Two very good books (which might make great last minute Christmas gifts) are Do As I Say (Not As I Do), Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy by Peter Schweizer and 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (And Al Franken is #37) by Bernard Goldberg. Both are very quick reads and are 'Required Reading' because the authors point out the hypocritical and disingenuous views, comments, and politics of the people they choose to profile. While Mr. Schweizer's book is a profile of only liberals, it is a very telling account of how these people apparently do not hold others to the same standards that they wish to have applied to themselves. Mr. Goldberg's book is full of liberals in his 100 examples, but he points out people of any political persuasion and takes them to task for what he feels they have done (and perhaps are still doing) that is detrimental to the United States. Hopefully both books at least make you think. Regardless of your political leanings, give them a chance. They may open your eyes to things you never knew or failed to consider...intellectual honesty being the key. And remember, the authors undoubtedly picked their subjects based on their own personal feelings, so realize that the people profiled may be a bit more reviled by the authors than they are by you.
So, what does all of this have to do with Jennifer Aniston? Well, Jennifer has become someone that I just shake my head at every time she tries to be...umm, smart. Since she has been getting an extraordinary amount of press of late, her quotes have popped up in various places where I might catch them. (Trust me, I don't go looking for quotes from Jen.) It appears to me that she somehow thinks that George Bush is to blame for everything. Now, mind you, it is not just Jennifer Aniston that I have a problem with; she just happens to exemplify the problem at present. Basically, however, I have trouble with most celebrities who rant and rave about this or that when they really don't seem to know much, if anything, about what they are talking about. Just hand them a script and away they go. Hey, let's face it, they get paid huge amounts of money to pretend they are someone they are not. It is their job! I can understand why many people might get sucked in by what they say. And I truthfully understand how the ill-informed could actually believe that they are "experts" on whatever it is they may be talking about. But, by and large they are not...and that really bothers me.
Still, I am more bothered by the celebs that perhaps do know something about their given cause and they truthfully believe that they know even more. So they take to the airwaves (because they can) and they go on and on and on about pretty much nothing. I tune them out, unless I am in need of a laugh. Then I might listen. But, again I worry about those that take the rantings of celebrities as gospel. The danger that celebs can create (because there are people out there who might believe them because they don't do their own research) is staggering to me.
All of that said, we get right back to what, to me, is the premise of the two books mentioned. That is the fact that there are those in this world who can and will keep pressing an issue simply for what they derive by doing so. Whether it is political power (the Democrats in Congress come to mind) or money or the advancement of an agenda or a cause. Not that there are never times when this is necessary and not that there aren't conservatives who can be just as bad, if not worse, in this regard. But the broader picture is that we live in a very complex world. It is a world where violence is the solution to most things for many people. Should we be complacent and appease people to avoid violence? No. We should be willing to fight back. Peace is fine, but it is rarely achieved without at least the threat of war. While I am conservative and obviously a hawk, I understand the longing for peace. I just realize that it does not come without a painful and dangerous pricetag. The liberals and the liberal media in the United States want to have their proverbial cake and eat it too. Now, that is not really a shock, but their way to get what they want has been through character assassination, partisan ranting, and egregious stretching of the truth, if not outright lying and covering up. That seems to be the very thing that they constantly accuse Republicans and conservatives of doing (does the phrase 'culture of corruption' ring any bells?).
My hope this Christmas season and for the coming New Year is that we can truly have a debate about the issues, our differences, and what is right and good for our society. I want those that have the platform to be intellectually honest about what they say. But most of all, I would like to see genuine debate with differing, constructive views presented in our political arena, be it in Congress and government, in the media, or by those celebrities who have the platform. And I want EVERYONE to remember that, like it or not, we are at war with an enemy that wants to destroy us and one that will NOT surrender. Yes, give war a chance, and hope that by doing so peace prevails.
And please, save any nasty comments for another post you don't like or agree with. It is the most joyous season of all. Let us embrace it together.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
the right wing zealot
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Saturday, December 17, 2005
A fair tax system, redux (Required Reading; Volume iii)
Two very compelling books which would make fantastic Christmas gifts address the issue of taxation in the United States. The FairTax Book (Saying Goodbye to the Income Tax and the IRS) was written by Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder (R-Ga). Mr. Boortz even champions the concept on his nationally syndicated radio program. Flat Tax Revolution (Using a Postcard to Abolish the IRS) was written by Steve Forbes of Forbes magazine fame. Both are excellent and very readable accounts of the plans that they espouse. And both expose the ridiculous and sometimes criminal abuse that is built into our current tax code.
The FairTax is a national sales tax (for purposes of the book set at 23%) which would be collected on the final retail sale of an item. It is not a value added tax. This proposal allows for monthly "prebates" to all individuals to recoup sales taxes that would be paid on "essentials" [my word] needed to live. The thought behind the sales tax is that instituting it would cause changes in market factors that would correct what amounts to an embedded 22% tax in the cost of all goods brought to market. Therefore, the cost of goods would really not increase, but you would keep all of your paycheck. It would allow you to pay taxes when you want, based on your consumption, with the assumption that wealthier individuals would then, by default, pay more in taxes. The plan as set forth is revenue neutral, therefore it would not cause the government to collect less tax revenue.
I must admit that I was skeptical of this plan prior to reading the book. However, I was not skeptical based on the amount of the tax. I feel that the addition of a consumption tax would force competition in pricing. I am a bit skeptical of how fast the market would adjust to the removal of embedded taxes in the cost of any (or all) items, but I am a believer in the the market and pricing being what the market will bear. The sad part, unfortunately, is reflected in the "outrage" that plays out politically in this country when things like the price of gasoline goes up. There are immediate calls for investigations and accusations of 'gouging'. Then the government wants oversight and control and we stray precariously close to governmental price controls which never solve anything. The things that I am most skeptical of, however, are whether the States would soon follow suit and whether the 16th Amendment to the Constitution (which allows the government to tax income) could ever be repealed. That would be critical to instituting the FairTax.
The Flat Tax would be a simple 17% tax on income. Mr. Forbes does a very good job explaining his theory in the book. He has long been a champion of tax reform. He even has a chapter that discusses his plan versus the FairTax. The specifics of the Flat Tax (such as deductions and the like) are spelled out in the book, so I will not mention them here. But, I will mention the two most compelling reasons for adopting this plan. First, the 16th Amendment would not face repeal and therefore the politics involved in doing so would not become an issue. To me, that is a major advantage to avoiding the demagoguery that any change in the tax code will surely face. Next, the Flat Tax would allow the individual to choose how to pay taxes. One could either use the terms of the flat tax or could continue paying under the old system with its complications and high cost of compliance. My guess is that Forbes believes the groundswell for the Flat Tax would eventually render the old system impotent.
The bigger picture is what needs to be seen. The United States operates under what is a burdensome and frankly archaic tax system. The cost of tax compliance is a gigantic burden on our economy and our society. Both plans point this out. It is also important to note that both plans have been studied by economists and have been shown to generate huge additional revenues once in place. I do not intend to argue that fact here. Intellectual honesty (remember that?) should allow anyone to see that raising taxes does not necessarily raise tax revenue. Higher tax rates definitely cannot sustain increased revenues over time. Many countries, especially those of the old Soviet bloc, are embracing flat taxes and seeing their economies (as well as tax revenues to their governments) boom. And changes in the tax code will not cause a decrease in charitable giving in this country. Americans are the most generous people in the world and philanthropy has actually been shown to increase when marginal tax rates have been cut. The statistics prove it in an intellectually honest way.
So where do we go from here? That is that magical question. Will we ever be able to abolish the IRS and have a simple tax code that is truly fair to all Americans? While I think the plans set forth in these books both could potentially lead us to that possibility, I think that the power brokers in government and on K Street will fight to the death to stop it from happening. The power to tax is the power to control. And the assertion that any tax cuts are "tax cuts for the rich" is such a foolish statement that I am surprised that anyone can be taken in by it anymore. If you are one of those people who believe the rhetoric of the Democrats regarding taxation in the USA, please investigate how much money most of our elected officials and other truly wealthy individuals make each year and then see how little they pay in taxes. [That is a subject that is upcoming; however the politicians and talking heads that try to beat back any and all tax reductions are hypocrites, believe me.]
The opportunity to change the tax code and truly make America better will have to come from you, the average citizen, the working man, the little guy. We have been convinced that the money we make belongs to the government. Withholding of income tax has made paying it painless to most. We have even been convinced the the government is giving us an "income tax refund" every year (if we get one) and that somehow it is a gift from the government to us. Wake up, that is our money. We earned it and the government took it. To me, the first step might be to do away with withholding and force everyone to actually write a check to pay taxes. When the cold reality of what you pay sets in, the rest of this will be easy. Pick a proposal and start a grassroots effort to get it enacted. Better yet, don't wait for a change in withholding, do it now because, trust me, we are all paying too much in taxes.
None of this even addresses the fact that the government spends way too much. The entitlement mentality in our country is worse than the power to tax. Power is bought and sold at the expense of every American. Both political parties are guilty of that, a fact that me and my conservative philosophy are sickened by. Reduced spending is an entirely different subject, however, and one that may or may not follow a change in the tax code. Either of the proposals set forth in these books would make taxation more fair for every American and would likely generate more money for our politicians to waste. Sure we need to stop frivolous spending (like the 'bridge to nowhere', a Republican's proposal), but we also need to stop the rhetoric about taxation as it is now in our country.
Read the books. Whether you like the proposals or not, I think the major theme that we need to change (so that we can stay viable as a nation in what is now a global economy) should come through loud and clear. Our quasi-socialist approach is not going to keep America strong. If you are intellectually honest, I think you will agree.
The FairTax is a national sales tax (for purposes of the book set at 23%) which would be collected on the final retail sale of an item. It is not a value added tax. This proposal allows for monthly "prebates" to all individuals to recoup sales taxes that would be paid on "essentials" [my word] needed to live. The thought behind the sales tax is that instituting it would cause changes in market factors that would correct what amounts to an embedded 22% tax in the cost of all goods brought to market. Therefore, the cost of goods would really not increase, but you would keep all of your paycheck. It would allow you to pay taxes when you want, based on your consumption, with the assumption that wealthier individuals would then, by default, pay more in taxes. The plan as set forth is revenue neutral, therefore it would not cause the government to collect less tax revenue.
I must admit that I was skeptical of this plan prior to reading the book. However, I was not skeptical based on the amount of the tax. I feel that the addition of a consumption tax would force competition in pricing. I am a bit skeptical of how fast the market would adjust to the removal of embedded taxes in the cost of any (or all) items, but I am a believer in the the market and pricing being what the market will bear. The sad part, unfortunately, is reflected in the "outrage" that plays out politically in this country when things like the price of gasoline goes up. There are immediate calls for investigations and accusations of 'gouging'. Then the government wants oversight and control and we stray precariously close to governmental price controls which never solve anything. The things that I am most skeptical of, however, are whether the States would soon follow suit and whether the 16th Amendment to the Constitution (which allows the government to tax income) could ever be repealed. That would be critical to instituting the FairTax.
The Flat Tax would be a simple 17% tax on income. Mr. Forbes does a very good job explaining his theory in the book. He has long been a champion of tax reform. He even has a chapter that discusses his plan versus the FairTax. The specifics of the Flat Tax (such as deductions and the like) are spelled out in the book, so I will not mention them here. But, I will mention the two most compelling reasons for adopting this plan. First, the 16th Amendment would not face repeal and therefore the politics involved in doing so would not become an issue. To me, that is a major advantage to avoiding the demagoguery that any change in the tax code will surely face. Next, the Flat Tax would allow the individual to choose how to pay taxes. One could either use the terms of the flat tax or could continue paying under the old system with its complications and high cost of compliance. My guess is that Forbes believes the groundswell for the Flat Tax would eventually render the old system impotent.
The bigger picture is what needs to be seen. The United States operates under what is a burdensome and frankly archaic tax system. The cost of tax compliance is a gigantic burden on our economy and our society. Both plans point this out. It is also important to note that both plans have been studied by economists and have been shown to generate huge additional revenues once in place. I do not intend to argue that fact here. Intellectual honesty (remember that?) should allow anyone to see that raising taxes does not necessarily raise tax revenue. Higher tax rates definitely cannot sustain increased revenues over time. Many countries, especially those of the old Soviet bloc, are embracing flat taxes and seeing their economies (as well as tax revenues to their governments) boom. And changes in the tax code will not cause a decrease in charitable giving in this country. Americans are the most generous people in the world and philanthropy has actually been shown to increase when marginal tax rates have been cut. The statistics prove it in an intellectually honest way.
So where do we go from here? That is that magical question. Will we ever be able to abolish the IRS and have a simple tax code that is truly fair to all Americans? While I think the plans set forth in these books both could potentially lead us to that possibility, I think that the power brokers in government and on K Street will fight to the death to stop it from happening. The power to tax is the power to control. And the assertion that any tax cuts are "tax cuts for the rich" is such a foolish statement that I am surprised that anyone can be taken in by it anymore. If you are one of those people who believe the rhetoric of the Democrats regarding taxation in the USA, please investigate how much money most of our elected officials and other truly wealthy individuals make each year and then see how little they pay in taxes. [That is a subject that is upcoming; however the politicians and talking heads that try to beat back any and all tax reductions are hypocrites, believe me.]
The opportunity to change the tax code and truly make America better will have to come from you, the average citizen, the working man, the little guy. We have been convinced that the money we make belongs to the government. Withholding of income tax has made paying it painless to most. We have even been convinced the the government is giving us an "income tax refund" every year (if we get one) and that somehow it is a gift from the government to us. Wake up, that is our money. We earned it and the government took it. To me, the first step might be to do away with withholding and force everyone to actually write a check to pay taxes. When the cold reality of what you pay sets in, the rest of this will be easy. Pick a proposal and start a grassroots effort to get it enacted. Better yet, don't wait for a change in withholding, do it now because, trust me, we are all paying too much in taxes.
None of this even addresses the fact that the government spends way too much. The entitlement mentality in our country is worse than the power to tax. Power is bought and sold at the expense of every American. Both political parties are guilty of that, a fact that me and my conservative philosophy are sickened by. Reduced spending is an entirely different subject, however, and one that may or may not follow a change in the tax code. Either of the proposals set forth in these books would make taxation more fair for every American and would likely generate more money for our politicians to waste. Sure we need to stop frivolous spending (like the 'bridge to nowhere', a Republican's proposal), but we also need to stop the rhetoric about taxation as it is now in our country.
Read the books. Whether you like the proposals or not, I think the major theme that we need to change (so that we can stay viable as a nation in what is now a global economy) should come through loud and clear. Our quasi-socialist approach is not going to keep America strong. If you are intellectually honest, I think you will agree.
Friday, November 18, 2005
The US House Debate (Give War a Chance, part iv)
As I type this post, there is a debate on the floor of the United States House of Representatives about the War in Iraq. For anyone not paying attention, it is basically a "calling out" of the Democrats and any others who want to claim support for the troops, but continue to bash the war. It is a Republican attempt to get them "on the record" about their views. But why?
This is a really sad time in our history. The Democrats (particularly their far-left pandering leadership) seem to want to change their statements or claim that they were somehow duped by the White House into voting for and supporting the action taken in Iraq. After a proclamation of why we need to withdraw by Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha (who is a Vietnam vet, an actual one, not a John Kerry type, and this somehow makes his word golden), the Republican leadership has thrown down the political gauntlet. The Democrat response is that this "vote" is a personal attack on Rep. Murtha. Nancy Pelosi is calling this a disgrace and an insult perpetrated by the Republicans. The political grandstanding and endless ranting goes on and on and on.
Why the politics?
This is a debate not over the "failed Iraq policy" as Nancy Pelosi wants to proclaim, but yet another shining example of the pandering of politicians. While the Democrats somehow seem to know how to fight a war against terror better than the administration does, they offer nothing as an alternative. This is about politics to them, and the power (which they currently lack) that goes with it...pure and simple.
I am appalled that this is taking place at all. I am appalled that most Americans probably do not even know that it is going on. I will be appalled when the media distorts it and the subsequent "polling data" that it produces. I am appalled because we are at war.
There is very little doubt that the Islamo-fascist movement has a better understanding of US history than most Americans do. They realize that Vietnam was a political defeat that led to a military defeat for the USA. They realize that the same people that are the major players in the Democratic party were the demonstrators and protestors of that era. One of the biggest was even their candidate for president.
The unfortunate reality is that Americans are too safe. We have a short memory and the attacks of 9/11 are just a faint reflection in that memory. We hear only bad news about Iraq and the vast majority of mainstream media reports are anti-Bush. There has not been an attack here since 9/11. Al-Queda is spending money and time fighting in Iraq, even though the drumbeat of the lack of connection with Iraq and terrorists is a major claim the Democrats make. We also hear that Bush fought a war for oil, although I have yet to see the oil companies swoop in for that oil. In fact, I am guessing if it was a war for oil, President Bush would have made damn sure that oil and gas prices stayed low, just to preserve his political power. We know that Bill Clinton made concessions to Saudi Arabia to do that very thing. And manipulated intelligence was used to justify the war. The same intel we, and the rest of the world, had believed true for years before.
