Healing: an undermining tactic                November 03, 2004

My, how quick the national voting status can change, This morning we expected a prolonging of the finality of who was going to be president. An hour later having reported to work I hear that Kerry was to call President Bush to concede. Bush wins the popular vote with the highest number of votes any presidential candidate has ever received.
George W Bush remains Commander in Chief of a willing military an all-volunteer army. More than half the country rejoices while many of the rest mourn over their loss. Kerry is washed up for any future attempts at the presidency. I expect to see Hillary Clinton as the Democrat Candidate in 2008. I do not expect to see Bill as V.P.
The media is talking of mending or healing of the American divide. The interpretation is that in their rhetoric they hope to guide the Republicans into compromise with the Democrats. However you cannot make amends with Democrats without abiding by their wishes. There is to be no mending because the liberal factions of the Democratic Party hate conservative values. The Democratic Party is only satified when they have control and when they do not will exert their limited influence as far as they can without compromising.
The Republicans need to stand firm on the issues without compromise to appease any Democrats. The Republicans will be demonized for standing firm, but stand firm they must. Compromise only weakens the Party’s resolve and frustrates the grassroots. To maintain the power momentum of conservatism, conservative values must be upheld.
- Roger W Hancock,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Kerry Against Women's Health        October 27, 2004

John F. Kerry supports endangering the lives of women. Since Kerry talks both sides of most issues we have only his record to establish his stand. Kerry voted against the “Partial Birth Abortion Ban” favoring the procedure of killing a child as it is being born. Not only does this procedure kill a full term baby it unnecessarily endangers the mother’s life. A C-section is much more efficient in voiding the mother’s womb of a baby than the partial birth abortion procedure. In a partial birth abortion the baby is turned breach inside the womb and then delivered feet first until only the head remains unseen. Then scissors are stabbed into the base of the skull to provide an opening for a tube. The tube is then used for the vacuuming out of the baby’s brain.
Out of character concerning his voting record but in character for his far left positions John Kerry actually returned from the campaign trail to attend a vote in Washington. Kerry voted against the Unborn Victims bill. The Unborn Victims bill was to protect pregnant mothers and their unborn children from violent criminal acts. Kerry claims to support women rights but apparently not if they are pregnant. With Kerry when it comes to the family the leftist positions against family values take precedence.
Kerry claims to support women’s rights but only those rights that are deemed politically correct by the extreme left. Kerry opposes common sense family values in favor of a woman’s convenience to be able to terminate an unwanted pregnancy at any stage of development. Kerry’s record shows him favoring the killing of babies and opposing the woman’s safety.

- Roger W Hancock,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Kerry's Latest Lie                                      October 27, 2004

Each election cycle the Democrats get more brazen with scare tactics and outright lies. We know that Kerry has proven his desperation to win at any cost. The cost is truth. The truth in these times is a casualty in the political war of ideologies. The ideologies of the democrats depends upon the perceived mood of the audience at that given time. The subsequent democrat responses are designed to play upon the fears without regard for truth.
John Kerry is now blaming our President for missing arms that were missing before the war. Kerry’s lie, "After being warned about the danger of major stockpiles of explosives in Iraq, this administration failed to guard those stockpiles - where nearly 380 tons of highly explosive weapons were kept." The media is following in lockstep with the nazi-like tactics of plausible deceit.
Kerry’s Campaign Advisor Joe Lockhart seized this latest opportunity as another campaign of misinformation by alleging a cover up. Lockhart tied the warnings of weapon stockpiles to weapons that were moved prior to the coalition forces entrance into Iraq. Ironically Kerry had previously denied such stockpiles existed.
The media outlets with out any attempts at impartiality or accuracy are reporting Kerry’s statements as truth without supporting facts. On Monday Morning the New York Times jumps on the allegations without waiting for the facts of the whole story. The New York Times ignores the NBC report that the stockpile was missing prior to the war. It was known one month before the invasion the stockpile was unaccounted for. Tuesday evening CBS airs a story of some minor inaccuracies on the part of both campaigns with out mention of Kerry’s latest attempt to malign the President by the flagrant twist of truth. Once reported the inaccuracies are picked up on by media throughout the country reporting them as truth while ignoring those reports showing the correct time frame.
This election cycle has become a contest between Bush’s record and Kerry’s lies.
- Roger W Hancock,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Christians and a Third Party                    October 15, 2004

Misguided Values?

