This from the 10th grade Modern Civilizations book that I have to use in my tenth grade classes.

"By 1929, American factories were turning out nearly half of the world's industrial goods. The rising productivity led to enormous profits. However, this new wealth was not evenly distributed. The richest 5 percent of the population received 33 percent of all personal income in 1929. Yet 60 percent of all Americans families earned less than $2000 a year. Thus, most families were too poor to buy the goods being produced."

And they say our textbooks are not biased.

Where to begin, where to begin, where to begin. First, rising productivity is a good thing. It means that more is being produced for less. It means that less resources are going into the same amount of output. Next, enormous is a purely subjective and emotive word. What exactly is enormous? The authors never define enormous. Perhaps any profits are enormous.

Next, the authors claim that income is distributed. Notice the careful use of the word. It is not used as a noun, such as "the income distribution was..." but as a verb, implying that income is distributed by some entity. And who would that entity be? (It couldn't be the evil, greedy Republicans Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover. Nah.) They also claim the income was not evenly distributed. They didn't even stop half way and say unfairly, no, they went the full nine yards and said evenly. Now, exactly who decided that income has to be "evenly" distributed? Certainly not the constitution.

Notice next the choice use of the verbs "received" and "earned". Apparently, the "rich" receive their income. The implication here is that to receive, somebody has to give. You can't receive anything without it first being given. So the rich don't even work, unlike the 60 percent of American families that earn, i.e. work, for their income. This is class warfare and exploitation at its finest.

Next, they say their income was less than $2000 per year. Wonderful. If you are a fifteen year old student reading the book, $2000 sounds like abject poverty. According to the Federal Reserve of Minneapolis, CPI calculator, $2000 in 1929 is roughly equivalent to $19485 in 1999 when the book was published and $21900 in 2004.

So, $2000 is almost $22000 today. According to the HHS website, poverty for a family of four is $18850 and $22030 for a family of five. Now, that sounds like the vast majority of people were living at or near poverty. But when you figure that there were no cell phones, televisions, or computers, there were few cars, etc., trying to measure life in 1929 by today's standards is pointless. Yes, life was not as good as it is today, for all income levels. However, the numbers are more than misleading, they are purposefully deceitful.

According to the CIA website the US per capita income was $36,300 in 2002. According to the US Census Bureau 2003 median income (i.e. the person in the exact middle, meaning 50% are below, 50% are above) was $42,409. Next, after searching high and low, near and far, the best I could come up with for historical median income is again from the US Census Bureau, and they stop at 1947. So, what exactly was, in current dollars, US median income in 1947? It was a grand total of $3031. So, in almost 20 years, we were only able to improve median income by a third. In the next twenty years, median income increased to $7933 in 1967, or almost 2 1/2 times. All you can conclude is that we began to make great progress after World War 2.

Lastly, let's examine the statements about profits and being too poor to buy products. Karl Marx said the value of products were equal to the labor required to make them. The price of products included the labor and what he called the surplus value, or profits. The profits went to the capitalist, who was exploiting the worker. And, since the price was greater than the labor, the worker could not afford to buy what he made. Just a thought, really, but if most people were too poor to buy the products, who then was buying them? Now, I wouldn't want to accuse the authors of Marxist leanings, but...

On the next page, the stock market crash of 1929 and the "paper wealth" that went down with it, was the cause of the depression. No mention is made of the federal reserve policy and the recession which started in August. Rather than a cause, the crash is much more a symptom of, the depression.

This is just one more reason public education should be privatized. With textbooks like this, it is no wonder we have a generation of people who think health care is a right, taxing businesses and the rich is sound economic policy, and compassion is measured by the amount of federal money that is spent. If only parents were aware of content like this.

The liberals hate President Bush so much that they are willing to sacrifice our national security and our war on terrorists. They are willing to lie, to support a liar, and to turn the 9/11 commission into their last ditch attempt to remove President Bush. Their hate is so intense it is all that guides them.

Clarke is so full of contradictions and lies, but he is their last hope. Had he been a Republican lying about a Democratic president, the press would have savaged him and the Democratic slander machine would have been out in full force. Anyone remember what happened to Gary Aldrich. He does.

One thing is certain, these people cannot be allowed anywhere near the White House. They hate Bush more than al Qaida hates America.

On page A17 of the Friday, March 26, 2004 edition of the LA Times, under the heading "News Analysis", Maura Reynolds and Sonni Efron, two Times staff writers, write an article titled "Rice's Attacks on Critic Could Backfire on Her". Though I disagree with the premise of the article, I have to commend them. Throughout the entire article, absolutely no mention is made of Condoleeza's Rice's ethnicity or gender. Kudos to the Times, and kudos to liberals everywhere, for taking the word of a white male over the word of an African-American woman.

