THE TYGRRRR EXPRESS

John Edwards held a rally in West Hollywood. I attended the rally to see what Edwards supporters were all about. While I did not reveal to them that I am a conservative republican, I was polite, friendly and asked them sincere questions. I freely admit that I am not an Edwards fan. I have nothing against Mr. Edwards as a person. I just find him to be wrong for the job.

In addition to providing my analysis, I humbly provide you the analysis of the great comedian Jackie Mason. http://www.jackiemason.com/youtube/5_27_07.html

I interviewed about 20 of his supporters. I left their names out to protect them. I have no proof that anything I write in this column is truthful, but I respect my integrity too much to devalue myself to the level of the Jayson Blair Times.

When asking how people liked Edwards’s speech, they loved it. When asked why, the most common response was because “he shares their beliefs.” When asked what specific parts of his speech they liked best, I heard the following responses.

“I didn’t really hear it. It was loud in the room.”

“I wasn’t really paying attention.”

“It wasn’t what he said, but how he said it.”

I asked if Edwards stayed to shake hands, or if he quickly got out of there and left.

“He shook some hands, but looked like he wanted to quickly get out of their and leave. He barely stayed.”

“He shook every hand in the room and autographed every sign. Although I did not shake his hand or get my sign signed.”

“He immediately left.”

These people were all at the same function.

The people admitted that he spoke in generalities, but did not give specifics. They were thrilled that he spoke about universal health care, but admitted he did not say how he would pay for it. One comment that elated people was when he said he “would get the insurance companies.” How would he get them? What does this mean?

In case people are not following, Edwards would pay for universal health care by “getting” those evil insurance companies and drug companies. Drug companies save lives, but spending money on research and development is evil. Perhaps they can give “research credits” to private citizens and let them do their own drug research.

One woman compared Edwards to RFK. Several people loved his passion, and his anger. When asked why they preferred Edwards to Obama, they complained that Obama was too lofty and upbeat. Edwards had anger. I asked one woman how Edwards’s anger was better than Howard Dean’s anger, and she explained that Dean was “loud angry,” while Edwards was “quiet angry.” I was at the speech. Edwards was not quiet. He spoke in a thunderous voice, although compared to Howard Dean anybody can look reasonable.

When asked why they preferred Edwards to Obama and Hillary, the major criticism of the others was their being tied to special interests. Edwards was going to break the special interests. He did not say how, and nobody questioned it. Perhaps it was not made clear that trial lawyers are a special interest group. There is nothing wrong with taking money from people who philosophically agree with you. It is not the money. It is the piety. Edwards is sanctimonious, but these people want a holier than though candidate.

The people referred to themselves as progressives. I asked them why they did not call themselves liberals, and that they should be proud to be liberals. One woman stated loudly, “I don”t care if Edwards calls himself a liberal, a progressive, or a f*cking Muppet. I care how he votes. Also, I am proud to be a f*cking feminist.” This woman also pointed out that impeachment of President Bush can be done in only two months.

Some people liked Edwards’s energy policy, although all he stated was that coal was not the answer. Respectfully, he is, as usual, wrong. Educating him on coal would be healthy for the political environment in the form of less political gases and more intelligent analysis.

He promised to get us out of Iraq, but of course did not say how. He did not mention Al Queda, terrorism, or the Middle East. Israel was not mentioned either.

Frightened as I was of most of these people, not all of the people there had tinfoil hats. One woman admitted that she supported Edwards because she believed he would be a stronger general election candidate than Hillary or Obama. I agreed with her. This same sane woman said she was against impeachment, that we should focus on the future, and that Rudy Giuliani was a moderate. One Obama supporter said that he felt that Edwards was too angry, and Obama was more hopeful. He went to the Edwards rally since he is a political junkie.

Edwards also spoke about “renegotiating” NAFTA. Revoking it would show a lack of US integrity (Edwards does not care about our promises to the Iraqi people), but renegotiating it would be giving our word that we would screw over our trading allies before actually doing it. It is honest betrayal. It is also wrong. If we want to make enemies in South America, let’s forget CAFTA and go protectionist.

Some of the people talked about political strategy. They felt that Edwards could blunt the criticism of his being a trial lawyer by having the victims he defended campaign with him. It is nice to know that the supporters of the candidate are as shameless as the candidate himself. Let’s trot out a four year old girl with a bad heart valve to rail about medical malpractice. It is ok to exploit children provided it is for a good cause. The ends justify the means, especially when the cause is so noble.

I want to make it clear that compared to Howard Dean supporters, these people were normal. Nobody made anti-semitic remarks blaming Israel for the world’s problems, although Edwards’s campaign manager and uber-anti-Israel menace David Bonior was not present. Nobody burned George W. Bush in effigy or compared him to Hitler. Nobody stripped naked for the right to smoke marijuana, and no bras were burned. It could have happened, but I did not witness it.

There were some protesters holding signs reading “chemistry.com,” with the words, “Nope, we’re still gay,” on the other side. However, their signs were too incomprehensible to be offensive, and I do not have direct evidence that they backed Mr. Edwards. I believe they were Obama supporters, but would not swear to it. Even though the whole point of the debate in Los Angeles was gay rights, Edwards barely spoke about them except to say he favored them. He also did not mention Mary Cheney, having learned that cheap shots are only made by cheap candidates.

I was surprised by the fact that nobody had anything positive to say about Hillary. One female Edwards supporter called her a b*tch. I walked away, lest I be associated with such incivility. It is not that I like Hillary, but I like myself.

The Edwards people I met, for the most part, were not bad people (some of them were scary, but some were pleasant). They were just simply easily swayed. Edwards is their pied piper. He will break the lobbyists and special interests, give guaranteed universal health care, end the War in Iraq, and get the insurance and drug companies. While at no time did anybody ask how he would do this, the people admitted they did not care. What was important was that he was saying the right things.

Style was plentiful, substance was non-existent, and moderation was the devil. These people wanted the democrats to start acting like democrats again, which means they want George McGovern and Walter Mondale to bring back the glory in the form of an anti-business, anti-free trade, class warfare bitterness.

My only worry is that these people will be ignored, and the democrats will move to the center. If these people are allowed to keep speaking loudly, the republicans should coast in 2008. Again, Edwards and his supporters are not bad people. They are just angry, and wrong. They need to stop feeling about issues and start thinking about them. Passion is no substitute for logical reasoning or accurate information.

