My Absence

I have been absent (or say missing in action) from my blog posts and political punditry for quite some time. Truthfully, the negative campaigning and blurred (if not dishonest) messages of the midterm elections left me with so many thoughts and so much "material" that I could have quit my job and just "blogged". Alas, I have bills to pay and, to be honest, was so sick of the midterm campaigns and the chicanery that went with them, that I took myself out of the mix for awhile. (Plus, there was football season and, being the Scarlet & Gray fanatic that I am, the Buckeyes took up a ton of my time.) Add to that a very hectic schedule at my real job and I found time to be extremely limited. That limit of time kept me from reading many good books (although I found State of Emergency by Pat Buchanan to be very thought provoking and Godless by Ann Coulter to be...quintessential Ann) and reading much "news". And let's face it, much of the "news" of past several months has been celebrity drivel, Mel Gibson and Michael Richards' rants, Rosie and Trump's war of words, and Paris and Britney's...well, you know.
At any rate, in about 14 short hours it will be 2007. My resolution is to get "plugged back in" and try to post my thoughts regularly and hopefully even more frequently than I had before. I hope you read them and comment, whether you agree or disagree.
Here is hoping that you had a wonderful Christmas and will have a great and prosperous new year. God Bless our troops in harm's way.

Oh yeah, and GO BUCKEYES!

the zealot, 12/31/06

Danny Glover is a Freaking Idiot

Because I have a real job, I sometimes have to leave gaps between my writing. It is an unfortunate reality in my life and I only wish that I had more time and availability to speak out on the issues of the day. That is my true passion.

I must, however, comment on that idiot, Danny Glover. Danny, as opposed to myself, has a job that, while lucrative, does NOT do anything to further the well being of mankind. He is an actor and he pretends to be something he is not. For the record, I am a pharmacist. I make a decent living and I actually help people.

Anyway, my issue with Danny (and I have had them before; see http://therightwingzealot.blogspot.com) is that this idiot is suddenly buddies with Hugo Chavez. Is Danny really that much of an idiot? I understand the left-wing ideology and, while I disagree, can understand a left-leaning passion. However, “representing” for Hugo Chavez is beyond ‘off the charts.’ Come on Danny, you simpleton, this guy is a dictator in a third world country and is bashing the President of the United Sates of America, the very country where you have made your fortune. Do you really want to be aligned with him? Is your leftist agenda and hatred of George Bush REALLY that strong? Even Charles Rangel (D, NY) and Nancy Pelosi (D, Ca) found Hugo’s comments offensive. Not only did you endorse him, you introduced him.

Danny, wake up. You are either a complete idiot (and that is said with my sincere apologies to all of the other idiots out there) or you are blinded by ideology. Wake up Danny, America is what made you rich and Hugo, Fidel, and the other leftist dictators of the world will only ruin the America dream. Wake up America. We are at war, we are despised, and we need to unite to fight the evil in the world. Stunts like this are beyond foolish; they are insane…and dangerous.

the zealot, 9/21/06

The Rear View...July '06

After a long hiatus, I want to introduce what I will call "The Rear View". This idea was inspired by Thomas Sowell and his columns entitled Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene. The Rear View will [perhaps] be odd observations of current events that I have pondered during an “absence”, but not written about. So, the Rear View for July 2006…

Why did no high profile black activists come to the aid of William Jefferson, like they did for Cynthia McKinney? Did it have anything to do with the seriousness of the crime that either is alleged to have committed? Why does she get the ‘rock star treatment’ from the Harry Bellefonte crowd, but William Jefferson only gets support from his colleagues in Congress…both Democrats and Republicans?

Speaking of William Jefferson…much has been made about the FBI raid of his office. While I do understand the Constitutional implications of this raid as they relate to the speech and debate clause, I also understand that the guy was caught with $90,000 (in cash) in the freezer at his residence. Does anyone else keep that much cash in their freezer? I will consent to the notion that this is still only alleged bribe money. I would hope that everyone else might consent to the notion that, since the guy was ignoring a subpoena, perhaps the FBI had probable cause to conduct such a raid. I am guessing that, given the same evidence and ignoring of a subpoena, I might be the “victim” of an FBI raid as well. I for one think that our lawmakers should be afforded some Constitutional ‘protections’, but this one might be a bit ridiculous.

