Why Bush Will Win

Steyn is brilliant once again , and quite humorous:

In 2000, Al Gore lost because he had no appeal to rural white men, who, despite his claims to be a Tennessee farmer, reacted to him as if he were some effete ninny from Massachusetts. Four years on, the Dems have replaced the faux effete ninny with the genuine article.

Heh!

Kerry Still on a Mission from God

As I suspected and earlier reported. God sent Kerry to us to save us from the evil of Bush.

Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin says John Kerry has been gaining in the polls every day since Oct. 21, and George Bush has been going down every day. "That's how God wants it to be," Harkin told a group of about 25 people at the Benton County Headquarters in Vinton on Thursday afternoon.

These people amaze me. They can simultaneously condemn the President daily about his faith and then come up with stuff like this. Pat Robertson says something like this and he's a crazy religious zealot. Harkin says it, who can disagree?

NBC, ABC trying to bury CBS?

Despite their best efforts, the MSM has been unable to put Kerry over the top in his bid for the White House. But of the big three broadcast networks, only CBS still clings to the hope that its news department can swing the election to Kerry. There comes a point when it is time to cut your losses and this appears to be the time for the folks over at NBC and ABC. Capitalism may finally be overcoming their leftist tendancies enough to start piling on their competition over at CBS.

First, NBC ran with a story contradicting the Times/CBS Al Qaa Qaa contentions, now ABC is acting like they are a real news organization as well:

The documents [obtained by ABC] show IAEA inspectors looked at nine bunkers containing more than 194 tons of HMX at the facility. Although these bunkers were still under IAEA seal, the inspectors said the seals may be potentially ineffective because they had ventilation slats on the sides. These slats could be easily removed to remove the materials inside the bunkers without breaking the seals, the inspectors noted."

Although ABC and NBC still tilt heavily left, I begin to think that these news organizations are half-heartedly admiting that their efforts have not helped their guy in the polls enough and it's time to stop putting good money after bad. One could even argue that the more they try to prop Kerry up, the worse it gets for him. Although the MSM generally moves as a pack, NBC and ABC may have decided that CBS is very vulnerable these days. It would be arena sport to see them eat one of their own.

Could Kerry unwittingly "fulfill Revelation"?

I keep hearing an ill-informed complaint from my liberal friends that the number one reason they despise Bush is because "he thinks he is on a mission from God". I frequently notice this drivel in the mainstream media as well. In fact, a discussion on this very topic happened a couple of weeks ago on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher. Guest David Cross stated that Bush "takes the Bible literally", and "he wants to fulfill Revelation". Maher nodded approvingly while the crowd applauded wildly.

Let's look at this charge for a moment. Presumably, Cross and his like-minded secularists think that somehow, by America coming to its own (and Israel's) defense in the middle east, Bush will preciptate the Second Coming. But let's look at this seriously. If Bush is indeed, a person who wants to usher in the events of the End Times, then I submit that he is going about his prophesy-fulfilling efforts all wrong.

A recent Charles Krauthammer column tends to support my theory that it is KERRY policy that is more likely to usher in Armageddon, not Bush's.

Krauthammer presents the eminently logical theory that Kerry may have a secret plan for "bringing along the allies" to help with the war in Iraq in return for cutting Israel loose. Now, if I were a Christian who had the power to presumptuously rush the world toward the events depicted in the prophesies of Revelation, there would be no better way to do that than for America to abandon the Jews. Right now, we're down to just a few countries which will stand by Israel. Of these, only the US is in a position to truly keep the wolves from Jerusalem's doorstep. Fortunately for Israel, this is enough.

But where does Israel go if, as Krauthammer suggests, a Kerry or a future similarly like-minded administration abandons it?

As followers of Biblical prophesy know, the Antichrist of Revelation will be a leader of a future European confederation who rises to prominence because he makes an amazingly daring protection treaty with Israel. John prophesies in Revelation that the Antichrist will make a deal with the Jews so that they can actually rebuild their temple on its original site (a place that just so happens to be the current location of the Dome of the Rock) without retribution. There is no way that the building of the Jewish temple can happen without a persuasive political leader with a large military behind him to hold back an angry Muslim world. If we think Islam is radical now, imagine what it would be like if someone came along and said to the Jews, "go ahead and demolish the Dome of the Rock and build your temple, I'll protect you". Such a history making agreement is simply impossible while a Bush policy is in place.