   Many Christians are abandoning the Republican Party as to avoid a compromise of their values. The Constitution Party is promising a righteous alternative. The premise for each is flawed by confusion of what compromise is. One compromises their values when they make statements that contradict the values to which they subscribe. One compromises when they rationalize to act in a manner inconsistent with their values.
   In our society we interact with others that do not hold the same values. Are we compromising when we deal with them? Did Jesus compromise by eating with sinners?
   Cooperate do not compromise. Strategize do not compromise. Christians banding together to further the righteousness of America is strategy. Christian factions in cooperation with other groups to increase political power is cooperation not necessarily compromise. When cooperating do not compromise your values, in such you become a witness to those with whom you strategize.
In politics we must act as witnesses of God’s Holy Word. We must remain righteous when interacting with others who are not. Strategy in politics is necessary if we are to advance our agendas. Christians without coalitions with others do not have the power to affect change within our political system.
The Constitution Party standing alone hides its votes (talents) under a rock, or perhaps worse by handing them over to thieves. A vote for a candidate that has no chance is a vote that is not cast against the worse of the two evils. Some disagree but assuming the Republican Party is more righteous then the Democrat Party a no vote or a vote for a third party is a vote that is not cast against the Democrat Party. The real contest is between the candidates that have a realistic chance to win. A vote not cast for the Republican is a vote that does not cancel a vote for the Democrat. By default votes not cast or cast for a third party effectively advance the chances of the Democrat Party. So in the attempt to not compromise you do so by default.
- Roger W Hancock

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Church prominence                                October 25, 2004

In a Church there is no prominent position except that prominence is where the Word of God is delivered. Prominence is where the worship originates, in our hearts. Perhaps some denominations put undue respect upon items and where they are located but prominence belongs only to God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
- Roger W Hancock

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

WMDs do not ... not exist                    October 24, 2004

Weapons of Mass Destruction have not been proven to not exist. We know Saddam has had them. The U.S. gave him some that he has used on his own people. It is a given that Saddam had WMDs. Did Saddam destroy the weapons? Did Saddam ship them out of the country? Did he give them to terrorists? We do not know. The U.N. inspectors did not find WMDs. The U.N. inspectors were not allowed to inspect without notice. The evidence could simply have been moved prior to the inspections. President Clinton, President Bush, Senator Kerry, Senator Kennedy and others all said Iraq had WMDs. Perhaps they were all wrong, we do not have the evidence to support that premise. Did they all lie? If so then those who say President Bush is a liar are also liars. There have been conventional weapon stockpiles found buried in the desert of Iraq. What else is still buried? WMDs? We do not know and there is no evidence to the contrary. What we do know without doubt is that Saddam had chemical WMDs and has used them. Saddam did have programs to develop nuclear weapons. What happened to them? Where is the evidence of their destruction? What has happened to them or where are they? We do not know for we do not have the evidence that WMDs or their development do not exist.
- Roger W Hancock

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The President is Wrong?                October 12, 2004

The president lied not producing results for his justification. Seventy-seven billion dollars spent on war is a lot of money. What business of America is it to affect regime change? Then there’s the awarding of the Halliburton no-bid contracts.
By their arguments Democrats should have disapproved of President Clinton spending Seventy-seven billion dollars in Serbia for regime change and then failing to find the mass graves. Serbia did not support terrorist that would attack America. Serbia had not been shooting at American jets for nine years. Clinton’s Halliburton no-bid contracts in Yugoslavia went unchallenged by the Democrats. Yet the Democrats and John Kerry claim President Bush is wrong for the same reasons that they supported the Iraq War just two years ago.
Republicans define the Democrat issues by doing what is right. Democrats seeking to define themselves will take the opposite side even if they have previously voiced support for the Republican issue. We should not be surprised by Kerry’s flip-flops as they mirror that of the Democrat Party. Democrat leadership is consistent in their inconsistency. The Democrat Party’s consistency is the opposition of Republican policies. Kerry’s Democrats now find themselves opposing the safety of America.
- Roger W Hancock

Printed as a "Letter to the Editor," Lewis News  - 10-04-2004; Tacoma Weekly  - 10-07-2004  (The Papers often edit for space and other criteria.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Primary I-872                             October 12, 2004