Speaking of the ridiculous protections given to Mr. Jefferson…how about the way that congressman all circled the wagons around him? Talk about bi-partisanship! Is this what our Founders had in mind when they set out to establish a republican form of government? My guess is no. I think that the federal government has become the ultimate money laundering machine and this case pretty much proves it. Maybe Nan Pelosi is on to something with her “culture of corruption”. Unfortunately, the apples seem to fall pretty close to the tree when it comes to money in politics.

Speaking of money in politics…shy of debating “campaign finance reform”, is anyone else sick of the ongoing attempts to silence the dissenters? It seems that each party wants to keep the other side’s view hushed. Again, I am not about to debate this at present; perhaps as the November elections draw closer. But gosh, most of the ongoing discussion about campaign finance reform makes the gerrymandering that takes place in drawing congressional districts seem almost fair. [Insert overtly sarcastic tone please.]

Back to Cynthia McKinney…does anyone else think that they could “engage” a police officer in the manner she did and NOT be charged, much less not be convicted of anything? As an aside, what about Patrick Kennedy and his “drive” to the Capitol where he side-swiped a few cars? Again, apparently the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree and it is obvious that his mother didn’t teach him how to drive. But, it is standard operating procedure for the Capitol Hill police to drive an intoxicated person home when something like this occurs. I think I might go take a cruise around the Capitol after I’ve had a few martinis and put the theory to the test.

What about all of this global warming nonsense? For the life of me, I cannot believe that so many people are taken in by all of this. I mean, I realize that the political agenda of the environmentalists has succeeded in squelching any scientific dissension, but is no one out there curious? Are Americans so dumbed-down that they cannot think out-of-the-box on this issue? (Don’t answer that.) There is tons of evidence that this global warming phenomenon is likely naturally occurring (if occurring at all) and that human produced “greenhouse gas emissions” likely don’t contribute extensively to what may or may not be happening. I’ve heard that Brad Pitt is encouraging the reconstruction in New Orleans to “go green”. Like Brad Pitt is a scientific authority on anything (see below). I have even heard suggestions that we should eat less red meat to decrease livestock herds and thus decrease the methane that these large herds produce. I am not kidding! Is that an alliance of the left or what? (The Greens and PETA tell us all how to live.)

Speaking of global warming…I will consider that it might be a problem when Al Gore and his hangers-on and all of the leftists who are on the global warming bandwagon COMPLETELY abandon everything that they do that contributes to said alleged global warming (that is allegedly caused by human initiated CO2 emissions). Again, everything. No flights on jets (private or commercial), period. You have to cross an ocean…sailboat. No limos. Get rid of the mansions, not to mention multiple homes. Do a movie where everything is done in the enviro-friendly manner you support. (I guess you’re going to need some windmills to generate electricity. Just don’t build them off the coast of Massachusetts.) And then, suggest a treaty to replace Kyoto that places extremely harsh standards on all nations, not just the USA, and keep these demands going. When I see Al Gore living in a teepee, riding a bike everywhere he goes and truly leaving the absolute minimal “carbon footprint” that any human could possibly leave, then, and only then, will I consider giving up my gas-guzzling pick-up.

Is anyone else perplexed by the “outrage” over Ann Coulter’s latest book, Godless? Ann is just expressing her opinion and exercising her First Amendment rights in doing so. No one is mad at the New York Times for doing [supposedly] the exact same thing “in the public interest.” [Oops. Quite a few people are mad at the Times; myself included.] Ok, nobody is mad at Valerie Plame or Joseph Wilson for their (obviously frivolous) lawsuit regarding Valerie’s “outing” as a CIA “operative”. Man, did they not get the memo that the special prosecutor didn’t find that the “alleged crime” of “outing an agent” was committed? Note to Val and Joe, your fifteen minutes of fame are over…unless the New York Times decides that it is in the public interest to give another fifteen (God forbid). [Note to complainers: I am not a lapdog for Ann Coulter. I just find it refreshing that she is not afraid to say what she thinks and her ‘no holds barred’ style is refreshing in its own right.]

