It never ceases to amaze me the extent to which liberals will attempt to play out their pipe dreams to the point where their wacky beliefs begin to rub off on parts of the public that don't know any better. Through outlets including the "mainstream" media and the "Ivory Tower" of academia, liberals twist and shape their views into words that sound like something respectable enough for normal people to sympathize with. However, what the public doesn't know most definitely can hurt them.
Today's liberal pipe dream of choice is the War on Terror and specifically, the current war in Iraq. Anyone unfortunate enough to stumble upon an ABC or CBS News "report" of the status of the Iraqi conflict will most likely hear the terms "quagmire" and "Vietnam." As all people with a basic background in US History know, the Vietnam War began shortly after JFK and ended shortly before Jimmy Carter. In case you don't know when THAT was, the time period of the war was about 30-40 years ago. In those years, liberal activists all over America took up arms against this unjust conflict in which they felt we had no business. "How dare we stick our noses into what doesn't concern us?" they would say. Well, I'll leave the history lessons for another day. As for the present, the spotlight liberals of the media continuously refer to our present engagement in the Middle East as "another Vietnam" and "another instance where our imperialistic tendencies are trouncing the rights of a foreign people." I'm sorry, I must not have gotten that memo...
Every day in Iraq, the American military gets one step closer to ensuring that a free and democratic Iraq will soon be a reality. As late as March of 2003, only 26 months ago, a tyrannical dictator held the Iraqi people in a death grip of corruption and greed. The government of Saddam Hussein had spent thirty years oppressing the Iraqi people and was postioning his sons, Uday and Qussay, to take over as was the case with the North Koreans. In that case, nothing was done to stop Kim Il Sung and the poverty stricken nation was forced to watch his son, Kim Jong Il, pick up where his father left off. Today, the North Koreans and their undying attempts to obtain a nuclear arsenal pose a grave threat to freedom in the Far East, just as the Iranians pose a similar threat in the Middle East.
However, after the events of 9/11, President George W Bush began to realize the mistakes made by the appeasers of President Clinton's administration. President Bush finally understood that in order to end a tyrant's rule and save a nation, the tyrant and all who follow him must be flushed out and dealt with, not bargained with. By physically confronting Saddam, Bush flushed out not only the corrupt Baathist loyalists all over Iraq, he proved that the main goal of Islamic extremists is to prevent freedom's expansion into dark territories such as Iraq. In the waning months of the campaign in Iraq, when the final divisions of Saddam's elite Republican Guard fell, we witnessed the influx of an astounding number of Islamic terrorists from neighboring countries, namely Syria. In order to prove the importance of this point, let's take into account the normal liberal analysis. They constantly tell us that the forces we are fighting now are people who are upset with America for occupying a nation and are just trying to end our imperialistic pursuits. Sorry, but when the majority of our enemy is coming from countries led by dictators, I'm pretty sure that's just a bunch of extremists that hate democracy and freedom.
Think of it this way; we set out to fight Saddam Hussein and his armies. The people hated him because he treated them like garbage. We defeated them, but lo and behold before the borders were secured, we noticed that large groups of terrorists were crossing and setting up shop in Iraqi cities. Once we could see a democratically controlled government close ahead, the attacks by these groups became more brazen and more cowardly. They started targeting civilians by simply bombing up shops and marketplaces. No longer are they targeting US forces, but rather they are trying to destabalize the future system by picking off Iraqi forces and newly elected government officials. I may not be analyzing this correctly, but if we are the occupying force and are to blame for so much of what is going on, why are the terrorists not attacking us?
Yes, our brave men and women are still dying on the dust-covered battlefields of Iraq, but only in battles that will further help to clear out the more rural areas where terrorists have been setting up bases to build suicide bombing kits. For example, Operation Matador, which just came to a close after about eight days, resulted in the killing of nearly 150 terrorists and the capture of almost 40 more while clearing out nearly all of Western Iraq up to the Syrian border. Enemy forces not killed or captured were chased back over the border and hopefully now it can be shut down for good.
Nevertheless, with so much support from the Iraqi people, and so many good reports coming from our fighting men and women, the media still contends that this war is a remake of Vietnam and that we will come out on the losing side. It is time that liberals stop degrading our efforts to spread freedom and democracy. When will they ever step into the light and understand that what they see as another imperialistic conquest is nothing more than the final phase in the process towards a free and democratic Iraq?