But this is a political battle that is going to affect the future of the USA and even the world. We need to be willing to fight. And while the politicians all grandstand for sound bites and for the benefit of their constituents and donors, everyday Americans need to think this over. Whether you understand the war or not, it is happening. One day when George Bush is not the president, what will we do or who will we blame if attacks hit America? I will blame those who did not take our present day threat seriously. I will blame the media for their Vietnam treatment of the situation. I will blame those who did not care enough to fight. Still, I will stand, alone if necessary, and fight myself. I just pray that today's naysayers will be willing to do so with me, because it may be that they got their way and that is the reason we are in a grave and dangerous fight on our soil, in our streets sometime in the future.
Give War a Chance.
[In a floor vote on this nonbinding resolution last evening, the US House of Representatives voted to defeat the resolution (which called for immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq) by a vote of 3/403/6/22 (Ayes/noes/'present'/not voting). Will this end the political bickering and grandstanding and the attacks on the war and the Bush administration? I doubt it. But I hope that all intellectually honest Americans contact their elected officials and let them know that we need to stay engaged in this war. As I have alluded to before, this is WWIV and we need to be focused on the fact that the implications of it are real and very grave if we do not take it seriously. The Cold War essentially spawned two major conflicts, Korea and Vietnam. Afghanistan and Iraq are just theaters in this much bigger war. I hope that this vote and the unwillingness of those in either party to say "no" to withdrawal means that our elected officials are serious about doing what it takes to win, as long as it takes. They are now on record and have "put their money where their mouths are". I hope that they can rally this country and the political extremes together, so that we can win, forcefully and decisively. Time will tell.] (The RWZ, 11/19/05)
This is a really sad time in our history. The Democrats (particularly their far-left pandering leadership) seem to want to change their statements or claim that they were somehow duped by the White House into voting for and supporting the action taken in Iraq. After a proclamation of why we need to withdraw by Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha (who is a Vietnam vet, an actual one, not a John Kerry type, and this somehow makes his word golden), the Republican leadership has thrown down the political gauntlet. The Democrat response is that this "vote" is a personal attack on Rep. Murtha. Nancy Pelosi is calling this a disgrace and an insult perpetrated by the Republicans. The political grandstanding and endless ranting goes on and on and on.
Why the politics?
This is a debate not over the "failed Iraq policy" as Nancy Pelosi wants to proclaim, but yet another shining example of the pandering of politicians. While the Democrats somehow seem to know how to fight a war against terror better than the administration does, they offer nothing as an alternative. This is about politics to them, and the power (which they currently lack) that goes with it...pure and simple.
I am appalled that this is taking place at all. I am appalled that most Americans probably do not even know that it is going on. I will be appalled when the media distorts it and the subsequent "polling data" that it produces. I am appalled because we are at war.
There is very little doubt that the Islamo-fascist movement has a better understanding of US history than most Americans do. They realize that Vietnam was a political defeat that led to a military defeat for the USA. They realize that the same people that are the major players in the Democratic party were the demonstrators and protestors of that era. One of the biggest was even their candidate for president.
The unfortunate reality is that Americans are too safe. We have a short memory and the attacks of 9/11 are just a faint reflection in that memory. We hear only bad news about Iraq and the vast majority of mainstream media reports are anti-Bush. There has not been an attack here since 9/11. Al-Queda is spending money and time fighting in Iraq, even though the drumbeat of the lack of connection with Iraq and terrorists is a major claim the Democrats make. We also hear that Bush fought a war for oil, although I have yet to see the oil companies swoop in for that oil. In fact, I am guessing if it was a war for oil, President Bush would have made damn sure that oil and gas prices stayed low, just to preserve his political power. We know that Bill Clinton made concessions to Saudi Arabia to do that very thing. And manipulated intelligence was used to justify the war. The same intel we, and the rest of the world, had believed true for years before.
But this is a political battle that is going to affect the future of the USA and even the world. We need to be willing to fight. And while the politicians all grandstand for sound bites and for the benefit of their constituents and donors, everyday Americans need to think this over. Whether you understand the war or not, it is happening. One day when George Bush is not the president, what will we do or who will we blame if attacks hit America? I will blame those who did not take our present day threat seriously. I will blame the media for their Vietnam treatment of the situation. I will blame those who did not care enough to fight. Still, I will stand, alone if necessary, and fight myself. I just pray that today's naysayers will be willing to do so with me, because it may be that they got their way and that is the reason we are in a grave and dangerous fight on our soil, in our streets sometime in the future.
Give War a Chance.
[In a floor vote on this nonbinding resolution last evening, the US House of Representatives voted to defeat the resolution (which called for immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq) by a vote of 3/403/6/22 (Ayes/noes/'present'/not voting). Will this end the political bickering and grandstanding and the attacks on the war and the Bush administration? I doubt it. But I hope that all intellectually honest Americans contact their elected officials and let them know that we need to stay engaged in this war. As I have alluded to before, this is WWIV and we need to be focused on the fact that the implications of it are real and very grave if we do not take it seriously. The Cold War essentially spawned two major conflicts, Korea and Vietnam. Afghanistan and Iraq are just theaters in this much bigger war. I hope that this vote and the unwillingness of those in either party to say "no" to withdrawal means that our elected officials are serious about doing what it takes to win, as long as it takes. They are now on record and have "put their money where their mouths are". I hope that they can rally this country and the political extremes together, so that we can win, forcefully and decisively. Time will tell.] (The RWZ, 11/19/05)
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Lies Leading to War and Political Correctness in the USA
I am revving up to get back into the regular habit of posting rants on the RWZ blog. I apologize to anyone who may read this for 'spiritual' reasons or for a daily conservative rant. Football season (and a hectic work schedule) have taken up an inordinate amount of my time for the last few months. However, I am back and fired up for more editorializing!
I will be brief, but two things have struck me (of late) as so preposterous and hypocritical that I just cannot resist commenting.
The first is obvious...how "Bush lied, manipulated intelligence, and got us into a quagmire in Iraq." If you watch "mainstream media" or are a liberal, you are all over this topic. BUT, if you are free-thinking, conservative, get your "news" from a variety of sources, or are intellectually honest (remember, I am big on that), you cannot POSSIBLY rationalize the statements and double talk of the liberals in this country. I specifically site Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Charles Rangel, and all of the rest of the Democrats who seem to want to blame the Bush administration for "lying" about intel to get us into war. I mean, they all made previous public statements which are contrary to what they are saying now. I will grant you one thing...politicians lie. That seems to be in the job description. BUT, anyone who can somehow look past what these nut cases are doing is just fooling himself. If you read this blog, you know I am conservative and for the war. I have mentioned numerous reasons why I am for it and I will not change my mind. War is hell, perhaps, but appeasement is Hell with earthly suffering added to it. If you are "anti-war" that is fine. If you wish to dissent, fine. But please do so with some factual basis to what you believe, what you think your beliefs would accomplish in the real world of terror and war that we are living in (believe it or not, like it or not), and do not fall back on the 'who knew what, when they knew it, etc., etc.' argument. The claims by the Democrats in Congress are so off the wall, they really are not worth listening to, or commenting on. But, they get 'news play' and they get repeated, in hopes that they will change sentiment in America against the war...but more importantly against Bush. Be brave and think this over for yourself. And before you comment, think about what it would be like if this all escalated into a "real" war that was happening in the streets of Europe, or, God forbid, in the streets of the USA. Who would you blame for lying then? Would you wish we had kept fighting in Iraq? Would you be ready (and willing) to fight for and defend yourself? Be intellectually honest; how would you feel? We have not known war in this country. The last true war on our soil was the Civil War. Could you fight that way? Are you lying?
Next, I have to comment on the Glenn Beck show from today. He was discussing one of my favorite atheists, Michael Newdow. Glenn basically got into a rant about how people like Mike raise such a fuss about how the government forces things like God on them and how it is unfair, and on and on. Glenn commented on how PC this country is and suggested that everyone sue for what they feel offended by, just like Mike. This is funny, but what I took away was this. We hear politicians talk all day long (for sound bites) about our "democracy". As I have mentioned before, we do NOT live in a democracy, but rather a representative, constitutional republic. Anyway, my point is, in our current framework, or even better yet, in a democracy, a complete fool like Michael Newdow (who is wasting taxpayers' money...yes you, the "working man") would never even get his 'day in court'. In a democracy, he'd never get a chance to complain, let alone file a lawsuit. It would be tough luck that the majority (and the majority of Americans do claim to be Christian) would rule.
My real question is...why are we so PC? What the hell difference does it make if it says "In God We Trust" on our money? (That is what ol' Mike is suing about now.) Is anyone really going to quit spending money (or quit accepting it as payment) because of that? Seriously, I doubt it!
We the People need to get a grip, for the politicians, the news media, and the Michael Newdow's of this country and start being realistic again. (When I was a kid, my parents referred to this as "acting your age".) If you disagree with the war, fine; but be willing to take up arms and fight if your dissent leads to something worse in the streets of your neighborhood. If you want to not be offended, that is fine too; however, stop offending others in the process. And when the majority wins out, deal with it! (Or as Glenn commented this morning, "quit being a victim and rise above it.") And as an American, exercise your right to vote and hold your elected officials accountable. Everyone claims to want 'the money out of politics'. If so, then let's get people back in...the electorate...and demand that this nonsense stop. Let us be strong and forward thinking, and let us be survivors, whether our politics mesh or not. Intellectual honesty goes a long way.
Thanks for reading. Future rants will include: Taxes and a 'Required reading' segment to go along with the topic; why I don't care what Jennifer Aniston has to say about anything; the San Francisco gun ban and why everyone (conservative and liberal alike) had better wake up and be intellectually honest in defending the Second Amendment; why I think all Washington politicians (Democrats and Republicans) must go; and perhaps even a rant about why I think global warming is such a non-issue.
I will be brief, but two things have struck me (of late) as so preposterous and hypocritical that I just cannot resist commenting.
The first is obvious...how "Bush lied, manipulated intelligence, and got us into a quagmire in Iraq." If you watch "mainstream media" or are a liberal, you are all over this topic. BUT, if you are free-thinking, conservative, get your "news" from a variety of sources, or are intellectually honest (remember, I am big on that), you cannot POSSIBLY rationalize the statements and double talk of the liberals in this country. I specifically site Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Charles Rangel, and all of the rest of the Democrats who seem to want to blame the Bush administration for "lying" about intel to get us into war. I mean, they all made previous public statements which are contrary to what they are saying now. I will grant you one thing...politicians lie. That seems to be in the job description. BUT, anyone who can somehow look past what these nut cases are doing is just fooling himself. If you read this blog, you know I am conservative and for the war. I have mentioned numerous reasons why I am for it and I will not change my mind. War is hell, perhaps, but appeasement is Hell with earthly suffering added to it. If you are "anti-war" that is fine. If you wish to dissent, fine. But please do so with some factual basis to what you believe, what you think your beliefs would accomplish in the real world of terror and war that we are living in (believe it or not, like it or not), and do not fall back on the 'who knew what, when they knew it, etc., etc.' argument. The claims by the Democrats in Congress are so off the wall, they really are not worth listening to, or commenting on. But, they get 'news play' and they get repeated, in hopes that they will change sentiment in America against the war...but more importantly against Bush. Be brave and think this over for yourself. And before you comment, think about what it would be like if this all escalated into a "real" war that was happening in the streets of Europe, or, God forbid, in the streets of the USA. Who would you blame for lying then? Would you wish we had kept fighting in Iraq? Would you be ready (and willing) to fight for and defend yourself? Be intellectually honest; how would you feel? We have not known war in this country. The last true war on our soil was the Civil War. Could you fight that way? Are you lying?
Next, I have to comment on the Glenn Beck show from today. He was discussing one of my favorite atheists, Michael Newdow. Glenn basically got into a rant about how people like Mike raise such a fuss about how the government forces things like God on them and how it is unfair, and on and on. Glenn commented on how PC this country is and suggested that everyone sue for what they feel offended by, just like Mike. This is funny, but what I took away was this. We hear politicians talk all day long (for sound bites) about our "democracy". As I have mentioned before, we do NOT live in a democracy, but rather a representative, constitutional republic. Anyway, my point is, in our current framework, or even better yet, in a democracy, a complete fool like Michael Newdow (who is wasting taxpayers' money...yes you, the "working man") would never even get his 'day in court'. In a democracy, he'd never get a chance to complain, let alone file a lawsuit. It would be tough luck that the majority (and the majority of Americans do claim to be Christian) would rule.
My real question is...why are we so PC? What the hell difference does it make if it says "In God We Trust" on our money? (That is what ol' Mike is suing about now.) Is anyone really going to quit spending money (or quit accepting it as payment) because of that? Seriously, I doubt it!
We the People need to get a grip, for the politicians, the news media, and the Michael Newdow's of this country and start being realistic again. (When I was a kid, my parents referred to this as "acting your age".) If you disagree with the war, fine; but be willing to take up arms and fight if your dissent leads to something worse in the streets of your neighborhood. If you want to not be offended, that is fine too; however, stop offending others in the process. And when the majority wins out, deal with it! (Or as Glenn commented this morning, "quit being a victim and rise above it.") And as an American, exercise your right to vote and hold your elected officials accountable. Everyone claims to want 'the money out of politics'. If so, then let's get people back in...the electorate...and demand that this nonsense stop. Let us be strong and forward thinking, and let us be survivors, whether our politics mesh or not. Intellectual honesty goes a long way.
Thanks for reading. Future rants will include: Taxes and a 'Required reading' segment to go along with the topic; why I don't care what Jennifer Aniston has to say about anything; the San Francisco gun ban and why everyone (conservative and liberal alike) had better wake up and be intellectually honest in defending the Second Amendment; why I think all Washington politicians (Democrats and Republicans) must go; and perhaps even a rant about why I think global warming is such a non-issue.
Sunday, November 06, 2005
The Clash of Civilizations , part ii
Although I have already given a 'review' of Tony Blankley's book, which really amounts to a suggestion that you read it, I have to add another post regarding this book because of the current relevance of its content.
Foremost in the thoughts of Mr. Blankley are the suggestions of what might happen when radical Islamists have infiltrated the West and begin attacking the world in ways that are less "common" than what we expect and are fed from the mainstream media. The eerie part of this is that right now, in France, a similar scenario is playing out.
I am amazed at the blatant partisan, political bickering that is going on in the United States right now. That is a topic that I will have to vent about in this forum later. However, it is happening and you cannot deny it, no matter which side of the political spectrum you are on. To me what is sad (and dangerous) is that this debate is going on, unchecked by 'We the People', in that partisan and political way. Like it or not, we are the big boys on the block that is the world and there are those that don't want us to be. Right now, radical Islamists are the most serious and grave threat, but there are others and they will surface...eventually.
We need to wake up and realize that we are at war. The United States has been at war before and triumphed throughout its history. We have never taken the spoils of war. In fact, we have, for the most part, gotten those we defeated back into the world fray at our own expense. But since Vietnam, war is not PC and we don't do it well (and should not do it at all) in the minds of many who are free to speak in this country. I respect that freedom more than anyone. But, I realize that there is a time and a place to debate who we are and what we should do. Right now is not that time. Let's win this war and debate all of the rest later.
Read Tony Blankley's book. You will see what I mean and no doubt agree.
Foremost in the thoughts of Mr. Blankley are the suggestions of what might happen when radical Islamists have infiltrated the West and begin attacking the world in ways that are less "common" than what we expect and are fed from the mainstream media. The eerie part of this is that right now, in France, a similar scenario is playing out.
I am amazed at the blatant partisan, political bickering that is going on in the United States right now. That is a topic that I will have to vent about in this forum later. However, it is happening and you cannot deny it, no matter which side of the political spectrum you are on. To me what is sad (and dangerous) is that this debate is going on, unchecked by 'We the People', in that partisan and political way. Like it or not, we are the big boys on the block that is the world and there are those that don't want us to be. Right now, radical Islamists are the most serious and grave threat, but there are others and they will surface...eventually.
We need to wake up and realize that we are at war. The United States has been at war before and triumphed throughout its history. We have never taken the spoils of war. In fact, we have, for the most part, gotten those we defeated back into the world fray at our own expense. But since Vietnam, war is not PC and we don't do it well (and should not do it at all) in the minds of many who are free to speak in this country. I respect that freedom more than anyone. But, I realize that there is a time and a place to debate who we are and what we should do. Right now is not that time. Let's win this war and debate all of the rest later.
Read Tony Blankley's book. You will see what I mean and no doubt agree.
Thursday, October 20, 2005
The Clash of Civilizations (Required Reading; Volume ii)
Tony Blankley has recently written a compelling book about the war on terror titled The West's Last Chance, Will We Win the Clash of Civilizations? I must comment on the thoughts contained therein, but I also must implore you to take the time to pick up a copy and read it. Our future might depend on what you take away from this book.
