As the mid-term election cycle comes full circle, it seems as though everyone in the country has all but conceded that the Democratic Party will win the House of Representatives, and possibly the Senate. Of course, in light of recent news stories about our elected officials in Washington, this is hardly surprising.

Whether it's the continuing difficulties in Iraq, the George Allen racial slur, the Mark Foley email sex scandal, the investigation of Curt Weldon, or the guilty plea of Bob Ney, it seems that the GOP is doing everything it can to ensure that it becomes the minority party in the Congress after the November elections.

There are a few notable exceptions to this consensus on Republican defeat, though, including President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, and conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh, who all predict that Republicans will maintain their majority status in both houses of congress. While the President and Vice-President have predicted a tough race in which Republicans will emerge victorious, Limbaugh has predicted that Republicans will not only maintain their majority in the House, but they will actually win additional seats in the mid-term contests.

Personally, I think the entire Congress is in need of a major overhaul. Power tends to corrupt and the vast majority of the men and women in the House and Senate today have spent far too much time in Washington already.

With most polls showing Democratic candidates with huge leads over Republican candidates, the Congress may experience its biggest shake up since the 1994 elections, in which Republicans swept to power in landslide victories across the country. But is that really what America wants? Sure the current Congress is rife with scandal and corruption. Republicans in both the House and Senate have strayed far from their conservative roots and their base of support has been steadily eroding. But what happens to the country if Democrats really do win in November?

For starters, the American people can expect to be subjected to numerous congressional investigations on everything from weapons of mass destruction and domestic wiretapping, to the supposed torture of terrorist detainees and the government's alleged racist response to Hurricane Katrina. The hearings would be highly partisan on both sides of the aisle and the truly ugly nature of politics in Washington would be broadcast around the world for all to see.

Once the investigations reached the inevitable conclusion that everything was Bush's fault, likely Chairman of the Judiciary Committee John Conyers would be free to pursue his long-time goal of impeachment proceedings against the President. Make no mistake about it. This would be the long sought after payback for the Republican impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton.

With the casualty count rising daily in Iraq, a Democratic Congress would likely vote to de-fund the war, forcing a wholesale withdrawal of American troops while abandoning the more than 20 allied countries who also have soldiers in the war-torn country, and the fragile Iraqi government that is relying on the United States to finish the job it started.

And, you can probably bank on an economic downturn if Nancy Pelosi becomes Speaker of the House and John Murtha becomes Majority Leader. Rush Limbaugh, in the October edition of his Limbaugh Letter, quoted Howard Dean as saying, "We'll put a check on the President's crazy economic policies." That's Democrat-speak for rolling back President Bush's tax cuts.

Raising taxes on "the rich" seems like a good idea, but the markets typically respond negatively to tax increases on the people who do the majority of the investing and job creation in the country.

Government spending is also likely to increase, as hard as that may be to believe, with Charlie Rangel at the helm of the Ways and Means Committee. Citizens can expect to see a concerted drive for nationalized health care, more government regulation of industry, and increased social welfare funding.

Democrats need 15 seats in the House and 6 in the Senate to regain control of Congress. If they win the requisite number of races to become the majority party, there will likely be serious obstruction from both sides as a Republican President and a Democratic Congress block each other at every opportunity until the next round of elections in 2008.

I've never been one to pay much attention to the constant barrage of political poll results that fill the major networks and cable news channels. But this time around I am genuinely concerned. I fear they may, for once, be right with their predictions of a Democratic sweep.

The Republican Party deserves a serious wake-up call, and it has done everything it can to make that happen for itself. But the consequences of a Democratic victory are frightening indeed. While the GOP may pay for its loss of focus at the polling booth, it is America that will pay if the Republicans lose control of the Congress.

By: Greg Reeson
http://reeson.townhall.com
Greg Reeson is a Featured Author for The Land of the Free and a regular contributor to The New Media Journal. His columns have appeared in several online and print publications, including The Veteran's Voice, The Washington Times, The Army Times, and GOPUSA.com.