Sunday, May 22, 2005
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
A Judiciary Out of Control
Today, a federal judge set a ten-day restraining order barring a former Oil-for-Food investigator from sharing documents with Congress. This is just the latest in an ongoing trend of questionable decisions from the federal judiciary. Whether it has been an assault on Christianity (no, not all religion, judges have nothing against any other religions), creating new "free speech" rights, deciding a 17 year old who commits a desipicable crime doesn't deserve the death penalty, but if he'd waited a few months he would, or deciding that a casual conversation with a suspected wife-abuser can condemn a woman to death against her family's wishes, decisions coming out the courts recently continue to anger conservatives all over America (oddly enough, liberals think these decisions fit within the judiciary's realm). These cases confirm the fears that have arisen in many conservatives that we have in America an out of control judiciary infested with activists who love nothing more than to "legislate from the bench."
President Bush has made it very clear that we as a nation can no longer sit by while these activist judges continue to legislate from the bench. He has nominated a number of qualified Constitutionalist (judges who interpret the Constitution, not try to change it) judges, only to have the cream of the crop denied the right of an up-or-down vote from the Senate.
Four years and one day ago, Bush nominated Priscilla Owen, a Texas Supreme Court justice since 1994, to serve as a federal judge on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. An interesting note to help explain why Democrats don't want her to serve on this body is that the federal Courts of Appeals are the last resort for 99% of all cases brought before the federal courts. Only a very select few ever make it into the halls of the United States Supreme Court. She has been unanimously awarded the American Bar Association's highest rating of "well qualified," and in her last bid for reelection she was endorsed by EVERY major newspaper in the state. Yet somehow she remains on the nomination blocks patiently awaiting the day when the obstructionists in the Senate will finally give her an up or down vote.
Another case where the obstructionists are blocking an extremely qualified judge is in the case of Janice Rogers Brown. She grew up as the daughter of Alabama sharecroppers and went on to become the first African American woman to serve on the California Supreme Court. In 1998, she was reelected to the Court with 76% of the vote. To put this in perspective, President Bush only received 45% of the vote in California in the 2004 election. Yet somehow the Democrats in the Senate don't believe that she is qualified and deserving of a seat on the federal bench.
In response, leading Senate Republicans have proposed using what has become known as the "nuclear option." This would remove the supermajority requirement to break up a filibuster and make it possible for all judges to receive an up or down vote. However, the Democrats are very much angered by this proposition and are saying that to use the "nuclear option" would be hypocritical since the Republicans filibustered Clinton appointees. Unfortunately for them, that argument is a moot point, seeing as they opposed the filibuster option then but have now come to love it. It is time that the "nuclear option" be exercised and that judges be allowed a vote. Liberals need to relinquish their stranglehold on the only branch of government they've been able to maintain control of. They refuse to acknowledge that they are upset at the lack of elected representation in Congress and that they figure they can sidestep this issue by getting unelected judges to do their dirty work from the federal bench.
- Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution states, "The Congress shall have Power... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
- Article III of the US Constitution states, "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
President Bush has made it very clear that we as a nation can no longer sit by while these activist judges continue to legislate from the bench. He has nominated a number of qualified Constitutionalist (judges who interpret the Constitution, not try to change it) judges, only to have the cream of the crop denied the right of an up-or-down vote from the Senate.
Four years and one day ago, Bush nominated Priscilla Owen, a Texas Supreme Court justice since 1994, to serve as a federal judge on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. An interesting note to help explain why Democrats don't want her to serve on this body is that the federal Courts of Appeals are the last resort for 99% of all cases brought before the federal courts. Only a very select few ever make it into the halls of the United States Supreme Court. She has been unanimously awarded the American Bar Association's highest rating of "well qualified," and in her last bid for reelection she was endorsed by EVERY major newspaper in the state. Yet somehow she remains on the nomination blocks patiently awaiting the day when the obstructionists in the Senate will finally give her an up or down vote.
Another case where the obstructionists are blocking an extremely qualified judge is in the case of Janice Rogers Brown. She grew up as the daughter of Alabama sharecroppers and went on to become the first African American woman to serve on the California Supreme Court. In 1998, she was reelected to the Court with 76% of the vote. To put this in perspective, President Bush only received 45% of the vote in California in the 2004 election. Yet somehow the Democrats in the Senate don't believe that she is qualified and deserving of a seat on the federal bench.