Mr. Blankley basically puts all his cards on the table in his writing. He does not take sides politically, nor does he embrace a particular political ideology with regards to the war on terror. He does, however, make a very clear and somewhat chilling argument for confronting the very real threat to our security as a nation and, in fact, the security of the entire free world. He realizes that radical Islamists are a very real and dangerous enemy. He realizes that we need to confront the enemy and that the first step in this confrontation is to draw the battle lines. This war is as much political and cultural as it is a war of armies with weapons. It is not conventional, and the lack of convention is what has lulled Americans to sleep with regard to the war we are waging. Both our political leaders and each and every citizen must heed the threat every day, or else we are doomed to be overrun, in much the same way the majority of Europe was overrun by the Nazis.
This book is not an attack on Muslims. It is a call for a declaration of war versus radical Islam and the Islamist fundamentalists who are strong in their convictions to end Western civilization as we know it. The arguments are clear and any free-thinking American should be able to see and fear the potential results of our failure to fight and ultimately win this war.
"Acknowledging reality is a necessary step in winning the war. We are not likely to win this
war until we have formally declared it and defined it. Our first step in winning the war is to
declare it on the Islamist insurgency."
A quote that to me says it all. We must be willing to declare this war for what it is. We must then be willing to fight it on all fronts; military, political, and cultural. We must not fight a religious war, but also must not be afraid to define a radical fringe of a religion as the enemy that we are facing. And we must be willing to follow through with every battle, regardless of cost, until we can truly claim victory in a very large (and likely long) war.
Mr. Blankley sees it as a world war. He may have even referred to it as WWIII. I view the Cold War as WWIII. It was won by facing down what Ronald Reagan called "the Evil Empire." Defining that evil and confronting it was the key to winning that war. The war on terror is WWIV in my estimation. My hope is that we can see through our complacency, define the war, declare the war, and fight on to victory. Mr. Blankley's assessment helped me to more fully realize the dangers we face. Hopefully you will read this book and feel the way I did, then demand that our leaders define and engage in the battle that will come, whether we are prepared and willing to fight it or not.
Mr. Blankley basically puts all his cards on the table in his writing. He does not take sides politically, nor does he embrace a particular political ideology with regards to the war on terror. He does, however, make a very clear and somewhat chilling argument for confronting the very real threat to our security as a nation and, in fact, the security of the entire free world. He realizes that radical Islamists are a very real and dangerous enemy. He realizes that we need to confront the enemy and that the first step in this confrontation is to draw the battle lines. This war is as much political and cultural as it is a war of armies with weapons. It is not conventional, and the lack of convention is what has lulled Americans to sleep with regard to the war we are waging. Both our political leaders and each and every citizen must heed the threat every day, or else we are doomed to be overrun, in much the same way the majority of Europe was overrun by the Nazis.
This book is not an attack on Muslims. It is a call for a declaration of war versus radical Islam and the Islamist fundamentalists who are strong in their convictions to end Western civilization as we know it. The arguments are clear and any free-thinking American should be able to see and fear the potential results of our failure to fight and ultimately win this war.
"Acknowledging reality is a necessary step in winning the war. We are not likely to win this
war until we have formally declared it and defined it. Our first step in winning the war is to
declare it on the Islamist insurgency."
A quote that to me says it all. We must be willing to declare this war for what it is. We must then be willing to fight it on all fronts; military, political, and cultural. We must not fight a religious war, but also must not be afraid to define a radical fringe of a religion as the enemy that we are facing. And we must be willing to follow through with every battle, regardless of cost, until we can truly claim victory in a very large (and likely long) war.
Mr. Blankley sees it as a world war. He may have even referred to it as WWIII. I view the Cold War as WWIII. It was won by facing down what Ronald Reagan called "the Evil Empire." Defining that evil and confronting it was the key to winning that war. The war on terror is WWIV in my estimation. My hope is that we can see through our complacency, define the war, declare the war, and fight on to victory. Mr. Blankley's assessment helped me to more fully realize the dangers we face. Hopefully you will read this book and feel the way I did, then demand that our leaders define and engage in the battle that will come, whether we are prepared and willing to fight it or not.
Sunday, September 25, 2005
The Blame Game (The Katrina Commission, part ii)
I have not commented much more on the disaster of Hurricane Katrina (both the physical, natural one and the political one), but in the aftermath of Hurricane Rita, I have a few very basic thoughts.
When comparing the "results" of each of these storms to the "outcomes" that followed, there does seem to be a huge disparity in how things really turned out. In my opinion, Louisiana (and New Orleans in particular) were the places where things went the worst. But why? Was the devastation worse there than other places? Were there other factors that made it more difficult to effectively save Louisiana? Did the federal government not care about Louisiana? Was it because the people of New Orleans were poor? And black?
I am a bit frustrated by the political sniping that has taken place over all of this. Quite frankly, I have had plenty of thoughts on the subject, but I just pass on commenting because I think the scenes that have played out on the 24 hour news networks say it all. Compare this hurricane (and the aftermath) to itself. Compare what has followed in Mississippi to the aftermath in Louisiana. Compare it to the efforts that preceded (and likely will follow) Hurricane Rita. Compare it to the hurricane season last year in Florida. To me, it is pretty obvious that the government in the state of Louisiana was ill prepared. Then, as things went bad, the blame game started. Of course, tops on the list of those to blame was President Bush (it just has to be his fault). Yet, we know that the governor of Louisiana (Kathleen Blanco) admits that she should have asked for federal troops and other aid sooner. Senator Mary Landrieu wants to "punch President Bush in the face" (pardon me if the quote is not exactly correct) yet helped to formulate a 250 billion dollar "request" for federal funds to aid in rebuilding. And then there is New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin. Not only has he dodged the questions, changed his answers, and still (to my knowledge) failed to apologize or take any responsibility at all for anything that did not go well, but he even packed up his family and found them a new house to live in...in Dallas, Texas!
We all know that things went bad in the aftermath of this storm. We all know that a country like this should be able to do a better job of assisting its citizens during a crisis. However, as I am certain the eventual "Katrina Commission" will point out, there is plenty of blame to go around. First and foremost, there needs to be some blame placed at the feet of every citizen. There is a simple fact that everyone in the United States needs to realize. That is this: In America, you are guaranteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I think everyone needs to realize that the government cannot necessarily provide this for you, but should work with you so that you have the ability to provide it for yourself. Next, I think that as the "blame" is placed by the media, the talking heads, the race-baiters (sorry, but that is what they are) who called this a black vs. white, rich vs. poor issue, the politicians, and the "commission", everyone needs to be careful about placing it at all. But, as it is considered, all must realize that the federal government (and the Bush Administration) cannot be responsible for the duties of local and state officials. Disaster response can be done better as we have, currently are, and will witness in the future in hurricane devastated areas that are NOT in Louisiana. In the past, funds to improve the levies there apparently didn't find their way to those projects. Funds to help the poor people of New Orleans obviously never made it to them as intended. And days after the disaster, New Orleans was already financially bankrupt as Ray Nagin stated. But where will any of the money that will pour back into Louisiana go?
Political pundits have called Louisiana one of the most politically corrupt states in this nation. As the blame game shows, it might just be true. Regardless of the failures, the political bickering and finger pointing has served no one. And the elected officials who are doing it the most seem to me to be the ones who have failed the most. I hope that their constituents take note of this. God forbid it should matter, ever again. But if it does, hopefully a lesson will have been learned. Not brought to you by a commission, but learned by the actions and deeds of those who are responsible to the people who elected them...at any level of government. And hopefully there will be lessons learned by looking to the examples of recovery that are not front page news or political fodder. Just examples of hard-working people getting their lives back on track.
It is really sad that America is not equipped to handle this type of disaster. Yet, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, it seems that New York City functioned quite well in its response. Perhaps the devastation was not as great or widespread. But it was also not predicted.
We, as responsible citizens and voters, need to elect people who will take responsibility and hold them to those responsibilities. A bit less politics and a bit more leadership would be refreshing and it might just lead to better results if disaster does strike in the future.
When comparing the "results" of each of these storms to the "outcomes" that followed, there does seem to be a huge disparity in how things really turned out. In my opinion, Louisiana (and New Orleans in particular) were the places where things went the worst. But why? Was the devastation worse there than other places? Were there other factors that made it more difficult to effectively save Louisiana? Did the federal government not care about Louisiana? Was it because the people of New Orleans were poor? And black?
I am a bit frustrated by the political sniping that has taken place over all of this. Quite frankly, I have had plenty of thoughts on the subject, but I just pass on commenting because I think the scenes that have played out on the 24 hour news networks say it all. Compare this hurricane (and the aftermath) to itself. Compare what has followed in Mississippi to the aftermath in Louisiana. Compare it to the efforts that preceded (and likely will follow) Hurricane Rita. Compare it to the hurricane season last year in Florida. To me, it is pretty obvious that the government in the state of Louisiana was ill prepared. Then, as things went bad, the blame game started. Of course, tops on the list of those to blame was President Bush (it just has to be his fault). Yet, we know that the governor of Louisiana (Kathleen Blanco) admits that she should have asked for federal troops and other aid sooner. Senator Mary Landrieu wants to "punch President Bush in the face" (pardon me if the quote is not exactly correct) yet helped to formulate a 250 billion dollar "request" for federal funds to aid in rebuilding. And then there is New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin. Not only has he dodged the questions, changed his answers, and still (to my knowledge) failed to apologize or take any responsibility at all for anything that did not go well, but he even packed up his family and found them a new house to live in...in Dallas, Texas!
We all know that things went bad in the aftermath of this storm. We all know that a country like this should be able to do a better job of assisting its citizens during a crisis. However, as I am certain the eventual "Katrina Commission" will point out, there is plenty of blame to go around. First and foremost, there needs to be some blame placed at the feet of every citizen. There is a simple fact that everyone in the United States needs to realize. That is this: In America, you are guaranteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I think everyone needs to realize that the government cannot necessarily provide this for you, but should work with you so that you have the ability to provide it for yourself. Next, I think that as the "blame" is placed by the media, the talking heads, the race-baiters (sorry, but that is what they are) who called this a black vs. white, rich vs. poor issue, the politicians, and the "commission", everyone needs to be careful about placing it at all. But, as it is considered, all must realize that the federal government (and the Bush Administration) cannot be responsible for the duties of local and state officials. Disaster response can be done better as we have, currently are, and will witness in the future in hurricane devastated areas that are NOT in Louisiana. In the past, funds to improve the levies there apparently didn't find their way to those projects. Funds to help the poor people of New Orleans obviously never made it to them as intended. And days after the disaster, New Orleans was already financially bankrupt as Ray Nagin stated. But where will any of the money that will pour back into Louisiana go?
Political pundits have called Louisiana one of the most politically corrupt states in this nation. As the blame game shows, it might just be true. Regardless of the failures, the political bickering and finger pointing has served no one. And the elected officials who are doing it the most seem to me to be the ones who have failed the most. I hope that their constituents take note of this. God forbid it should matter, ever again. But if it does, hopefully a lesson will have been learned. Not brought to you by a commission, but learned by the actions and deeds of those who are responsible to the people who elected them...at any level of government. And hopefully there will be lessons learned by looking to the examples of recovery that are not front page news or political fodder. Just examples of hard-working people getting their lives back on track.
It is really sad that America is not equipped to handle this type of disaster. Yet, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, it seems that New York City functioned quite well in its response. Perhaps the devastation was not as great or widespread. But it was also not predicted.
We, as responsible citizens and voters, need to elect people who will take responsibility and hold them to those responsibilities. A bit less politics and a bit more leadership would be refreshing and it might just lead to better results if disaster does strike in the future.
Friday, September 09, 2005
The Katrina Commission
It is obvious to everyone that hurricane Katrina was one of, if not the worst, natural disasters to ever hit the United States of America. It is also apparent that, in the aftermath, there have been many efforts that have gone poorly. However, the ravings of politicians are probably the worst of all of the items that we could sight as "going wrong" in the aftermath of this catastrophe.
There seems to be a movement afoot to blame George W. Bush. Many on the left have come right out and blamed Bush for various portions of this disaster, from the storm itself (ala 'global warming') to the poor response by federal agencies dispatched to the area. While I agree that the federal response may have been lacking, I do not think that it is George Bush's fault, nor the exclusive fault of the federal government. There is plenty of blame to go around.
Actually, there were three events that happened here. The first, the hurricane itself which was predicted and tracked and preparations were made (or ignored) for its arrival on land. The second was the flooding of New Orleans two days after the hurricane hit. Lastly, there was the outbreak of near anarchy in New Orleans by looters and gangs of hoodlums in general.
There has been constant finger pointing ever since as to who did what, who did not do enough (or do it fast enough), and why any of this happened. Republicans called for hearings and Democrats (the Congressional minority leadership specifically) called for a 9/11-style commission. Nonetheless, everyone wants the "truth" as to what went "wrong" and you can bet it will be network sound-bite material and political and election fodder for years to come. But why?
This was a natural disaster, but one that pretty much everyone with a pulse knew was coming. While the breaching of the levees in New Orleans did not happen immediately, that too is a problem that anyone in the area has known was a potential disaster waiting to happen for 30+ years. All levels of government and civil service in the New Orleans area and Louisiana failed and failed badly. And yet pundits everywhere are doing their best job of Monday-morning quarterbacking and there seems to be a push to somehow smear the Bush Administration for it. I really don't care about that. The people doing that are making fools of themselves without my help.
My concern is twofold. First, this goes to show every American that this country is a great place, but that all citizens should be prepared to care for themselves. The government cannot be counted on to protect you from absolutely every bad thing that might happen to you. Common sense needs to prevail starting with every citizen. And that common sense needs to be passed on by citizens to their elected officials. I don't want to place blame, but since it is being done anyway, I say blame all levels of government. Spare no one.
Second, why do the talking heads and politicians (from any party or political ideology) need to clamor for "hearings" or a "commission" before this disaster has been addressed fully and to its conclusion? I think that the situation in New Orleans likely does deserve an inquiry. I really did not see problems like that in Mississippi, which was devastated. Yet, there is a time and a place to sort this out and now is not that time. It is being reported that Mike Brown is being removed from his position at FEMA. Yes, a fall guy already. But a fall guy for whom?
There is no question that this is and will continue to be a disaster, but the way our "leaders" rush to a microphone or camera to preach to us is the real tragedy. Private groups like the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and many, many faith-based or other community groups are on the scene and will ultimately be the ones who really save the day in the hurricane stricken areas anyway. But government will hold its hearings, empower its commissions, and draw its conclusions (probably at the cost of millions of dollars) only to tell "us" what went wrong and what should have been done. Yet, they won't tell themselves and it likely will not prepare anyone better for a future disaster.
This storm was predicted, and yet 'government' was not prepared and failed on all levels. Is that what we want in America? Is that what we stand for? Will the partisan bickering that has already begun really help better us as a nation? I doubt it. The lesson to be learned will be from the perseverance of those who rise up and continue on after this catastrophe. The lessons to be learned will be taught by the blood, sweat, and tears of the individuals that carry on. Yet the TV will give us the politicos and their incessant ranting about what they know and how it should have been. Well, it wasn't that way, and as Americans we need to remember to be responsible for ourselves and our loved ones and to look out for our neighbors. We can only rely on ourselves.
There seems to be a movement afoot to blame George W. Bush. Many on the left have come right out and blamed Bush for various portions of this disaster, from the storm itself (ala 'global warming') to the poor response by federal agencies dispatched to the area. While I agree that the federal response may have been lacking, I do not think that it is George Bush's fault, nor the exclusive fault of the federal government. There is plenty of blame to go around.
Actually, there were three events that happened here. The first, the hurricane itself which was predicted and tracked and preparations were made (or ignored) for its arrival on land. The second was the flooding of New Orleans two days after the hurricane hit. Lastly, there was the outbreak of near anarchy in New Orleans by looters and gangs of hoodlums in general.
There has been constant finger pointing ever since as to who did what, who did not do enough (or do it fast enough), and why any of this happened. Republicans called for hearings and Democrats (the Congressional minority leadership specifically) called for a 9/11-style commission. Nonetheless, everyone wants the "truth" as to what went "wrong" and you can bet it will be network sound-bite material and political and election fodder for years to come. But why?
This was a natural disaster, but one that pretty much everyone with a pulse knew was coming. While the breaching of the levees in New Orleans did not happen immediately, that too is a problem that anyone in the area has known was a potential disaster waiting to happen for 30+ years. All levels of government and civil service in the New Orleans area and Louisiana failed and failed badly. And yet pundits everywhere are doing their best job of Monday-morning quarterbacking and there seems to be a push to somehow smear the Bush Administration for it. I really don't care about that. The people doing that are making fools of themselves without my help.
My concern is twofold. First, this goes to show every American that this country is a great place, but that all citizens should be prepared to care for themselves. The government cannot be counted on to protect you from absolutely every bad thing that might happen to you. Common sense needs to prevail starting with every citizen. And that common sense needs to be passed on by citizens to their elected officials. I don't want to place blame, but since it is being done anyway, I say blame all levels of government. Spare no one.
Second, why do the talking heads and politicians (from any party or political ideology) need to clamor for "hearings" or a "commission" before this disaster has been addressed fully and to its conclusion? I think that the situation in New Orleans likely does deserve an inquiry. I really did not see problems like that in Mississippi, which was devastated. Yet, there is a time and a place to sort this out and now is not that time. It is being reported that Mike Brown is being removed from his position at FEMA. Yes, a fall guy already. But a fall guy for whom?