And just when I thought there was progress at the Times, in a related article "Candidate Stand-Ins Play Bigger Roles", the two pictures shown are of Condi Rice and Wes Clark. Wes Clark is shown with a big smile, while Condi is shown with a scowl on her face. Obviously, there are plenty of photos more flattering of her. Yet they chose this one.

Progress at the Times?

One of the liberals favorite complaints about President Bush is that he has alienated our allies and that we have lost the good will of the world. If our protecting ourselves, and given recent events in Spain, by extension protecting Europe, we have alienated them, then they were not our allies. If our efforts to root out terrorists and the rogure regimes that support them earns us the enmity of the world, then we never had their good will in the first place.

What we had then wasn't their good will. What we had was their temporary glee that the giant had been felled, and perhaps would come down to the ranks of the rest of them. But, no, that didn't happen. The giant arose and began to take action. This is one of the reasons Europe hates us. They realize that they haven't the will to fight, the courage to rise up, nor the fortitude to sustain the fight.

Europe hates us because we refused to stay down, we refused to let a tragedy defeat us. But they hate us for other reasons as well. Let's examine what those reasons are.

Once upon a time, European ships ruled the seas. Spanish galeons, Dutch frigates, or English ships of the line traveled to and from all corners of the world. European ships brought goods from all over the world to the trade centers of Paris, Bruges, or Milan. European ships brought soldiers and conquered continents in South America and Africa. This is as ancient history as the Greeks and Alexander. Today, control of the seas is solely American. Where our ships want to go, they go. Europe will never regain her lost naval glory, nor wil she try. But was once hers is gone forever.

They hate us because everywhere their troops went, it was to conquer, colonize, or exploit. Even after 9/11, our troops invaded to liberated Afghanistan and Iraq, not conquered them. This is something the Europeans have never done. Europe sat on its hands while Serbs slaughtered Kosavars until the United States acted. And today, terrorists are targeting Europe, and the commissioner of the EU wants to negotiate with them. For that they hate us.

In 1775 we told the king of England where he could go, and we fought a war to liberate ourselves from royal oppression. We established a democracy that has withstood invasion in 1812, civil war in 1861, mass immigation in 1880's, world wars, depressions, nuclear threats, presidential assassinations, and many more. And in 2000, the most contest election in our history, not one shot ws fired in anger nor did any citizens take up arms.

France's first experience with democracy in 1789 was a disaster, and their second not much better. After elected, Louis Napoleon declared himself emperor Napoleon III and nobody seemed much to mind. German unification in 1871 was not democratic, and by 1912, Bethman-Hollweg was pushing for war to solve their problems. In Italy, King Emmanuel's monarchy quickly became a fascist state under Mussolini, and Poland, Hungary, and others soon followed. It wasn't until the post WW2 Europe did democracy take hold. And for that they hate us.

Unlike the rest of the world, the United States has a unique immigrant problem. We can't stop the people who want to come here from coming. If ever there was an endorsement of America it is the millions annualy who do whatever it takes to get here. Whether they are running through deserts or mountains, or assembling rickety boats out of cars and crossing the Straits of Florida trying to escape Cuba, people will do anything to get here still. And for that, Europe hates us.

Europe hates us because when we get into a recession, unemployment barely rises above 6 percent. Today, European economies struggle with 9 percent and higher unemployment and no relief in sight. While their economies struggle to grow, at rates between .5% to barely 1%, ours grows at between 4 and 5 percent, and we expect more. And because of that, they hate us.

Europe hates us because they are unable to control themselves, govern themselves, or run their own economies. They hate us because we are the mighty empire they once were, and will neve be again. They hate us because we go to church or synagogue, are genuine in our faith, and are able to discern right from wrong, good from evil. We make judgements about good and evil, and act upon them. They hate us because we are everything they ever wished they could be, and realize they never will be.

Europe is the birthplace of democratic ideas and the Enlightenment. Europe has given us Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Micaelangelo, Picasso, and Beethoven. It has also given us Napoleon, Hitler, and genocide. We have taken their best and made it better, defeated their worst and democratized them, and asked for little in return. Because we are all they once were, and so much more, and because we have never become what they routinely did, they hate us.

They hate us most of all because they are jealous.

I just get done writing how liberals, and Richard Clarke, can't have it both ways. Then what do I see, Condi Rice is interviewed by Sean Hannity on Fox, and she closes by saying Clarke "can't have it both ways."

Liberals want everything both ways. The latest is the 9/11 commission in congress. If I understand the critics, or haters if you will, of President Bush, he has been simultaneously too aggressive, and, not agressive enough in fighting terrorism. One one hand, we have alientated "allies" by acting alone militarily, yet, acording to Richard Clarke, Bush was not agressive enough pursuing al Qaida and the Taliban. And his old Boss, Clinton, was just stellar?