Mr. Edwards can unite this country, and upon proving the Earth is flat, he will give his supporters a tinfoil hat in every home, to be paid for by raising taxes.

I came home and gave myself a good scrubbing.

eric

The democrats will be in Los Angeles discussing gay issues. This is an unmitigated disaster for me personally.

I could care less about homosexuality. I just hate traffic. I live in Los Angeles, and near enough to a Federal Building to know that protesters will be out tonight. Whether you support or condemn homosexuality, I hope that both sides in the debate know that I may have to trample over your rights with my car if you try to trample my right to get home and watch television. Be as activist as you want, but stay on the sidewalks and do not block traffic.

For the sake of full disclosure, I had a homosexual roommate for 5 years. He had no social skills, did not get along with women, could not decorate, had no fashion sense, and was very good with computers.

I remember when he first wanted to move in, and he told me he had a boyfriend. I never thought I would ever ask another person this, but I asked, “Is your boyfriend going to be ok with you living with another man?” He asked me, “Are you straight?” I replied I was, at which point he stated that there was then no problem.

My attitude towards gay people has always been simple. Be as gay as you want, but don’t crash a plane into the World Trade Center. Coincidentally, this is my attitude towards straight people as well. Los Angeles is simply not middle America, for better or worse. You could pass by a guy on the sidealk screwing a sheep, and the only reaction to the sheep would be, “Wow, that guy needs a shave.”

The problem I have with some aspects of the gay community is that their most militant supporters do not understand that not everybody is gay, and more importantly, not everybody is passionate about their issues. I am not anti-gay. I just don’t care. I am Joe Average, a guy who wants to watch the news or a ballgame with my burger and my soda in peace and quiet.

Candidates running for President do not have that luxury. They have to answer questions, although the current crop of democrats bobs and weaves better than Muhammad Ali in his prime. Tonight’s debate will be notable only if candidates are forced to honestly answer questions.

This column largely stays away from social issues, preferring to focus on the War on Terror, economics, Israel, and republican Jewish brunettes, because that is what I care about. I cannot force myself to be passionate about an issue that I rarely see, and would have a neutral reaction if I did.

However, since I am forcing the candidates to develop a spine and answer questions, I will reveal some of my views.

Like sane people everywhere, I was horrified that Matthew Shephard was beaten for being gay. That was an act of viciousness, and has no place in society. I find the f-word that rhymes with maggot to be disgusting, and inappropriate. I believe people are born gay, and I have no idea why. I believe people should be paid equal work for equal pay.

Now for more complex matters. I personally favor ending the ban on gays in the military. If people engage in inappropriate sexual conduct, heterosexual or homosexual, they should be punished. However, being gay does not imply that inappropriate conduct. Having said that, military experts know more than me, since I have never served. I personally feel it would not reduce morale, because the military would weed out the bigots. However, it is unfair to assume that if a military leader has legitimate complaints, that the leader is automatically a bigot. People should be listened to, and pre-judging straight people is just as wrong as pre-judging gay people.

I support civil unions. I think that if two people want to get tax breaks, this is America. If they want to visit their loved on in the hospital, they should be able to do so.

Gay marriage makes me “uncomfortable,” and I am not sure why. I think it is the word “marriage” I am hung up on. To me marriage is a religious ceremony. If a religion does not support gay marriage according to their bible or other holy text, how can the marriage be legal from that religion’s standpoint?

Let’s say that a particular religious institution refuses to perform a ceremony, be it gay marriage, or even interracial or interfaith marriage. Can the denied couple then sue the religious institution? Would the religious institution be denied its tax exempt status? People say this would not happen, but signs such as “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” are often meaningless. America is litigation nation. How can we ensure that if gay marriage becomes legal, gay couples will not have the right to sue churches, synagogues and mosques to force them to perform such ceremonies? How can we balance gay rights with the rights of religious institutions? Some religious institutions would be totally ok with performing these ceremonies, but could a money hungry gay couple purposely pick a hard line chapel to force the issue? Sure.

What bothers me about the democratic candidates is that they will not do what I just did. They will issue mealy mouthed namby pamby platitudes about marriage being between a man and a woman, but they will not mean it. Dennis Kucinich is far from me ideologically, but he has integrity on the issue. John Edwards and Hillary Clinton try to have it both ways by taking one position and having their spouses take the opposite view. Barack Obama and John Edwards have both claimed that they are conflicted on the issue. They must say why they are conflicted. The people have a right to know what motivates their views, whatever their position. I suspect their position on gay marriage is identical to their position on the Iraq War. Whatever the polls say, they blow with the prevailing winds. That is not leadership. Leaders must be willing to take clear stands even when they are unpopular. George W. Bush on the Iraq War is a perfect example of this.

One problem with the gay rights movement is that they are simply going beyond the law. You have to work within the system, otherwise there is anarchy. In Massachussetts, gay marriage became legal. Fine. However, it was not legal in San Francisco. Mayor Gavin Newsome set the gay rights movement back several years by performing illegal marriages. Many moderates supported in principle the right of gay people to be married, but did not like that the laws were being openly violated.

The victory that the gay rights movement achieved was fleeting and phyrric. The backlash led to anti-gay marriage amendments that passed in every state they were on the ballot in 2004. Many people believe that this galvanized people to the polls, contributing heavily to George W. Bush’s reelection.

Legislation will not survive until people’s hearts change. The gay community has made much progress in the last two decades, but their insistance on getting everything they want immediately could hurt them further. Whether it be Hillary Clinton on health care or Newt Gingrich with the Contract With America, Americans like evolution, not revolution. They like incrementalism, not radical change.

If the gay community savages the democrats, that will only help republicans. As a republican, I am fine with this. However, the gay community will have every right to be angry if the democrats do not have the guts to stand up and say who they are and what they believe. The reason they do this is because if they are honest, they fear they will lose the election. That should tell them something about their beliefs, but it will not. They will just blame republicans for being bigoted and fooling the voters in the middle.

The gay community deserves a place at the table, but they are not entitled to the entire table. The democrats have some very creative groveling to do. It is tough to be tough while pandering. We shall see. It shall be a gay old time.

eric

The MSNBC debate between the children that make up the democratic party was laughable and insignificant for two reasons. First of all, it was on MSNBC. Secondly, it was a debate among the democrats. Rather than recap this nonsense, I have decided to paraphrase what these democratic debates are actually about.