There is no question that this is and will continue to be a disaster, but the way our "leaders" rush to a microphone or camera to preach to us is the real tragedy. Private groups like the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and many, many faith-based or other community groups are on the scene and will ultimately be the ones who really save the day in the hurricane stricken areas anyway. But government will hold its hearings, empower its commissions, and draw its conclusions (probably at the cost of millions of dollars) only to tell "us" what went wrong and what should have been done. Yet, they won't tell themselves and it likely will not prepare anyone better for a future disaster.
This storm was predicted, and yet 'government' was not prepared and failed on all levels. Is that what we want in America? Is that what we stand for? Will the partisan bickering that has already begun really help better us as a nation? I doubt it. The lesson to be learned will be from the perseverance of those who rise up and continue on after this catastrophe. The lessons to be learned will be taught by the blood, sweat, and tears of the individuals that carry on. Yet the TV will give us the politicos and their incessant ranting about what they know and how it should have been. Well, it wasn't that way, and as Americans we need to remember to be responsible for ourselves and our loved ones and to look out for our neighbors. We can only rely on ourselves.
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Cindy Does Not Speak for Me (Give War a Chance, Part iii)
After several days of catching media reports from various sources, it is of little doubt to me that Cindy Sheehan is just a crazed, anti-war left-winger who happens to be in the media spotlight at present. Her claim is that she is grieving over her son, but the hate-filled vitriol she has been spewing for quite some time is making it clear that she has a different agenda. Perhaps that is why many in her own family do not agree with her position.
All that said, she does have a right to grieve. She does have a right to dissent. She does have a right to protest. However, I think that she does NOT have a conscience or a care about anyone else's soldiers who are in Iraq, or anywhere else for that matter.
Research her past, her thoughts, and her very public remarks and decide for yourself. But also realize that, while unpopular, the war in Iraq is bringing terrorists from everywhere to Iraq to participate. As I have said, I will let the professionals handle that. They have training, knowledge, and working intelligence that none of us (including Cindy) will ever have. And, they are keeping the fight 'over there' and I am pretty certain I prefer it that way. (And, to-be-honest, I bet the protestors do too; or at least they would when the day came that America was struck again.) I am willing to take my chances on Iraq becoming a strong, free, and stabilizing force in the Middle East.
You don't speak for all of America and you do not speak for me, Cindy.
Give war a chance!
All that said, she does have a right to grieve. She does have a right to dissent. She does have a right to protest. However, I think that she does NOT have a conscience or a care about anyone else's soldiers who are in Iraq, or anywhere else for that matter.
Research her past, her thoughts, and her very public remarks and decide for yourself. But also realize that, while unpopular, the war in Iraq is bringing terrorists from everywhere to Iraq to participate. As I have said, I will let the professionals handle that. They have training, knowledge, and working intelligence that none of us (including Cindy) will ever have. And, they are keeping the fight 'over there' and I am pretty certain I prefer it that way. (And, to-be-honest, I bet the protestors do too; or at least they would when the day came that America was struck again.) I am willing to take my chances on Iraq becoming a strong, free, and stabilizing force in the Middle East.
You don't speak for all of America and you do not speak for me, Cindy.
Give war a chance!
Monday, August 15, 2005
Give War a Chance, Part ii
I must again share some thoughts on the war, today's war, the war on terror.
As I stated just yesterday, I happen to agree with the war in Iraq. I view it as a front and battleground on what is a much larger (and will be a much longer) war. There is obviously erosion on this sentiment from many areas of our societal and political spectrum. Even conservatives are getting squeamish about Iraq and , to me, that means they are squeamish about the war on terror in general.
That brings me to the Cindy Sheehan situation. I will not comment on her initial motives for protesting. She lost her son (in an honorable cause in my estimation) and she is upset and wishes to get answers as to why. Unfortunately, many people may want "answers", but as a representative republic, we elect individuals to provide for us as a nation and we must entrust those individuals with many things...National security being a very important example. And while I disagree with those who are anti-war, I believe that they have a right to protest, even though I am convinced those protests are helping our enemies. One must look into his or her own heart to determine whether their actions are detrimental to our war effort. Political correctness has made it too easy to allow protests to go unfettered, so the self-policing of protestors is the best hope we have.
And then there is Cindy. Today it was reported that she not only wants the US out of Iraq, she also wants Israel out of Palestine, although there really isn't a "Palestine." She won't pay any income taxes until George Bush (who "killed" her son) gives him back. And she also wants "these people" tried for war crimes, sent to jail, impeached, or any combination of the three. What does this have to do with grieving? How will this bring her son back? How does this honor his memory?
Cindy, whether willingly or not, is now just part of the anti-war establishment. You know, the far left. The extreme element that will always "blame America first". It is cliche, but true. This element of America feels that their cause is so noble and just, that they make a gigantic spectacle of their actions and [apparently] feel no regret about the potential negative impact that their actions may have, either to today's soldiers, or tomorrow's, or to any American in the future.
I do not feel we should "cut and run" as so many do at this time. Surrender does not seem to be a logical option to me. We can debate policy, we can question pre-war intelligence, we can accuse the President of lying, or we can unite, as a nation, and get the job done. Iraq or no Iraq, terrorism is a way of life. Getting US troops out of Iraq or the Israelis out of "Palestine" will not stop terrorism. Appeasement may appear to work for a time, but then another attack will be blamed on another president because it happened on "his watch." We need to abandon the rhetoric and decide, do we have the will to fight or not? If we say no today, will we have the strength to say yes when another attack on our soil takes place? Or will we just protest and hope that terrorist go away? Perhaps we can just surrender altogether.
To that, I say no, fight on.
Give war a chance.
As I stated just yesterday, I happen to agree with the war in Iraq. I view it as a front and battleground on what is a much larger (and will be a much longer) war. There is obviously erosion on this sentiment from many areas of our societal and political spectrum. Even conservatives are getting squeamish about Iraq and , to me, that means they are squeamish about the war on terror in general.
That brings me to the Cindy Sheehan situation. I will not comment on her initial motives for protesting. She lost her son (in an honorable cause in my estimation) and she is upset and wishes to get answers as to why. Unfortunately, many people may want "answers", but as a representative republic, we elect individuals to provide for us as a nation and we must entrust those individuals with many things...National security being a very important example. And while I disagree with those who are anti-war, I believe that they have a right to protest, even though I am convinced those protests are helping our enemies. One must look into his or her own heart to determine whether their actions are detrimental to our war effort. Political correctness has made it too easy to allow protests to go unfettered, so the self-policing of protestors is the best hope we have.
And then there is Cindy. Today it was reported that she not only wants the US out of Iraq, she also wants Israel out of Palestine, although there really isn't a "Palestine." She won't pay any income taxes until George Bush (who "killed" her son) gives him back. And she also wants "these people" tried for war crimes, sent to jail, impeached, or any combination of the three. What does this have to do with grieving? How will this bring her son back? How does this honor his memory?
Cindy, whether willingly or not, is now just part of the anti-war establishment. You know, the far left. The extreme element that will always "blame America first". It is cliche, but true. This element of America feels that their cause is so noble and just, that they make a gigantic spectacle of their actions and [apparently] feel no regret about the potential negative impact that their actions may have, either to today's soldiers, or tomorrow's, or to any American in the future.
I do not feel we should "cut and run" as so many do at this time. Surrender does not seem to be a logical option to me. We can debate policy, we can question pre-war intelligence, we can accuse the President of lying, or we can unite, as a nation, and get the job done. Iraq or no Iraq, terrorism is a way of life. Getting US troops out of Iraq or the Israelis out of "Palestine" will not stop terrorism. Appeasement may appear to work for a time, but then another attack will be blamed on another president because it happened on "his watch." We need to abandon the rhetoric and decide, do we have the will to fight or not? If we say no today, will we have the strength to say yes when another attack on our soil takes place? Or will we just protest and hope that terrorist go away? Perhaps we can just surrender altogether.
To that, I say no, fight on.
Give war a chance.
Sunday, August 14, 2005
Give War a Chance
There is talk pretty much anywhere and everywhere about the war in Iraq. There is a protest in Crawford, Texas by Cindy Sheehan who wants to speak with President Bush because she feels that he killed her son. There are many from all political walks of life who want to call Iraq a quagmire (to quote Teddy Kennedy) and much of the left and the media in this country would like it to be the next Vietnam.
As a nation, the United States is built on the tradition that everyone has freedom of speech. That freedom obviously leads to dissent which can (and is) broadcast far and wide in today's instant information age. There is debate about who really supports the troops and how best to support them. There is dissent about Iraq and its relationship to the war on terror. You can find justification (or lack thereof) almost anywhere and be convincing in your argument, pro or con. But one thing that even stalwarts of support for the war seem to not have the stomach for is the fact that war, while a part of history, is bad. There have been many wars involving many people and for many reasons. Yet, today we feel that all wars should be quick and painless, but we really never seem to discuss whether they be complete.
I will start out by saying that I support the war in Iraq. I feel that regardless of how we got there, we should be willing to fight now that we are there. I even think we should fight on a bit larger scale. That decision is not mine to make, however, and I am fine with leaving that to the professionals. I am also fine with dissenters although I am very uncertain of many people's motives for their dissent. I think that a completely united front in this country would serve us well. Shortly after 9/11/01, President Bush addressed the nation and explained that the overall war on terror would be long. He said that sometimes we would see the results, instantly as we prefer. But, he also said that at times there may be nothing to report and results might seem slow in coming, if not absent altogether. That brings us to today.
There seems to be a fair amount of debate about how we only hear the bad things about Iraq. Death and destruction sell and mayhem will always trump footage of the day-to-day lives of any people who are going about their routine business. That is probably why the evening news always reports something bad about Iraq. And since Vietnam, the "glamour" of war is certainly absent in Americans' lives. Not to call war glamorous, but the unified patriotism is not what is was in say, WWII. But why? Was war not terrible then?
I have read that al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden specifically feel that America is weak. He [allegedly] has made these comments based on years and years of our being weak in response to attacks on us. Going back to the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, that case could definitely be made. Perhaps our devastating military supremacy is technologically overpowering, but perhaps our will to fight is every bit as underwhelming as the radical Islamists feel it is. And to go a step further, perhaps our ability to dissent is the very thing that those same radicals wish to capitalize on; to bring the political extremes in a free society to blows, so-to-speak, and to undermine our ability to fight by dividing and dissolving the support of the conflict we are engaged in. Like it or not, we are at war and the stakes are much, much too high to not take it seriously.
Politicians, demonstrators, and armchair quarterbacks all seem to want the quick victory that our military power can produce. But we want those things without collateral damage. We want them with no American casualties. We want them with a low price tag. Bombings in other countries serve to separate us from our allies and any nations brave enough to fight for freedom. The political forces against war rise up and demand that we "cut and run". Demonstrators in this country do the very same. Many of our elected officials clamor for an exit strategy and most of the media broadcasts these messages. We are being defeated before our very eyes, but no one seems to see that.
This war, the war on terror, is not like WWII. It is not against specific nations, yet the enemy is still after the same thing, world domination. The USA is one very large obstacle in the way. Whether you agree with Iraq or not, the "insurgency" seems to be backed (at least in part) by the very terrorists that we want to defeat. Still, we argue over the reasons for the war, why we are still there, what it has to do with 9/11, and whether America is safer now. You may have (and argue) your opinion on those issues all you want. As I said previously, I support the war in Iraq because I see it as a small part of the war on terror...a battle at the beginning of that war. I believe that this war will be a long and protracted conflict. Unfortunately, I think it could last beyond my lifetime. I even think that, if we are not careful and dedicated to winning, it could end up in the streets of America yet again and with more frequency. And while I will fully defend the right of anyone to offer a dissenting opinion, I think that we should clearly think about and understand what giving up on the war could mean and what the consequences of surrendering this fight could lead to in this country...perhaps not tomorrow, but far into the future. Had we given up in WWII, what would that future...today...have left for us?
Let us stay the course and fight for freedom on any battlefield necessary in order to preserve our way of life, including the option of dissent. Give war a chance.
As a nation, the United States is built on the tradition that everyone has freedom of speech. That freedom obviously leads to dissent which can (and is) broadcast far and wide in today's instant information age. There is debate about who really supports the troops and how best to support them. There is dissent about Iraq and its relationship to the war on terror. You can find justification (or lack thereof) almost anywhere and be convincing in your argument, pro or con. But one thing that even stalwarts of support for the war seem to not have the stomach for is the fact that war, while a part of history, is bad. There have been many wars involving many people and for many reasons. Yet, today we feel that all wars should be quick and painless, but we really never seem to discuss whether they be complete.
I will start out by saying that I support the war in Iraq. I feel that regardless of how we got there, we should be willing to fight now that we are there. I even think we should fight on a bit larger scale. That decision is not mine to make, however, and I am fine with leaving that to the professionals. I am also fine with dissenters although I am very uncertain of many people's motives for their dissent. I think that a completely united front in this country would serve us well. Shortly after 9/11/01, President Bush addressed the nation and explained that the overall war on terror would be long. He said that sometimes we would see the results, instantly as we prefer. But, he also said that at times there may be nothing to report and results might seem slow in coming, if not absent altogether. That brings us to today.
There seems to be a fair amount of debate about how we only hear the bad things about Iraq. Death and destruction sell and mayhem will always trump footage of the day-to-day lives of any people who are going about their routine business. That is probably why the evening news always reports something bad about Iraq. And since Vietnam, the "glamour" of war is certainly absent in Americans' lives. Not to call war glamorous, but the unified patriotism is not what is was in say, WWII. But why? Was war not terrible then?
I have read that al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden specifically feel that America is weak. He [allegedly] has made these comments based on years and years of our being weak in response to attacks on us. Going back to the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, that case could definitely be made. Perhaps our devastating military supremacy is technologically overpowering, but perhaps our will to fight is every bit as underwhelming as the radical Islamists feel it is. And to go a step further, perhaps our ability to dissent is the very thing that those same radicals wish to capitalize on; to bring the political extremes in a free society to blows, so-to-speak, and to undermine our ability to fight by dividing and dissolving the support of the conflict we are engaged in. Like it or not, we are at war and the stakes are much, much too high to not take it seriously.
Politicians, demonstrators, and armchair quarterbacks all seem to want the quick victory that our military power can produce. But we want those things without collateral damage. We want them with no American casualties. We want them with a low price tag. Bombings in other countries serve to separate us from our allies and any nations brave enough to fight for freedom. The political forces against war rise up and demand that we "cut and run". Demonstrators in this country do the very same. Many of our elected officials clamor for an exit strategy and most of the media broadcasts these messages. We are being defeated before our very eyes, but no one seems to see that.
This war, the war on terror, is not like WWII. It is not against specific nations, yet the enemy is still after the same thing, world domination. The USA is one very large obstacle in the way. Whether you agree with Iraq or not, the "insurgency" seems to be backed (at least in part) by the very terrorists that we want to defeat. Still, we argue over the reasons for the war, why we are still there, what it has to do with 9/11, and whether America is safer now. You may have (and argue) your opinion on those issues all you want. As I said previously, I support the war in Iraq because I see it as a small part of the war on terror...a battle at the beginning of that war. I believe that this war will be a long and protracted conflict. Unfortunately, I think it could last beyond my lifetime. I even think that, if we are not careful and dedicated to winning, it could end up in the streets of America yet again and with more frequency. And while I will fully defend the right of anyone to offer a dissenting opinion, I think that we should clearly think about and understand what giving up on the war could mean and what the consequences of surrendering this fight could lead to in this country...perhaps not tomorrow, but far into the future. Had we given up in WWII, what would that future...today...have left for us?
Let us stay the course and fight for freedom on any battlefield necessary in order to preserve our way of life, including the option of dissent. Give war a chance.
Monday, August 01, 2005
Over There
I wish to opine about the FX original series Over There. I did not see the series premiere, so perhaps I shouldn't comment, but I will. Since it is a Steven Bochco production, I am guessing it is done quite well. However, I have just one question...why make a movie or TV series about a war that is still going on?
In today's age of instant communication, I am perplexed by the notion of wanting to do a fictional program about something that is going on as we speak. It might be better for all Americans to see the real story of real military personnel who have been (or are at present) involved in the war in Iraq or in any element of the war on terror (WWIV?). To portray the conflict in a fictional series seems a bit short-sighted to me, if not downright lazy. I am no TV executive, but I am a consumer of TV and I would be very receptive to a real life documentary that followed the lives of US military personnel who are involved in the war. It may even be a great way to collect charitable donations for them and their loved ones. I would think that it must be possible and I just wonder why no one would think to do it. Could it be so that the message comes out the way the producers want it to? I think that happens with much of the broadcast news today.
Again, I have not watched the show, and I doubt I will. I have an acquaintance who is really there right now. He drives a tank. I am sure that his real life stories are better than anything that I can see on TV.
Be safe Mike Hendricks.
