Cindy Sheehan versus Jacob's Light Foundation

Why does Cindy Sheehan receive so much more attention than Jacob's Light Foundation?

Dorine Fletcher, like Cindy Sheehan, lost a child in Iraq. Yet, one tries to help people, the other seems to be on a huge publicity campaign.

Mrs. Fletcher sends out tens of thousands of care packages to U.S. soldiers through the Jacob's Light Foundation, Cindy just complains and complains. You can be against the war and still help people in need, such as people similar to your dead son.

Lately, liberal Americans have claimed - contrary to conservative Americans - that the press is controlled by conservatives. If so, why do we always hear about Cindy Sheehan, but never hear about the Jacob's Light Foundation?

Some Americans, including this writer, believe that Iraq was about far more than WMDs. It was about Middle East stability, such as in stabilizing Iran. Even favorite Democrats, such as Hillary Clinton, agree that Iran is a very serious issue, perhaps even much more serious than Saddam and WMDs.

Ironically, few countries in the Middle East are more open to Democracy than Iran - at least as far as the people are concerned. Unfortunately, however, the power structures in Iran are absolutely opposed to Democracy. Yet, a military invasion of Iran would be far more dangerous than an invasion of Iraq. Still, a successful Democracy in Iraq would lead to political instability in Iran - at least for the fundamentalists.

Might that not be the best way to deal with Iran?

So, maybe Iraq makes a little more sense than liberals want to believe, and it was not just about WMDs.

More important, shouldn't organizations like Jacob's Light receive a little more attention, considering the attention that Mrs. Sheehan receives?

Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House: Let's hope not

If Democrats take back control of Congress, then Nancy Pelosi will probably be the Speaker of the House. Will that be good for America?

Before we answer that question, let's discuss two issues.

First, what is the essence of Democracy? Is it one person one vote? If so, why does that mean anything? Isn't it really that Democracy, at its best, leads to consensus? That's why one person, one vote is so important, because consensus makes it hard for one person, one party, one way of thinking to dominate all aspects of American political life?

Let's face it, very rarely, if ever, does one person, one way of thinking, offer the answers to everything.

Second, so social security is in PERFECT shape? Every single person alive today has NOTHING to worry about when it comes to social security? When we all retire, we will all EASILY be able to live off of social security, right?

I ask the second question, because that is what Nancy Pelosi forced all Democrats to agree upon when George Bush said social security was flawed.

So, why do you then have a pension plan, a 401k plan? Why do Democrat-controlled Unions demand such great health care and pension plans for members if social security is so PERFECT?

In reality, relying on social security in retirement will lead to only one thing for most Americans: the poor house.

The truth is, social security is VERY flawed. Those of us in our 20s, 30s and 40s will almost certainly face serious shortages when it comes to social security. Yet, Nancy tells us there is NO problem.

Why?

Because George Bush, vis-a-vis Republicans, must fail at everything so that Democrats can control America's Democracy. Partisanship, not consensus, rules the world of Nancy Pelosi and the leaders of the Democrat Party. Unfortunately, partisanship also rules the world of the Republican Party.

Both parties are far more focused on raising money and on fighting the other side, than on consensus - the essence of Democracy.

Of course, multi-millionaires, such as Mrs. Pelosi and many other members of Congress, don't have to worry about social security - EVER.

Instead, they worry about POWER and the CONTROL of America's Democracy.

George Bush has not been a great President, but Congress - on both sides of the aisle - has been just as bad, if not worse.

America is a divided country. We speak different languages, we practice different forms of religion or no religion, and we have different political views on many different issues. This isn't bad, this is good. The opposite is the Taliban, it's facist Germany.

Why can't Mrs. Pelosi and the leaders of both parties respect these differing views? Why do they act more like facists than leaders of Democracy?

What happens if Mrs. Pelosi wins the role of Speaker, but accomplishes nothing because of extreme partisanship? Sure there is room for the likes of Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Tom Delay in politics, but on the fringes of the party, not in a leadership role.

Ultimately, in order for a divided America to achieve great things, concensus will be required.