In response, leading Senate Republicans have proposed using what has become known as the "nuclear option." This would remove the supermajority requirement to break up a filibuster and make it possible for all judges to receive an up or down vote. However, the Democrats are very much angered by this proposition and are saying that to use the "nuclear option" would be hypocritical since the Republicans filibustered Clinton appointees. Unfortunately for them, that argument is a moot point, seeing as they opposed the filibuster option then but have now come to love it. It is time that the "nuclear option" be exercised and that judges be allowed a vote. Liberals need to relinquish their stranglehold on the only branch of government they've been able to maintain control of. They refuse to acknowledge that they are upset at the lack of elected representation in Congress and that they figure they can sidestep this issue by getting unelected judges to do their dirty work from the federal bench.
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
"Racism" in America
"If you want to make it in this world, you have to come early and stay late." - Unknown
"The best thing you can do for the poor is not become one." - Reverend Ike
Who are the men who shared these advisories? They are not rich white men from the Upper East side. They were black men preaching to the underprivileged that in order to escape a life of poverty, one must not succumb to pity and self-loathing, but rather to acheive their dreams through hard work. It is to their understanding, as well as many others in modern society, that the primary necessity in making a name for yourself is not the ability to be portrayed as a victim but rather the willingness to get your hands dirty. The problem with the poverty-stricken today is that they don't possess the necessary work ethic, leaving themselves ever trudging through the doldrums of life on the streets.
Having the view that poor blacks should not be helped is not racist, it's interventionist. It intervenes in the lives of these people so that they can stop wallowing in self-pity while taking handouts to get by and it forces them to make a living for themselves by getting a real job and providing for their families through honest means. The creation of a welfare-state by President Lyndon Johnson in the sixties was the worst thing that could've happened to the lower class. Under the system, America has seen the ranks of the lower class swell to proportions far exceeding those that existed when the welfare program was created. What makes this most troubling is that the welfare program exudes so much money to the impoverished that its handouts since inception exceed the total revenues of all Fortune 500 companies combined. That is more than $6.5 TRILLION. This system has been one of the worst-performing programs ever conceived by the federal government, and yet we continue to hear politicans pushing for MORE welfare handouts.
To understand the effect of welfare on the economy doesn't take that much brainpower to figure out. In essence, welfare handouts are a subsidy to the poor in the same way that grants are a subsidy to college students' tuition. And what most economists have come to realize throughout the ages is that subsidizing something leads to more of it, hence the subsidization of tuition leads to higher tuition and the subsidization of the lower class leads to more poor people. It is like a mother eagle feeding her babies, but the babies never grow up. The mother has to feed her babies or else they will die, but then they grow up and are able to hunt for their own food. For those on welfare, the government keeps giving them money, but they never use it to go out and provide for themselves. The only way to curb this attitude is to cut it off at its source, and the source is the welfare program.
"The best thing you can do for the poor is not become one." - Reverend Ike
Who are the men who shared these advisories? They are not rich white men from the Upper East side. They were black men preaching to the underprivileged that in order to escape a life of poverty, one must not succumb to pity and self-loathing, but rather to acheive their dreams through hard work. It is to their understanding, as well as many others in modern society, that the primary necessity in making a name for yourself is not the ability to be portrayed as a victim but rather the willingness to get your hands dirty. The problem with the poverty-stricken today is that they don't possess the necessary work ethic, leaving themselves ever trudging through the doldrums of life on the streets.
Having the view that poor blacks should not be helped is not racist, it's interventionist. It intervenes in the lives of these people so that they can stop wallowing in self-pity while taking handouts to get by and it forces them to make a living for themselves by getting a real job and providing for their families through honest means. The creation of a welfare-state by President Lyndon Johnson in the sixties was the worst thing that could've happened to the lower class. Under the system, America has seen the ranks of the lower class swell to proportions far exceeding those that existed when the welfare program was created. What makes this most troubling is that the welfare program exudes so much money to the impoverished that its handouts since inception exceed the total revenues of all Fortune 500 companies combined. That is more than $6.5 TRILLION. This system has been one of the worst-performing programs ever conceived by the federal government, and yet we continue to hear politicans pushing for MORE welfare handouts.
To understand the effect of welfare on the economy doesn't take that much brainpower to figure out. In essence, welfare handouts are a subsidy to the poor in the same way that grants are a subsidy to college students' tuition. And what most economists have come to realize throughout the ages is that subsidizing something leads to more of it, hence the subsidization of tuition leads to higher tuition and the subsidization of the lower class leads to more poor people. It is like a mother eagle feeding her babies, but the babies never grow up. The mother has to feed her babies or else they will die, but then they grow up and are able to hunt for their own food. For those on welfare, the government keeps giving them money, but they never use it to go out and provide for themselves. The only way to curb this attitude is to cut it off at its source, and the source is the welfare program.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