Featured by Resourcesforattorneys, a Legal and Lifestyle resources directory.

No one thinks about the city of Pasadena, California, unless it is Rose Bowl or Rose Parade time, except for Los Angeles County residents and people who hear the song "Little Old Lady From Pasadena".

When tourists think about visiting California they most often think about going to Disneyland or cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco or beach cities like Long Beach, Monterey, Newport Beach, San Diego, Santa Monica, etc.. Very few of them think about visiting or staying in "small town" Pasadena and that is a big mistake.

No matter what you are looking for in a vacation or what you wish to do you can find it in or near Pasadena. The city itself has over four hundred (400) restaurants that serve amost any type of food that you can imagine, dozens of art galleries and antique shops, fine museums like the Huntington Library and the Norton Simon Museum of Art, hotels of all categories from inexpensive motels to the Ritz Carlton, night clubs and comedy clubs, beautiful homes with magnificent gardens that can be seen while driving through the city, over two hundred (200) churches, shopping galore and much more.

Mountains, ski resorts, beaches and the desert as well as Disneyland, Knotts Berry Farm, Magic Mountain, The Aquarium Of The Sea, the Getty Museum, etc. are all within a one half to one hour drive. Visit Hollywood or Beverly Hills. Downtown Los Angeles is only nine freeway miles from downtown Pasadena. Visit the Arboretum, the Botanical Gardens or the Los Angeles Zoo. Take in a Dodger, Lakers, Clippers, Kings or Galexy game (all venues are less than fifteen (15) miles from Pasadena). Take in a horse race at Santa Anita, go to one of California's largest swap meets at the Rose Bowl or just sit in an outdoor restaurant in Pasadena's famous "Old Town" and people watch.

For more information about the city of Pasadena, California see Pasadena City Directories, a directory of links to city of Pasadena, California guides and directories listing hotels, restaurants, churches, physicians, attorneys, information, resources, services, things to do, places to go, art galleries, service organizations, auto dealers, nursing homes, convalescent hospitals, antique dealers and more.

By: David G. Hallstrom, Sr.
David G. Hallstrom, Sr. is a retired private investigator and is currently the publisher of several internet directories, including USA City Directories a directory of national, state, county and city guides and directories listing local guides, directories, web sites and web pages providing resources, services and information about things to do and places to go.

Featured by Resources For Attorneys, a Legal and Lifestyle resource directory for attorneys, lawyers and the general internet public.

In an old Monty Python sketch, a character (played by Michael Palin, I believe) says something along the lines of,”an argument is a connected series of statements intending to establish a proposition not the automatic gainsaying of what the other person says”. On several discussion threads that I have participated in recently, I have noticed a tendency to automatically gainsay the proposition without examining the argument or the assumptions. Instead of showing that the assumptions are invalid or the logic of the argument is unsound, people prefer attack the motives of the writer or even defame his or her character. This is called the ad hominem attack.

My good friend, Dr Terry, teaches at a Higher Education establishment at the undergraduate and post graduate level. She has noticed that many of her students have great difficulty in reasoning, many preferring to appeal to emotions rather than logic. She drew my attention to a pamphlet by Anthony Browne called, “The Retreat of Reason – Political Correctness and the corruption of public debate in modern Britain”. I would definitely recommend this to anyone who is interested in the quality of public debate.

While I do not agree with everything in the pamphlet, Browne has highlighted something extremely important; the innate contradiction at the heart of PC. While starting off as a means of addressing unfairness and championing the cause of the powerless against the Establishment, it has become the New Orthodoxy and those who espouse it have become the new Establishment. Insidiously, PC is establishing a straight-jacket on thinking every bit as dangerous as Stalinism or Fascism.

This, using Browne’s phrase, retreat from reason is extremely dangerous. It is the greatest threat to human society because it undermines our ability to arrive at a reasonable consensus. It must be opposed vigorously where possible. It is only through dialogue and the application of reason that we can learn. It is through open conversations with those who disagree with us that we can begin to create the possibilities for us to live together. Anything else will inevitably lead to conflict which, given the weapons of mass destruction at our disposal, could lead to the end of human civilisation.