In today's age of instant communication, I am perplexed by the notion of wanting to do a fictional program about something that is going on as we speak. It might be better for all Americans to see the real story of real military personnel who have been (or are at present) involved in the war in Iraq or in any element of the war on terror (WWIV?). To portray the conflict in a fictional series seems a bit short-sighted to me, if not downright lazy. I am no TV executive, but I am a consumer of TV and I would be very receptive to a real life documentary that followed the lives of US military personnel who are involved in the war. It may even be a great way to collect charitable donations for them and their loved ones. I would think that it must be possible and I just wonder why no one would think to do it. Could it be so that the message comes out the way the producers want it to? I think that happens with much of the broadcast news today.
Again, I have not watched the show, and I doubt I will. I have an acquaintance who is really there right now. He drives a tank. I am sure that his real life stories are better than anything that I can see on TV.
Be safe Mike Hendricks.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Advice and Consent
The nomination announcement was barely over when the rebuttal by Patrick Leahy and Chuck Schumer hit the air waves. From my perspective, the two were not outlining a plan where they would provide advice and ultimately consent to the President on his nomination. The advice portion will likely turn into a televised session of character assassination, while the consent portion may even bring the threat of a filibuster, when consent of the entire Senate would require only 51 affirmative votes. Even Robert Bork got the courtesy of an up-and-down vote.
But again, the political machinery and obstructionist view of the minority party is up & running, alive & well. And much to the dissatisfaction of Harry Reid who finds the nomination poor timing for the news cycle. After all, it is taking the Karl Rove non-scandal off of the front page, although it might still be on the front of the New York Times. I would not know. I don't read that fish wrap.
[As an aside, there is mounting evidence against the legitimacy of the faux scandal and trumped up 'crime' based on, of all things, a friend-of-the-courts brief filed by 36 news outlets. The 'agent' was likely 'outed' by the CIA itself. But, as mentioned in my previous post, I won't bore you with details. The facts are out there and the truth is pretty easy to see, if you look for it.]
BUT, I digress. So now the big news is John Roberts. He is a very intelligent individual, is obviously qualified, has been complemented by colleagues of both political parties, and seems to be a pretty squeaky clean kind of guy. Barring some bombshell in his hearings (and not a made up Anita Hill kind of bombshell, although being pro-life may be a bombshell to the Left, perhaps even an 'extraordinary circumstance') he should become the 109th justice to the Supreme Court. But, will it be that easy?
Dick Durbin classified the nominee as (and promised the yet to be held hearings will be) "controversial". Why? Will this be another Democrat and left wing attack of the Administration's agenda? Chuck Schumer has already said that he is concerned about the nominee replacing the "swing vote" lost by the retirement of Justice O'Connor. What?
Will it be so bad to have a judge who interprets the Constitution? It is if you're liberal and losing elections, losing ballot initiatives, and the only hope is to break the law and let the most liberal courts "sort it out." Or perhaps the courts can just make the law for you. The left is way off base here because they are so guilty of using the courts in a politically tactical manner. It worries them that Roberts could be another Scalia, even though he could be another Souter. They want to cling to power and they are doing it through the courts, by judicial fiat.
The issue here is the left, but if the roles were reversed it could be the right as well (although many conservatives favor originalist jurists). The pressure of the extremes is dangerous. And the heavy handedness of the minority of the US Senate should not dictate to the majority. The Senate should hold hearings. But at the end of the day they should vote. Hopefully the questions that they ask will pertain to the willingness of the candidate to do the job of a Supreme Court justice...to interpret the Constitution.
And when it is all said and done, hopefully we will get a justice who does just that. Not a "swing voter", but a justice who will do the job at hand. A justice who will interpret our Constitution and not base decisions on international law. A justice who will use precedent wisely, but will not stretch a vague reference in precedent to make the law say something it does not. A justice who is not afraid to defer rights to the States, as they were originally intended to be. A justice who will allow America to be a sovereign nation. A justice who does the job judicially, not socially.
I hope the politics of the situation don't cloud the advice portion of the process, but I am afraid they already have.
But again, the political machinery and obstructionist view of the minority party is up & running, alive & well. And much to the dissatisfaction of Harry Reid who finds the nomination poor timing for the news cycle. After all, it is taking the Karl Rove non-scandal off of the front page, although it might still be on the front of the New York Times. I would not know. I don't read that fish wrap.
[As an aside, there is mounting evidence against the legitimacy of the faux scandal and trumped up 'crime' based on, of all things, a friend-of-the-courts brief filed by 36 news outlets. The 'agent' was likely 'outed' by the CIA itself. But, as mentioned in my previous post, I won't bore you with details. The facts are out there and the truth is pretty easy to see, if you look for it.]
BUT, I digress. So now the big news is John Roberts. He is a very intelligent individual, is obviously qualified, has been complemented by colleagues of both political parties, and seems to be a pretty squeaky clean kind of guy. Barring some bombshell in his hearings (and not a made up Anita Hill kind of bombshell, although being pro-life may be a bombshell to the Left, perhaps even an 'extraordinary circumstance') he should become the 109th justice to the Supreme Court. But, will it be that easy?
Dick Durbin classified the nominee as (and promised the yet to be held hearings will be) "controversial". Why? Will this be another Democrat and left wing attack of the Administration's agenda? Chuck Schumer has already said that he is concerned about the nominee replacing the "swing vote" lost by the retirement of Justice O'Connor. What?
Will it be so bad to have a judge who interprets the Constitution? It is if you're liberal and losing elections, losing ballot initiatives, and the only hope is to break the law and let the most liberal courts "sort it out." Or perhaps the courts can just make the law for you. The left is way off base here because they are so guilty of using the courts in a politically tactical manner. It worries them that Roberts could be another Scalia, even though he could be another Souter. They want to cling to power and they are doing it through the courts, by judicial fiat.
The issue here is the left, but if the roles were reversed it could be the right as well (although many conservatives favor originalist jurists). The pressure of the extremes is dangerous. And the heavy handedness of the minority of the US Senate should not dictate to the majority. The Senate should hold hearings. But at the end of the day they should vote. Hopefully the questions that they ask will pertain to the willingness of the candidate to do the job of a Supreme Court justice...to interpret the Constitution.
And when it is all said and done, hopefully we will get a justice who does just that. Not a "swing voter", but a justice who will do the job at hand. A justice who will interpret our Constitution and not base decisions on international law. A justice who will use precedent wisely, but will not stretch a vague reference in precedent to make the law say something it does not. A justice who is not afraid to defer rights to the States, as they were originally intended to be. A justice who will allow America to be a sovereign nation. A justice who does the job judicially, not socially.
I hope the politics of the situation don't cloud the advice portion of the process, but I am afraid they already have.
A Global War
History generally writes itself over time and often rewrites itself again and again. History may one day describe the Cold War as World War III. But ultimately, I believe history will view the war on terror as a global conflict, perhaps even as World War IV.
The events in London of today and two weeks ago are proof that terrorism is global and that the general objective is to attack anyone with the hope that those attacked will change a political position or policy. With the bombings in Madrid, the Spanish population reacted to the terror and voted for a government that would abandon the war. Now it appears that terrorists would like to target Brits in a hope to get them to abandon this war as well. Ultimately, the goal is to pit everyone against one another and against the United States to be sure.
Since history unfolds in hindsight, it is important to see the problems of the past and apply them to the present, and the future. Appeasement has failed time and time again and we should remember that fact. The world is a very dangerous place and it will always be dangerous. Men, governments, religions, and cultures will always have differences. Those differences will likely always lead to conflict. While diplomacy is preferable to war, there is merit in remembering that diplomacy accomplishes little if there is no threat of war.
The United States is viewed harshly by many in this world. And the Brits, being a staunch and unwavering ally, are being targeted because of it. Let us pray that our English allies be strong and steadfast in their resolve to fight along with us to defeat terrorism throughout the world. And let us hope that other nations that are not involved can view the future with an eye on the past. Let them join the fight without being coaxed into it by terrorist acts. And if such acts are perpetrated against them, let us hope that their reaction is not to appease, but rather to fight.
The future of peace in the world is dependent on the ability to negotiate a universal peace. But let's remember that there is the likelihood of war at all times, especially in the times when all seems to be peaceful.
God's speed Great Britain.
The events in London of today and two weeks ago are proof that terrorism is global and that the general objective is to attack anyone with the hope that those attacked will change a political position or policy. With the bombings in Madrid, the Spanish population reacted to the terror and voted for a government that would abandon the war. Now it appears that terrorists would like to target Brits in a hope to get them to abandon this war as well. Ultimately, the goal is to pit everyone against one another and against the United States to be sure.
Since history unfolds in hindsight, it is important to see the problems of the past and apply them to the present, and the future. Appeasement has failed time and time again and we should remember that fact. The world is a very dangerous place and it will always be dangerous. Men, governments, religions, and cultures will always have differences. Those differences will likely always lead to conflict. While diplomacy is preferable to war, there is merit in remembering that diplomacy accomplishes little if there is no threat of war.
The United States is viewed harshly by many in this world. And the Brits, being a staunch and unwavering ally, are being targeted because of it. Let us pray that our English allies be strong and steadfast in their resolve to fight along with us to defeat terrorism throughout the world. And let us hope that other nations that are not involved can view the future with an eye on the past. Let them join the fight without being coaxed into it by terrorist acts. And if such acts are perpetrated against them, let us hope that their reaction is not to appease, but rather to fight.
The future of peace in the world is dependent on the ability to negotiate a universal peace. But let's remember that there is the likelihood of war at all times, especially in the times when all seems to be peaceful.
God's speed Great Britain.
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Political Hacks
Is anyone paying attention to the 'outrage' being directed at Karl Rove over the "leaking" of the name of an "undercover" CIA "agent". I won't bore anyone with details, but suffice it to say that, a) she really was not "undercover" and had not been so for over 5 years, b) Karl Rove apparently never mentioned her by name and, c) it appears that no 'crime' has been committed. None of this addresses the fact that Joe Wilson's integrity is shaky in the given context. Another bizarre 'question' is why the New York Times will not reveal nor let their reporter reveal (even though she is incarcerated) the source that they used in this [almost non] story. Again, there are many, many variables to sift through to determine if Karl Rove did anything improper and if it was really him who is responsible. But, the elites in the media have already convicted Karl (and the entire Bush Administration) and they are just waiting (and hoping) to obtain the proof.
And then, in come the clowns. I mean, how much ranting and raving can come from the Democrats? Can Charles Schumer, Henry Waxman, and John Kerry be serious? The political grandstanding and 'demands' of the Left is outrageous to say the very least. And they actually want the President to 'cooperate' with them on the Supreme Court nomination process so that we can "bring the country together"?
[Insert a very long pause here. I am at a complete loss for words.]
This is a classic example of the political chicanery of the Democrats and the psychopathic left in this country. They cannot accept the fact that they are not in control any longer. Even if they could, they would never admit that 60+ years of Democratic policies have gotten this country absolutely nowhere. The Republican presidents (and the Republican controlled House in those wacky Clinton years) have lead to the only progress that is quantitative and measurable. And, instead of presenting ideas in the hopes of improving America, these political hacks just rant, rave, and oppose anything and everything that is proposed by anyone but them. And they do this for America? Not my America!
This nonsense has really become nauseating. The vitriol spewed by the Left and the all too culpable media is reprehensible. Facts and truth be damned. And what if Karl Rove did this on purpose? He didn't break any laws, so what has he done different from the Democrats? Oh, I know, he has beaten them (like dogs) at their own game. And the powerless Left can't take it.
It is time for every American to demand more from their elected officials (yes, I mean all of you in the blue states) and demand they conduct themselves as professionals (not to mention adults). It is one thing to have differing views. It is an entirely different thing to be obstructionists, especially when there is no 'better alternative' being presented during this obstruction. Politics has become entirely too 'political' and the country is not better for it. But perhaps Karl is having a laugh.
And then, in come the clowns. I mean, how much ranting and raving can come from the Democrats? Can Charles Schumer, Henry Waxman, and John Kerry be serious? The political grandstanding and 'demands' of the Left is outrageous to say the very least. And they actually want the President to 'cooperate' with them on the Supreme Court nomination process so that we can "bring the country together"?
[Insert a very long pause here. I am at a complete loss for words.]
This is a classic example of the political chicanery of the Democrats and the psychopathic left in this country. They cannot accept the fact that they are not in control any longer. Even if they could, they would never admit that 60+ years of Democratic policies have gotten this country absolutely nowhere. The Republican presidents (and the Republican controlled House in those wacky Clinton years) have lead to the only progress that is quantitative and measurable. And, instead of presenting ideas in the hopes of improving America, these political hacks just rant, rave, and oppose anything and everything that is proposed by anyone but them. And they do this for America? Not my America!
This nonsense has really become nauseating. The vitriol spewed by the Left and the all too culpable media is reprehensible. Facts and truth be damned. And what if Karl Rove did this on purpose? He didn't break any laws, so what has he done different from the Democrats? Oh, I know, he has beaten them (like dogs) at their own game. And the powerless Left can't take it.
It is time for every American to demand more from their elected officials (yes, I mean all of you in the blue states) and demand they conduct themselves as professionals (not to mention adults). It is one thing to have differing views. It is an entirely different thing to be obstructionists, especially when there is no 'better alternative' being presented during this obstruction. Politics has become entirely too 'political' and the country is not better for it. But perhaps Karl is having a laugh.
Monday, July 04, 2005
Independence Day
Better late than never....
After the parades, the cookouts, time with family & friends, and fireworks displays are all a memory for another year, I wish to say Happy Independence Day. This is the day that the bravery and conviction of those who stood up to tyranny and founded this nation declared our independence and chose to shed blood to achieve it. The 4th of July is a date that represents the anniversary of that declaration of independence. Let us never forget the meaning of the day and the reality of the facts of our time; that independence was and is to this day, worth fighting to achieve and maintain. Let us not forget those who have fought in the past, as well as those who are fighting today. And, above all, let us be willing to fight in the future, so that we can maintain the greatest gift of all...FREEDOM.
God Bless America. Happy Independence Day.
The Right Wing Zealot
After the parades, the cookouts, time with family & friends, and fireworks displays are all a memory for another year, I wish to say Happy Independence Day. This is the day that the bravery and conviction of those who stood up to tyranny and founded this nation declared our independence and chose to shed blood to achieve it. The 4th of July is a date that represents the anniversary of that declaration of independence. Let us never forget the meaning of the day and the reality of the facts of our time; that independence was and is to this day, worth fighting to achieve and maintain. Let us not forget those who have fought in the past, as well as those who are fighting today. And, above all, let us be willing to fight in the future, so that we can maintain the greatest gift of all...FREEDOM.
God Bless America. Happy Independence Day.
The Right Wing Zealot
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
What in the Hell is Happening Here?
Does anyone else think that the United States is slipping into the abyss? The Supreme Court (one of my favorite governmental entities) is out-of-control, basically changing and creating "law" on a whim, not to mention changing (or should I say "amending") the Constitution as a majority of nine total sees fit.
Then we have the partisan bickering, Left vs. Right, liberal vs. conservative, Democrat vs. Republican. And exactly what does the Left (or Democrats or liberals, ask Karl Rove to define this) stand for anyway? The Democrats in general, but the Democratic leadership in particular, are negative obstructionists who chime in for the sound bites (from the all too willing media) to question (in the most patriotic of ways) the course being set by the Administration or the "power drunk Republicans". And the Republican answer for the most part is to roll over to this nonsense and spend, spend, spend in the process.
Take the comments made by Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, [Her highness] Hillary Clinton, or anything that Howard Dean might say, public or private and think them over...seriously. Does any American take this crap as anything more than political grandstanding? Does anyone really believe it? How can liberals be so misguided? Don't get me wrong, on many issues, Republicans [note, I did NOT say conservatives] have no answers or believable rebuttal, but come on! Does anyone really believe in the rhetoric and nonsensical ranting of the Left? If you do, you need to look in the mirror, after you pull your head out of the sand.
There is only political and partisan bickering in DC. No answers to any problems. One side vs. the other. The Democrats do a good job of being in the minority. They prevent real progress in order to "stand" for something. "Anti-Bush" is all they really want, besides power...the power to be in charge and seize anything and everything they can from the citizenry.
If you are a "little guy" or truly want to fight for the "little guy" then you need to get over the ranting of the Left...PERIOD. The Right may be for "big business", but exactly who creates the jobs that the Left is so willing to claim are being lost? Big business...CORPORATE AMERICA. Like it or not, capitalism works and helps everyone in the process. The only jobs that government creates are government jobs! Are we to have the government provide for everything? Apparently so. No "privatization" under any circumstances or negotiations stop...sound familiar? That is like the little kid growing up who was losing a game, so he took his ball and went home. PLEASE!
I am fed up with the status quo. I think the time is right for a revolution. Not an armed conflict, but the rising up of a third (or fourth or fifth or sixth...) political party. No "moderates"...just people who believe what they believe, tell the truth, and go on leading our Nation. It is NOT a democracy, but rather a constitutional and representative republic. That is an idea obviously lost on our elected "representatives". Why do you suppose they all fear term limits?
So do we continue to exercise our right to vote? How long until it is taken away by an arbitrary ruling by the Black Robes? Do we hold our representatives accountable? At the ballot box? Or do we demand change? Everything starts somewhere and the future of the good ol' US of A might start in your heart, mind, and soul.
