Tom Kovach
Short Bursts: Volume 06-03
Aid & comfort, United 93, political hurdles
By Tom Kovach
Despite the fact that bad things happen in our world, and despite the fact that the "mainstream" media (MSM) continues to ignore both my columns and my campaign, some things just keep on improving. For example, my columns have now been picked up by yet another publication: Sierra Times. That introduces a whole new reader segment to the world of Tom Kovach, and to this occasional series of Short Bursts.
aid and comfort
The Constitution of the United States includes in the definition of treason (Article III, Section 3): "adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Despite the dedicated work of many Leftists within our government, America remains "that shining city upon a hill." I'm worried that we don't shine as brightly as we did in decades past. I'm worried that the hill has become charred and pockmarked from the constant shelling from the Left. But, overall, America is still America.
That is why it galls me that the President of the United States has recently come out and said that rounding up and deporting illegal aliens is "not going to work". Oh, really? There is a Chinese proverb that says, "The man who says that a task is impossible should get out of the way of the man doing it." If our president feels that America is incapable of expelling illegal aliens, then he should just get all of the Federal agents out of the way, and let the volunteer Minuteman Project do the job that our agents are prevented from doing. Private citizens have already volunteered to watch our borders, and to build the fences that the government neglects. I'm sure that more volunteers would gladly help to protect our homes and jobs, by rounding up the illegals, given that our president thinks it isn't worth even trying.
There is a fatal flaw in President Bush's presentation: America has enemies. Some of those enemies are intent upon entering our country, with the goal of destroying us. Not all of America's enemies plan to sneak in quietly. Some of our enemies talk of massive invasion. China's military is almost as large as our entire population. North Korea's army is the largest, per capita, in the world. Recently, there has been much anti-American rhetoric from the president of Venezuela. Some analysts think that the next president of Mexico could attempt the Reconquista option. (If our own president doesn't do it for them.) And, don't forget that Cuba is still run by Castro's Communists.
Given that so many foreign countries seem to at least consider invading America as a possible option, and given that some of those countries have armies larger than the number of illegal aliens within the United States, does it seem foolish to anyone else that the President of the United States would say that getting rid of foreign invaders (they are not "guests"!) is not going to work? Perhaps our president thinks that rounding up illegal aliens is one of those "jobs that Americans won't do." Perhaps some might say that such a statement meets the definition of giving "aid and comfort" to our enemies.
United 93
This coming Friday (28 Apr 2006), the movie "United 93" is scheduled to premiere for general audiences. It has already been screened by some reporters, and opens today at the Tribecca Film Festival. Televised previews promise a gritty, realistic presentation. That also seems to be the sentiment of most reviews. But, just how realistic can the movie actually be?
I continue to stand firm by my five-part presentation that Flight 93 was shot down. Regular readers will recall that I published that series to refute comments made during a Discovery Channel documentary, "Flight 93: the flight that fought back". While there are some that will parrot charges of "conspiracy theory," I can stand proud upon the message that I got from the father of one of Flight 93's ill-fated passengers. He said that someone was finally telling the truth. (He had withheld that comment from other presenters of shoot-down scenarios, because they speculated rather than examined the evidence.) I've received similar comments from the father of a Flight 800 victim.
Quite telling is the fact that the producers admit that the movie was originally called "Flight 93," but the title was changed to "United 93." There are more than 6.5-million Web pages that come up in a Google search of the term "Flight 93." The very first one (based on relevance; i.e.: number of page views) is a collection of evidence that supports the shoot-down scenario. So, if the title of the movie had remained "Flight 93," and if people had looked up the movie title on Google, they would've first found several references to the shoot-down scenario. Apparently, the movie's producers didn't want that to happen. If one goes to Google, and looks up "United 93," the first several pages of responses have to do only with the movie. (Interestingly, if one Googles the two phrases "Flight 93" and "shot down," there are 126,000 replies. My column is number 13 out of all those replies. And, as the movie renews interest in the topic, that ranking might improve even further.)