Those who have read my comments and articles will know that I believe the overwhelming majority of people are tolerant and want nothing more than to live their lives in peace. They will also know that I have identified the real enemy to peaceful coexistence; the ideologues or totalitarians.

Totalitarians do not want dialogue. Other people’s opinions are irrelevant to them because they KNOW they are in the right. They would impose their version of the TRUTH on us all whether we like it or not. To totalitarians, dialogue and discussions are not open exchanges. They are opportunities to impose their views on the rest of us. Or, more dangerously, they see these as negotiation opportunities where they can leverage the greatest advantage for their cause.

If we do want to build a future based on tolerance and coexistence, then we must make a stand for reason and rational argument. We must be prepared to expose our thinking about beliefs and our conclusions to others for critical debate. PC stops us from doing this. Certain areas, ideas and topics are deemed ‘no go’. This must stop. We must accept that argument based on facts and reasoning needs to be exposed and debated so that people can draw their own conclusions.

I was listening to the BBC on radio today when the ruling over the case of Aisha Azmi was reported. The industrial tribunal threw out her claims of religious discrimination but found that the school had been guilty of harassment and therefore awarded her compensation of just over £1,000. Ms Azmi said that she was going to appeal against the tribunal’s decision and said she was prepared to go as far the the European Court of Human Rights. They later interviewed a lady from the Muslim Council of Great Britain who criticised her for taking such a high profile action when the Muslim community was under so much pressure. This is an example of the ad hominem attack and the lady is being politicaly correct rather than arguing rationally.

Whether you agree with Ms Azmi or not, she had every right to make a stand for her religious beliefs. If she feels she has grounds for appeal, then it is her right to continue the process and pursue it as far she is able. Ms Azmi is also convinced that her wearing a full veil does not detract from her teaching. The least we can do is to listen to her argument and look at any evidence she can put forward. If she, by making her stand, can persuade us that a full veil does not detract from her job, then we have extended the bounds of what we deem is acceptable.

PC stops us from asking questions in certain areas. When conclusions from facts are drawn that disagree with the PC agenda, the conclusions are withdrawn or ‘spun’. This is nothing but totalitarian thinking. You can’t say that. You can’t even think that because it disagrees with the PC agenda. Is this any different from the Inquisition getting Galileo to withdraw his heliocentric theory through threats and torture? I think not.

So if you think that you are progressive because you believe you are helping the powerless, the victims or the weak by being politically correct, then think again. If you find yourself using the ad hominem attack you are probably being PC rather than using reason. If you shout down dissenting voices, even when they are using rational arguments, are you any better than the Nazis or the Stalinists? It is better to have contention in rational debate. The other alternative is not having conversations and play on the emotions. This will inevitably lead to conflict and to war.

The PC agenda is based on the premise that the world can be improved by forbidding discussions and preventing the promulgation of certain ideas. At the heart of this thinking is the view that those who decide what is politically correct has a better idea of what is good for us than we do.

I leave you with this quote from Terry Pratchett’s novel Masquerade where Granny Weatherwax says, “You can’t build a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Anything else is just a cage”.

By: David J M Chan
http://www.eventprompt.co.uk
David Chan is the author of 'Dingoes and marsupial Lions' a book about business opportunities presented by focusing on Communities of Interest. David has written several articles on the war of ideologies.

Featured by Resources For Attorneys, a legal resources and lifestyle directory.

The Armed Forces Press Service recently quoted Army Chief of Staff General Peter J. Schoomaker as saying that the current level of soldiers in Iraq could remain constant through 2010. Naturally, this sounded alarms in the mainstream media, which had been reporting for some time that the Army planned to reduce troop levels significantly during late 2006 and into 2007.