I have been told, you can't change the establishment. Perhaps not. But I also believe in a lyric from the song Freewill by the band Rush which says, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." Should we just let the bizarre rantings of the "elected" rule the day? Or, will we decide to look inside ourselves to rise up and affect change, no matter how small? Choose to demand answers to the question, "What the hell is going on here?" If you don't choose, you still have made a choice that my affect you forever.
Then we have the partisan bickering, Left vs. Right, liberal vs. conservative, Democrat vs. Republican. And exactly what does the Left (or Democrats or liberals, ask Karl Rove to define this) stand for anyway? The Democrats in general, but the Democratic leadership in particular, are negative obstructionists who chime in for the sound bites (from the all too willing media) to question (in the most patriotic of ways) the course being set by the Administration or the "power drunk Republicans". And the Republican answer for the most part is to roll over to this nonsense and spend, spend, spend in the process.
Take the comments made by Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, [Her highness] Hillary Clinton, or anything that Howard Dean might say, public or private and think them over...seriously. Does any American take this crap as anything more than political grandstanding? Does anyone really believe it? How can liberals be so misguided? Don't get me wrong, on many issues, Republicans [note, I did NOT say conservatives] have no answers or believable rebuttal, but come on! Does anyone really believe in the rhetoric and nonsensical ranting of the Left? If you do, you need to look in the mirror, after you pull your head out of the sand.
There is only political and partisan bickering in DC. No answers to any problems. One side vs. the other. The Democrats do a good job of being in the minority. They prevent real progress in order to "stand" for something. "Anti-Bush" is all they really want, besides power...the power to be in charge and seize anything and everything they can from the citizenry.
If you are a "little guy" or truly want to fight for the "little guy" then you need to get over the ranting of the Left...PERIOD. The Right may be for "big business", but exactly who creates the jobs that the Left is so willing to claim are being lost? Big business...CORPORATE AMERICA. Like it or not, capitalism works and helps everyone in the process. The only jobs that government creates are government jobs! Are we to have the government provide for everything? Apparently so. No "privatization" under any circumstances or negotiations stop...sound familiar? That is like the little kid growing up who was losing a game, so he took his ball and went home. PLEASE!
I am fed up with the status quo. I think the time is right for a revolution. Not an armed conflict, but the rising up of a third (or fourth or fifth or sixth...) political party. No "moderates"...just people who believe what they believe, tell the truth, and go on leading our Nation. It is NOT a democracy, but rather a constitutional and representative republic. That is an idea obviously lost on our elected "representatives". Why do you suppose they all fear term limits?
So do we continue to exercise our right to vote? How long until it is taken away by an arbitrary ruling by the Black Robes? Do we hold our representatives accountable? At the ballot box? Or do we demand change? Everything starts somewhere and the future of the good ol' US of A might start in your heart, mind, and soul.
I have been told, you can't change the establishment. Perhaps not. But I also believe in a lyric from the song Freewill by the band Rush which says, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." Should we just let the bizarre rantings of the "elected" rule the day? Or, will we decide to look inside ourselves to rise up and affect change, no matter how small? Choose to demand answers to the question, "What the hell is going on here?" If you don't choose, you still have made a choice that my affect you forever.
Sunday, June 26, 2005
Required Reading; Volume I
From time to time, I will give you some "book reviews" on some of the interesting books I have read recently. I love to read, especially the politically themed books, the ones with a conservative slant, to be sure. I will let you know the ones that I feel are worthwhile, so that you too can be part of the Right Wing.
Today, I will suggest four books, all of which I found to be quite provocative.
The first is American Soldier by General Tommy Franks. This is a very candid look at the life of a great American military mind. His thoughts and strategies on modern warfare will, in my estimation, become the status quo and will be studied by soldiers for years to come. His approach to modern warfare may well be an advancement on par with the radical strategy employed by General William T. Sherman during the Civil War. Likely a new strategy that many will consider in future conflicts.
The most important part of this book is the predictions that General Franks makes regarding the aftermath of the Iraqi conflict. His insight is dead on and could be a helpful primer for the US media, if only they would take the time to consider that almost everyone involved in the war on terror predicated a long and drawn out battle. This is a long book and is very specific in the military terminology, but it is worth the time it takes to read it.
The next two books are political through and through. The first, Enduring Revolution: How the Contract with America Continues to Shape the Nation by Major Garrett is a very good read and very historical in its content. It is a first hand look, from a reporter's point-of-view, at the 1994 Republican take-over of the United States House of Representatives. Garrett is very unbiased in this book and it puts a great amount of perspective on the political landscape of today, and what this country might have been like had this major political uprising not materialized.
The second, Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America by Newt Gingrich is an outline of his positions on various subjects that he feels are necessary to keep the United States strong for the next century. While I do not agree with everything that Newt proposes, I do feel that he has a very mindful eye on the political future of this country and I feel that this is a good (and quick) read for anyone who wants to espouse conservatism, but maybe needs some pointers on how to express their thoughts.
Lastly, I must remark on Men in Black by Mark Levin. This is an extremely important essay on the renegade Supreme Court of the USA and is very insightful on explaining how the high court is slowly imposing its will on every American. Since this book was published, there have been several more examples of the Black Robes legislating from the bench and each and every example is like a ghost of the message that Levin is sending. I think that every American should read this book and think about the consequences of a judiciary gone wild. It could ultimately spell the end of our nation as we know it.
Again, my thoughts on the books selected, not a review, but a suggestion to read for yourselves and make your own decisions on the material and [hopefully] apply the lessons to the way you conduct yourself as a citizen.
Today, I will suggest four books, all of which I found to be quite provocative.
The first is American Soldier by General Tommy Franks. This is a very candid look at the life of a great American military mind. His thoughts and strategies on modern warfare will, in my estimation, become the status quo and will be studied by soldiers for years to come. His approach to modern warfare may well be an advancement on par with the radical strategy employed by General William T. Sherman during the Civil War. Likely a new strategy that many will consider in future conflicts.
The most important part of this book is the predictions that General Franks makes regarding the aftermath of the Iraqi conflict. His insight is dead on and could be a helpful primer for the US media, if only they would take the time to consider that almost everyone involved in the war on terror predicated a long and drawn out battle. This is a long book and is very specific in the military terminology, but it is worth the time it takes to read it.
The next two books are political through and through. The first, Enduring Revolution: How the Contract with America Continues to Shape the Nation by Major Garrett is a very good read and very historical in its content. It is a first hand look, from a reporter's point-of-view, at the 1994 Republican take-over of the United States House of Representatives. Garrett is very unbiased in this book and it puts a great amount of perspective on the political landscape of today, and what this country might have been like had this major political uprising not materialized.
The second, Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America by Newt Gingrich is an outline of his positions on various subjects that he feels are necessary to keep the United States strong for the next century. While I do not agree with everything that Newt proposes, I do feel that he has a very mindful eye on the political future of this country and I feel that this is a good (and quick) read for anyone who wants to espouse conservatism, but maybe needs some pointers on how to express their thoughts.
Lastly, I must remark on Men in Black by Mark Levin. This is an extremely important essay on the renegade Supreme Court of the USA and is very insightful on explaining how the high court is slowly imposing its will on every American. Since this book was published, there have been several more examples of the Black Robes legislating from the bench and each and every example is like a ghost of the message that Levin is sending. I think that every American should read this book and think about the consequences of a judiciary gone wild. It could ultimately spell the end of our nation as we know it.
Again, my thoughts on the books selected, not a review, but a suggestion to read for yourselves and make your own decisions on the material and [hopefully] apply the lessons to the way you conduct yourself as a citizen.
Friday, June 10, 2005
Back in the Fray
I must get back into the fray and voice some of my opinions, but now is not the time. Nice weather and a long list of chores have kept the Zealot from sharing any of his rants.
I will say that the Dirty Dozen (+2), you know the fourteen US Senators who feel that they control the world (and define "extraordinary circumstances"), have me a bit overdone, so-to-speak. I am vowing to unseat my "representative" culprit (Mike DeWine, or as we say...Duh-Wine) in his 2006 primary bid. More on that to come...especially if Rehnquist retires.
And thank God for Howard Dean. Am I the only conservative who feels that way? No.
Lastly, I will end with a promise to be more punctual in my posting and with a quote that I find very provocative, yet dripping of common sense: "You don't have suspects who are innocent of a crime. That is contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect." -Edwin Meese.
I will say that the Dirty Dozen (+2), you know the fourteen US Senators who feel that they control the world (and define "extraordinary circumstances"), have me a bit overdone, so-to-speak. I am vowing to unseat my "representative" culprit (Mike DeWine, or as we say...Duh-Wine) in his 2006 primary bid. More on that to come...especially if Rehnquist retires.
And thank God for Howard Dean. Am I the only conservative who feels that way? No.
Lastly, I will end with a promise to be more punctual in my posting and with a quote that I find very provocative, yet dripping of common sense: "You don't have suspects who are innocent of a crime. That is contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect." -Edwin Meese.
Sunday, April 24, 2005
Partisan Politics and Liberals in the Fly-over Red States
My absence for the last several weeks has been due to many factors, unseasonably nice weather being one of them. But in a few short weeks several major political events have unfolded. Unfortunately, the leftist mainstream media has "missed" going in depth on most of these stories, instead covering the death of Pope John Paul II and the disappearance and deaths of several young girls. After all, death is news worthy. Throw in a few bad stories about the US "occupation" in Iraq and it is a full month of what "We the Sheeple" need to know.
Alas, I have other thoughts.
Three complete outrages to me are the following:
1) The ongoing scandal over fundraising irregularities that surround the Clintons, specifically Hillary. I must admit that I have not delved too deep into this as I see it as still unfolding. My brief comment at this moment will be this: If Tom Delay (or any Republican) were the center of this story, wouldn't it be covered 24/7? Answer that yourselves.
2) The John Bolton nomination along with the constant delays in Bush's judicial nominations. This whole thing is a farce. Adding insult to injury is that one of my elected senators, George Voinovich, helped to slow the Bolton nomination to a crawl.
3) And if the antics of one RINO senator from Ohio are not enough, there is the other RINO senator from Ohio, Mike DeWine. In all of his glorious hypocrisy, he added his name to a federal "assault weapons" ban.
What is a right-wing red-stater to do?!
I guess I will rant and rave to you.
The politics of basically any nomination, hell anything conservative (notice I did NOT say Republican) and the ensuing discourse coming from Democrats (and some of the 'moderate' Republicans...call them RINO's, hell Socialists is better) is making me ill. I can't even watch the TV to see what ridiculous dribbling is coming from the mouths of Ted Kennedy (insert drinking, driving, and diving joke here), John Kerry (hey dipshit, you lost the election and the Democratic machine will never nominate you again), Harry Reid (this guy is the minority leader? God, he's a wuss!), or Nancy Pelosi (guys, this is precisely why you do NOT marry the homecoming queen...this is what she turns into) anymore. I can't even laugh about what they are saying. (Sorry that I stooped to calling them names and insulting them. Hey, I am frustrated.) They really have nothing to say. They are just attacking the opposition in hopes of scoring some political points. Do you think it is going to work?
Voinovich and DeWine are two very pathetic examples of Senators, especially from the 'deciding' Red state of Ohio. I am not surprised at Voinovich and truthfully not really surprised by DeWine, but an "assault weapons" ban? I will devote an upcoming column to the Second Amendment and why I believe in and support it so. But this little gaff will cost DeWine his seat. I am personally willing to lend my support to anyone who will oppose either of these idiots.
But, I digress. What is your point, Mr. Right Wing Zealot? I'll tell you. This country has hit an all time high (perhaps I mean low) with regard to the politics that control it. Now, I am not so naive that I think this is something new. Hell, this country was quite political back in the latter portion of the 1700's when it was being founded. But, back then there were quite a few Statesmen. Today, there are only politicians. And with great technological innovations, "news" travels at nearly the speed of light...okay fiber optic signals. And a multitude of outlets give us all we can process, again 24/7.
So I leave it as a question: Will "We the Sheeple" believe what we are told? If so, told by whom? Will we do our own research and news gathering? Will we get pissed when we hear the things that our elected officials do that we disagree with? Will we hold them accountable? What about corruption? Don't tell me that you don't think after 8 years in Washington that nothing a Clinton did was corrupt. Don't bullshit yourself. They are corrupt to the core.
So, where are we going? I for one think in the wrong direction. "Reform" is mandated by those in control. A perfect example is campaign finance "reform". But the power of those who mandate still comes from voters, all of the K-Street and 527 money aside. Grassroots gets it done. The 2006 elections are a year plus away and 2008 is a long way off. But, NOW is the time to get your research started, get your thoughts in order. It is time to ask questions and demand answers. And it is time to realize that talking about religion and politics can no longer be things that you avoid at the family reunion. Think about what you know (or do not know) about the above examples, or anything that is happening (or not happening) in your own community. The time to start is now.
If we fail to strive for change and a resumption of some semblance of control "by the people", our plight only will become worse. And we can blame ourselves for being stuck with representatives like Voinovich, DeWine, or even Hillary. And the future will hold even sadder days because of our own inactions.
Alas, I have other thoughts.
Three complete outrages to me are the following:
1) The ongoing scandal over fundraising irregularities that surround the Clintons, specifically Hillary. I must admit that I have not delved too deep into this as I see it as still unfolding. My brief comment at this moment will be this: If Tom Delay (or any Republican) were the center of this story, wouldn't it be covered 24/7? Answer that yourselves.
2) The John Bolton nomination along with the constant delays in Bush's judicial nominations. This whole thing is a farce. Adding insult to injury is that one of my elected senators, George Voinovich, helped to slow the Bolton nomination to a crawl.
3) And if the antics of one RINO senator from Ohio are not enough, there is the other RINO senator from Ohio, Mike DeWine. In all of his glorious hypocrisy, he added his name to a federal "assault weapons" ban.
What is a right-wing red-stater to do?!
I guess I will rant and rave to you.
The politics of basically any nomination, hell anything conservative (notice I did NOT say Republican) and the ensuing discourse coming from Democrats (and some of the 'moderate' Republicans...call them RINO's, hell Socialists is better) is making me ill. I can't even watch the TV to see what ridiculous dribbling is coming from the mouths of Ted Kennedy (insert drinking, driving, and diving joke here), John Kerry (hey dipshit, you lost the election and the Democratic machine will never nominate you again), Harry Reid (this guy is the minority leader? God, he's a wuss!), or Nancy Pelosi (guys, this is precisely why you do NOT marry the homecoming queen...this is what she turns into) anymore. I can't even laugh about what they are saying. (Sorry that I stooped to calling them names and insulting them. Hey, I am frustrated.) They really have nothing to say. They are just attacking the opposition in hopes of scoring some political points. Do you think it is going to work?
Voinovich and DeWine are two very pathetic examples of Senators, especially from the 'deciding' Red state of Ohio. I am not surprised at Voinovich and truthfully not really surprised by DeWine, but an "assault weapons" ban? I will devote an upcoming column to the Second Amendment and why I believe in and support it so. But this little gaff will cost DeWine his seat. I am personally willing to lend my support to anyone who will oppose either of these idiots.
But, I digress. What is your point, Mr. Right Wing Zealot? I'll tell you. This country has hit an all time high (perhaps I mean low) with regard to the politics that control it. Now, I am not so naive that I think this is something new. Hell, this country was quite political back in the latter portion of the 1700's when it was being founded. But, back then there were quite a few Statesmen. Today, there are only politicians. And with great technological innovations, "news" travels at nearly the speed of light...okay fiber optic signals. And a multitude of outlets give us all we can process, again 24/7.
So I leave it as a question: Will "We the Sheeple" believe what we are told? If so, told by whom? Will we do our own research and news gathering? Will we get pissed when we hear the things that our elected officials do that we disagree with? Will we hold them accountable? What about corruption? Don't tell me that you don't think after 8 years in Washington that nothing a Clinton did was corrupt. Don't bullshit yourself. They are corrupt to the core.
So, where are we going? I for one think in the wrong direction. "Reform" is mandated by those in control. A perfect example is campaign finance "reform". But the power of those who mandate still comes from voters, all of the K-Street and 527 money aside. Grassroots gets it done. The 2006 elections are a year plus away and 2008 is a long way off. But, NOW is the time to get your research started, get your thoughts in order. It is time to ask questions and demand answers. And it is time to realize that talking about religion and politics can no longer be things that you avoid at the family reunion. Think about what you know (or do not know) about the above examples, or anything that is happening (or not happening) in your own community. The time to start is now.
If we fail to strive for change and a resumption of some semblance of control "by the people", our plight only will become worse. And we can blame ourselves for being stuck with representatives like Voinovich, DeWine, or even Hillary. And the future will hold even sadder days because of our own inactions.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
In a Nation divided
Now that the unthinkable, yet inevitable has happened, I must make yet another attempt to suggest a few items regarding the absurdity of "the system".
Yes, I am referring to the death of Terri Schiavo.
As I stated before, I think that the correct legal choice was made, given the circumstances. I did not say that I agreed with the circumstances or the decision.