I must end this edition with a comment on the world scene. Why is it that the UN can immediately issue a resolution against Israel and the action being taken by the Israelis in response to the ongoing terrorists’ attacks that they face, and yet resolutions against obvious terror states never materialize? The UN is a non-factor in global issues. It has failed on so many levels that it isn’t even relevant anymore. The UN cannot even support its own resolutions (unless of course it is by US military might). It is time to abandon a failed “institution” and develop a union of nations who will try to lead other nations to a more unified and peaceful world (even if it means it is sometimes done by military force). We need a union of nations that will fight terrorists, rogue states, and corruption (read Oil For Food) around the globe and truly advance a peace. The UN wants global government and control of the masses. I want American sovereignty and peace through superior firepower. Here’s to expelling the UN from New York and being global leaders for a true global good.

God Bless America!

Remembering Those Who Served

On this day, Memorial Day 2006, I wish to pause for a moment and thank all of the veterans of the United States Armed Forces for their service and sacrifice to our nation. Your devotion to this great nation has made and kept us all free and able to do whatever it is we do in the greatest nation in history.
And to all of those serving today, thank you for unwavering service in a time much like the Vietnam-era, where dissenting political views have added enormously to the challenge of your mission. Please realize that many, if not the vast majority of Americans see the big picture and are glad that you are doing what you are doing.

God bless you all and God bless America.

the right wing zealot, 5/29/06

Did We Blow the Dubai Ports Deal?

I wonder what the negative ramifications of not letting the deal to allow Dubai Ports World to operate in several US ports will be. There certainly was a tremendous amount of political grandstanding on this one. A threatened veto from a president who has never cast one lead to bipartisan outcry over the legal takeover of a British company by a company owned by a government in the United Arab Emirates. We all know the outcome and many have speculated on the future results of the outcome. Will we have a friend in the UAE anymore? Has this hurt our standing in the Arab world that is presently friendly to us? What will happen next and how will history judge this decision?

Personally, I think the deal would have been harmless had it gone through. Cargo that is sent to the United States ports comes from everywhere in the world and the real threat is to know where it has originated and where it progresses from on its way here. That is a reason that the argument that we don't inspect enough cargo in our ports is a bit weak. We likely inspect the vast majority of what we need to inspect, based on a container's point of origin and path of travel. Also, most terrorism experts agree that smuggling into the US via containers on ships is not the way terrorists would likely do it simply because of our inspection process. So why the fuss over DPW taking over a portion of the operation of several American ports? After all, they service our Navy ships around the world.

I think it is politics, and I think it is misinformed politics at that. We refuse to profile Arabs in this country under the auspices of protecting civil rights, yet we have back-handedly killed a deal with a friendly Arab government because they are...well, because they are Arab. Did this deal need a longer and more thorough investigation? Perhaps. But, all of the politicos and pundits who came out against it seem to want to retreat from the suggestion that their opposition basically amounted to profiling. Also, where are those who oppose this deal on other issues of national security? I cannot tell you, but my guess is that inspection of those outspoken critics' records would show a bit of inconsistency in the positions they've taken. I even heard that one US Senator or Representative suggested that the American people had nixed the deal because of their common sense, blah, blah, blah. Fine, but I have followed this story fairly closely and I can tell you that a vast majority of everyday Americans were mislead that this somehow would allow the Dubai company to run security at the ports, which is not true. I also can tell you that, like me, I am assuming that most everyday Americans are not experts in port operation. Lastly, I am going to go out on a limb and also suggest that very few Americans realize that China runs port operations in Los Angeles and Long Beach, California.