One of the key supports of the shoot-down scenario is the seismic evidence. The cockpit voice recorder (CVR) tape stops at 1003 on that fateful day. But, a seismograph in western Pennsylvania records the crash at 1006. Naysayers try to claim that the information is faulty, because a scientist that gained fame by writing a report about the seismic evidence has recently recanted his position. (Was he threatened with the cutoff of government research contract money?) However, there are other scientists that still stand by the position that: A) there is a three-minute gap between the end of the CVR tape and the seismic recording of the plane's impact; and, B) seconds before the plane's impact, the seismograph recorded an "N-curve" that indicates a sonic boom. Given that the airliner was not capable of supersonic speed, there had to be another source for the sonic boom. The logical source is a pursuing fighter jet.
The producers of "United 93" have promised to donate 10% of the profits to support a memorial for the victims. But, the design of the Flight 93 memorial honors the terrorists. (Some people disagree, but I don't see how. The memorial is shaped like the Star-and-Crescent shape of the emblem of Islam. The only Muslims aboard that flight were the hijackers. Should we spend tax money on that?) I have not been privy to an advance screening of "United 93"; but, the early signals are that they will try to pooh-pooh the shoot-down scenario. Considering that the Federal government came up with several different versions of the timeline of the scrambling of fighter jets, it seems obvious that they're covering up something. The debris field is consistent with a shoot-down (not by a missile, but by cannon fire). Given the likelihood that "United 93" will ignore evidence of a shoot-down, I don't see how it can be a "realistic" movie. Thus, I don't plan to support it with my money.
political hurdles
If elected to Congress, I might obtain access to government records about Flight 93, Flight 800, and other controversies. And, if evidence of the downings of those airliners were revealed, then the MSM would have a lot of explaining to do. Perhaps that explains why the MSM has ignored my campaign for Congress.
Unfortunately, the liberals are not the only ones that have ignored my campaign. Conservative voters might be surprised to discover how many "conservative" political organizations have ignored it, also. I'm reminded of the famous quote by Thomas Jefferson: "The making of laws, like the making of sausage, is not for the squeamish to watch."
Just yesterday, I was on the phone with the director one such organization. They are a single-issue political action committee (PAC). The issue is one that conservatives take very seriously: abortion. Back in February, I had gone to their Web site, requested an endorsement, and sent in a completed candidate questionnaire. No one responded. I sent follow-up e-mails. No one responded. I finally made a phone call. The director called me back. I asked if she had visited my Web site. She replied "no." She said that she had received the first page of my faxed questionnaire back in February. (Nobody ever contacted me to say that the fax was not complete.) The very first question was, "How much money have you raised?"
I have not raised much money at all. How can I? Few people know about my campaign. How can they know, when I haven't advertised? How can I advertise, when I don't have much money? How can I raise money, when few people know about my campaign? Isn't that what PACs are for? But, if the PACs won't give you money until you've already raised money, then the only people that can get elected are people that are already wealthy. And, don't many voters agree that wealthy people in office have agendas that go against the average voter? Yet, it seems that the voters don't have a choice.
The Internet is "a great leveler." In theory, a candidate with almost no money can challenge a wealthy incumbent on a level playing field. I'm not good at raising money. And, I'm not good at begging. I know how hard it is for the Average Joe to get by, because it's that hard for me, too. So, I'm really reluctant to ask other people to give money — even though my campaign can't compete without it. (Even a business-card-size ad in the newspaper, with nothing but my Web site address, costs $400 per day. The site only costs me $10 per month; but, I have to get people to the site.)
I've made it as easy as possible for people to donate to my campaign. But, so far, only three people have done so in the four months since my initial FEC filing. Because I write my own speeches, my own ad copy, my own HTML code for the Web site, etc., I don't need to pay consultants. (I've even developed a way for other people to print my campaign signs — almost for free.) But, because of the "dumbing down" of our classrooms, and the "expert mentality" (someone else knows better than you), and the "welfare mentality" (if it's important, the government will pay to do it for you), our society doesn't seem to realize that it takes all of us to stop the Leftists from destroying what's left of America. People seem to assume that anyone running for Congress already has a silver spoon in their mouth. I certainly don't.
