by Tom Sears
What are we conservatives to do in the meantime? We have to start right now and choose leaders who have true conservative principles and don’t compromise values just to get more votes. We have recently seen the results of that strategy. Polls show the country still has a large majority of conservative-leaning individuals who want a leader who doesn’t compromise.
Reagan swept his elections, one of which resulted in a 49-state victory, and Newt Gingrich took control of the House with his “Contract with America,” promoting pure conservative values. We have to find those individuals now instead of waiting until the next election. And yes, control of the Senate and the House is just as important, if not more important, as the presidency. Let’s not give up quite yet.
Readers’ Responses Supportive, Annoyed
I can’t believe that today’s column comes after two years of writing for The Daily Star. It has honestly been a lot of work, but the enjoyment I get from the experience makes it well worthwhile. I’ll try to give it another year if Sam Pollak allows it. He has been true to his word and covered my back, never changed any of the column’s content, and I am sure he gets plenty of grief because of it. More on Sam later.
I can’t believe how the paper reaches such a number of readers from all over the United States. My e-mail responses impress the heck out of me. I have heard from people in 38 different states (also three countries, Romania, Bulgaria, and the Ukraine but they probably shouldn’t count since I know those individuals personally) totaling 286 responses.
Of these responses, 242 have been positive and 44 negative. The November 11 alone column got 21 responses, 17 for and 4 against.
Among the negatives, some of which seem like threats, I have two special ones. One man loves to send postcards about my column to The Star, which then get forwarded on to me. I have no idea why he doesn’t just send it to me. Maybe he wants a lot of people to read it along the way. I have kept them all and have accumulated quite a few.
My favorite is one on which he has a man with a club about to hit a baby seal. He has circled the man and labeled him “Tom Sears” and the title he gives to the circled baby seal is “The Truth.” I got a kick out of that one and once in a while he expresses his anger quite creatively.
The other is my first and only e-mail stalker. He sent the first one in the middle of September stating a few nasty things and went on to insult the paper by saying “Thankfully, you write for a small-town rag with a very limited circulation.” As you might guess, I wrote back a very diplomatic response questioning his sanity. Wow, did this set him off. For about two weeks he wrote almost daily, and on some days I received three or four letters.
This continued even though I only responded to him that one time. Finally, I had his e-mail go directly to my spam file so I don’t know if he is still sending me any more. I hope when he reads this (and he will), he will save himself a lot of time and find something more constructive to pursue.
I want to tell my supporters out there that I very much appreciate your feedback, either by e-mail or just coming up to me with a few kind words. I have tried to respond to each of your notes and apologize if I have missed anyone. Your positive feedback makes it much easier for me to keep writing the column. Thank you very, very much.
I must admit, however, that I get a kick out of the negative ones, also. I do read them, but so many of them write so much and say so little. More than a few are two or more pages in length, but I keep them, and, knowing that my columns get under their skins in an irritating way makes it easier for me to keep on writing too.
As for the negative ones sent to the editor, I enjoy them also. It’s just that most of them are too far gone, and any attempts to have a conversation with the writers would be futile. Their anger simply shows their fear and how afraid they are of a conservative viewpoint. Emotional responses are the only way an ultra-lib knows how to respond when confronted with factual statements.
Now, back to Sam. Yes, I did lose two bets to him and yes, I will be taking him to lunch (just not where he wants to go). However, before meeting Sam I always told myself I would never take a liberal to lunch and be seen publicly with him or her.
Now, after getting to know Sam and realizing he is one of the sanest liberals I have met and a pretty good guy, I have changed my policy and now will take a liberal to lunch once every two years.
If he continues to cover my back and keeps getting grief which I know must be hard to do, I might even change my policy to a once-a-year lunching with a liberal (and maybe even to a place of his choosing).
Election Process in Dire Need Of Changes
Now that the elections are over (as soon as Al Franken admits his defeat), we can all start the recovery process and get back to our normal lives.
It is ridiculous that the primaries and the election campaigning took two years to complete. What do these people do for us? Aren’t they supposed to be getting something done on our behalf in Congress? Do you really think they realize their whole purpose of being there is to serve the people and not self-aggrandizement? It’s starting to get a little out of hand.
Wouldn’t it be nice if the process could be changed? I’ve got a few suggestions. No. 1 - How about a six-month primary period and a three-month election period? With all the mass communication outlets, shouldn’t that be enough time to get a message across?
No. 2 - Each candidate gets one hundred million dollars. That should be more than enough, maybe even too much. Then we wouldn’t get a deluge of phone calls, pamphlets, advertisements, and all the other major nuisances that disrupt our lives.
No. 3 - Each candidate issues an upfront statement of his or her stances on a variety of issues, along with his beliefs and value system clearly. No waffling and flip- flopping depending on the audience you are addressing. The issues can be as numerous as they desire but certainly would cover foreign policy, a domestic agenda, and social issues. A leader should be able to stand tall, not be afraid of offending certain groups, and present his beliefs and stances in a clear and cogent fashion.