So, where does this lead? Well, one suggestion was to give Congress "oversight" in all deals involving "infrastructure critical to US national security", or something to that effect. Why, I ask, should we trust Congress to have sole veto over these deals? Do they really know more than us? If we do grant Congress that right, where will it stop? Just think eminent domain for a moment and you may realize how bad that idea could be. Also, why hasn't Congress addressed pressing national security needs, such as closing the porous borders, those who overstay visas, or those who (under the First Amendment) are allowed to spew anti-American rhetoric all day long for all who will listen. That could incite rage on the order of that recently seen in France or that seen in the Middle East over the cartoon flap. Sedition laws have been used in the past to quell such speech. Is it time that we consider doing that? If so, many in Congress will be the first to be silenced. These suggestions lose their appeal when thought of in those contexts, I suppose. But, if we are going to be truly safe, then perhaps we need to take extraordinary measures to be safe. Is it worth all of that? That is for each and every individual American to decide. Once you have decided, maybe it would be beneficial to communicate that decision to your elected officials and hold them accountable if they speak out of turn. Do we want safety at all costs? Or, do we feel the way Ben Franklin felt when he said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

History will judge this decision which seems to me to be mostly political and only slightly practical. We have turned away a company with great experience in running ports because of who they are. In turn, we have a suggestion by some of our elected officials that we may do this to others in the future, essentially leading us to a potentially isolationist position in a global economy. We have shown the world that we can only trust a particular section of its population on the terms that we set forth. The consequences of that will likely be subtle, but far-reaching. And, in the long run, we likely aren't any safer now than we were yesterday. Sound familiar? Hopefully we will make the correct choices in the future after serious and thorough investigation and constructive debate, not based on posturing all along the political continuum. And hopefully history will not judge us poorly on the outcome we have elicited on this particular deal.

I wonder what Ben Franklin thinks?

Of Safe Gun Handling and Sane Responses

I decided to wait for the story of Dick Cheney's hunting accident to die down a bit before I commented. I am assuming the time is now, but then again, some "fresh" Abu Ghraib photos just surfaced, so who knows. Anyway, here goes.

There are many, many rules that go along with hunting, recreational shooting, and shooting sports. Any firearms enthusiast came name them all and will likely tell you what I am about to tell you. Mr. Cheney made a mistake, one that likely could have killed his hunting buddy. There are two safety rules that immediately came to my mind when the story "finally broke". The first was part of Hunting 101: Identify your target. You can never shoot without actually seeing what you are shooting at. It is just plain wrong if you do. The next rule is a basic firearms safety rule: Know your background. This basically means that you need to know what you might hit if your round misses its mark and continues on. You have to know how far it will go and what is out there that it may potentially hit. There were suggestions that Harry Whittington somehow wandered into the Vice President's background and there were some comments and opinions that he was being blamed for getting shot. While there may be some truth to the fact that he got himself into the line of fire, the simple fact remains: Dick Cheney pulled the trigger.

And you know what? He admitted to all of this. He took the blame.

The "story" here really is the fact that the VP's staff apparently left the decision to him as to how to handle "getting the story out" and he decided to wait, assure that Mr. Whittington was ok, let his family get their bearings and then gave the story to a local newspaper [The Corpus Christi Caller-Times] with Katharine Armstrong (the ranch owner on whose property the accident occurred) delivering the account. A shocker to be sure, but at this point end of story.

Wrong! Not even close.

Anyone who is reading this knows the details by now. We all have an opinion about how it was handled. From a purely political point-of-view, perhaps it was botched. I really cannot say. You see, I am not the vice president of the United States of America and I did not accidentally shoot a guy while I was hunting. But for the sake of argument, let us all put ourselves in Mr. Cheney's position. Not as the VP, but as who we are right now. Wonder if we had done the same thing? How would we feel knowing full well that the whole world was going to hear about this eventually? Does this warrant the "delay" in getting the story out? From a political standpoint, perhaps not. From a personal standpoint, you betcha!