Question 1–My kitty cat ran up a tree. I called 911, but the fire department was too slow in arriving because there was an actual fire somewhere else. George W. Bush does not care about me. What would you do to make me feel relevant and significant?

Hillary–My daughter Chelsea has a cat. It is an outrage that the President does not care about puppies and kittens. Our dog Buddy helped save my marriage during tough times, and I will not let other families be the victim of such cold republican uncaring. Dogfighting is wrong, and even though Michael Vick has nothing to do with this, I as a feminist will not allow George W. Bush to continue his alpha male frat boy anti-feminist animal policies.

Obama–Unlike my opponents, I have been against cruelty to animals from the very beginning.  While others were focusing on Al Queda, I was in the Illinois Sate Senate where we spent our time worrying about issues such as this. We have to have the audacity to hope for a more caring world where cats and dogs are treated equally to humans.

Edwards–Ma’am, I bet you were so cold shivering outside waiting for those that never came. I bet you caught a cold, and nobody was able to take you to the doctor, and that you do not have decent health care because George W. Bush does not care about you. George W. Bush cut the funding for first responders, and I think it is an outrage that our firefighters are fighting a fire while you are lost in the cold. Not in my America.

Question 2–We want to form a union so we can go on strike, bring work to a halt, and be guaranteed pay regardless of the quality and quantity of our work. Management opposes this, and is firing people that refuse to work. What will you do to ensure that we can be as glorious as Europe, where we are not treated like removable parts simply because we want to get more and do less?

Hillary–George W. Bush and Dick Cheney represent Halliburton and Enron. We need to take their profits so that the money can be used to form more unions. We will not rest until every business has either moved overseas, gone bankrupt, or fired all their workers. We will force them to unionize so that you can get your fair share from all those greedy businessmen. The fact that they will have no money to give you is ok because at least then there will be equality. We cannot have a republican economy where business thrives and some people have more than others. France has a heavy union presence, and their economy is doing fine, and will be even better when Bush and Sarkozy are replaced with Segolene Royale and myself.

Obama–I believe in Unions, and unlike my opponents, I have never been against any union of any kind, even if it is a union between two men provided the polls are not against that. George W. Bush is against gay marriage in the workplace, and people have the right to unionize with whoever they see fit. How dare George W. Bush try to crush unions between two loving and consenting adults just because they work together.  I will stand for the civil unions against the Halliburton-Enron Radical Right Christian Management of Bush and Cheney any time.

Edwards–Ma-am, I am the son of a mill worker, and it breaks my heart that managers line their pockets while workers barely have time to take their paid vacation, sick days, smoke breaks, coffee breaks, and other God given rights. George W. Bush gets paid sick days, and so should you. If you get fired from your job for refusing to work, I will make sure as President that the company is shut down until you are rehired and made a member of management. Of course, since you will be management, I will have to take away everything from you and give it to the next worker who complains about you so that everybody can be the boss. The American people are the boss.

Question 3–I am unhappy. I want. Gimme gimme gimme. I deserve. I am entitled. George W. Bush makes me cry. What can you do for me?

Hillary–It is an outrage that we are spending billions in Iraq when we have American suffering at home. You were happy when my husband and I ran this country. Your suffering began in 2001. I know you did not tell me what the exact problem is, but you don’t have to. I know what is best for you. You need somebody who cares about you, whatever you said your name was. It takes a village to raise a child, and adults are overgrown children. Mommy is here for you sweetie. I will be handing out candy and lollipops to all the good little kids like you. George W. Bush never gave you candy did he? He wants you to buy your own. I may not feel your pain, or any pain for that matter, but I am not George W. Bush, and that is why you should vote for me.

Obama–George W. Bush will never make you happy because he does not understand what is important. He grew up rich, and rich people cannot ever understand poor people. Just because rich people hire poor people and give them the income they need to feed their families, that does not make them good people. Poor people are dying in the streets every single day. I tried to stop this when I was in Illinois, but relocating them to Indiana so the problems were not in my back yard was thwarted when cold republicans from Indiana refused to show compassion. George W. Bush ran as a compassionate conservative, and the fact that you are crying right now does not mean you are a crybaby who would complain about everything anyway. It means you have been the victim of a President that does not care.

Edwards–How dare Goerge W. Bush not include psychology benefits in a universal health care package? He does not understand that until Americans spend their life savings on psychologists, psychiatrists, psychotherapists and psychoanalysts, they will never know what is wrong with them. People cannot rely on themselves. We need educated people with PHDs to tell us what is wrong with us. I wanted to buy a 60,000 square foot house, but I settled for half of that so that I can spend the rest of my riches on making myself feel better. Look at my hair. It’s perfect. I am incredibly handsome. I feel good about myself. If you vote for me, I can make you feel good about yourself as well.

Moderator–The rest of you on the stage are insignificant, but as the audience is leaving, please simultaneously shout out the reasons why you dislike George W. Bush. This concludes our pan handling session. Next month we will be asking actual homeless people to ask questions about why they think the War in Iraq is wrong. They will be rambling drug addicts in real life, but we will dress them up to make them look like down on their luck factory workers. For those of you who are concerned that we did not deal with the War on Terror, Al Queda, Osama Bin Laden, or other trivial matters, I remind you that this network will not deal with cold heartless issues by a cold heartless administration that does not care about lost puppies and kittens.

George W. bush is bad, and the republicans are being selfish for not debating on our unbiased network, instead debating on the animal and tree hating network Fox News. Thank you and good night.

eric

The left is on life support, and will be officially dead on January 20th, 2009. This is because a new President will have taken office.

It does not matter which party wins the White House. Win or lose, the left is done.

The Scott Beauchamp scandal is the final nail in the coffin, although without it, the left’s demise would still be taking place. For those of you wanting up to date information on this latest left wing debacle, http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/06/report-beauchamp-recants/ provides it. However, this scandal is a symptom of a much larger disease, that being the disease of hatred.

The left has been reduced to rubble. They are simply a collection of angry, bitter, broken, hateful, spiteful individuals. I say this with zero glee. It is tragic.

Charles Krauthammer coined the term, “Bush Derangement Syndrome.” Now before the left offers a multitude of examples that they consider legitimate reasons for hating George W. Bush, I will reject them all out of hand. There is no reason to despise him, or any other mainstream American politician.

