The World Through the Eyes of Stryd3r

Quick Thought

2011-06-02T22:32:00.001-04:00

Right now the headline story on Drudge is "Weiner calls cops on CNBC2..." (something along those lines). It seems like this story just wont die. And that's a shame. I don't know if Rep. Weiner did or did not actually send the picture. It shouldn't matter.

Don't we have more important issues to discuss? Aren't we in the midst of an economic crisis and a budget debate? Don't we need improvements in our education system, an overhaul of Social Security, and a viable long term energy solution? Isn't America in the midst of military "operations" in at least three countries?

My point is that while holding our leaders to high moral standards is nice, we shouldn't be letting an ironically named Representative's ironic scandal distract us from what is really important.

Best Artist Ever

2011-04-15T11:31:00.005-04:00

My friend wanted me to link to his portfolio (which is absolutely amazing!). So here it is.

From The Political Wire

2010-05-17T19:22:00.002-04:00

Lessons From A Times Square Bomber

2010-05-05T20:47:00.001-04:00

Hey so I haven't had much time to write in the past few days, but a lot has happened. JFK security has proven yet again why more funding must be provided to secure America from terrorism. In that vein New York officials want to install a security system that will record virtually everyone and everything that goes on and into Manhattan. This measure will serve the much needed purpose of providing NYPD cops and the FBI with beautiful High-Res images of wrongdoers... AFTER THE FACT!!!!!!!!!!

I cannot for the life of me figure out what is wrong with America's intelligence community. Every time there is some kind of threat, be it a car bombing, an anthrax scare, or a crazy shoe bomber local and federal agencies implement "new" security measures that - at best- had they been thought of earlier, could have provided more protection. Or, worse, the measures are simply reactionary and would in no way act as protection against any real threat. I mean, can't the FBI, NSA - someone! - anticipate these not-so-original kinds of attacks. Any 10 year old kid who has ever picked up XBOX controls can better prepare for a car bomb ("use the M82 with the infrared scope and the paintball MOD).

I've been reading 1000 Years for Revenge by Peter Lance and would highly recommend it to anyone who has an interest in understanding American intelligence and more specifically the pre-9/11 War on Terror. He writes a chilling tale of mismanagement prior to the first World Trade Center bombing and then leading up to the events of September 11, 2001. Understandably, many might take offense at the picture of ineptitude and gross negligence that he paints, however I think that there is an important message beneath all the criticism: while it may forever be unclear who was at fault in 2001, the same events can happen again if we are not careful to learn form history and to preempt those who wish to harm us. Let's not wait for something terrible to happen each time before setting up a security measure to prevent it.

Lady Gaga in Afghanistan - Must Watch!!!

2010-04-30T15:58:00.001-04:00

Support Our Troops!! Enjoy :)

Interesting Read

2010-04-27T09:46:00.001-04:00

Jonah Goldberg of the Los Angeles Times writes a great opinion piece today about the new Arizona bill. Read it here.

Of Interest in the News

2010-04-26T09:30:00.001-04:00

National Association for Businees Economics (NABE) survey shows that economy is slowly (very slowly) improving, but that it is not due to the stimulus package
Were Port Authority Police correct in not searching a known terrorist's car?
Obama attempts new strategy in Supreme Court nominees
In New Jersey, teachers unions continue to fight budget cuts despite outcry from voters
Good-bye climate bill
Obama-Sachs partnership; is that what the financial reform is about?
Student suspended for shooting teacher.... with her fingers!

Headed Towards A Welfare State?

2010-04-26T08:52:00.001-04:00

Arizona - It's S'posed to be Nice There

2010-04-25T01:05:00.009-04:00

Arizona Senate Bill 1070 issues the directive that "an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States" may be detained, penalized, monitored. etc. as the state officials see fit (read the full bill here). While I am a proponent of stemming illegal immigration, and I believe that those who are in this country illegally should be made to answer to the same laws that the rest of us must obey, this bill sets a dangerous precedent.