First and foremost, everyone in the media appears to have forgotten that the victim in this situation is not a public official and because of that, they have no right to his information. Seriously. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) grants Mr. Whittington privacy regarding his medical condition. To be sure, it really is no one else's business how he is doing. Then, the White House press corps goes crazy about the slow response in getting the story out. Personally, I see it as sour grapes that they were left out of the scoop on this story. No one called them to tell them, so they had to then begin the multi-day assault of Scott McClellan on what they felt went wrong in the disseminating of this story. Some of them tied it to Hurricane Katrina and other issues they have with the Bush Administration. Now that is a leap of faith. Or is it somehow journalistic license?

Then came the "official" comments from the politicos, those wacky Democrats like Nancy Pelosi who tied this to her "culture of corruption". That catch phrase is worse than the vast right wing conspiracy. (SHH. I am a member of the VRWC, but the lefties still think it is a joke. Or do they?)

Finally, we had the likes of George Clooney wondering why no one was fired over this incident, Alec Baldwin ranting and raving on the Huffington Post discussing the civil trial between Mr. Whittington and VP Cheney and then somehow making the progression to Enron and Arnold Schwarzenegger being governor of California, and I think even Richard Dreyfuss chimed in, but he is about as incoherent as Al Gore these days, so I am not certain what his point was.

So what is the story here really all about? Will it become about the need for more "gun control"? It shouldn't, but the anti-Second Amendment crowd will likely get some mileage out of it, to be sure. Will it be about Dick Cheney drinking? Well, it shouldn't because from all factual accounts, his beer at lunch had no bearing on what happened. Besides, what difference does that make? If a liberal Hollywood star had a substance abuse problem and did something stupid, we'd be asked to sympathize. It would never make the 'world news', although Entertainment Tonight and Jon Stewart would likely treat it as a monumental story. And God forbid that we could even think to handle this the way we were told to handle the Bill and Monica story, as a "private matter". No, that could never happen because of Bush, Halliburton, the Iraq War, wiretapping, and tax cuts.

To quote a famous line from Cool Hand Luke, "what we have here is failure to communicate." At least a failure based on the way the mainstream media believes it should be done. We have a story that is really (fortunately by the outcome) not a big story at all. But in our instant information society, it did not come fast enough and also did not come through the "proper channels". We have politics in play in a terribly polarized political landscape and we let this story become big. It took on a life of its own and it crowded out the real stories of the week. The media should be ashamed of that. If anything, they are guilty of negligence in doing their jobs because they decided to "overlook" just about everything else that went on this week. We have high profile liberals using their celebrity to make baseless comments about a guy who has a real job where he doesn't just pretend to be someone he is not. And when that guy makes a mistake, everything else in the world is his fault simply because his policies aren't the same as Alec's or George's. We have a hunting accident that no one involved with feels was a big deal and yet it becomes the "shot heard 'round the world".

The only thing left to say is this: it was a big deal! Mr. Cheney did not identify his target and he apparently lost track of his background. I am certain he will remember this the next time he goes hunting. I just wonder if he will remember to tell everyone or if he will only tell Fox News. God help us all if that is his decision.

A Note from the Zealot

A hectic work schedule has kept me busy the past few weeks, but fear not; more ranting on the affairs of the day is to come. With the State of the Union speech scheduled for tomorrow evening, I am sure that the political rhetoric will soon heat up. I will be there to comment and do my own stirring of the pot.

the right wing zealot

The Farce of the Alito Hearings

I actually agree with Joe Biden on something. The senator from Delaware said last week that he felt Senate Judiciary committee hearings for nominees for the Supreme Court should be eliminated and a nominee should go straight to the Senate for a full confirmation vote. I could not agree more, but my guess is my reasons for feeling this way are a bit different than those of Senator Biden.