I hate Adolf Hitler. He murdered members of my family. Hatred of Stalin, Pol Pot, and other despots whose lives are dedicated to mass murder should be hated.

George W. Bush is only a cold blooded murderer if one turns the world of right and wrong upside down.   So why does this occur?

The Clinton impeachment of 1998 and the close election of 2000 are the reasons for this. It has nothing to do with 9/11, the War in Iraq, abortion, or anything else. Republicans and conservatives were despised before George W. Bush ever began his campaign. George W. Bush himself was despised the moment he took office. The election was not stolen, or fraudulent. It was simply close.

The left simply does not want to defeat him legislatively. They want to humiliate him, grind him into dust, and haunt him for the rest of his life. That is what hatred does. It becomes an obsession. The problem with this is simple. George W. Bush leaves office on January 20th, 2009.

If the republicans win the White House, the left will have to take all this hatred towards the President and direct it towards somebody new. They need to start despising Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson now. Otherwise, these men might be seen as human beings, and not the evil cardboard cutouts that they need to be for the left to exist.

What if the democrats win the White House? Won’t the left calm down? Simply put, no. In fact, it could make things worse for them. Right now the left is simply losing electorally. Democrats can win, but liberals cannot. So if a democrat wins, they will be under pressure by the moderates that put them into power to stay moderate. Even if they sympathize with the left, they will be simply unable to accommodate them ideologically. Look at how many on the left are booing Hillary Clinton. If she wins, they will claim credit, and ratchet up the pressure.

This is not about elections. It is about humanity. I genuinely fear for George W. Bush’s life. I fear that some wacko on the left will abandon the democratic process. Conservatives routinely have their lawn signs stolen and their cars keyed. An act of unspeakable violence is certainly not out of the realm of possibility.

Of course many mainstream liberals would be horrified at such a scenario, but what are they doing to prevent it? If anyone thinks rhetoric does not lead to violence, ask somebody who bombed an animal testing lab or an oil factory. Better yet, look at Israel, a democracy. Yitzchak Rabin was assassinated by a Jewish citizen over a political issue.

Presidents have been killed before, and I pray that the rage that has engulfed the left does not lead to this. President Bush is called a murderer by many. He is compared to Hitler, and called evil. Therefore, it is totally reasonable to expect somebody to go over the edge and bring things to what they consider to be a logical and justified conclusion.

I even pray to God that the left somehow take deep breaths and realize that their existence does not have to depend on who is in the White House. I disagreed with Bill Clinton, but it did not stop me from becoming a respected and productive member of American and human society.

Hatred is a poison. It is patriotic to dissent, but it is poisonous to hate. look at the biggest suppliers of hate in the world, that being Syria and the Palestinians, through Hamas and Hezbollah. What have they achieved that is positive? Nothing.

If you dehumanize your opponent, and declare that opponent an enemy, is it no wonder that you will feel that your existence depends on your enemy ceasing to exist?

George W. Bush is a human being, and until the left finds a way to criticize his policies without hating his guts, they will remain lost…and emotionally empty.

Emotional emptiness is what is forcing the left to lie so that their vision of George W. Bush fits their characterization of him as evil. An evil man would allow 3000 Americans to die in New York to boost his poll ratings. An evil man would invade a sovereign nation and kill millions for sport.

Therefore, those who speak the worst about the President have to be telling the truth, no matter how much evidence refutes this. Bringing it back to Scott Beauchamp, he lied about atrocities being committed by US soldiers. A leftist magazine printed those lies. How could this happen?

Again, simple. Because the truth did not matter. The story itself was powerful, and bad for the President, and therefore had to be told. This is how CBS can state that memos bashing the President are “fake but accurate.” This is how the New York Times can shred its reputation and become the Jayson Blair Times.  The ends justify the means. People on the left are noble and righteous, and people on the right are the enemy. It is ok to lie and cheat if you are doing it for noble reasons.

This is how liberals can tolerate one Senator who drove off a bridge and killed a woman, and another that was a leader in the Ku Klux Klan. The ends justify the means.

Conservatives in this country were near death in the 1960s. We climbed out of the abyss by expressing principles and policies. We formed think tanks. We wrote position papers. We questioned everything we did, and built ourselves up again from scratch. In short, our ideas and principles led us to electoral success.

The left wants to get elected, and then have an argument about which way to direct the country. That is backwards. You need to have the rigorous, soul-tearing debates first. The republicans got hammered in the 1964 election, but the debate strengthened us in the long run. We did not sit around and despise LBJ. We licked our wounds, and got down to work.

This is a moderately conservative country. By overwhelming margins we support the death penalty. We think our government taxes too much and spends too much. We believe that free trade works, and that isolationism is impractical and unhelpful. We believe in God, and the right of people to pray without being harassed.

In short, the things the left are offering are simply not what much of America wants at this time in history. Even if the democrats win the White House, it will be a rejection of a particular republican candidate, not an embrace of a liberal ideology.

Many on the left want to impeach the President, unable to comprehend that he leaves office voluntarily long before the process would be finished. Some want to end the war right now, because humiliating George W. Bush is simply more important than doing what is right by our soldiers. You cannot say you support the troops, and then cut off their funding. One day a democrat will be leading them. Then what? If the Iraq War is still going on, will it then be ok?

I have repeatedly stated that dissent is patriotic. I have also said that those who dissent should have an alternative. The republicans who sparred with Clinton offered the “Contract With America.” Not everybody liked the plan, but at least a plan existed.

January 20th, 2009 will be upon us soon enough. I plan to live my life during that time. My happiness and my existence does not get determined by who wins elections. For those of you who blame the President for your miserable lots in life, I say to you that electoral victories will not fill the voids in your black hearts.

It is not that liberals are liberals. It is that those who offer only rejectionism, hatred and rage are spreading poison. Then when they win an election, they will expect the right to just make nice. It does not work that way. I will not encourage payback, but I will not be able to stop it either.

I ask the left to please control its more volatile factions before something tragic happens. God forbid President Bush suffers a fate that no good man deserves, the entire left will be explaining why it does not have blood on its collective hands. Like Scott Beauchamp, these inciters will be lying.

