Two Items of Interest

First, you may get sick of my fascination with Neil Boortz but he sums up a lot of opinions, not all, I have and I respect his thoughts. I think the following just begins to prove that socialist regimes cannot stand not having sole power of the world's economic, political, and social agenda unfettered by "details" such as who funds what. They seek to do anything to "create" a second super power, even if through manipulation of smaller countries through monetary bribes (I don't support the US's use of these "bribes" either) or manipulation of UN programs PRIMARILY funded with OUR hard earned dollars to garner "support" of initiatives and creating an illusion of US obstinate behaviour. Anyway, here are Neil's thoughts:

JACQUES CHIRAC SLAMS U.S. Remember back in the summer when George Bush said that the European Union should admit Turkey into the E.U.? Do you also remember who came out and said that President Bush and the United States should stay out of official European Union business? That's right...it was none other than French President Jacques Chirac. I'm not sure what the French word for hypocrisy is, but Chirac is at it again. This time he is slamming the United States. What for, you ask? No, it has nothing to do with Iraq. At a meeting of the U.N. General Assembly, Mr. Chirac accused the United States of obstructing a worldwide campaign to eradicate poverty. Chirac's panties are in a knot because the United States would not go along with a non-binding declaration calling for a "renewed political mobilization" to help more than 1 billion people living in poverty around the world. The mean, evil United States strikes again! "However strong the Americans may be, in the long term, you cannot successfully oppose a position taken by 110 countries," Chirac said. "You can't oppose that forever." Really? Could someone please tell me where it's written that the United States has to go along with whatever policy initiative 110 nations might adopt just because we're outnumbered? What if 110 nations get together and decide that the United States should levy a 5% income tax surcharge against all American wage earners, and that the funds raised from that tax should be turned over to the UN for poverty relief work ... UN style? Is the US compelled to go along?

Apparently that idea would appeal to Chirac. Listen to this gem: "The price of selfishness is rebellion. We should ensure that the world's unprecedented wealth becomes a vehicle for the integration, rather than exclusion, of the most underprivileged." In other words, we should ensure that wealth is confiscated from people who earned it (The United States) and given to countries that did not earn it. Where have we heard this before? Oh yeah ... the Democratic party platform...never mind. With their plans for worldwide hand outs, leftist socialist countries like France want to impose a global tax to redistribute the wealth of the world more evenly. And guess who gets to decide that? That's right...the United Nations. If they had their way, before long you would be paying into the United Nations, to help those less fortunate around the world. Only then could poverty be "eradicated." So with all of that Chirac stormed out of town and won't be here for President Bush's speech to the U.N. today. Good riddance.

Second, I highly recomend this article from a card carrying Democrat (though I cannot possibly rationalize how he ever made it to that decision), but he appears ready to support our President.

The W Boom