No. 4 – We, the voters will have to be responsible enough to realize that there will never be a perfect candidate. We must look at the entire package being offered and not be single-issue voters. That is selfish and ignorant. If there are issues that you don’t agree with, get more involved in the party and have an impact.
No. 5 - Candidates should have more debates for both the presidential and vice presidential positions. Also, these debates should be led by a strong moderator. If the candidate does not directly address the question being asked, the moderator should interrupt and remind the candidate to stay on topic. If this doesn’t work, then the moderator should shut off the microphone, and the candidate loses any remaining time.
All of the debates this year were pretty much ineffective. Presently, the candidates come in with a list of objectives they want to get across and don’t seem to care what the question is.
Along with this, the questions should be considered by a bipartisan panel and relevant ones agreed on and chosen. All the wacko ones can be thrown out. Then the questions would be drawn randomly from a drum and simply read. Some of the debates could be in a town hall-like setting, and individual audience members could read the questions.
No. 6 - The candidates have to appear at least once on all the news networks, including cable. They have to be able to face hostile audiences as well as friendly ones. A true, strong leader with a strong belief system shouldn’t be afraid to stand up and support what he or she truly believes.
How about this one? News media actually reports, and only reports, the news. I don’t give a hoot what some self anointed hot shot has to say. My neighbor’s viewpoint means just as much if not more. Don’t try to slickly hide your biases in your opinions. Just report.
Finally, give us a clear choice. All politicians are beginning to behave in the same way. They forget all about us when they get elected and are more concerned with what social cocktail parties or what lobbyist they are suppo
sed to meet with this week. Our ballot should have the option available to vote “none of the above.” I certainly would have chosen that option this election. Give us a strong candidate with conservative beliefs as well as one with liberal beliefs. If “none of the above” gets the majority, the parties have to go with another choice. They might get the hint that kowtowing to special interest groups and choosing a pabulum candidate won’t win the day any more.
Pie in the sky, wishful thinking? Maybe, but a few changes would be welcomed.
People have been coming up to me suggesting that I should find a few good things to say about our president elect. That’s going to be hard since he hasn’t done anything yet rather than make a few good Cabinet choices. I’ll try real hard, however, and include them in my next column.
Merry Christmas everyone!
What Are Atheists Afraid Of?
Christmas is upon us; one of the three most important dates in Christianity. I was hoping to get through the season without any atheistic zaniness, but that didn’t happen.
Starting in Olympia, Wash., and spreading to two or three other cities, atheists
couldn’t stand by and not attempt to draw attention to themselves.
Olympia originally simply allowed a Nativity scene and a Menorah, two symbols important to Christians and Jews, to be displayed on public property.
The atheists predictably demanded a display themselves. Their wish was granted when city officials caved, but rather than being a statement of their non-religious, unbelieving “faith,” they chose to denigrate and insult my religious beliefs. I, and many other Christians, simply won’t sit still for this behavior.
I know I have friends who are either self-proclaimed or silent atheists and this column is not about them (even though I can’t understand their decision and know they are making the biggest mistake possible). This column is for the radical members of their group.
Why are you so afraid of religion, and Christianity in particular? What do you fear? It’s easy to declare yourself an atheist, especially out of laziness, since I’m sure very few of you ever attempted to give religion a serious chance through exploration and introspection. Isn’t it also quite egocentric to not acknowledge a supreme being greater than yourself?
Instead of proudly proclaiming your stance and backing it up with research that lead you to your ultimate decision, you choose to exhibit nastiness and hate towards my religious faith.
You post a sign next to the above-mentioned displays that says, “There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but a myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”
Christianity has been around for more than 2,000 years. Our country was founded on Christian/Judean principles. I could fill many columns with quotes and speeches from the Founding Fathers to back up this claim.
Christmas has been a national holiday since the late 1800s. Polls show that there are only 3 percent of Americans who consider themselves atheists (still way too many), 92 percent who believe in God, and 84 percent who consider themselves Christians.
Is this why you’re afraid? Is this why you feel that you have to remove all references to God and religion from the public square? Are you worried that a child could see a Nativity scene and wonder who this Baby Jesus really was? Of course you are.
Here’s what you should do, and I won’t protest your right to do so. Pick a day, any day you choose (probably not a workday since it will never be declared a national holiday). Spend it celebrating your atheism. Have an atheist tree, exchange atheist presents, have a nice atheist dinner, wish each other a happy atheist day.
Maybe some of you who believe there is no being more supreme than yourselves can sit on a stool in front of a mirror and praise yourselves all day. Just don’t trample, insult or show condescension towards my religious convictions. I promise I won’t bother you (but I will still worry about you and pray for you).