May God bless and protect President Bush and his family from those who are perilously close to the edge. May they tone it down, see him as a human being, and find it in their hearts to understand that he disagrees with them, but cares about them, since they are part of the family of America.

eric

The republicans had another debate, and it was held at 7am, when most children, aka democrats, were sleeping. For the sake of ethics, I slept in today, which thankfully tivo allows me to do.

I will not be giving a point by point recap because no new ground was broken. However, what was true over the last several years is still true. Democrats hold Seinfeld debates about nothing, while republicans are busy having adult discussions about adult issues that actually matter.

https://tygrrrrexpress.com/2007/07/the-seinfeld-network-seinfeld-party-had-a-seinfeld-debate/

I will not spend any time discussing Duncredo Thompaulbackbee, because while they are still for the most part more relevant than the democratic kids, Ronald Reagan is more relevant than Walter Mondale, and neither of them are serious candidates this year. Giuliani, McCain and Romney had another substantive discussion, and as shocked as I am to admit this, George Stephanopolous failed to be unfair. Also, the democrats were barely mentioned, because again, this was a discussion about what was relevant.

https://tygrrrrexpress.com/2007/05/guliani-mccain-romney-and-the-seven-dwarfs/

https://tygrrrrexpress.com/2007/05/the-7-republican-dwarfs-continue/

There were very few questions, which allowed for a focus on quality over quantity. The focus was on the candidates, not the questioners. Nobody yelled, “Wassup!” or brought up Fred Thompson.

The debate started with the obligatory question about abortion. Giuliani, McCain and Romney have differing views, but they are all respectful of each other. Republicans who are pro-life are seen as intolerant, but it is the democrats that do not allow pro-lifers to have a voice. Most people do not know that Harry Reid is pro-life, because he is all but banned from discussing it. Republicans disagree, very respectfully so in the debate.

A biased question came in about how to end the war. I would prefer a question be asked about if we should end the war, but the left still does not grasp that assuming the conclusion in the question disrespects those that dare to disagree. McCain offered a ringing defense of the surge. Giuliani pointed out that no democrat mentioned Islamic terrorism in four debates, and Romney had a great line at the expense of Barack Obama. He stated that Obama wants to “sit down with our enemies and bomb our friends. He has changed from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove.”

When asked if they would raise taxes on cigarettes to pay for health care, the candidates all ducked the question. Tancredo boldly stated that it is not the government’s responsibility to make sure people have health care. It is easy to take politically untenable positions when one is not a top tier candidate.

Obama’s inane comments regarding Pakistan were the subject of respectful but significant disagreement. Giuliani stated that Obama phrased it badly, but that Pakistan has not been all that helpful. As somebody who finds Giuliani to be right more often than not, I was surprised by this statement. He spoke about seeking Pakistan’s permission before going in. While his reasoning is sound, the words, “ask permission” can be manipulated to come across as a “global test” comment that sank a democrat in 2004. Nobody would have credibility attacking Giuliani on this issue, but it was an opening. Romney got it right, reminding us that Pakistan is our friend. Musharraf is under constant pressure, and he can only do so much. He condemned Obama’s remarks again.

The question about supporting the Bush Doctrine of spreading democracy (the preemptive strike question is the heart of the doctrine, and was not asked) separated again the contenders from the pretenders. Giuliani agreed with it, emphasizing that stability has to come before democracy. McCain agreed, and emphasized that all options including nuclear weapons were on the table. Romney pointed out in agreement that we were attacked first, and that we need to spread “modernity.” Tancredo defended an idiotic statement about bombing Mecca and Medina, although when pointed out that the State Department condemned the remark, he claimed that this gave him even more reason to support it. The State Department, for once, is right.

The Minnesota tragedy was brought up in the form of the candidates being asked if they would support higher gasoline taxes to fix infrastructure. This was where the main republican candidates shined. Questioner David Yepsen of the Iowa Des Moines Register could barely contain his anger when Giuliani forcefully stated that taxes should be lowered to bring in more revenues, and that liberals are wrong on taxes. Romney correctly pointed out that the key to everything is growth. Growing the economy is not done through raising taxes. McCain pointed out that wasteful spending in the form of earmarks has to stop. He promised to do this, but “logrolling,” is at the heart of getting things done, so I am not sure how he would succeed in this endeavor. However, cutting spending beats raising taxes.

The question about reducing the power of the Vice President was a not so thinly veiled criticism of Dick Cheney. McCain ducked the question. Giuliani defended President Bush, and Romney defended both Bush and Cheney.

The question about replacing the income tax with a “FAIR” tax, aka a national sales tax, again separated the top tier candidates from the also rans. It is easy to offer radical solutions when trailing in the polls. The top candidates simply offered more responsible answers. Some would call this being timid, but bold does not always mean practical. Romney stated that the FAIR tax was not the end all be all, and Giuliani felt the change would be too complex at this stage in history. McCain had the best answer. He vowed to eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax, and would defer to Alan Greenspan on any tax plan. Asking the best and brightest for advice and then following their advice can only be done if one allows their ego to give way to common sense. McCain should be commended for following a plan that has been mostly successful for the last two decades.

The media loves to hear republicans admit their mistakes. I wonder if they would ever ask the democrats this question. McCain mentioned a tactical decision in war in 1967 that led to him and his men being imprisoned, as well as his meeting with people that led to the “Keating 5” scandal. His admitting such mistakes is what integrity is about, although I personally feel he owed nobody an apology for his war decisions. Romney apologized for once being pro-choice, which should put the abortion issue to bed for him. Giuliani provided humor by stating that there was not enough time to list all his mistakes. This was brilliant because it allowed him to admit that he was flawed without giving any specifics that could be used against him later, which was the entire point of the question.

When asked what they would restore to the Oval Office (President Bush promised to restore honor and dignity, and succeeded), the major candidates were uneasy because they had little desire to criticize President Bush. The bottom tier candidates had no such restraint, since they need media attention, and bashing the President gains headlines. Romney wants a stronger military, economy and family structure. McCain wants a stronger focus on Radical Islam. Giuliani offers hope, optimism and experience.

The winners of this debate were Giuliani, McCain and Romney.

The losers of this debate were many. First of all, it includes the 7 Dwarfs, aka the remaining republican candidates. Nothing changed about this race. Hillary Clinton in a way lost out as well because she was considered too irrelevant to be even mentioned. This is a positive development for those who prefer skill to shrill. John Edwards was barely mentioned in passing in a remark that was barely audible, because again, this was a debate of substance. Fred Thompson may have lost by not being there and not being mentioned. Time will tell.