Recently, as this case has unfolded, more and more of the dubious circumstances have come to the forefront. Why none of this information made it into the mainstream is beyond me. (Perhaps there is a media-controlled conspiracy here.) Why none of this made it to the court decision, let alone a criminal investigation is beyond me. And when one hears the numerous conflicts of interest amongst those siding with Michael Schiavo, it is even more of a travesty that this happened. In my estimation, the Schindler's will have an almost air-tight unlawful death case to file. And that may encompass family, friends, health workers, attorneys, and even the "experts" who weighed in. It should definitely include the judges.
The unfortunate part is that, again, the law allowed for the claim made by Terri's husband after his establishment as her guardian to reign supreme. That law must be changed, especially in the face of the conflicts of interest that have surfaced. But to me, regardless of your side, the court did decide and 'We the People' allowed that to be the final decision, or at least the one that attorneys are forced to request a court to hear evidence on and overturn. Again, a woman lost her life because of it.
Politics and morality have been shattered in this case. The alignment of very different political figures "for" or "against" are testimony to that. Again, it is a failed system that performed (again in my opinion properly, albiet likely not correctly) and led to all of this. Nonsense. Tragic and senseless. And it must be changed.
Government bodies everywhere will champion debate on this issue. Special interests will chime in to advance specific agendas. Some will agree and some will disagree. But the debate has just begun. Ultimately, there will be a call for more laws and more government intervention. Reverend Jesse Jackson has already mentioned that this case calls for the resumption of discussion on the need for universal healthcare. He is not the only one who has and will advance an agenda.
The law and the courts did what was "right" in defiance of much more information and investigation. And the grandstanding and posturing have just begun.
Again, is this what we, as a Nation, wish to happen to our rights and freedoms? No matter what position you take on this issue, the debate has begun. And the debate may lead to a loss of rights for everyone.
And a woman died. Have we forgotten?
Rest in Peace, Terri Schiavo.
Yes, I am referring to the death of Terri Schiavo.
As I stated before, I think that the correct legal choice was made, given the circumstances. I did not say that I agreed with the circumstances or the decision.
Recently, as this case has unfolded, more and more of the dubious circumstances have come to the forefront. Why none of this information made it into the mainstream is beyond me. (Perhaps there is a media-controlled conspiracy here.) Why none of this made it to the court decision, let alone a criminal investigation is beyond me. And when one hears the numerous conflicts of interest amongst those siding with Michael Schiavo, it is even more of a travesty that this happened. In my estimation, the Schindler's will have an almost air-tight unlawful death case to file. And that may encompass family, friends, health workers, attorneys, and even the "experts" who weighed in. It should definitely include the judges.
The unfortunate part is that, again, the law allowed for the claim made by Terri's husband after his establishment as her guardian to reign supreme. That law must be changed, especially in the face of the conflicts of interest that have surfaced. But to me, regardless of your side, the court did decide and 'We the People' allowed that to be the final decision, or at least the one that attorneys are forced to request a court to hear evidence on and overturn. Again, a woman lost her life because of it.
Politics and morality have been shattered in this case. The alignment of very different political figures "for" or "against" are testimony to that. Again, it is a failed system that performed (again in my opinion properly, albiet likely not correctly) and led to all of this. Nonsense. Tragic and senseless. And it must be changed.
Government bodies everywhere will champion debate on this issue. Special interests will chime in to advance specific agendas. Some will agree and some will disagree. But the debate has just begun. Ultimately, there will be a call for more laws and more government intervention. Reverend Jesse Jackson has already mentioned that this case calls for the resumption of discussion on the need for universal healthcare. He is not the only one who has and will advance an agenda.
The law and the courts did what was "right" in defiance of much more information and investigation. And the grandstanding and posturing have just begun.
Again, is this what we, as a Nation, wish to happen to our rights and freedoms? No matter what position you take on this issue, the debate has begun. And the debate may lead to a loss of rights for everyone.
And a woman died. Have we forgotten?
Rest in Peace, Terri Schiavo.
Saturday, March 26, 2005
Personal freedom & individual rights
I really don't want to discuss the Terri Schiavo matter. To me, she deserves to die privately and with whatever dignity she can, given the circumstances. However, I must editorialize a bit because of the issues it has led to; namely the social and political consequences that it has created.
First, I start by saying that this could all be "solved" if her husband (if you can actually call him that) would be a man and do the right thing. I do not wish to create an argument regarding my position, but given the questionable circumstances surrounding this situation, his apparent resumption of life without his "wife" and creation of a new "family", and the Schindler's willingness to take care of their daughter, Michael Schiavo should just grant them custody and move on. It would be the decent thing to do.
As a society, however, we must not view this from only a moral point-of-view. Each individual can see this in the light of his or her own morality and likely justify the feelings they hold. The larger issue is how this has been handled by "the system."
Given the the laws of the State of Florida as I have come to understand them, this case has been decided correctly. Regrettably, Terri does not have a living will or any other form of document to outline her wishes. While many call her husband's claim hearsay, what he claims is acceptable and has been accepted by the courts. It may be dubious, given that it took seven years for him to mention it; but, in the absence of a living will and an individual able to communicate, this is what the law provides for.
As the case has unfolded, too many people have gotten involved, perhaps only to advance their own agendas. It has become a federal issue and Congress even passed a special law to allow this to go through the federal courts one last time. People and activists on both sides of the political spectrum (and of life) seem to have an opinion. The debate can and will rage for quite sometime, likely forever.
A much larger problem is developing, though. It is basically the fact that federalism as our Founders intended it is gone. Also, "government" in and of itself seems to be the caretaker of one's liberty. The judiciary in particular has decided an individual's rights in this instance and they have decided that she should be "allowed" to die.
Most of my dispute is with the courts. Yet again, the court system has been granted the status of final arbiter of a case; in this case, an innocent and handicapped woman's life. How far has this country come? Three separate but equal branches of government no longer exist. Nor do states' rights mean anything anymore. The only reason this didn't remain a federal issue is because, regardless of the actions of Congress (which I cannot say I necessarily agree with), the federal courts towards the "end" really wouldn't touch this issue. [Many judicial analysts have claimed this decision was made "so as to not set a precedent."] The federal judiciary has again decided to pick and choose want it wants to pontificate and ultimately legislate on, the will of an elected body be damned. And a woman will lose her life because of all of this.
As I said before, I think that by and large, the "correct" legal decision has likely been made. It has been and should have been a state issue and likely will lead to many states reassessing the laws that they have in place for cases such as this. While like many have said, I think we should err on the side of life, I also don't think that, in a scenario such as this, life should be decided by a court system. The rights of everyone are being eroded in this case. That will be brought to bear by the ramifications it will have in the future. The unfortunate part is that, again the government and especially the judiciary, is dictating our rights. Again, a woman will die because of that.
I wish no ill will to anyone involved. I hope that the precedent that is set is not a legal or political one, but rather a personal one that encourages all Americans to take control of their lives, and perhaps even their deaths. We need to see the runaway stupidity of this whole mess. That without a written document, a life is in the balance and many others will be affected by that, if not ruined. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...that is guaranteed in the Constitution. Erosion of personal freedom and individual rights is what the system has evolved that guarantee in to. And 'We the People' have allowed it to happen. From the many lessons to be learned here, make the most important be to demand responsibility, from your government (all branches and all officials, elected or not) and from yourself.
God speed Terri Schiavo.
First, I start by saying that this could all be "solved" if her husband (if you can actually call him that) would be a man and do the right thing. I do not wish to create an argument regarding my position, but given the questionable circumstances surrounding this situation, his apparent resumption of life without his "wife" and creation of a new "family", and the Schindler's willingness to take care of their daughter, Michael Schiavo should just grant them custody and move on. It would be the decent thing to do.
As a society, however, we must not view this from only a moral point-of-view. Each individual can see this in the light of his or her own morality and likely justify the feelings they hold. The larger issue is how this has been handled by "the system."
Given the the laws of the State of Florida as I have come to understand them, this case has been decided correctly. Regrettably, Terri does not have a living will or any other form of document to outline her wishes. While many call her husband's claim hearsay, what he claims is acceptable and has been accepted by the courts. It may be dubious, given that it took seven years for him to mention it; but, in the absence of a living will and an individual able to communicate, this is what the law provides for.
As the case has unfolded, too many people have gotten involved, perhaps only to advance their own agendas. It has become a federal issue and Congress even passed a special law to allow this to go through the federal courts one last time. People and activists on both sides of the political spectrum (and of life) seem to have an opinion. The debate can and will rage for quite sometime, likely forever.
A much larger problem is developing, though. It is basically the fact that federalism as our Founders intended it is gone. Also, "government" in and of itself seems to be the caretaker of one's liberty. The judiciary in particular has decided an individual's rights in this instance and they have decided that she should be "allowed" to die.
Most of my dispute is with the courts. Yet again, the court system has been granted the status of final arbiter of a case; in this case, an innocent and handicapped woman's life. How far has this country come? Three separate but equal branches of government no longer exist. Nor do states' rights mean anything anymore. The only reason this didn't remain a federal issue is because, regardless of the actions of Congress (which I cannot say I necessarily agree with), the federal courts towards the "end" really wouldn't touch this issue. [Many judicial analysts have claimed this decision was made "so as to not set a precedent."] The federal judiciary has again decided to pick and choose want it wants to pontificate and ultimately legislate on, the will of an elected body be damned. And a woman will lose her life because of all of this.
As I said before, I think that by and large, the "correct" legal decision has likely been made. It has been and should have been a state issue and likely will lead to many states reassessing the laws that they have in place for cases such as this. While like many have said, I think we should err on the side of life, I also don't think that, in a scenario such as this, life should be decided by a court system. The rights of everyone are being eroded in this case. That will be brought to bear by the ramifications it will have in the future. The unfortunate part is that, again the government and especially the judiciary, is dictating our rights. Again, a woman will die because of that.
I wish no ill will to anyone involved. I hope that the precedent that is set is not a legal or political one, but rather a personal one that encourages all Americans to take control of their lives, and perhaps even their deaths. We need to see the runaway stupidity of this whole mess. That without a written document, a life is in the balance and many others will be affected by that, if not ruined. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...that is guaranteed in the Constitution. Erosion of personal freedom and individual rights is what the system has evolved that guarantee in to. And 'We the People' have allowed it to happen. From the many lessons to be learned here, make the most important be to demand responsibility, from your government (all branches and all officials, elected or not) and from yourself.
God speed Terri Schiavo.
Sunday, March 06, 2005
The Danger of the Black Robes
I can preach on and on about this subject, but there are so many good columns on the web regarding it at present that I likely cannot be too enlightening. Also, there are several excellent books out right now. Men in Black by Mark Levin appears to be one of the best, although I have yet to read it.
Suffice it to say, however, I have a point (or two) to make.
The first point is that there are those in this country (and apparently Justice Kennedy is among them) that view the Constitution as a "living document". It is not. I am baffled at how anyone with any intellectual dignity tries to make another believe that. How many laws do we have in the United States? My answer is too many, but that is not the point. The legislative process has run amuck, BUT the acid test has always been the constitutionality of any law. A new law is forced to measure up against the Constitution...the standard. You cannot change that standard. It is the original idea, the foundation. I can admit that other ideas (or laws) could be fashioned from it, and perhaps there is merit to a "new interpretation" based on a new law. That, however, does not provide for changing the basic meaning of the Constitution. Truthfully, we have too many laws in my estimation. And we cannot seem to enforce any of them. A catastrophe like a school shooting always seems to lead to the need for new laws and never the enforcement of the good, basic laws we have. But when we begin reaching for the "living" interpretation of the Constitution so as to make it "hip" to today's thinking, we are on the wrong path.
Even worse, however, is the use of foreign law and precedent, in judgments by the Supreme Court of the United States. Where in the Constitution does it say that we should check out what the neighbors think (and how they act) when we decide how we should conduct ourselves? This my conservative friends (and you liberals, too) is flat out wrong and dangerous. We do not live in the European Union. The United Nations is not our government. It is way past time that ALL Americans begin to think this over. Our Constitution was smartly crafted by many scholarly men who realized that sovereignty was important and that the rule of law was essential in maintaining order. That order leads to prosperity and "the pursuit of happiness" that we are all guaranteed. That is (I'm sure) one reason that they made the process of amending the Constitution so difficult.
Now, we have the Black Robes amending it from the bench. This is a pivotal time in history my friends. Imposition of law by as few as five non-elected, non-replaceable individuals is patently dangerous to our freedoms. Let not you leftists think that they could not reinterpret your favorite views. Does McCain-Feingold (or the yet to be released McCain-Feingold II) ring any bells? It should.
We are at a point in American history where the tax burden on individuals is oppressive and getting worse. (Not just income or payroll taxes, do your homework. See how much tax is built into the purchase price of your favorite items...even food items that are supposedly not taxed.) We have a total lack of caring regarding the flood of illegal aliens into our country. Hell, many of us want to give them rights, not to mention various freebies that the American taxpayer is forced to fund. And now we have the Supreme Court basically deciding whatever the hell it wants regarding pretty much anything it decides to review. (Don't miss the "decides to review" point. Remember, the Black Robes can turn cases and challenges away, so they really are in a position to pick and choose what they want to impose on us.) Is that the country that the Founding Fathers envisioned? Is that the country that you as an American wish this nation become? Do we want a "living" document as the foundation of our laws? Do we really want foreign interpretation of anything to be of influence here? I think not.
The time is now to demand otherwise. Term-limits on the Supreme Court are essential. Now that is an amendment worth passing. Until then, demand that your legislators demand study and interpretation of our laws be used in decisions, not the political climate of near-socialist Europe. Push for impeachment of judges and tell Congress that the Senate needs to stop the filibuster charade regarding judicial nominees where a minority of sore-losers are adding further disarray to a volatile situation. If nothing else, do it for the children because their futures may really depend on it.
Suffice it to say, however, I have a point (or two) to make.
The first point is that there are those in this country (and apparently Justice Kennedy is among them) that view the Constitution as a "living document". It is not. I am baffled at how anyone with any intellectual dignity tries to make another believe that. How many laws do we have in the United States? My answer is too many, but that is not the point. The legislative process has run amuck, BUT the acid test has always been the constitutionality of any law. A new law is forced to measure up against the Constitution...the standard. You cannot change that standard. It is the original idea, the foundation. I can admit that other ideas (or laws) could be fashioned from it, and perhaps there is merit to a "new interpretation" based on a new law. That, however, does not provide for changing the basic meaning of the Constitution. Truthfully, we have too many laws in my estimation. And we cannot seem to enforce any of them. A catastrophe like a school shooting always seems to lead to the need for new laws and never the enforcement of the good, basic laws we have. But when we begin reaching for the "living" interpretation of the Constitution so as to make it "hip" to today's thinking, we are on the wrong path.
Even worse, however, is the use of foreign law and precedent, in judgments by the Supreme Court of the United States. Where in the Constitution does it say that we should check out what the neighbors think (and how they act) when we decide how we should conduct ourselves? This my conservative friends (and you liberals, too) is flat out wrong and dangerous. We do not live in the European Union. The United Nations is not our government. It is way past time that ALL Americans begin to think this over. Our Constitution was smartly crafted by many scholarly men who realized that sovereignty was important and that the rule of law was essential in maintaining order. That order leads to prosperity and "the pursuit of happiness" that we are all guaranteed. That is (I'm sure) one reason that they made the process of amending the Constitution so difficult.
Now, we have the Black Robes amending it from the bench. This is a pivotal time in history my friends. Imposition of law by as few as five non-elected, non-replaceable individuals is patently dangerous to our freedoms. Let not you leftists think that they could not reinterpret your favorite views. Does McCain-Feingold (or the yet to be released McCain-Feingold II) ring any bells? It should.
We are at a point in American history where the tax burden on individuals is oppressive and getting worse. (Not just income or payroll taxes, do your homework. See how much tax is built into the purchase price of your favorite items...even food items that are supposedly not taxed.) We have a total lack of caring regarding the flood of illegal aliens into our country. Hell, many of us want to give them rights, not to mention various freebies that the American taxpayer is forced to fund. And now we have the Supreme Court basically deciding whatever the hell it wants regarding pretty much anything it decides to review. (Don't miss the "decides to review" point. Remember, the Black Robes can turn cases and challenges away, so they really are in a position to pick and choose what they want to impose on us.) Is that the country that the Founding Fathers envisioned? Is that the country that you as an American wish this nation become? Do we want a "living" document as the foundation of our laws? Do we really want foreign interpretation of anything to be of influence here? I think not.
The time is now to demand otherwise. Term-limits on the Supreme Court are essential. Now that is an amendment worth passing. Until then, demand that your legislators demand study and interpretation of our laws be used in decisions, not the political climate of near-socialist Europe. Push for impeachment of judges and tell Congress that the Senate needs to stop the filibuster charade regarding judicial nominees where a minority of sore-losers are adding further disarray to a volatile situation. If nothing else, do it for the children because their futures may really depend on it.
Sunday, February 20, 2005
Legal immigration, guest workers, and a closed and guarded border
For 15 years I have been a professional. For 13+ of those 15 I have worked for a regional Midwestern company. I have had the opportunity to hire many employees. When a new employee is hired, one of several items of paperwork that we do is to fill out an I-9 form. An I-9 form is officially an 'Employment Eligibility Form' which is distributed by the Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service. (I believe the official form number is OMB No. 1115-0136, but don't quote me.) This form requires one or several combinations of identification to establish an employee's legal right to work in the United States. There are many acceptable forms of identification which I will not list here, but believe me when I say that it would be nearly impossible for anyone who is legal to not be able to produce an item on the list.