Section 2 allows that "A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES." Not to beat a (very) dead horse but that phrasing is strangely reminiscent of some of the language from John Adam's Alien and Sedition Acts (1798):

That it shall be lawful for the President of the United States at any time…to order all such aliens as he shall judge dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States, or shall have reasonable grounds to suspect are concerned in any treasonable or secret machinations against the government thereof, to depart out of the territory of the United States. (emphasis added)

While the constitutionality of the Acts was never decided in court (due to the fact that they expired upon Adam's leave of office in 1801) most historians and constitutional scholars believe that they would have been found unconstitutional; the reasons being that they appear to violate the First Amendment and - perhaps, as Thomas Jefferson suggested - the Tenth Amendment as well.

Of course, the intent of Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer was probably not to prevent slander against herself or her state, but to step in to enforce a law that she sees the federal government to be lax on. However, her decision to sign this bill - a bill which certainly does nothing to reassure civil rights advocates - may very well ensure that Congress, at the behest of the President, grants illegal immigrants some kind of "amnesty" or "guest worker" status. According to The Washington Times, President Obama stated that "the fact that states are taking the immigration issue into their own hands should pressure Congress to act on a broad bill setting out a path for legalizing illegal immigrants at the national level."

While many Civil Libertarians (?) are arguing that the new law "raises fears of racial profiling" they seem to be missing the point. Yes, Mexicans are now in danger of being stopped in the street at random, and true, a car being driven by or with a Latino looking person can be stopped for inspection. However, that is nothing compared to the precedent such a law sets for everyone. What would prevent the law from being read to allow for unwarranted home searches (or if it is impossible for this bill to be interpreted as such, an amendment to the bill that allows for such invasions of privacy).

While I am an advocate of upholding the law, there have to be some limits to the extent that a government can seek to uphold said law. While the argument has been made in the past - and will no doubt be made here as well - that "If I (you) are not breaking the law what do I (you) have to fear?" the concept that the government may simply pick random people off the street and interrogate them is a scary thought. And if the individual doesn't happen to have suitable ID on him can they be detained until such identification is produced? Will people be rounded up and forced to produced papers and if those papers are not readily obtainable what will happen to them? Will their families be notified of their whereabouts?

Not to trivialize the immigration debate, but this bill certainly goes about resolving the issue in the wrong way. It lets the Federal government off the hook ("we don't have to worry about the issue anymore, the states will figure it out") when it is the mandate of the national government to secure our borders. It angers a community that is quickly growing and does - whether people like it or not - contribute greatly to this country's economy. Further, it sets the precedent for detaining, arresting, and simply harassing people with little or no legally substantial legitimacy. Finally, the bill reeks of old-school fear-induced legislation meant to simply keep one ethnicity from growing or attaining political persuasion. I'm not saying that the people who are in this country illegally should be allowed to stay, nor am I saying that they should all be forced to leave. But I am saying that whatever is done must be in accordance with the US Constitution and must account for the livelihood, the welfare, the well-being, as well as the personal privacy and safety of those individuals and families that it may effect.

Bill 1070 simply is not a well thought out piece of legislation and will most likely be shot down by the Courts. However, for the time being, if the state of Arizona wishes to expedite the process of detaining illegal immigrants perhaps those who are in the country legally should simply be given some kind of identifying symbol to wear. An American flag on their shoulder, perhaps?

I'm Baaack (Bringing more HOPE and CHANGE than any one American can handle)

2010-04-21T18:29:00.004-04:00

Wow. Feels like it's been years since I last wrote here. When last we met, Obama was still a rookie fresh out of Political-U, now he's all grown up and has made Mom and Pop oh so proud. Okay, Okay, let's not start off hatin' - gotta (re)begin on a positive note.

In that vein I'll write this with an eye to the future. Hopefully this blog will see its way through the upcoming mid-term elections, the 2012 elections - Palin vs. Clinton? (just kidding) - and much, much more.

I hope to focus more on specific areas of politics this time around. Maybe I'll do an article each week about lobbying as that's an area of personal interest. Perhaps I can write some in-depth pieces about lesser noticed legislative actions from both state and federal levels, such as this one from Arizona (proposing that a candidate must prove they were born in the USA in order to be granted a slot on the ballot), while also focusing on more heavily debated issues such as Health Care and Tea Parties (Tea-time is soon to become a GOP standard). Hopefully I can write more about Iran and the Middle East as well.