   Initiative 872 is unconstitutional. I-872 denies the right of association. It is that right that caused the court to declare the old primary unconstitutional. This is one issue that both parties agree. Washington State is unique in that we do not declare party for the actual electing of our elected positions. Initiative 872 promises to spend more of our money in the courts only to, probably, have it thrown out as unconstitutional. We have the right to associate; to choose the candidate that aligns with our political philosophy without interference by those with a contrary philosophy.
   Initiative 872 restricts our voting rights. I-872 takes away the right, in the general election, to select a candidate from all parties. I-872 will give you only two candidates to choose from in the actual election of the office holder. I-872, although well intentioned, does not do what was intended. The primary is not the election and as such cannot be treated the same. I-872 in allowing you to interfere with other parties will restrict your selection in the General Election. I-872 is not the American Way. Keep our rights, keep our selections and save the General Election. Vote NO on I-872.
- Roger W Hancock

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Kerry and the United Nations.                   October 04, 2004

The United Nations is an ineffective and corrupt organization. The U.N. is an organization that serves to the naiveté that peace can be achieved by peaceful negotiations. The U.N. is the cover allowing evil nations legitimacy in a civilized society. All this and John Kerry has more confidence in the United Nations than he has in America.
America is the strength behind what little strength the United Nation’s has. United Nations in failing to enforce its own resolutions proves its own ineffectiveness.
John Kerry would have our Armed Forces serve under the “socialist emblem” of the United Nations flag rather than under the sovereignty of the United States of America. John Kerry during the Vietnam War aided the enemy with anti-American rhetoric. John Kerry wishes to extend his anti-Americanism to the Whitehouse. I do not need to say John Kerry is anti-American, John Kerry’s words say it best. John Kerry in 1970, “I’m an internationalist. I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.” John Kerry’s most recent statements still support that premise. America will fall only when weakened from within.
- Roger W Hancock

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Is Kerry Campaigning?                         September 19, 2004

Just when we think a president could not be any worse than Clinton here comes the candidate Kerry.
Kerry is ignoring his campaign advisors or has no advice to consider. The more he speaks the more a lacking of character is revealed. The more Bush-haters dig into Bush’s background the more we see of Bush’s strength of character. Kerry is Kerry’s weakness. Bush is Bush’s strength. The Parties are more polarized in quality of candidates as well as substantial issues, today than ever.
The Democrats and their candidate lack any issue of any real consequence. Kerry speaks of handling the Iraq war better, without speaking of how he would do it. He speaks of getting the alignment of most of the allies, which Bush did. Bush has proven himself a Commander In Chief.. Bush has a proven ability to make the tough decisions. Bush does not waiver in the winds of unfounded criticism. Bush stands firm in his principles. Kerry on the other hand. . . Need I say?
Kerry speaks from his mouth the opposite of his years of actions and votes. What are we to believe? Now in the 2004 presidential campaign He says this or that then contradicts himself. Again, what are we to believe? He speaks of improving Health Care but how is he going to improve health care?
Why vote for Kerry? Kerry does not provide any substantial reasons. Is Kerry campaigning or just using the opportunity to boost his own ego?
- Roger W Hancock

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Character Revealed                              September 17, 2004

   The Democrats lacking any real substantial issues or candidate have taken the low road again. Name-calling, false accusations, and calling good bad have become their mantras. They call Bush Stupid without substantiating it. The evidence is quite the opposite. They use fabricated documents to smear Bush and now we see that Bush while in the National Guard had volunteered for a mission that would have taken him into Vietnam. Bush’s humility had him keeping those details to himself. The more they try to smear Bush the more we learn of Bush’s outstanding character. They would be better off to just lay off.
   The more Kerry spotlights his military service the more we learn of his dishonoring his service afterwards. Dishonoring his service by protesting Vietnam, slanderous testimony against his fellow veterans, and now his association with a near-terrorist organization, Vietnam Veterans Against the War. VVAW, was the organization that held a meeting to vote on killing U.S. Senators. Although Kerry spoke against it he was a member of the VVAW steering committee at that time in November, 1971. Kerry denied it, and then when presented with eyewitness accounts and documentation, said he doesn’t remember the meeting.
   We keep learning more and more about Kerry’s post war activities. I learned that Kerry had testified in congress recommending compliance with the Vietnam Communist’s demands and stipulations for a U. S. retreat.
- Roger W Hancock