During the summer when I investigated this vehicle bombing (for free), I also worked on a horse ranch and an asphalt crew. (Hey, President Bush, did you know that a guy with a paralegal certificate was shoveling horse poop? So, name a job that Americans won't do, OK?) I know that five dollars can be the difference between eating and not eating after a hard day's work. But, I also know that five dollars could be the difference between stopping the Socialists in our government and not stopping them. (I'd rather have a thousand contributions of $20 than twenty contributions of $1,000, because those big contributions sometimes come with a lot of strings attached.) If only a thousand people (out of more than 100,000 voters) in my district would give only five dollars a month (regularity is the key), then I could win the election. Some people could afford $100 per month. With that, I could buy TV ads (necessary in our illiterate society) that would make the issues plain for anyone to understand. And, it's OK for people outside my district to contribute, also. (Out of the three contributors so far, one of them is a former Blue Beret from another state.)
My campaign treasurer (my wife) got irritated over one of my fundraising ideas. Having jumped out of helicopters a few dozen times during my military career, I know how much beer is consumed in the military. My concept was to ask those troops that agree with my campaign to "sacrifice" the cost of just one pitcher of beer to support it. The concept was called "Pitchers for Politics". It was just a catchy way to ask the "little guy" to get on board a big idea. But, my wife talked me out of that one. So, if you are in the military, or if you know someone in the military, or if you know someone that drinks beer, then you don't have to send them the above link — because that fundraising concept was never officially implemented (it has no Web page); therefore, it doesn't officially exist. But, if it did exist, it would probably become quite successful, because most of our troops are quite conservative.
Well, for the moment, I'm pinned down in a media quagmire. But, I'm confident that resupply and reinforcements are on the way. Dig in!
© Tom Kovach
Despite the fact that bad things happen in our world, and despite the fact that the "mainstream" media (MSM) continues to ignore both my columns and my campaign, some things just keep on improving. For example, my columns have now been picked up by yet another publication: Sierra Times. That introduces a whole new reader segment to the world of Tom Kovach, and to this occasional series of Short Bursts.
aid and comfort
The Constitution of the United States includes in the definition of treason (Article III, Section 3): "adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Despite the dedicated work of many Leftists within our government, America remains "that shining city upon a hill." I'm worried that we don't shine as brightly as we did in decades past. I'm worried that the hill has become charred and pockmarked from the constant shelling from the Left. But, overall, America is still America.
That is why it galls me that the President of the United States has recently come out and said that rounding up and deporting illegal aliens is "not going to work". Oh, really? There is a Chinese proverb that says, "The man who says that a task is impossible should get out of the way of the man doing it." If our president feels that America is incapable of expelling illegal aliens, then he should just get all of the Federal agents out of the way, and let the volunteer Minuteman Project do the job that our agents are prevented from doing. Private citizens have already volunteered to watch our borders, and to build the fences that the government neglects. I'm sure that more volunteers would gladly help to protect our homes and jobs, by rounding up the illegals, given that our president thinks it isn't worth even trying.
There is a fatal flaw in President Bush's presentation: America has enemies. Some of those enemies are intent upon entering our country, with the goal of destroying us. Not all of America's enemies plan to sneak in quietly. Some of our enemies talk of massive invasion. China's military is almost as large as our entire population. North Korea's army is the largest, per capita, in the world. Recently, there has been much anti-American rhetoric from the president of Venezuela. Some analysts think that the next president of Mexico could attempt the Reconquista option. (If our own president doesn't do it for them.) And, don't forget that Cuba is still run by Castro's Communists.