Put another way, if you believe in a literal interpretation of Revelation, you have to believe that as long as the United States sticks with the current policy of protecting Israel, the Antichrist can never find the fertile geopolitical ground required to rise to power. This is why I think it is so ironic that secularists in Hollywood and the liberal media think that W sees himself on a mission from God to "fulfill Revelation" when in fact, he is currently pursuing a policy that effectively prevents the single most important political event described in the Book of Revelation from coming to pass.

Put another way, if Hollywood fears the "fulfillment of Revelation" then they need to vote for Bush!



UPDATE: Bush is reelected, Armageddon postponed!

The Success of Senators

Someone recently assured me that sitting Senators were more than qualified to be president. I replied that the voting populace has generally disagreed with that assertion. In the following list I highlight where the POTUS had senatorial experience. While numerous presidents were in the Senate at one time or another (some just before taking the presidency), only 2 were sitting sentators when elected to the White House. I'll leave you, dear reader, to figure out which two:

George Washington
surveyor, planter, general of the Army of the United Colonies

John Adams
schoolteacher, lawyer, diplomat, vice president under Washington

Thomas Jefferson
writer, inventor, lawyer, architect, governor of Virginia, secretary of state under Washington, vice president under Adams

James Madison
lawyer, political theorist, U.S. congressman, secretary of state under Jefferson

James Monroe
soldier, lawyer, U.S. senator, governor of Virginia

John Quincy Adams
lawyer, diplomat, professor, U.S. senator, secretary of state under Monroe

Andrew Jackson
soldier, U.S. congressman, U.S. senator, governor of Florida

Martin Van Buren
lawyer, U.S. senator, governor of New York, vice president under Jackson

William Henry Harrison
soldier, diplomat, U.S. congressman, U.S. senator from Ohio

John Tyler
lawyer, U.S. congressman, U.S. senator, vice president under Harrison

James Knox Polk
lawyer, U.S. congressman, governor of Tennessee

Zachary Taylor
soldier

Millard Fillmore
lawyer, U.S. congressman, vice president under Taylor

Franklin Pierce
lawyer, soldier, U.S. congressman, U.S. senator from New Hampshire

James Buchanan
lawyer, U.S. congressman, U.S.senator, U.S. secretary of state

Abraham Lincoln
postmaster, lawyer, U.S. congressman from Illinois

Andrew Johnson
tailor, U.S. congressman, governor of Tennessee, U.S. senator from Tennessee, vice president under Lincoln

Ulysses Simpson Grant
U.S. Army general

Rutherford Birchard Hayes
lawyer, soldier, U.S. congressman, governor of Ohio

James Abram Garfield
schoolteacher, soldier, U.S. representative from Ohio

Chester Alan Arthur
schoolteacher, lawyer, tariff collector, vice president under Garfield

Grover Cleveland
sheriff, lawyer, mayor, governor of New York

Benjamin Harrison
lawyer, soldier, journalist, U.S. senator from Indiana

William McKinley
soldier, lawyer, U.S. congressman, governor of Ohio

Theodore Roosevelt
rancher, soldier, governor of New York, vice president under McKinley

William Howard Taft
lawyer, judge, dean of the University of Cincinnati Law School, U.S. secretary of war

Woodrow Wilson
lawyer, professor, president of Princeton University, governor of New Jersey

Warren Gamaliel Harding
newspaper editor, U.S. senator from Ohio

Calvin Coolidge
lawyer, governor of Massachusetts, vice president under Harding

Herbert Clark Hoover
engineer, U.S. secretary of commerce

Franklin Delano Roosevelt
lawyer, governor of New York

Harry S. Truman
farmer, soldier, haberdasher, judge, U.S. senator, vice president under Roosevelt

Dwight David Eisenhower
supreme commander of the Allied forces in Europe, U.S. Army chief of staff
writer

John Fitzgerald Kennedy
journalist, U.S. congressman, U.S. senator from Massachusetts

Lyndon Baines Johnson
schoolteacher, soldier, congressman, U.S. senator from Texas, vice president under Kennedy

Richard Milhous Nixon
lawyer, U.S. congressman, U.S. senator, vice president under Eisenhower

Gerald Rudolph Ford
lawyer, U.S. congressman, vice president under Nixon

James Earl Carter, Jr.
peanut farmer, governor of Georgia

Ronald Wilson Reagan
movie actor, corporate spokesman, governor of California

George Herbert Walker Bush
oil executive, U.S. congressman, U.S. ambassador to the UN, Director of CIA, vice president under Reagan

William Jefferson Clinton
lawyer, governor of Arkansas

George Walker Bush
oil executive, sport team owner, governor of Texas

Was Jesus a Fundamentalist Christian?