Printed as a "Letter to the Editor," Tacoma Weekly 9-23-2004; Eat the State!,  9-29-2004;  Back Talk, 09-2002  (The Papers often edit for space and other criteria.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Letter to a Liberal                                 September 14, 2004

Letter to a Liberal Re: WMD's
Mr., Mstr., Mrs., Miss, or Ms. Liberal,
   WMD's were not the "Reason for going to war." It was just an added justification. You should know that by now. Besides it was the intelligence that was obtained by the great liar of all times, Bill Clinton that was flawed (if flawed, there is still no proof there was not any WMD's) and passed on to George W Bush. If George lied he was in cahoots with the Clinton gang. Below is what they the Democrats were saying. Keep on blaming Bush for Clinton's "folly." You have yourself believing it already. If Bush lied then he was set up by the Clinton Administration and they should then be tried for treason. But of course, we know the truth. Your people also voted to authorize the war, not because Bush said there was WMD's but because they believed it long before Bush.
   "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
   "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
   "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
   "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
   "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002
   "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ..... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
   "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998
   "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
   Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
   "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten time since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb 18,1998
   "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
   "Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." > - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
   "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
   "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
   "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
   "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
   "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
   "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
   "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
   Just because Bill Clinton and John Kerry are liars does not mean everyone lies. Although we have come to expect it from the Democrat leaders and Democrat office holders.
   Yeah the truth hurts . . . all of us.
- Roger W Hancock

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Religion of Darwinism                  September 14, 2004

BULLY on the intelligent design proponents and BULL over the Darwinist who are so insecure in their theories that they fear the presentation of alternative thought.
The Darwinist line of thinking falls into the same mentality as when the science community believed the earth was flat. Galileo suggesting that the earth was not flat was scorned by his peers. It was considered heresy when Galileo presented the concept that the earth was not the center of the universe.
The Darwinist hold to their theories as a religion castigating any who dare suggest their God of natural evolution may be false. They essentially hold to the same thought that man is central in the cosmos of life. Their theory is that man evolved without help from any intelligent force. This thought is essential in their religion of atheism. The theory of intelligent design requires a supreme being that set the principles of life in motion. Even though with only conjecture, without any facts to disprove a greater intelligence, they hold with blind faith to unproven theory.
Time will tell, it always does. Galileo was right the world is round and is not the center of the universe. There are still those who hold to the thought that the world is flat. They disbelieve the facts as attempts fabricated, to corrupt traditional thought. Likewise the Darwinists hold to “beliefs” supported only by threads of evidence tied to their theories by their imaginations. The evidences are not enough to support the theories of natural evolution against the concept of intelligent design. To maintain their credibility they must not be challenged. To challenge is to expose. A conclusion without consideration of all available facts and presented theories is certainly not science.
- Roger W Hancock

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

© Copyright 2004, Roger W Hancock

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

God is Supreme regardless of Flag flown.                     September 12, 2004

God is God and stands Supreme. I find no banner designed by God in the scriptures other than Love. Certainly Love when from God flies higher than any allegiances to any country. America is blessed of God. A religious flag has not the meaning in religion as a nation's flag has to its identity.
The religious banners used in the navy are designed for a specific purpose and are not official flags of any religion. The purpose of a religious flag is a reminder. Man's attempt to show no disrespect to God by not having only the American Flag standing during a service.
When the American Flag stands alone in a religious service it does not hold pre-eminence over God. Christ hangs high over the earth providing salvation for all who accept. God is over all regardless of any idols we set before him. Beware the American Flag not become an idol. The American Flag hangs high upon poles constructed by man, therefore hangs lower then the heavens.
The American Flag in a religious service serves to remind of the blessings God has ordained by the creation of these United States. The American Flag represents our freedoms including the freedom to worship without interference by the government. We are able to assemble without permits and without scrutiny by our government. The presence of the American Flag is a reminder that we as religious people have a responsibility to vote and defend the religious freedoms we enjoy today.
I uphold the American Flag but God's banner of Love upholds me.
- Roger W Hancock

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Let the ban die! die! die!                        September 12, 2004