At the outset I must say that personally, I think we should know as much as possible about a potential justice who is about to receive a lifetime appointment to the United States Supreme Court. The reason is that the Supreme Court, over time, has been made the sole arbiter of all of the laws of the land. While the Black Robes (Supreme Court justices) are supposed to interpret the law, specifically the U.S. Constitution, quite often they make the law. This is called judicial activism and that is a hip catch phrase today that is applied to a nominee by opposing political factions to stigmatize that nominee (or sitting judge) as being "out of the mainstream" because they are not afraid to "legislate from the bench". Thus they are guilty of creating their own laws. This is an issue for everyone, regardless of political leanings, yet only the guy with the other ideology ever seems to partake in it. While I see citation of foreign law in a Supreme Court decision as a clear example of such judiciary "legislation", I could likely find dozens of other examples of judicial activism. The point, however, is that no one really wants to admit to it but everyone admits, perhaps claims is a better word, that it goes on. That we actually have to have such a discussion is what bothers me the most.

Since his re-election, President Bush has had the opportunity to replace two Supreme Court justices. Part of the process of vetting a candidate is the Senate Judiciary committee hearings which these days are televised for anyone who is interested to watch. If these hearings really meant something, they might be compelling; compelling in content, as an insight into a nominee's judicial record, and maybe compelling enough that the average citizen (who is really the one who should be leery of how a justice might rule) might pay attention and watch. Yet, the hearings have become a platform for the senators on the committee to pontificate, ridicule, and even personally attack a nominee. Most of them really don't even ask any questions. What poses for questions is really nothing short of a sermon (if not even a tirade) by a given senator who hopes the nominee will somehow blunder in his or her response. That is assuming that a nominee really gives a response. Most of the time, the response is little more than a rebuttal to the senator's long winded stump-type speech. Basically, the process goes nowhere.

Since Samuel Alito, if confirmed, will be replacing Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a key 'swing vote' on the Court, the Democrats, backed by numerous far left organizations, tried to be at the top of their game in attempting to discredit, if not even smear, Judge Alito in hopes of somehow derailing his appointment. Joe Biden started out ranting about how he did not like Princeton, Mr. Alito's alma mater. This was in reference to Mr. Alito's membership in CAP (Concerned Alumni of Princeton), a conservative organization which was against quotas at Princeton. By being (in part) against quotas (read, against women and minorities), membership in this group somehow made Judge Alito a bigot. Ted Kennedy (D, Ma) ranted on and on about this, even threatening to shut the hearings (and ultimately the confirmation process) down while he subpoenaed documents pertaining to Alito's membership in CAP. The hearings erupted when committee chair Arlen Spector (R, Pa) reminded Sen. Kennedy who ran the committee. He [Spector] ultimately made a phone call at a recess to make arrangements to get the senator from Massachusetts the documents he wanted.

The most intriguing part of the hearings came during the quest to ascertain Judge Alito's position on abortion and what he might do to Roe v. Wade as a court case. Diane Feinstein (D, Ca) as much as said that Roe v. Wade was her major (if not only) concern going into the hearings. But, the abortion issue was best illustrated by Charles Schumer (D, NY) in his questioning of Alito. As he sat and waved a copy of the U.S. Constitution, he asked the nominee about Roe v. Wade. Judge Alito answered that any potential challenge to the abortion ruling would likely be decided on merit along with stare decisis (or legal precedent) but he would not say that the ruling or abortion could never be visited by the court. Wrong answer Judge! Schumer pressed on baiting the judge to say that abortion and a woman's right to choose were guaranteed in the Constitution. The judge throughout all of the questioning referenced stare decisis but would not say that a right to an abortion was actually written in the Constitution. Ultimately Alito referenced and compared the 'right' to abortion to the right to free speech since the right to free speech is explicitly in the Constitution...it says so in the First Amendment. It was as if Sen. Schumer had never actually read the words in the Constitution and (even though he is a lawyer) had no idea of law as it is written in the Constitution versus a decision long held based on precedent, i.e., stare decisis. Correct answer Judge!!