There are two important things to note here. The first is pretty straightforward: troop levels are constantly adjusted to meet the conditions on the ground. When the level of violence dipped in Iraq, the commanders on the ground reduced the number of troops in the country to just over 100,000 and talked about further possible reductions. As the level of violence steadily increased this year, though, troop levels again went up, with some deployments accelerated and some re-deployments delayed. The same held true in Afghanistan, where NATO countries were called upon to increase troop levels in response to increased Taliban activity in the southern part of the country.

The point is that there is no magic formula for the number of soldiers on the ground. Troop levels rise or fall in direct proportion to the levels of violence in Iraq and Afghanistan. Calls for massive troop reductions ignore the realities in both countries. The fight is far from over and Afghanistan and Iraq could easily be lost if our resolve wavers.

The second thing to note is a bit more conceptual and thus more difficult for people to understand: we are an Army (and Navy, and Air Force, and Marine Corps) at war, but we are not a nation at war. What I mean by this is that everyday Americans go about their lives largely unaffected by the carnage in Iraq and Afghanistan. The vast majority of the population doesn't serve in the military and only a small number of people even know someone in the service, much less in the two primary theaters of the war on terror.

Everything they know about Baghdad, Fallujah, Ramadi, Kandahar, Bagram, and any number of other key battlegrounds is obtained from their nightly news broadcasts and local papers.

The soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines currently forward deployed understand what they are involved in. They risk their lives everyday while we argue over "stay the course" and "cut and run." Unlike World War II, when the entire nation was engaged in the war effort against Germany and Japan, the Global War on Terror is witness to a select few volunteers putting everything on the line while the rest of us go about our daily routines in ignorant bliss.

This attitude concerns General Schoomaker. In a recent speech to soldiers and defense industry representatives he warned that support for the war effort had been "tepid." In fact, he said, only 4% of the nation's gross national product had been committed to defense, compared with 38% of GNP during the Second World War. "Ultimately, victory requires a national consensus...in words and actions," he said. "Another 9/11 should not have to occur to shake us into action."

While politicians and the public alike complain about the money being spent in the two war zones, a figure quoted at over $1 billion per week, military members across the country are cutting back on nonessential expenditures so that every available dollar can be used in support of the men and women on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq.

On military posts throughout America, quality of life projects and family support programs are cutting back to free desperately needed funds for the war effort. The very people who volunteer to sacrifice so much for the rest of us are bearing the entire burden of the War on Terror while average citizens complain about gas prices or discuss Madonna's adoption of a child from Malawi. As General Schoomaker said, providing the military with the funds it needs "...is a matter of national priority, not a matter of affordability."

Most Americans don't equate the War on Terror with World War II. The fight against the Axis in the 1940s was viewed as a fight for survival requiring the support of the entire country. Americans need to understand that we are again locked in a life-and-death struggle with a radical ideology bent on our subjugation and eventual destruction.

Americans accept Afghanistan because they can link the Taliban and Osama bin Laden to the attacks of 9/11. Iraq may or may not have been a front in the Global War on Terror in March 2003. Intelligent people can debate that topic equally well from both points of view. But there is no question that Iraq has now joined Afghanistan as a central battleground in the fight against radical Islam. Jihadists from across the globe have flocked to Iraq to wage war on the United States and the west.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said in an October 16 speech that "There's no way the United States can lose militarily against the terrorists, but the center of gravity of the war in Iraq is not in Iraq, it's in Washington, D.C."

If we pull out of Iraq now, our enemies will be emboldened. If we leave before the job is done, we will breathe new life into the cause of Muslim fundamentalists, much as the Soviet Union did when it pulled out of Afghanistan in 1989. The calls for troop withdrawals must be resisted, and we must stay until the fight is over.

By: Greg Reeson
http://reeson.townhall.com
Greg Reeson is a Featured Author for The Land of the Free and a regular contributor to The New Media Journal. His columns have appeared in several online and print publications, including The Veteran's Voice, The Washington Times, The Army Times, and GOPUSA.com.

Featured by Resources For Attorneys, a legal resources and lifestyle directory for attorneys, lawyers and the internet public.