The assault rifle ban was controversial in the first place. In 1993 when enacted it nearly failed, One vote that was changed from being against to being for allowed its passing.
Crimes decreased in part due to stiffer penalties that have been implemented across the nation. The ban was an incremental attempt to ban all arms from the public.
Remember the following adage? "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns." That also applied to Germany, when guns were outlawed. The Nazi government became the outlaws. What would have happened if the public in Germany at that time still had arms to defend themselves? How many lives would have been saved if the Jewish population had weapons to arm a defensive underground?
The second amendment is for a reason. Civilization helps keep that reason in check. Without the means to defend liberty, civilization will crumble
- Roger W Hancock

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The New Primary                     September, 2005

Those who are upset about the primary election do not understand. Their right to vote for whichever candidate in whichever party has not been impeded. It is in the general election where that occurs. In the primary, the partisan races are the parties’ selection of the candidate that will run in the general election.
You are a Republican, a Democrat, a Libertarian, an independent or whatever party, but you are not both a Republican and a Democrat or whatever.
If you wish to help a party select their candidate, then you should help that particular party. Democrats should not be participating in the selection of the Green Party’s candidate. If you are an independent, then you declare yourself not a part of a party and do not have the right to help select a candidate other than those who have declared themselves as independent.
Basically, when considering the partisan races in the primary, we are not considering an open election. The open election is when the actual officeholder is selected. The partisan races in the primary does not do that.
If you consider yourself a member of a party, then participate in that party’s candidate selection process by choosing the ballot for that party. If you are an independent, then at the primary cast your vote among the independent candidates, if any. All voters –– party members and independents –– are able to narrow the field for all of the non-partisan races.
- Roger W Hancock

Printed as a "Letter to the Editor," Eat the State!, 9-01-2004; King County Journal, 9-02-2004; Federal Way Mirror, 9-11-2004  (The Papers often edit for space and other criteria.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Partial Birth Abor....                               August 26, 2004

To abort a child while it is being born? What nonsense, where is the common sense? How is it that such a heinous act is actually given credence in public discourse? If our founding fathers knew our country would have come so far as to be actually be killing babies they would have addressed the issue. But the founding fathers had morals and believed morality would stand with common sense. They never imagined how far from common sense, how far from morality we would have come.
For the life of the mother is just an excuse. For to take the extra time to turn the baby around inside then womb then punch scissors into its skull and vacuum the brains out would endanger the mother much more than simply delivering the baby alive. The same goes for almost all other abortion procedures.
Surely, if the founders of liberty were able to observe us today they would be restless with disbelief.
- Roger W Hancock

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

McCain is wrong                                    August 23, 2004

     John McCain has it wrong about the Swift Veteran ads.  When backed by accurate accounts it is fully proper to bring out information to the public. Bush would not have put out such an ad because he would not have had the nerve.  The Swift Veteran group has been putting out this information for the last thirty years without being challenged by conflicting facts of any kind.
     If inaccurate, Kerry could put a squash on the whole thing by releasing his military and medical records.   Kerry refuses to defend himself, why? Kerry made a grave mistake by using his military record as a campaign issue then refuses to backup his own statements.  He now keeps quiet hoping desperately to intimidate stations into not airing the ads.
     Perhaps he could pull a Clinton, and redefine what honorable military service . . . is.  Sure John Kerry performed some honorable military service but it appears some is not.  Even John Kerry has not defended himself against the Swift-boat Veteran's ad.
          -  Roger W Hancock

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Kerry, communist sympathizer?            August 23, 2004

     Bill Clinton had communist friends from his rouge scholar days. John Kerry has contacts with Vietnam communists.  Why does the Democrat Party have such connections with communists?
     John Kerry’s position on China opposes America’s long time policy of supporting the government of Taiwan.  The Taiwan government was the last to govern a free China; now exiled to Taiwan.  Kerry has been endorsed by China’s “People’s Daily,” the largest communist newspaper.  Kerry proposes a no restriction contact with China, one of two nations to officially threaten America with nuclear war.   Clinton gave away industrial secrets in exchange for campaign contributions.  For what reason is Kerry cozying up to Red China?
     The Communist Party U.S.A. supports John Kerry for his socialist positions.  Kerry promises further socialization of heath care and other issues.  Kerry’s proposals for social programs will out cost the taxes he intends to increase; a promise to increase the deficit by one trillion dollars.  Bankrupt America and democracy becomes frail allowing an opportunity for socialist or communists to gain power.  The Democrat Party is not the party of 30 or 40 years ago.  It is the party that seeks to socialize our society into a Government that controls our lives.  Claiming patriotism they oppose the policies as set forth by our founding fathers by way of our U.S. Constitution.  John Kerry may not be immediately as bad for America as I paint, but he will facilitate our slow warming of the waters to suppress our liberties.  It is very possible he may not even know it himself.
          -  Roger W Hancock