The saddest part of all this are your children. I’m sure you won’t even give them the opportunity to make an informed decision on their own. Why wouldn’t you do this? You’re afraid of the choice they might make.
In last weekend’s edition of The Daily Star there was an article titled “Israel celebrates Hanukkah tale.” It tells of an Israeli village where the re-enactment of the Hanukkah story takes place, which I believe is an annual event.
A person is quoted as saying, “Thousands of Israeli children have visited here. They learn about the Maccabees and understand their nationalism, and their religion becomes stronger.”
Is this what you are afraid of? That they might hear the story of Jesus and make a decision different from that of your own?
People, we are on the right side of this issue. We have the numbers to effectively boycott films and stores who pander to this atheistic theme.
A perfect example was Bill Maher’s film “Religulous.” It was highly promoted and a total flop. Compare that to the movie “The Passion of The Christ.” This was produced by Mel Gibson with his own funds since Hollywood rejected it’s religious theme. It ended up being twelfth of the top 1,000 grossing films. So we do have some clout and can exercise it if pushed too far.
So let’s switch the focus back on Christmas. As Nathan Tabor, a columnist, says, Christmas isn’t anything without Christ. On that note, I wish everyone a very Merry Christmas, but more importantly, happy birthday Jesus.
Hamas Gets Preferential Treatment
Here we go again. Israel takes the actions necessary to protect its citizens and remove a menace that is intent on exterminating Jews and wiping Israel off the map. Guess who’s being held at fault? The propaganda machine of Hamas is proving once again their ability to sway public opinion and sympathy its way.
If you still have a Dec. 29 copy of The Daily Star, take a look at the very dramatic AP picture on Page 1. Tell me it’s not posed. I can hear the photographer setting up the scene. “Ok, now, let me get down on the ground so the picture will be looking up at you. Much more effective. Now I want you to look off into the distance and look heroic. That’s it, good. Now, I want you pointing off into the distance. No, it doesn’t matter what you are pointing at, just point. One last thing. Move over here so that the smoke and dust are much heavier. Good, now hold it.” Click, click, click.
Another picture, among many, created for maximum impact. This one comes from the Dec. 31 online copy of the New York Times, the main propaganda arm of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, and any other “hate America” group. This one shows a solitary man, hunched over and attempting to plant a shredded Hamas flag on top of the rubble of a supposed mosque hit by an Israeli bomb.
I can imagine that picture being set up. The photographer says, “Ok, I want you off in the distance, appearing hunched over and exhausted. Wait, does someone have a Hamas flag we can use? Not that one, it’s too new. Tear it up first. Now take the flag and move over there so I can get the top part of the destroyed ‘mosque’ in the picture. That’s it, good. Now hold still.” Click, click, click.
Give me a break. First of all it is not a mosque if it is being used as an arms depot, thereby making it a military target. And what about these innocent civilian casualties?
Of course it’s a tragedy when an innocent civilian is killed. No civilized person wants this to happen. But who bears the responsibility? The blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the despicable terrorists, the ones hiding themselves amongst the civilian population and firing rockets from playgrounds, schools, homes, mosques, and wherever they think they are safe. They know Israel values human life and will do anything to avoid civilians. What cowards!
Now what really is an innocent civilian? A Palestinian spokesperson says 45 innocent civilians were killed, including 25 children, and the reporter’s pen streaks across his notepad, treating this as a fact. Who cares where the figures came from.
Also, it’s really amazing how they can tell an innocent from a militant. Is it because they aren’t wearing
a uniform? Smart move for these cowards. They saw what happens when it is Arab coalition armies against Israel’s. How long did those wars last? Three days? Six days?
Are they innocent when they dance in the street and celebrate what happened on 9/11 or as they do every time innocent Israelis die due to a suicide bomber?
How about the mothers who allow bombs to be strapped to their children and are proud of them when they kill innocent people and become martyrs? How about the “innocent civilians” who allow Hamas terrorists to roam their streets and are allowed to mingle amongst them? Are they innocent? Who can truly tell the difference?
Also, who can tell whether these “innocents” were killed by Israel or Hamas? It has been documented that Hamas will kill anyone who is suspected of collaborating with the enemy. No jury, no trial, no decision, no proof needed, just a judgment call by these worms.
And talk of cowards. The real cowards are those leaders who have abandoned their people and are safely living in Syria, supposedly out of the reach of Israeli bombs. Can anyone remember a little effective group called the Mossad?
So, now the facts. 9,400 rockets and mortars have been fired from Gaza since 2003. 3,200 fired in 2008 alone. At least 6,500 have been fired since Israel withdrew completely from Gaza in 2005.
Lastly, how about the 543-plus rockets fired during the 6 month “ceasefire” from June 19 to Dec. 19. And do you think Hamas was concentrating on hitting military targets only? If you do, then you are probably a New York Times subscriber.