The highlight of the entire hearing was when the TV cameras caught Mrs. Alito breaking down in tears during Senator Lindsey Graham's (R, SC) apology to the judge for the cruel treatment he was receiving in the hearings. Sen. Graham indicated he felt the process was unfair and an embarrassment not only to the nominee, but to the Senate, and (by implication) the entire country. And like Joe Biden's statements about the hearings, I agree.

I am not a big fan of the Supreme Court because of the ability of the Court to basically legislate from the bench. The abortion issue is tired. It is a rallying cry of the left and an issue that the far right refuses to acknowledge might just be decided law because of stare decisis. (Whether it is a right or not will likely be the subject of debate long after I have passed on.) But, the far-reaching actions of the Court on subjects like eminent domain weren't even mentioned during the hearings. The Kelo decision is one where the Court's view, to me, is flat out incorrect and there should be many challenges to that ruling as far as I am concerned. There will obviously be challenges to presidential powers, particularly in light of the NSA intercepts that the Bush Administration authorized in the post 9/11 era as part of an ongoing war on terror. That issue was demagogued, but nothing of substance was really discussed on the issue. Judge Alito really did not answer because it is a case that will undoubtedly come before him if he is confirmed to the Court. Opponents say that he gives too much authority to the Executive branch. Yet the lackeys of these opponents (lackeys being Senate judicial committee members, predominantly the Democratic ones) just used the subject as a way to pontificate during their time to 'ask questions'. The hearings process has eroded to political grandstanding (by both parties) and outright character assassination of the nominee. Is this the best that we can expect?

The next step in the drama appears to be a delay of a full Senate vote on Judge Alito. Senate minority leader Harry Reid (D, Nv) wants to delay the vote so that Democrats can spend more time considering the nominee. That just equates to more time for attack ads on TV slamming a man who is obviously very qualified for the job. On the last day of the hearings, several of his peers and colleagues (of both political persuasions) came to testify on his behalf. All of them found his judicial temperament acceptable. Yet, we waited until the last day to hear what we needed to hear and what should have been asked and ascertained by the members of the judicial committee in the first place. It is a sad testament to our system, one which (by virtue of a bitterly divided two party system) has become more parliamentary in recent years. I am no fan of the lifetime appointment because I think it only exacerbates the problems we have seen in these hearings. It also allows for the development of a rogue justice because, once confirmed, a justice on the Supreme Court has no reason to not become an ideologue. While justice is supposed to be blind, political pressures have been allowed to creep into our courts. They are almost invited.

The entire process needs to be changed, or this is what we will get. Made for TV drama that no one really watches and, sadly, likely cares about, even though it ultimately affects us all. Until then, I think we need to hear what Senators Biden and Graham are saying. The hearings are pointless and they are an embarrassment, not just to the nominee, but to every proud citizen of the United States.

The Lunacy of the Extremes

What the Hell was Pat Robertson thinking? Does he really believe that God is mad at Ariel Sharon for "dividing his [God's] land" and that is why the Israeli Prime Minister is having serious health problems at present? An even more intriguing question is who are the "...not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of American people...[who] support your revolution" that Harry Belafonte was talking about when he visited Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez? Has Pat lost his mind? Is Harry so far beyond Geritol that we have to start talking senility? Do these guys take themselves seriously or are they just trying to ruin America?

I am admittedly conservative and hold many political views that are on the right of the political spectrum. I believe strongly about many issues because I have researched them and have meticulously thought through them on my way to formulating my opinions. I would likely never be classified as a moderate, regardless of where I might fall on a particular subject. My beliefs are strong, never moderate. Still, I respect the opinions of others and I can agree to disagree on many issues. I truly believe that the political left in the United States is somewhat 'off the hook' of late, however. Be it in Congress, the media, the entertainment elites, or the intelligentsia, those on the left truly seem to be losing their grip. Yet, over a year ago I commented to a relative that the religious right could possibly be the undoing of the Republican Party. Now, the only play in the left's playbook is to do the opposite of whatever George Bush proposes. Take the nomination of Sam Alito to the Supreme Court. He is being attacked as an ideologue and his character was assassinated on the first day of his hearings. Senator Dianne Feinstein has come out and said Roe v. Wade is her only real concern regarding Judge Alito. She wants to know before hand how he feels about abortion and wants to disqualify him on personal opinions, not his ability to be an impartial judge. (More on all of this in a later post.) The left asserts that George Bush nominated Alito to pander to the religious right base of the Republican Party. Assuming that is true then we are back to the extremes, one far left view versus one [perceived] far right view. And the division in America continues.