I am amazed by the widespread myth that Christian Fundamentalists are no different than Islamic Fundamentalists at their core. Even fleeting analysis reveals that one is the polar opposite of the other.

A true Christian is, by definition, a follower of the teachings of Christ. For His part, Christ could be accurately labeled an extreme fundamentalist Christian (the first one in fact) because he followed his own teachings to the letter. So what does being an extremist, fundamentalist Christian entail?

Extreme Christianity would require Christians to be more bold in telling the world of the good news of eternal life through Christ (and doing so through friendly persuasion and living a life of righteousness), doing everything possible to help the poor, fighting against evil, doing what is good, etc. That is fundamentalist Christianity. More of that behavior would be good for the world would it not? (unless you're part of the aforementioned group of evil people :-)

However, to be a good Muslim (and I'm not talking "good" by Western standards which is to be a "moderate" but rather "good" by Wahabi standards, that is, a close adherent of the Quran) one must engage in a battle against modernity, Judaism and Christianity. Women must be subjugated, free thought must be suppressed, and temptation (such as Hollywood likes to export) must be avoided at all costs. In fact, the very concept of democracy is anathema to the teachings of the Quran. We think that exporting American democracy is a good thing for Muslim countries whereas they see it as an evil.

Just look at the fundamentals of each faith. One teaches caring for widows and orphans and allowing the freedom to choose to be with God or avoid Him forever. The other religion mandates the killing Jews and Infidels wherever they are as an essential tenet of the faith. It is interesting how prophetic it is that of the two teachings, Jesus Christ's are considered evil and Mohammed's tolerable.

The religion of "Peace"

A reader took me on recently on my assertion that Islam is far from a religion of peace:

"As I understand it, you believe that anyone who reads the Quran wants nothing less than killing everyone who isn't in the Islam faith, and they are just biding their time. Is it? Because that is not how it is in reality, the average Muslim wants what you and I both want - a roof over our heads, food, good friends, and a loving relationship that produces good children. They care not for killing someone who doesn't believe in the Quran."


There are two important points that the reader completely ignores:

1. How many Muslims AGREE with the Jihad against the West. (clue: look at how many Muslims have denounced the terror).
2. Does the Quran command the killing of Jews and Infidels. (clue: let's go to the source:

Surah:

2:191

kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from wherever they drove you out

9:123

Oh ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you.


9:5

Slay the idolaters wherever you find them

8:12

I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off.

9:29

Fight those who do not believe in God and the last day... and fight People of the Book, who do not accept the religion of truth (Islam) until they pay tribute by hand, being inferior"


5:11

And as for those who disbelieve and reject Our Signs, they are the people of Hell"

29:45

Argue with people of the book, other than evil doers, only by means of what are better! and say, we believe in what has been sent down to us and sent down to you. Our God is the same as your God, and we are surrendered to Him.

2:256

There is no compulsion in religion

2:193

Fight them on until there is no more tumult and religion becomes that of Allah



5:33

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;



22:19-22

But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads,

Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted;

And for them are hooked rods of iron.
 
Whenever, in their anguish, they would go forth from thence they are driven back therein and (it is said unto them): Taste the doom of burning.

9:23

O ye who believe! take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love Infidelity above Faith: if any of you do so, they do wrong.

60:8 

Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.

25:52

So obey not the disbelievers, but strive against them herewith with a great endeavor.


66:9

O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end.



47:4

When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads; then when you have made wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives. 


8:65,

 O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers 

3:28
Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah. except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (to fear) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.

8:12
I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them  


8:60
Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies. 


This is far from a comprehensive list of passages but should provide little comfort to those who claim that the Quran teachs "peace".

Kerry On a Mission From God?