Besides the big three republican candidates that were there, the political process was a big winner in this debate. It was dignified, classy, intelligent, and substantive. There was not one question about gay marriage, global warming, Darfur, reparations for slavery, or other heart wrenching questions that affect virtually everybody equally in terms of insignificance.

This was not a debate for a narrow collection of special interest groups. This was not children doling out candy to other children. It was an adult discussion about the defining issue of our time, the struggle against Islamofacism.

Soon enough, a 90 minute debate between only Giuliani, McCain, Romney and Fred Thompson will allow for even more intelligent discussion.

eric

This column has spent a lengthy amount of time on republican candidates running for President. Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson have been written about at length, with Newt Gingrich being analyzed as well.

https://tygrrrrexpress.com/2007/03/why-rudy-is-right/

https://tygrrrrexpress.com/2007/03/john-mccain-its-the-man-himself/

https://tygrrrrexpress.com/2007/03/more-than-just-dilberts-mormon-manager/

https://tygrrrrexpress.com/2007/03/from-the-king-of-the-hill-to-the-white-house/

https://tygrrrrexpress.com/2007/03/newt-gingrich-if-only-ideas-and-solutions-mattered/

I have paid significantly less attention to the democrats running for president for no other reason than that they are irrelevant. There is a serious debate going on about serious issues, but the democrats do not seem to be participating.

There was never a fairness doctrine in the blogosphere, but out of courtesy I will spend some time discussing the three candidates that are the least irrelevant by default.

John Edwards—Long before Jim Carrey starred in the movie “Liar Liar,” John Edwards was making money suing people. He is a trial lawyer, and receives a majority of his support from trial lawyers. Legal reform would be a non-starter in an Edwards administration, which means any attempt at health care reform would fail because it would not provide significant protections for doctors.

 

Spending time on 30,000 foot mansions and $1,200 haircuts would show hypocrisy for a man staking his entire campaign on poverty, but there are much deeper issues with him.

 

On February 20^th, 2007, Edwards remarked that the “greatest short term threat to world peace was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities.” Only a man who had rabidly anti-Israel David Bonior as an advisor could come up with such an inane statement.

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/02/edwards_israels_threat_to_worl.html

 

The biggest threat to world peace are Islamofacists, who according to my knowledge, as well as by definition alone, are not Jews.

 

John Edwards voted for the Iraq War before he voted against it. Yes, he will claim that this was a sincere political conversion, and for those who believe this, I have a bridge to the 21^st century connecting Brooklyn to Iraq that I can sell you at a premium price. He wants a complete withdrawal from Iraq because he is better informed on the issue than General David Petraeus, and has experienced more combat than retired military expert and New York Post columnist Ralph Peters.

 

Vice President Dick Cheney stated brilliantly in the 2004 VP debate, “How can you be trusted to stand up to Al Queda when you can’t even stand up to the Howard Dean Voters?” Mr. Cheney also correctly replied in his typical understated manner that Mr. Edwards’s senate record was, “not very distinguished.”

 

Mr. Edwards shows bad judgment when he appears at campaign rallies with Danny Glover, days after Danny Glover is seen hugging Hugo Chavez. Edwards is doing his best to appeal to the lunatic fringe of the democratic party, not realizing that they alienate many normal Americans. Just ask Howard Dean.

 

People should be judged on their record, and Mr. Edwards avoids talking about his because it is paper thin.

 

Lastly, Mr. Edwards is considered too sleazy to be President by Bob Shrum and John Kerry. I did not know that was possible. Mr. Edwards’s invoking Dick Cheney’s lesbian daughter in 2004 was so far out of bounds of what is decent that it reflects what Mr. Edwards is…a human being who will say anything, regardless of who gets hurt.

 

https://tygrrrrexpress.com/2007/05/kerry-edwards-revisited-the-scam-the-scum-the-scrum-and-the-shrum/

 

What John Edwards is to sincerity, Barack Obama is to depth. His constituency of guilty white liberals is not the issue. His race and his name have nothing to do with his qualifications. I have said on many occasions that Barack Obama is as black as I am (I am caucasian), and the only person less black than Barack Obama is Tiger Woods. The only people who care about his skin color are those who treat anybody who criticizes him for any reason as insensitive on racial issues.

 

Barack Obama is simply a lightweight. He is a phenomenal speaker whose lofty words hide an empty suit. There is no there there. He speaks of new ideas, but his policy prescriptions are the same failed Great Society programs that liberals have been offering for the last half a century.

 

He speaks about how we must unify the country and get beyond our divisions, all the while lambasting George W. Bush.

 

His health care plan involves letting the tax cuts that President Bush enacted in 2001 expire. This is called raising taxes, and it would have a devastating effect on the US economy. Obama estimates his health care plan at 50 to 65 billion dollars, but respected economists put it at closer to 100 to 115 billion dollars.

 

Obama’s foreign policy experience, to steal a line from Jay Leno (about Bill Clinton), apparently comes from one visit to the International House of Pancakes. He wants to end the War in Iraq in March of 2008, refusing to acknowledge what would happen if we pulled out prematurely. He talks tough getting tough with Pakistan, failing to understand that they are a strategic ally. Ralph Peters has said that Obama’s proposals are simply unsound geographically. When asked what Obama could do to improve his knowledge of the Iraq issue, Peters told Michelle Malkin, “I am going there in a couple weeks. He is invited to come with me and see things for himself.”

 

Obama’s foreign policy idealism has led him to state that he would sit down and have dialogue with the leaders of Iran, Syria and North Korea. He has also stated that he would not be willing to use nuclear weapons to defend America under any circumstances. These are irresponsible comments that show a lack of understanding of world events. All options should be on the table, with nothing ruled in or out.

 

Obama wants to end racial profiling, and “reform,” aka gut, the death penalty. He is critical of John McCain’s approach to the Iraq War. The day John McCain has to take foreign policy advice from Barack Obama is the day I teach Aerosmith how to form a rock band.