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Shortsighted issues.                               August 10, 2004

     If approved the new Democratic Platform will be the proof that the Party has been taken over by the fringe left that once were laughed at not given any credence.  Seeking power at whatever cost within the Democrat Party has allowed a voice to the nonsense.  The Democrats are now stating their support for the off-the-wall issues of the past.  Tradition means nothing to those that seek to advance their own agenda without regard for consequences.  They take upon themselves to redefine “Family”.  The liberal left of the Democrat Party decides what life is only to advance their convenience to abort the inconvenience of a baby without considering the consequences.  Seeking the normalization of deviant sexual behavior is now spelled out even more boldly in the proposed Democratic Platform.  
     The extreme left so boldly espousing individual rights without consequences to the rights of others has come to ignore the consequences to them selves.   Abortion under the guise of a woman’s rights ignores the rights of the baby even to the allowing of killing a newborn baby as the new life enters into this world.  They fail to consider the consequences of future generations.  Abortions are more likely to be committed by liberals, thus aborting more future liberals than future conservatives.  Homosexuals do not procreate without a laboratory threesome.  Abortionists kill off their offspring.  By attrition liberalism is doomed to eventually fail.  Those with issues founded in selfishness generally fail to see beyond the day of their own circumstances.
          -  Roger W Hancock

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dems Without Substance                 July 15, 2004

     The Democrats are wrapped up in self-pity over the loss of the 2000 election.   They are upset that Clinton got such a bad rap (over instances he brought upon himself).  They oppose Bush not out of any real substance but just because he is a Republican with more substance than any of their presidential candidates over the last two or three elections.  
     Lets compare some of their complaints.  What about the Halliburton no-bid contract awarded by Clinton in Yugoslavia?  They seem to admire Saddam opposing Bush’s imposition of regime change in Iraq. How about Clinton’s regime change in Serbia?  They oppose Bush’s liberation of 25 million Iraqis from a genocidal dictator yet had heralded Clinton for bombing Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists.  Clinton’s refusal to take custody of the terrorist Bin Laden was a good thing while they blame Bush for the attacks on the World Trade Centers.   Under Clinton terrorist are trained in Afghanistan, that is okay but they blame Bush for destroying those same terrorist training camps.  The list of comparable comparisons goes on and on.
     There is a pattern that has emerged and it is showing the Democrat Party to be a party without substance whose only premise is to oppose Republicans at the cost of their own credibility.   The Democrats oppose to oppose knowing that many will believe their spin as they twist truth to deceive the citizens of America.   I am beginning to wonder, are they really anti-American?
           - Roger W Hancock

Printed as a "Letter to the Editor," Lewis News, 07-18-2004; Atlantic Highlands Herald, 07-22-2004  (The Papers often edit for space and other criteria.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Washington State Primary               June 30, 2004

     Those who do not like having to declare their party affiliation in a primary election do not understand the primary.
     A primary is to narrow the field of candidates to a few that represent the various political parties.  It is for the parties to decide who their candidates will be for the actual election (General Election).  
     Grant it one can and maybe should argue that the primary selection process should not be a public election at public expense.  I believe it probable that the primary began as a means to fund the process from the government coffers.
     Each Party should be able to certify that candidates follow the tenets of that party.
     Some say do away with parties.  It would not happen for coalitions would form to build power and effectively act as the party system does now.  Conservatives would draw together and Liberals would draw together with the others becoming the ineffectual third parties.  Thus no parties are still parties.
     It is the Freedom we enjoy that caters to a two party system.  We do not tolerate parties that hold power by weapons as sects of the third world nations do.  Those who wish to change our foundations band together for change and those who wish to embrace and maintain America’s foundations band together.  Thus America’s greatness facilitates the two party system that we know today.
     Come September participate to select the candidate of your party then vote for the best candidate in November.       - Roger W Hancock