Keep in mind, I do not oppose anyone's right to their own opinion. I also don't oppose the freedom they have to voice said opinion. I personally believe strongly in free speech. So when Pat and Harry make the comments they make, they do have the right. But, I must find fault in the way they went about expressing their thoughts.

First, does Pat Robertson really believe what he said and, if so, why then did he have to say it in the public domain? Is Pat somehow closer to God than anyone else? Does he really know that God is punishing Mr. Sharon? I doubt it. What I take from Pat's comments makes me feel like he is somehow exercising and expressing some form of divine judgment with regard to Mr. Sharon. Personally, I don't think even Pat is that close to God. Besides, the Prime Minister is still living. My guess is that we can leave all of the divine judgment to God himself. That can be between him and Ariel Sharon, accomplished on God's time table, not Pat's.

Then there is Harry. He is suddenly pals with the dictator, umm, elected leader of Venezuela. He traveled there (with liberal pals Danny Glover and Cornel West no less) to extol the virtues of Mr. Chavez and all he stands for. Well, Harry, I hate to break it to you, but I don't think Mr. Chavez is the man of the year. (And why AARP gave you their award is beyond me. Oh, they are a liberal group as well. My mistake.) My big issue with Harry is not that he makes such statements, but that he (like so many Hollywood types and out-of-power liberals) managed to bad mouth this country on foreign soil. He called George Bush "the greatest tyrant in the world, the greatest terrorist in the world," all the while chumming it up with Hugo Chavez. Now, George Bush was actually elected in real elections twice, so to me Mr. Belafonte has done a good job of insulting a majority of Americans and therefore he has insulted his country. Dissent is fine. Doing it on foreign soil to me is not. Cheap shots and character assassination of the president of the United States is not. You can disagree, fine. But Mr. Belafonte's actions are irresponsible. They are also in poor taste.

The point to me is this...be you liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, be responsible in your comments. Start by being intellectually honest in your thoughts. Do not make outrageous public comments or characterizations based on ideology and lacking in fact. And do not assume because you have the pulpit, as a civic or political leader, as a religious leader, or as a 'celebrity' that your opinion is fact. As as an ordinary citizen...an American...don't let fools like Pat and Harry make your decisions through their comments. And don't be afraid to point out how inappropriate their comments are because you are an 'everyday American', you are the 'mainstream', and your voice resounds as loudly as does Harry's or Pat's.

Welcome Home Mike

There are men and women serving the United States in various places around this world of ours. Some of those places are likely relatively safe and boring. Some are very dangerous and are places where a soldier's life is not guaranteed from one moment to the next. Yet, the brave individuals who make up our Armed Forces follow the orders that they are given, regardless of the risk. They protect us, whether they know us or not. They all have families and they all have something to lose. But they serve, no questions asked.
This soldier just got back from Iraq. It is a very dangerous place. And, it is a place where many think we should not be. I think otherwise because I fear what might happen if we don't fight this war somewhere besides here, on our soil. Nevertheless, this is a picture of a soldier and his dad after he returned from Iraq. It makes me proud to know someone who would serve my country and ultimately me in the manner that he did. Please, think about this before you speak out against the war. People that you will never meet are willing to risk their own lives to serve, to fight, and to protect you and your liberty...today and into the future. Thank God for our troops.

Welcome home, Mike.

the right wing zealot

Why I Don't Care What Jennifer Aniston Says (Required Reading; Volume iv)

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

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 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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.