a legal team that chooses to ignore facts that contradict their case.
Therefore, President Bush had only two choices--go into Iraq or do not go into Iraq. Counselor John Kerry's response is to prove the President wrong, no matter which decision he makes. So it is now, "Wrong war, wrong time, wrong place."
In 1944, candidate Kerry would be telling FDR how his miscalculation at The Battle of the Bulge tied down huge Allied resources, not permitting a better use of troops. Remember Operation Market Garden, where the Allies tried to take bridges over the main rivers of German occupied Netherlands. Kerry's analysis would be poor planning by the President, since we failed to take the final bridge at Arnhen, resulting in the destruction of the British 1st Airborne Division. A case can always be made for failure in virtually everything we do.
The Kerry-Edwards team would have focused on the "hundreds of thousands of American boys who were dying during WWII." We can hear Kerry's voice clearly over the radio, "It's not our war in Germany. It is the European and Jews problem. Japan is America's war, since they bombed Pearl Harbor. But did Truman have to mass murder hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children with WMD's? Hiroshima and Nagasaki are war crimes. Look at the irradiated babies. It makes Viet Nam look like Disneyworld. That is not the America that I know. I have a plan. I could have called a summit with Herr Hitler and Emperor Hirohito."
The latest Kerry move has been to quote his bible, "The New York Times," who accuses the current Administration with allowing hundreds of tons of weapons to be taken from an Iraqi storage site. The article was written as if the event had occurred this week. Yet Kerry, the William Kunstler of war, accused the President of serious neglect, even though the weapons appear to have been taken before the American troops even entered Iraq in 2003.
Had America not gone to war with Saddam, John Kerry's position today would certainly be that "George W. Bush is a weak president for allowing a dangerous madman to rule in Iraq and harbor terrorists." We can see Kerry clearly announcing with his resonant New England accent, "We have a dangerous madman ruling Iraq today who has used WMD's on his own people. At this very moment, he is probably developing more nuclear, biological and chemical weapons that could find their way to New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and parts in between. George Bush has no spine. I will be a strong commander-in-chief."
With a lawyer mentality, one can never win; or do you think that Kerry would have actually said, "I admire Mr. Bush for not going into Iraq! He certainly did the right thing." Winning above everything is stressed in law school, not morality and truth. That is why we can hear a statement from John Edwards, who promises that if John Kerry gets elected president, people in wheel chairs will walk again. Well, Hallelujah John! Two lawyers running the country for 4 years? Please, I need a vomit bag!
(Printer friendly version) Email: Irwin N. Graulich