But there are a few major flaws to the argument. First, because of the delayed election results, the transition team was delayed in getting people into positions. So, many of the Clinton administration people were left in place, including Clarke. Because of this, sadly, there was a continuity of the failed Clinton policy on terrorism. Well, that is if there was a policy.

Second, let's go on the assumption that Bush recognized the danger al Qaida faced. Bush then decides that destruction of the Taliban and the al Qaida training bases are a priority. He then goes to Congress and the UN and seeks approval for war. Bush would be called everything from a warmonger to Hitler. There would be absolutely no public support, and congressional approval would be impossible. Plus, the press would have savaged him. Any pre-emptive action against the Taliban and al Qaida would have brought widepsread condemnation and is thus a non-issue. Without the events of 9/11, with the excpetion of Joe Lieberman, nobody would have claimed Afghanistan was an imminent threat to the US.

Third, let's go back in time to August 23, 2001. Attorney General John Ashcroft has just announced the arrest of a 15 young, male, Muslim, arab nationals, some on expired visas. The left would be apoplectic. The press would equating Bush with Hitler (see a pattern here) and accusing Ashcroft of Gestapo tactics. They would be called racists, and world condemnation would follow. They announce that they prevented a huge operation that could have yielded horrific results. Without the events of 9/11, nobody would believe them.

The 9/11 commission has turned into a poilitcal witch hunt. Both sides are finger pointing and trying to score political points. What is needed is simply an honest acknowledgement that the system in place was flawed. We need greater cross agency communication, we need expanded powers to watch people here on visas, and we need to shed our inhibitions about profiling, and relaize that we are at war. The enemy is not a Latino grandmother with 4 grandchildren at the airport terminal. He is young, male, arab, and Muslim. He does not want to negotiate, he only wants to kill as many as possible.

Clarke went from being anti-terrorism chief to cyber security czar in the Bush administration. If he was so disgusted with them, why did he take on a new responsibility? And now, right before the commision begins, his book comes out, and he's the newest media sensation. And it turns out, in a 2002 interview, he praises the Bush administration for its conduct of the war on terror. So, which RIchard Clarke is testifying? Maybe we'll need a congressional committee for that one.

Richard Clarke is trying to have it both ways. Like John Kerry's "I voted for the 87 billion before i voted against it", Richard Clarke is trying to have it both ways. Sorry. You can't.

I've been saying this for a while, but let me put words to paper. Or whatever the web is. The election will be Bush 53% Kerry 46%. I might not be the only one to predict this, but I haven't seen to many, so I guess I'm one of the first.

I'll expand on these later, but here's a short list why.

1) Kerry is a Massachusettes liberal. The Spectre AC130 gunship crews have a motto, "You can run, but you only die tired." Let's borrow it and say this about Massachusettes liberals: "You can run from it, but you'll only lose elections trying."

2) People feel safer with Bush at the controls. Even if you aren't sure about the Iraqi war, WMD's, and wonder where UBL is, people know that Bush will fight terrorism. The jury is out on Kerry.

3) The economy is strong. Record home ownership must mean something. Record low interest rates, low inflation, and increased productivity will continue to propel the economy forward. And more importantly, the stock market has rebounded. People feel better about their 401k's.

4) On social issues, Bush is far more in line with the majority. Abortion is split 50/50, but partial birth abortion opposed by 60+%, gay marriage is oposed by 2/3, and people are fine with "One Nation under God". Plus, religion is on the upswing, witness the response to "The Passion..."

5) People like Bush. He's photogenic and likeable. Today, during his campaing kickoff in Florida, my wife says how young and energetic he looks. Contrast that with Kerry. He is not terribly likeable and he comes across as the Brahmin that he is. He is not going to generate a following.

6) Anger is not a campaign strategy. Bush offers a positive vision for America. Disagree with him, but you can't argue that he has a vision. Kerry is simply "not Bush".

7) Kerry was simply "not Dean". The primary voters decided that Dean was unelectable, and found the next best thing. A fellow Northeastern liberal. Except that Dean wasn't even terribly liberal. Kerry is.

8) We are safer, stronger, and better off. Kerry will pull out the Clinton tactic of repeating a lie until it becomes true (worst economy in 50 years), but a rose by any other name is still a rose. Bush has enough money to counter Kerry campaign headquarters at CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN.

9) Kerry will explode. He hasn't been a national figure. He has never been held to the level of scrutiny of a national campaign. The "met with leaders..." fisaco is case in point. He can't get away with those nationally. Also, Kerry has a temper. Witness his outburst at the person who asked him to name names is typical. Then his snowboarding outburst at secret service agents. (which begs the question: is he doesn't shower after skiing, is he considered a dirty bomb?) Just wait for the next one.

10) After the relentless pounding that Bush has taken for months, he and Kerry are tied. Kerry should be up by 10%.

Remember, you heard it hear first.