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

World Peace                                        June 5, 2004

     Many genius' expertise is tunneled leaving them lacking in other disciplines.  Albert Einstein stated,  “Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding.”  I believe him to be right while at the same time wrong.  Peace kept by force is no peace but peace without force is fragile.  Peace can only be achieved by understanding when all parties understand.  An evil aggressor understands only to conquer and achieves his peace by advancing an offence against the peace of others.  France during World War II obtained peace by succumbing to the demands of Nazi Germany.  The peace France received was short-lived, as occupation of the country became oppression of the French people. We could have not retaliated against Japan for the attacks on Pearl Harbor and we would have had peace.  Peace instead of World War II could have been, but then we would all be speaking German or Japanese.  Peace with freedom can only be maintained by a free people being willing to use force against threats to the peace.  Pacifism does not protect against those who would threaten world peace. 
  -Roger W Hancock

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

© Copyright 2004 Roger W Hancock

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  Electoral College                              June 2, 2004

     Some say the Electoral College is not fair.  The founding fathers devised the Electoral College to make fairer the power of the individual states.  We are a nation of many states, or rather a nation of many nations united.  If America were simply one Nation not consisting of individual sovereign states then the Electoral College would not make much sense.  
     Our Congress consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives also were devised to give a greater weight to the smaller states.  The population of each state determines the number of Representatives, giving more power to the larger states.  The Senate membership is two for each state giving equal power to each, regardless of size.  The Electoral College consists of two votes for each Congressional District plus two for each state, the same formula as for the Congress.
     Each State determines how the Electoral College divides the Electoral votes between the candidates. Most states provide for a “winner take all,” giving all the electoral votes to the candidate that wins the state.  Other states will allow a dividing of the electoral votes.  In those states each District’s electorates are won by the votes cast within the district.  The two statewide electorates are decided by the votes for the candidates that carries the state.  The States in their sovereignty allow how the electoral votes are divided or not.
     The individual parties prior to an election decide the individuals who cast the electoral votes.  It is necessary for the parties to have ready those chosen should their candidate win the electoral votes.  When a Presidential Candidate wins the electoral vote the individuals selected cast their vote at the capital of their state.
     With the diminished power of the states it may well be time for a change, however, the Electoral College is the system we currently use to select our president.  Like it or not that is what we have.  The individual vote together has the power within the state to carry that state. But it is the individual states with a compromised power base that elects our President.
       - Roger W Hancock

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Liberty not freedom                            May  15, 2004

   We are a free country but not a "free-for-all" country.  All freedom for all people is impossible. When I insist upon total freedom to exert whatever I consider my rights, that freedom will become oppression to others.  When my rights infringe upon your rights injustice occurs.  Liberty is not a free-for-all.  Liberty is not unfettered freedom. "Liberty is maintained by responsible freedom."  We are at liberty to "responsibly" exercise our freedoms.
     That is what is wrong with our society, our selfish society.   Everyone wants their own rights to exercise without consideration of others or the good of society.  In the name of equality and fairness we allow excesses that are detrimental to our society.  "My rights without responsibility" is the modern cry of every special interest group that seeks to exert their agenda past the United States Constitution.
     As we bend our Constitution to include that, which was never intended, we jeopardize the freedoms long ago established.  That which has made this Country great is being tossed aside to tickle our individual fancies.  We will bankrupt this nation morally and financially if we continue traveling the destructive road of unfettered freedoms.
    - Roger W Hancock

Printed as a "Letter to the Editor," King County Journal, 5-21-2004; Federal Way Mirror, 5-22-2004  (The Papers often edit for space and other criteria.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

   John (Flip Flop) Kerry                    May  08, 2004

       John Kerry has not been open with his Military records nor even cared enough to comment on the purple hearts received after submitting for them, himself.  It is alleged the “wounds” Kerry received were no more than simple scratches from the course of simply carrying out normal non-combative duties.  He does not comment.  Is his lack of comment an admission of guilt?
     George Bush has opened his medical and military records.  By the way, George Bush has never been AWOL as those who oppose him continuously state.
     John Kerry jumps to whichever side, pro-war, anti-war, that is politically expedient at the time.  He blatantly lies about his previous positions.  His actions show his waffling between wooing veterans and the anti-war movement.
     John Kerry protested against not only the Vietnam War but the soldiers who fought.  He states otherwise for the more current political expedience. 
     John Kerry has not commented on his drug use, not even a denial.  And now John Kerry expects that Rumsfeld resign or be fired for actions unknown to him.   We should then hold Kerry responsible for the greater atrocities he has admitted to when he was in Vietnam .  I expect, he would now change his story as he usually does.
-  Roger W Hancock