Given that so many foreign countries seem to at least consider invading America as a possible option, and given that some of those countries have armies larger than the number of illegal aliens within the United States, does it seem foolish to anyone else that the President of the United States would say that getting rid of foreign invaders (they are not "guests"!) is not going to work? Perhaps our president thinks that rounding up illegal aliens is one of those "jobs that Americans won't do." Perhaps some might say that such a statement meets the definition of giving "aid and comfort" to our enemies.
United 93
This coming Friday (28 Apr 2006), the movie "United 93" is scheduled to premiere for general audiences. It has already been screened by some reporters, and opens today at the Tribecca Film Festival. Televised previews promise a gritty, realistic presentation. That also seems to be the sentiment of most reviews. But, just how realistic can the movie actually be?
I continue to stand firm by my five-part presentation that Flight 93 was shot down. Regular readers will recall that I published that series to refute comments made during a Discovery Channel documentary, "Flight 93: the flight that fought back". While there are some that will parrot charges of "conspiracy theory," I can stand proud upon the message that I got from the father of one of Flight 93's ill-fated passengers. He said that someone was finally telling the truth. (He had withheld that comment from other presenters of shoot-down scenarios, because they speculated rather than examined the evidence.) I've received similar comments from the father of a Flight 800 victim.
Quite telling is the fact that the producers admit that the movie was originally called "Flight 93," but the title was changed to "United 93." There are more than 6.5-million Web pages that come up in a Google search of the term "Flight 93." The very first one (based on relevance; i.e.: number of page views) is a collection of evidence that supports the shoot-down scenario. So, if the title of the movie had remained "Flight 93," and if people had looked up the movie title on Google, they would've first found several references to the shoot-down scenario. Apparently, the movie's producers didn't want that to happen. If one goes to Google, and looks up "United 93," the first several pages of responses have to do only with the movie. (Interestingly, if one Googles the two phrases "Flight 93" and "shot down," there are 126,000 replies. My column is number 13 out of all those replies. And, as the movie renews interest in the topic, that ranking might improve even further.)
One of the key supports of the shoot-down scenario is the seismic evidence. The cockpit voice recorder (CVR) tape stops at 1003 on that fateful day. But, a seismograph in western Pennsylvania records the crash at 1006. Naysayers try to claim that the information is faulty, because a scientist that gained fame by writing a report about the seismic evidence has recently recanted his position. (Was he threatened with the cutoff of government research contract money?) However, there are other scientists that still stand by the position that: A) there is a three-minute gap between the end of the CVR tape and the seismic recording of the plane's impact; and, B) seconds before the plane's impact, the seismograph recorded an "N-curve" that indicates a sonic boom. Given that the airliner was not capable of supersonic speed, there had to be another source for the sonic boom. The logical source is a pursuing fighter jet.
The producers of "United 93" have promised to donate 10% of the profits to support a memorial for the victims. But, the design of the Flight 93 memorial honors the terrorists. (Some people disagree, but I don't see how. The memorial is shaped like the Star-and-Crescent shape of the emblem of Islam. The only Muslims aboard that flight were the hijackers. Should we spend tax money on that?) I have not been privy to an advance screening of "United 93"; but, the early signals are that they will try to pooh-pooh the shoot-down scenario. Considering that the Federal government came up with several different versions of the timeline of the scrambling of fighter jets, it seems obvious that they're covering up something. The debris field is consistent with a shoot-down (not by a missile, but by cannon fire). Given the likelihood that "United 93" will ignore evidence of a shoot-down, I don't see how it can be a "realistic" movie. Thus, I don't plan to support it with my money.
political hurdles
If elected to Congress, I might obtain access to government records about Flight 93, Flight 800, and other controversies. And, if evidence of the downings of those airliners were revealed, then the MSM would have a lot of explaining to do. Perhaps that explains why the MSM has ignored my campaign for Congress.
Unfortunately, the liberals are not the only ones that have ignored my campaign. Conservative voters might be surprised to discover how many "conservative" political organizations have ignored it, also. I'm reminded of the famous quote by Thomas Jefferson: "The making of laws, like the making of sausage, is not for the squeamish to watch."