 

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/03/obama-mccains-iraq-plan-continues.html

 

On issues of Israel, Obama is influenced by people that are disastrous on Israel. His long time Church Pastor Jeremiah Wright, who he now tries to distance himself from, has stated, “The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for almost 40 years now. It took a divestment campaign to wake the business community up concerning the South Africa issue. Divestment has now hit the table again as a strategy to wake the business community up and to wake Americans up concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism.”

 

People who say that Obama cannot be responsible for the utterances of another (just because they support him does not mean he supports them) ignores the valid notion that people have always been judged by the company they keep. Disavowing somebody when running for President is akin to the famous election year conversion that turns politicians into pretzels.

 

For Obama to be seen as anything other than unsympathetic to Israel would be to ignore his close association throughout his limited career with well known anti-semites.

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/barack_obama_and_israel_1.html

 

Obama can claim that he was against the Iraq War from the very beginning. This is a principled stand that his main competitors cannot claim. Had his principled stand been official policy, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, paying $25,000 to the family of every Palestinian homicide bomber. By ignoring the Obama Doctrine, President Bush has not only brought down Saddam Hussein, but forced Khadafi in Libya to abandon his nation’s weapons programs. This was accomplished without face to face meetings, or any kind of dialogue.

 

Mr. Obama is popular and charismatic. He should host the 2008 opener of “Saturday Night Live,” because he is simply not ready for prime to time.

 

https://tygrrrrexpress.com/2007/04/why-democrats-chase-the-obama-dragon/

 

Edwards offers snake oil while Obama offers platitudes. The worst of the lot is Hillary Clinton, who offers viciousness. Often compared to Lady Macbeth, Hillary has only friends and enemies. She complains about President Bush polarizing America. She is more polarizing. She has three main problems.

 

First of all, Hillary is corrupt. She violates rules, stonewalls investigations, and then blames her opponents when the investigations drag out. The public gets bored, and she declares the scandals “old news.” She indicts any conservative who criticizes her as part of a “vast right wing conspiracy.” She takes anybody who takes issue with her, and turns their grievances into an attack on all women. Simply put, she is an expert at decking a guy between the eyes, and then crying and pulling the poor “girly girl” routine upon the guy daring to hit back.

 

Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, Rose Law billing records, etc. Is it possible that she is ever responsible for her own actions? She wants to claim the experience of the Clinton Presidency without the scandals. How about the White House Pardons, including FALN Puerto Rican terrorists? How about “liberating” White House property for her house in Chappaqua?

 

In addition to being corrupt, Hillary is simply vicious. President George W. Bush and his father have both been overwhelmingly gracious to President Clinton, feeding his desperation for attention with high profile missions. Hillary has responded with nastiness. Watch her facial expressions during President Bush’s State of the Union address, and you will see a person who simply lacks class.

 

I received an email from Hillary’s campaign recently that asked me to help “fight enemy propaganda.” As a Holocaust Survivor’s son, I can tell you that propaganda is a word used to describe Joseph Goebbels, not a democratically elected Vice President and ally of Israel, Dick Cheney. This fits perfectly into the “Bush equals Hitler” mentality that has afflicted the democrats. Hillary sees political opponents as enemies, having angrier words for the President and Vice President than the terrorists. Hillary simply despises people who disagree with her.

 

This leads into the most serious problem with Hillary. On most issues, she is simply wrong. She wants to confiscate the “record profits” that the oil companies are earning. This was done in Russia recently, with Vladimir Putin breaking up Yukos Oil and imprisoning the CEO. In Hillaryworld, Big corporations are evil, and need to be punished.

 

Drug companies are rightfully fearful of Hillary. Her 1993 government takeover of 1/7^th of the US economy, aka the health care industry, collapsed, mainly due to her inability and unwillingness to accept alternative approaches. Her “my way or the highway” attitude reinforced notions of her as inflexible, and unwilling to reach across the aisle. She claims to have learned from this, but she is still talking about wealthy companies giving their fair share. Somebody should explain to her that drug companies put their profits into research and development, which saves lives.

 

Hillary is an unreconstructed socialist, which would be wrong but respectable if she would run as that. Instead she is triangulating, trying to be all tings to all people. She is tightly scripted, for and against everything. This works during peace time, but as Dick Morris has said, “You cannot triangulate the war.”

 

It is difficult to criticize Hillary’s position on the war because it keeps changing. It is whatever she thinks will get her to 270 electoral votes at any given moment. She voted for the war, but criticized it when popular sentiment turned. She refused to fund the troops, but she supports them. She claims that President Bush lied about WMD, even though she had exactly the same information.

 

Her record on Israel and Jewish issues is less than sympathetic. She called for a Palestinian State with no preconditions placed on the Palestinians themselves. This was done as she was kissing Suha Arafat, seconds after the terrorist’s wife accused Jews of poisoning the river where the Palestinian children play. I doubt Hillary supports blood libel, but she did not condemn the remarks either, or apologize for her warm embrace of Mrs. Arafat. She has never apologized for Yassir Arafat being given the royal red carpet treatment at the White House on many occasions.

 

http://www.aijac.org.au/review/1999/2412/suha.html

 

Hillary Clinton and the Palestinians are a perfect fit because at no time do either of them ever admit they are wrong. Nothing is ever their fault. They are oppressed victims, unable and unwilling to admit any complicity in the conflicts they face with people. If only their enemies could understand why their scorched Earth tactics were justified, we would all be better off. Republicans and Jews are evil, and that should just be accepted.

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3972294114f3.htm

 

She denies screaming an anti-semitic slur at Dick Morris. He insists it happened. In her angry press conference, she condemned the politics of personal destruction. Hillary Clinton is the politics of personal destruction. She wants people to focus on issues and stop focusing on scandals. This is because her path to power has been one long giant scandal.

 

This is how a woman can support a War that President Bush begins in exactly the same way, but would have done everything differently. It is how she can ask to be treated with kid gloves while slandering her opponents as liars. It is how she can be married to a sexual predator (forget Monica, Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broderick never said they consented), while declaring that republicans have a war on women because of the abortion issue. It is how she can demonize her opponent as enemies, while bemoaning the lack of civility in politics.

 

https://tygrrrrexpress.com/2007/07/hillary-clinton-was-right-about-somethingmy-head-may-explode/

 

These are the democratic nominees for president. One man who will say anything, one man that does not know anything, and one woman that tries to destroy everything in her path. This is the best the democratic party can do.