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

   Vote for a Gutless America               May 08, 2004

     If you want a gutless army then Kerry qualifies to be Commander in Chief.   If you believe in strength against terrorism or acts of war against the U.S. then Kerry is not who you wish to be in command of the army that leads to protect the free world.  Kerry can spin his short term in the military any way he wishes but the fact remains he then chose to be a war protestor.  He did not care if his activities helped the Vietnam War enemies of North Vietnam.  Jane Fonda’s youthful indiscretions were more publicized but Kerry’s were just as despicable.  If you wish for an America that will not stand to enforce peace then you want Kerry.   Calling out Saddam will slow the actions of other tyrants of other countries.  Pressure by the free nations will have clout when dealing with those nations that care not for human rights.  If an America that will sit back and allow terrorist to reign is what you want then you want Kerry.  John Kerry for a Gutless America.
-  Roger W Hancock

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


The Passion                                    April, 2004

The Messiah Truth Project Inc. is proving them to be an off-the-wall fringe Jewish cult.  Calling on an investigation of the movie "Passion of the Christ" is just plain nonsense.  Pick any other movie that portrays the crucifixion of Christ and there may be a shred to their point.  Why have they ignored all the previous movies only to now make their silly allegations?  I say it is because; this movie was produced with Passion by a movie great, Mel Gibson.  It is also because it has become fashionable to attack Christianity while claiming the attack to be sensitivity for other more fashionable religions.  If Mel Gibson's movie is responsible for increase in anti-Semitism then we must hold Hollywood responsible for all the movies that depict Police being murdered and portrayed as the bad guys. Burt Reynolds . . . your next!  The Music that promotes Cop Killing needs to be prosecuted; the evidence is already in.   Movie portrayals of serial killers should be responsible for the copycats that follow.   The Messiah Truth Project Inc. is attacking "Passion of the Christ" out of their own bigotry.  Look at the news and you see much more anti-Christian sentiment brought about by the movie than any other.  A recent poll indicates that the number of anti-Semitic incidences are down as a result of the "Passion of the Christ".  What is there for Attorney General John Ashcroft to investigate?  Perhaps the lies of the anti-Christian bigotry of the Messiah Truth Project Inc.
-  Roger W Hancock

Printed as a "Letter to the Editor," Federal Way Mirror - 4-07-2004  (The Papers often edit for space and other criteria.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Anti-Christian bigotry        

Some larger chain stores are succumbing to the anti-Christian sentiment of political correctness.  I've noticed the decline of Nativity sets and other decorative items avoiding the meaning of Christmas.  At Top Food and Drugs you can find 'Holiday wrap' and at Fred Meyers you can find 'gift wrap ', but you do not find 'Christmas wrap'.  The designs of the wrapping paper are of the pagan and secular aspects that have commercialized Christmas over the last few decades.  It is difficult to find designs that actually depict the true themes of the origin and true meaning of Christmas.
     Our schools remove Christ while promoting other religions.  Our government is forced to deny traditions that have existed since before America was born.  Minority groups seek to deny the display of the Christ child. They win by the majority's failure to speak out in favor of our American heritage.
     Commercialization was the common complaint but now it is that the true meaning of Christmas is being ignored by the offerings of Christmas merchandise.  Over eighty percent of Americans, of all walks of life and religions favor keeping Christ in Christmas.  Some say to mention the real  meaning of Christmas is to avoid offending other religions. Nonsense, Christianity has contributed to the civilization and greatness of America. Christmas is 'Christ's mass'.  To remove Christ from the Christmas season offends American tradition. Denying American tradition offends the majority of Americans.
-  Roger W Hancock

Printed as a "Letter to the Editor," Federal Way Mirror - 4-07-2004  (The Papers often edit for space and other criteria.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2003 Archives    -2004-    2005 Archives

Copyright 1999 through 2014, PoetPatriot, ImagineAUBURN, FoolBay (.com defunct), 
fool4JESUS,  the Teleman, are all inclusive of the identity crises of . . .
Roger W Hancock,   Auburn, WA - U.S.A.    All rights reserved.
 - Contact -
Copyright material is governed by international law, and is protected against unauthorized
commercial use, public performance and the making of multiple copies.
Ask First, Please. Besides, it massages my ego!