David Limbaugh argues that it is Kerry who is more likely to be the one to continually quote Scripture:

As I recall, while President Bush made no secret during the debates of his reliance on God, it was not him, but John Kerry who was citing Scripture -- or trying to. And it was Kerry who said, "My faith affects everything that I do, in truth."


More proof that Kerry is a dangerous Bible thumper!

Want to be Productive? Use a Mac

As the iPod continues to dominate the MP3 player market, leading more and more PC users to consider buying at least one piece of gear from Apple, I think it is worth taking a moment to explain why I would never use anything other than a Mac.

First off, I am the first to say that if there is a compelling reason to run Windows I certainly understand. Windows is a software tool like any other software tool and as such, it should be deployed where a user finds that it is the only option.

There are dozens of varieties of Windows operating systems, each specifically designed to run on a given manufacturer's hardware. In this respect, there is no monolithic OS called "Windows". Every manufacturer of a "Wintel" PC has its own way of implementing Windows and thus, you can't think of Windows like you can with the Mac (which is a tightly integrated hardware/software environment controlled entirely by Apple Computer). The MS Windows operating system is customized by each hardware manufacturer to suit its own needs. This gives it flexibility but at the sacrifice of stability and ease of use. Of course, the hardware itself varies widely from manufacturer to manufacturer as well.

That said, in this contest, I believe Macintosh wins as a productivity platform for the following reasons:

No viruses. At this point (5 years after its initial release), Mac OS X remains virus and worm free. This translates directly into a safer user experience. In this day and age, the value of this single issue cannot be overstated. OS X makes this possible. Meanwhile there are thousands and thousands of viruses for the contemporary versions of Windows (NT, XP, 2000).  Of course, someday someone might figure out how to write one for OS X but then there will be only ONE virus vs. the tens of thousands for Windows. For this reason alone OS X is simply the better choice for the academic and home environment.

TCO (Total Cost of Ownership). Macs are simply better built, obsolesce slower, are easier to support, and more intuitive to use than its Wintel competitors. If user productivity is higher then the value of the computer increases. A total solution must consider not just the OS preference but longevity of hardware, ease of support, ease of upgrades, downtime considerations, and training issues.

Less expensive to support. Dozens of studies have looked at just this one issue related to TCO and have found that user-to-tech ratios are much better in operations running Macs over Windows. If the computer takes less time to troubleshoot or to upgrade or to explain to a user, then it is spending more time doing what it should be doing, being a productive tool rather than a constant headache.

Initial purchase cost. A similar speed Mac with comparable features is currently less expensive than the Dell. A 2Ghz iMac is comparable in speed to a 3.5Ghz Pentium IV (the combination of the outdated Windows operating system running on inefficient Intel chips requires much faster clock speeds to get the same amount of processing as the Apple/IBM combination). As of Spring of 2004 the eMac, for example, was priced well under $800 while the comparable Dell Dimension 8300 runs around $1200. At this writing, there are no $800 Dell PCs with Firewire and a quality separate video card like the eMac. The price gap is even wider when comparing the Mac Powerbook lineup with the Dell offerings.

Support. Apple provides better direct support of its customers. the best test of this is to visit Apple's web site and then Dell's. The experience is like night and day.

More user-friendly. The Mac has easily the most elegant user interface on the market with OS X. It is designed from the table up to work right out of the box. In 5 years of using OS X I have experienced only 3 crashes amongst my 3 different Macs. It is that stable.

But you might ask, what about all the Windows software that is unavailable for the Mac?

It is true that there are roughly 40,000 usable Windows packages that few people will ever use on their PC vs. about 20,000 that few will ever use on their Mac. Of course, all the MAJOR packages that a user generally needs are available for both platforms. I think most of these run better on the Mac than under Windows. The exception is MS Office, which generally performs better from within the Windows environment than on the Mac. However, Office X is a very robust software package and actually has several key features not found in the Windows version.

Over all, the software availability for OS X  is very wide and includes many extremely advanced packages NOT AVAILABLE for Windows. These include Final Cut Pro, Logic, Soundtrack, DVD StudioPro, iDVD, GarageBand, iCal, iMovie, iPhoto, Mail.app, and iSync.

Finally, I'm rather fond of the UNIX underpinnings of OS X.  The BSD code under the hood has proven to be the most reliable of any OS kernel ever built.

This is not to say that Windows is not useful. I think it's a great platform to run Solitaire!