 

 

Further coverage of the demagoguic party is not necessary, since it will not involve any actual news. We live in an adult world that involves a serious commitment to winning World War III against Islamofacists. This requires adult discussions about adult solutions. Thankfully, there are four candidates willing to have this adult discussion. They are all republicans.

eric

It just doesn’t stop. From tornados in Kansas to firefighters in South Carolina to pipelines in New York City to bridges in Minnesota, it just doesn’t stop.

I pray for those that suffer, but I also pray for those who pray. It seems that people are under attack in America for simply wanting to lead lives that are centered around belief in God. I worry that although religion can and has been misappropriated for some of the worst evil known to humankind, it has also been a force for incredible good, and this is often overlooked.

For the sake of full disclosure, I have led a very easy life. I grew up in a normal, middle class household, and I did not suffer through tragedies that afflict many families. I had all four of my grandparents when I graduated from college, and three of them when I turned 30. When one of my cousins fell ill, my grandfather said he would take care of it. “Nobody is dying in this family. We don’t die early in this family. That happens to other families.”

We were blessed. More importantly, we were lucky. Having said that, I am under no illusions about how fragile everything is, and I have seen plenty of pain in others I care about, and my prayers for them have not always been answered.

All I know is that there is an irrational fear in this country of anybody and anything that is deemed “religious.” It does not make sense. Secularists and atheists feel that religious people want to create a theocracy where religious people want to impose their will on those who do not believe in God. If anything, the pendulum has swung in the other direction.

Religion teaches tolerance and love of others. Some choose to ignore this, but that invalidates their interpretation, not the religions themselves. Lately it is the secularists that are trying to impose their will on people who simply want to live their lives as they believe God commanded them.

I am not a Christian, but I see Christianity under assault in this country. President Bush has been criticized for his faith based initiatives. Faith based initiatives is not about proseltyzing. It is about giving money to people and institutions that do an effective job of saving lives.

Churches, Synagogues and Mosques are led by people who want to feed the hungry, clothe the poor, shelter the homeless, help drug addicts recover, and give people near death a fighting chance to live. These people do this because God tells them to do so. This is something positive, yet many consider it something to be shunned because it is motivated by God. Why should this matter? If the goal is to make the world a better place, then let’s help people who do this on a daily basis!

I remember when John Ashcroft was hired as Attorney General in 2000. His confirmation fight was bitter. This was a man who was campaigning for reelection to the U.S. Senate when his opponent was killed in a tragic plane crash. Mr. Ashcroft immediately pulled all his advertising off of the air, refusing to campaign. The election was running 50-50 before the crash and afterwards. He lost by a razor thin margin, and despite voting irregularities, he showed significantly more class than the long since discredited democratic presidential nominee. Mr. Ashcroft refused to contest the results.

Mr. Ashcroft, in retaliation for his graciousness, was the subject of a bitter confirmation fight for Attorney General. This was because he is an Evangelical Christian, aka a religious man. When asked what he would do if his religious beliefs ever conflicted with upholding the law, he responded, “I would resign.” How much more honorable can a man be? That is the epitome of being principled. He was not going to impose his will on anybody else, but he was not going to be imposed upon unfairly either. It was sheer bigotry to suggest that a man whose beliefs are grounded in religious law cannot also uphold American law, especially since American law was founded on religious law. The founding fathers were religious, and deists were Christians through and through.

Christians are not the only religion under assault. Despite everything the Jewish people have been through, religious Judaism is being attacked. Ironically enough, much of this attack is coming from other Jews.

I have had the pleasure of having friends that belong to an organization known as Chabad. Chabad has been referred to as “ultra-Orthodox.” This is the same kind of sneaky slur that is used when political conservatives are referred to as “ultra-Conservative.” It is an attempt to imply that these people are extremists.

I have been to Chabad many times, and all they have ever done is welcomed me into their homes, offered me nice sabbath meals, ask me how my life was going, and ask me if there was anything they could do to help. Once, when I was financially strapped, they gave me a loan, which I repaid. Sure, they ask me for donations, but what organization doesn’t?

The point is that at no time have these so called “extremists,” ever demanded that I live my life the way they live theirs. Sure, when I am in their home, I obey the Chabad doctrines, but that is the polite way to respect anybody’s home. They do not ask me how I live my life in my home. Would they like that I be more religious? Sure. Have they ever given me an ultimatum that failing to do so would bar me from the religious community? Absolutely not, not one time.

Chabad runs a drug treatment center, and it has gotten many people clean and sober. These people were not all Jews. They were just people who needed help, which is exactly what religious organizations are supposed to do.

www.chabad.com http://video.google.com/videoplay?

The reason why many people have a hostility towards God and religion is because it forces people to take introspective looks inside themselves, knowing they might not always like what they see. It is easier to ask a religion to change its entire doctrine than to change one’s own bad habits.

One fellow who always understood this was Pope John Paul II. Catholics were often angry that the Pope did not become more progressive, that he did not bend with the times, and adopt fresher standards. As Rush Limbaugh points out, the Pope’s response was basically that as the Church, “We are the standard. It is you who have to change. We are not going to change so people feel better about their own sin.”

Islam is also under the microscope. I believe that Radical Islam is a scourge on humanity, and should be destroyed. I also believe that true followers of Islam, many of whom I happen to personally know, despise the Islamists. Islamists have tried to hijack Islam in the same way they hijacked airplanes. The 9/11 hijackers were not religious men. They gambled in casinos, slept with prostitutes, engaged in drug running and gun running, and other anti-religious behavior. I personally doubt they fasted on Ramadan or prayed five times per day. The Koran respects Jews as “the people of the book,” and no honest observer of Islam hates Jews or Christians. When the towers went down, decent Muslims everywhere were horrified, and angry that people pretending to follow their religion committed such atrocities.

There is a lot of suffering in this world, and much of it is unavoidable. What matters is that we care about people and try to improve the world. There are so many Rabbis, Priests, Reverends, and Imams who want to do good deeds. We should support them instead of fighting them. Religion teaches people not to murder, steal, or commit adultery. It instructs us to honor our parents. People who obey these rules are simply better human beings than those who do not.

Rather than attack religious people, let’s embrace them and accept their help. Rather than burn bridges, we should build them. I can think of a bridge in Minnesota we can all start with. It will not be easy, but with the help of God, and good people everywhere who follow his teachings, it will be rebuilt, and it will be worth it.

eric