Just yesterday, I was on the phone with the director one such organization. They are a single-issue political action committee (PAC). The issue is one that conservatives take very seriously: abortion. Back in February, I had gone to their Web site, requested an endorsement, and sent in a completed candidate questionnaire. No one responded. I sent follow-up e-mails. No one responded. I finally made a phone call. The director called me back. I asked if she had visited my Web site. She replied "no." She said that she had received the first page of my faxed questionnaire back in February. (Nobody ever contacted me to say that the fax was not complete.) The very first question was, "How much money have you raised?"
I have not raised much money at all. How can I? Few people know about my campaign. How can they know, when I haven't advertised? How can I advertise, when I don't have much money? How can I raise money, when few people know about my campaign? Isn't that what PACs are for? But, if the PACs won't give you money until you've already raised money, then the only people that can get elected are people that are already wealthy. And, don't many voters agree that wealthy people in office have agendas that go against the average voter? Yet, it seems that the voters don't have a choice.
The Internet is "a great leveler." In theory, a candidate with almost no money can challenge a wealthy incumbent on a level playing field. I'm not good at raising money. And, I'm not good at begging. I know how hard it is for the Average Joe to get by, because it's that hard for me, too. So, I'm really reluctant to ask other people to give money — even though my campaign can't compete without it. (Even a business-card-size ad in the newspaper, with nothing but my Web site address, costs $400 per day. The site only costs me $10 per month; but, I have to get people to the site.)
I've made it as easy as possible for people to donate to my campaign. But, so far, only three people have done so in the four months since my initial FEC filing. Because I write my own speeches, my own ad copy, my own HTML code for the Web site, etc., I don't need to pay consultants. (I've even developed a way for other people to print my campaign signs — almost for free.) But, because of the "dumbing down" of our classrooms, and the "expert mentality" (someone else knows better than you), and the "welfare mentality" (if it's important, the government will pay to do it for you), our society doesn't seem to realize that it takes all of us to stop the Leftists from destroying what's left of America. People seem to assume that anyone running for Congress already has a silver spoon in their mouth. I certainly don't.
During the summer when I investigated this vehicle bombing (for free), I also worked on a horse ranch and an asphalt crew. (Hey, President Bush, did you know that a guy with a paralegal certificate was shoveling horse poop? So, name a job that Americans won't do, OK?) I know that five dollars can be the difference between eating and not eating after a hard day's work. But, I also know that five dollars could be the difference between stopping the Socialists in our government and not stopping them. (I'd rather have a thousand contributions of $20 than twenty contributions of $1,000, because those big contributions sometimes come with a lot of strings attached.) If only a thousand people (out of more than 100,000 voters) in my district would give only five dollars a month (regularity is the key), then I could win the election. Some people could afford $100 per month. With that, I could buy TV ads (necessary in our illiterate society) that would make the issues plain for anyone to understand. And, it's OK for people outside my district to contribute, also. (Out of the three contributors so far, one of them is a former Blue Beret from another state.)
My campaign treasurer (my wife) got irritated over one of my fundraising ideas. Having jumped out of helicopters a few dozen times during my military career, I know how much beer is consumed in the military. My concept was to ask those troops that agree with my campaign to "sacrifice" the cost of just one pitcher of beer to support it. The concept was called "Pitchers for Politics". It was just a catchy way to ask the "little guy" to get on board a big idea. But, my wife talked me out of that one. So, if you are in the military, or if you know someone in the military, or if you know someone that drinks beer, then you don't have to send them the above link — because that fundraising concept was never officially implemented (it has no Web page); therefore, it doesn't officially exist. But, if it did exist, it would probably become quite successful, because most of our troops are quite conservative.
Well, for the moment, I'm pinned down in a media quagmire. But, I'm confident that resupply and reinforcements are on the way. Dig in!
© Tom Kovach
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