So where am I going with all of this?
This country is suffering from porous borders and a steady influx of aliens that we cannot identify, track, and, were it up to many in our society, incarcerate (unless of course we give them all of the legal rights that are afforded a REAL US citizen). Excuse me for being blunt, but that is bullshit.
While I realize that this world has become global in many ways, especially economically, I think that Americans had better be vigilant in guarding the sovereignty of the United States of America. We don't not need to seek a permission slip from the UN or any foreign entity to do what is in our best interest. What we do need is for the American public to wake up and realize that we need to establish what our best interests are. They are not necessarily global, and they had better never become something that is suggested by or in the interest of the United Nations. Again, those of you in the center, pay attention. Those on the Left have already decided that we should abandon our sovereignty. Unfortunately, most in Washington DC have decided that the voting base that illegal aliens could provide far outweighs anything that could be perceived as a national interest.
So, what do we do?
I am not against immigration or guest workers , etc., etc. I am against the free flow of pretty much anyone into this country. And, I believe that we must require US citizenship of anyone who wishes to come here for good. (I defer to Bill O'Reilly on the first point and Newt Gingrich on the second. Watch Bill's show and read Newt's most recent book, they spell it out as well as I can.) But how can we stop this?
First, we must get serious about closing and guarding the border. That is a simple fact. Politicians argue it, but they do not have the average citizen's best interest in mind. Regardless of party affiliation, they are worried about votes. Americans must clamor for this and it must become reality. If Mexican President Fox had his way, Mexico would basically become the 51st state and we would bail that country out of its financial and societal woes. I hate to say it, but we may have to fight an armed conflict to stop it if Americans don't wake up.
So, once we close the borders, then what. Well, we can use the old I-9 form to hold employers accountable for employing aliens. This won't stop "guest workers", the kind that George Bush insists are ok if they do the jobs that no other Americans will do (although, I am all for giving those jobs to welfare recipients). If we maintain control over student visas and the like and actually keep track of the coming, goings, and goings-on while in the United States of any non-citizens, then we have a chance to keep America safe.
So back to employers. If they employ an illegal, the employer will be fined $10,000 per worker, per incident. No negotiating. The illegal would not be incarcerated, but given a choice of getting into a proper program and receiving proper documentation or getting sent back to from where ever they came. Temporary workers could remain temporary. Someone who really wants to stay could get put on the path to legal citizenship. The only requirement for the illegal would be to check in periodically to a representative of INS to be sure they are doing as they have selected. It may sound like a visit to a parole officer, but that is too bad. Remember, they are illegal. They got caught as an illegal. We are being compassionate and giving them a choice as to what their legal status will be. That is not too much to ask.
So, now all of those in the food service industry and construction are freaking out. Again, too bad. We are assuming that we can close the borders and not have this dilemma. But the enforcement might just have to start prior to the slow down of the influx of these illegal aliens. BE PROACTIVE. You can fill out the I-9 and set up a potential employee who is not legal. My guess is that we could even find a tax credit for businesses that get on board. But remember, the penalty for having illegals in your business will be $10,000 each, period. It is designed to cripple your business if you are non-compliant. I am not for that crippling effect, unless you as a business owner are not with the program. Then, you too are breaking the law and there needs to be consequences to that. If we (pay attention DC) are serious about this problem, there are many ways that we can force change. We can require documentation and we can keep tabs on those documented "visitors". That will in no way prevent them from being here and the "system" as it is now would really not have to change. We just need to have everyone comply with laws that are already in place and we need enforcement of those laws. It can be done, and I am proof-positive of that.
Like pretty much any other issue in America, we need less (how about zero) political grandstanding and a serious debate, plan, and implementation of said plan. Believe it or not, like it or not, this is an issue that is serious and could be catastrophic if not addressed. We can use the "guest workers" in the best way possible. We can make strides towards eliminating those amongst us who might do us harm. We could accept immigrants the way the United States always has and eventually welcome them as proud naturalized citizens if they choose to become citizens. But we must be proactive. That must start somewhere. That somewhere is on our borders and in our places of business. We do not need wrong-headed politicians or misguided World organizations telling us what to do. We need to address the situation ourselves and be serious about doing so. No short-cuts or exceptions should be made. The future will likely depend on it.
So where am I going with all of this?
This country is suffering from porous borders and a steady influx of aliens that we cannot identify, track, and, were it up to many in our society, incarcerate (unless of course we give them all of the legal rights that are afforded a REAL US citizen). Excuse me for being blunt, but that is bullshit.
While I realize that this world has become global in many ways, especially economically, I think that Americans had better be vigilant in guarding the sovereignty of the United States of America. We don't not need to seek a permission slip from the UN or any foreign entity to do what is in our best interest. What we do need is for the American public to wake up and realize that we need to establish what our best interests are. They are not necessarily global, and they had better never become something that is suggested by or in the interest of the United Nations. Again, those of you in the center, pay attention. Those on the Left have already decided that we should abandon our sovereignty. Unfortunately, most in Washington DC have decided that the voting base that illegal aliens could provide far outweighs anything that could be perceived as a national interest.
So, what do we do?
I am not against immigration or guest workers , etc., etc. I am against the free flow of pretty much anyone into this country. And, I believe that we must require US citizenship of anyone who wishes to come here for good. (I defer to Bill O'Reilly on the first point and Newt Gingrich on the second. Watch Bill's show and read Newt's most recent book, they spell it out as well as I can.) But how can we stop this?
First, we must get serious about closing and guarding the border. That is a simple fact. Politicians argue it, but they do not have the average citizen's best interest in mind. Regardless of party affiliation, they are worried about votes. Americans must clamor for this and it must become reality. If Mexican President Fox had his way, Mexico would basically become the 51st state and we would bail that country out of its financial and societal woes. I hate to say it, but we may have to fight an armed conflict to stop it if Americans don't wake up.
So, once we close the borders, then what. Well, we can use the old I-9 form to hold employers accountable for employing aliens. This won't stop "guest workers", the kind that George Bush insists are ok if they do the jobs that no other Americans will do (although, I am all for giving those jobs to welfare recipients). If we maintain control over student visas and the like and actually keep track of the coming, goings, and goings-on while in the United States of any non-citizens, then we have a chance to keep America safe.
So back to employers. If they employ an illegal, the employer will be fined $10,000 per worker, per incident. No negotiating. The illegal would not be incarcerated, but given a choice of getting into a proper program and receiving proper documentation or getting sent back to from where ever they came. Temporary workers could remain temporary. Someone who really wants to stay could get put on the path to legal citizenship. The only requirement for the illegal would be to check in periodically to a representative of INS to be sure they are doing as they have selected. It may sound like a visit to a parole officer, but that is too bad. Remember, they are illegal. They got caught as an illegal. We are being compassionate and giving them a choice as to what their legal status will be. That is not too much to ask.
So, now all of those in the food service industry and construction are freaking out. Again, too bad. We are assuming that we can close the borders and not have this dilemma. But the enforcement might just have to start prior to the slow down of the influx of these illegal aliens. BE PROACTIVE. You can fill out the I-9 and set up a potential employee who is not legal. My guess is that we could even find a tax credit for businesses that get on board. But remember, the penalty for having illegals in your business will be $10,000 each, period. It is designed to cripple your business if you are non-compliant. I am not for that crippling effect, unless you as a business owner are not with the program. Then, you too are breaking the law and there needs to be consequences to that. If we (pay attention DC) are serious about this problem, there are many ways that we can force change. We can require documentation and we can keep tabs on those documented "visitors". That will in no way prevent them from being here and the "system" as it is now would really not have to change. We just need to have everyone comply with laws that are already in place and we need enforcement of those laws. It can be done, and I am proof-positive of that.
Like pretty much any other issue in America, we need less (how about zero) political grandstanding and a serious debate, plan, and implementation of said plan. Believe it or not, like it or not, this is an issue that is serious and could be catastrophic if not addressed. We can use the "guest workers" in the best way possible. We can make strides towards eliminating those amongst us who might do us harm. We could accept immigrants the way the United States always has and eventually welcome them as proud naturalized citizens if they choose to become citizens. But we must be proactive. That must start somewhere. That somewhere is on our borders and in our places of business. We do not need wrong-headed politicians or misguided World organizations telling us what to do. We need to address the situation ourselves and be serious about doing so. No short-cuts or exceptions should be made. The future will likely depend on it.
Saturday, February 19, 2005
A fair tax system
Much is being made in politics and the media about the fiscal future of the Untied States of America. Depending on your political party or ideological leanings, you have even been "prepped" on what to believe. But what about those who are truly independent, middle of the road, or just (sadly) plain uniformed? I have news for you, the word "crisis" is for real, whether it is politically correct and expedient to mention so or not.
Without going into boring economic and accounting figures that no one really understands (and which are generally always slanted for a particular argument), I will say that if you do a little searching on the internet, you can find volumes of good analyses about Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the like. If you read what you believe to be non-political studies and research and are intellectually honest with yourself, you will come to a very simple conclusion: There is no way that the American taxpayer can or should be asked to pay the bills that our government has created in the last half century or so.
It is a basic fact that the entitlement programs that are in place will eventually cripple the economy of the United States. Again, do a bit of research and be intellectually honest about it. Each side postures and demagogues these issues relentlessly in an attempt to "secure votes" and win over other interest groups, etc. And if you go through a 2.5 TRILLION dollar lean budget, my guess is that every American can find a few items to cut.
We have a major problem here...regardless of political party, the government spends too much. They spend money that they do not have...OUR MONEY!
We can again debate the merits of all of these programs, what should be cut (more likely have increases reduced) and how wrong and evil one party or the other is "to the children". That has been regurgitated past nausea for me, however. BUT, I have come up with a fair solution for everyone. It won't cripple any particular group of taxpayers, won't unfairly award others, and could provide for the entitlements and give-aways that politicians so love, fairly...remember, we are being intellectually honest.
We need to reform the tax system and it needs to be a serious reform. I am not sure of what we would go to, but I feel a flat-tax income tax is the best and it serves my proposal better. Everyone pay, say 15% income tax. We can set up a reasonable poverty level and exempt certain people to be sure. However, we would likely need to guard against fraud in that area, but it is possible. So, we have a flat tax system which would be policed by a lean Internal Revenue Service to catch people who are somehow cheating the system in reporting actual income. That standard could be set similar to how it is done now, where high paid CEO's etc. can't claim artificially low income but have to be in the realm of a "market average". Plus, contractual deferments could be factored in by the IRS (much like the NFL salary cap) so the "the rich" couldn't defer enormous amounts of money to get out of paying taxes (does Teresa Heinz come to mind?). I realize that you may think this is far-fetched, but there are much greater minds who devote themselves to tax reform out there and they have it figured out...trust me.
So what "new" do I have to say? After developing a fair flat income-tax...make extra taxation voluntary.
WHAT?!
We have developed into an entitlement nation. No one looks out for themselves but expects someone to do it for them. Perhaps that someone is the union or another group. But, it is generally the good ol' US Government which is really "We the Taxpayer". So, make extra tax paying voluntary. You make $475k a year and pay your roughly $71k in taxes, but you are truly worried about the baby boomers...drop an extra $25k into voluntary tax and specify the Social Security fund for your extra donation. I would think that the Hollywood types could really get behind this. We could take care of everyone and they could be seen in all of their star-studded glory giving extra and could then use their bully pulpit to tell everyone how great they are. (Research the estimated $50 million that Michael Moore made from FarenHype 9/11. How about a few bucks for the poor people of Michigan, Mike?) But would they really give? A US Senator or Representative could solicit those special handouts he needs for his constituents by convincing a colleague and that colleague's constituency that they should give extra to fund this much needed program to help his people. Not to bash the Terminator, but didn't he just go make this case in Washington DC a week ago? Arnold wants a proportionate amount of what is paid by Californians to go back to California. Well, shy of not paying the tax to the feds to begin with, perhaps a better way of getting this money would be to tap the better-than-well-off's on the Left coast to give that extra to help their own. I know what you're thinking. First, this smacks of "charity" and not a fair tax system. Second, it almost could lead to a return of State's rights (God forbid!) when it comes to governance in this country. What is a true, patriotic believer in limited government to do?
Now, what about the "poor people" and the underprivileged areas? What about them? The true socialists, excuse me, progressives in this country can rally for any cause that they want...remember, it is voluntary. Think tsunami relief concert, all day, every day. What could be better than that!
This is about being fair, promoting the will to be successful (read: make more money), and the eventual consequences that an expanding tax base could provide. It is also about the tax and spenders in this country taking their hands out of the wallets of those they represent and finding real, affordable solutions. And lastly, it is about ending the socialistic process of redistribution of wealth in this country and making those who put up (with our money) shut up and do something real to fix a problem. It is really that simple. Perhaps everyone should write to their elected representatives on all levels and suggest that they think about this, and be intellectually honest as they do so.
Without going into boring economic and accounting figures that no one really understands (and which are generally always slanted for a particular argument), I will say that if you do a little searching on the internet, you can find volumes of good analyses about Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the like. If you read what you believe to be non-political studies and research and are intellectually honest with yourself, you will come to a very simple conclusion: There is no way that the American taxpayer can or should be asked to pay the bills that our government has created in the last half century or so.
It is a basic fact that the entitlement programs that are in place will eventually cripple the economy of the United States. Again, do a bit of research and be intellectually honest about it. Each side postures and demagogues these issues relentlessly in an attempt to "secure votes" and win over other interest groups, etc. And if you go through a 2.5 TRILLION dollar lean budget, my guess is that every American can find a few items to cut.
We have a major problem here...regardless of political party, the government spends too much. They spend money that they do not have...OUR MONEY!
We can again debate the merits of all of these programs, what should be cut (more likely have increases reduced) and how wrong and evil one party or the other is "to the children". That has been regurgitated past nausea for me, however. BUT, I have come up with a fair solution for everyone. It won't cripple any particular group of taxpayers, won't unfairly award others, and could provide for the entitlements and give-aways that politicians so love, fairly...remember, we are being intellectually honest.
We need to reform the tax system and it needs to be a serious reform. I am not sure of what we would go to, but I feel a flat-tax income tax is the best and it serves my proposal better. Everyone pay, say 15% income tax. We can set up a reasonable poverty level and exempt certain people to be sure. However, we would likely need to guard against fraud in that area, but it is possible. So, we have a flat tax system which would be policed by a lean Internal Revenue Service to catch people who are somehow cheating the system in reporting actual income. That standard could be set similar to how it is done now, where high paid CEO's etc. can't claim artificially low income but have to be in the realm of a "market average". Plus, contractual deferments could be factored in by the IRS (much like the NFL salary cap) so the "the rich" couldn't defer enormous amounts of money to get out of paying taxes (does Teresa Heinz come to mind?). I realize that you may think this is far-fetched, but there are much greater minds who devote themselves to tax reform out there and they have it figured out...trust me.
So what "new" do I have to say? After developing a fair flat income-tax...make extra taxation voluntary.
WHAT?!
We have developed into an entitlement nation. No one looks out for themselves but expects someone to do it for them. Perhaps that someone is the union or another group. But, it is generally the good ol' US Government which is really "We the Taxpayer". So, make extra tax paying voluntary. You make $475k a year and pay your roughly $71k in taxes, but you are truly worried about the baby boomers...drop an extra $25k into voluntary tax and specify the Social Security fund for your extra donation. I would think that the Hollywood types could really get behind this. We could take care of everyone and they could be seen in all of their star-studded glory giving extra and could then use their bully pulpit to tell everyone how great they are. (Research the estimated $50 million that Michael Moore made from FarenHype 9/11. How about a few bucks for the poor people of Michigan, Mike?) But would they really give? A US Senator or Representative could solicit those special handouts he needs for his constituents by convincing a colleague and that colleague's constituency that they should give extra to fund this much needed program to help his people. Not to bash the Terminator, but didn't he just go make this case in Washington DC a week ago? Arnold wants a proportionate amount of what is paid by Californians to go back to California. Well, shy of not paying the tax to the feds to begin with, perhaps a better way of getting this money would be to tap the better-than-well-off's on the Left coast to give that extra to help their own. I know what you're thinking. First, this smacks of "charity" and not a fair tax system. Second, it almost could lead to a return of State's rights (God forbid!) when it comes to governance in this country. What is a true, patriotic believer in limited government to do?
Now, what about the "poor people" and the underprivileged areas? What about them? The true socialists, excuse me, progressives in this country can rally for any cause that they want...remember, it is voluntary. Think tsunami relief concert, all day, every day. What could be better than that!
This is about being fair, promoting the will to be successful (read: make more money), and the eventual consequences that an expanding tax base could provide. It is also about the tax and spenders in this country taking their hands out of the wallets of those they represent and finding real, affordable solutions. And lastly, it is about ending the socialistic process of redistribution of wealth in this country and making those who put up (with our money) shut up and do something real to fix a problem. It is really that simple. Perhaps everyone should write to their elected representatives on all levels and suggest that they think about this, and be intellectually honest as they do so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