I hope to see ya'll back here soon and I can't wait to hear your thoughts and opinions no matter what side of the aisle you associate with (just as long as you agree with me). Oh yeah, did I use "Hope" enough? Watch out Mr. President, I too can campaign on platitudes :).

Response to Robert Farley from the FPM

2009-07-08T09:32:00.002-04:00

Read his article here

And now for my response:

Being Calm is the Wrong Response

Though this article provides an interesting history of the PRC's pursuit of nuclear weapons, it does not establish a sensible argument as to why the West should "calm down" with regard to Iran's stated goal of creating a nuclear arsenal.

Mr. Farley begins his article with sarcasm and ridicule, clearly mocking the legitimate fears of what could happen should Iran posses the bomb. He follows with a leap of logic to say that because the government controlled by Ahmadinejad has made outlandish statements, therefore all Iranians are "different, weird, and threatening." This could obviously be no farther from the truth.

I would suggest that Mr. Farley read the Preamble to the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, in which it states that America (the representative of the West) plotted against Iran. The Preamble continues to delineate the manner in which the new government will be established - that is to say, the government will practice strict adherence to the laws of the Qu'ran. Now, anyone who has read the Qu'ran (as Farley clearly has NOT) knows that it states numerous times that the unbeliever must be destroyed and that a Jihad (Holy War) must be waged against those who wish to harm the believer.

Obviously, the more modern Muslim understands that the words of the Qu'ran are not to be taken literally; they are metaphorical, just as the Torah and the Bible are mostly metaphorical. However, fundamentalist Muslims - namely Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his lackey President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - interpret the Qu'ran quite literally. As such, they have both stated publicly on numerous occasions their desire to harm both Israel and America.

The concern is not what the government of Iran will do with nukes. It is fair to say that very few people believe that the state of Iran would be stupid enough to employ weapons against America, Great Britain, or pretty much any other country as that would no doubt incite a third world war. However, there is legitimate concern over the possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists - such as Usama bin Laden - who may be less hesitant to use such devastating tactics.

The fear of Iran supplying terrorist groups is very real. The 9/11 commission found significant links between Iran and Al Qaeda, and it has been long known that Iran supports other groups such as Hezbollah, HAMAS, the Palestine Islamic Jihad, and Ahmad Jibril's PFLP-GC.

So, Mr. Farley, perhaps instead of telling the world to "calm down" through illogical arguments and exaggerations, perhaps it would be wise to educate people as to the real threat and allow countries (such as Israel) to protect themselves from a very real threat.

Obama's Budget: Almost $1 Trillion in New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011

2009-02-26T12:27:00.002-05:00

From Jake Tapper of ABC
February 26, 2009 12:00 PM

President Obama's budget proposes $989 billion in new taxes over the course of the next 10 years, starting fiscal year 2011, most of which are tax increases on individuals.

1) On people making more than $250,000.

$338 billion - Bush tax cuts expire
$179 billlion - eliminate itemized deduction
$118 billion - capital gains tax hike

Total: $636 billion/10 years

2) Businesses:

$17 billion - Reinstate Superfund taxes
$24 billion - tax carried-interest as income
$5 billion - codify "economic substance doctrine"
$61 billion - repeal LIFO
$210 billion - international enforcement, reform deferral, other tax reform
$4 billion - information reporting for rental payments
$5.3 billion - excise tax on Gulf of Mexico oil and gas
$3.4 billion - repeal expensing of tangible drilling costs
$62 million - repeal deduction for tertiary injectants
$49 million - repeal passive loss exception for working interests in oil and natural gas properties
$13 billion - repeal manufacturing tax deduction for oil and natural gas companies
$1 billion - increase to 7 years geological and geophysical amortization period for independent producers
$882 million - eliminate advanced earned income tax credit

Total: $353 billion/10 years

-- jpt

The Summit Breakouts: Social Security

2009-02-23T19:03:00.002-05:00

The pool report by Amy Goldstein of The Washington Post on the Fiscal Responsibility Summit's breakout session on Social Security follows:

The session was held in room 350 of EEOB, a large conference room in which participants sat around a rectangular table. At the head of the table, with an American flag on each side of them, were the two administration officials who led this breakout: Lawrence Summers, director of the WH's National Economic Council, and Gene Sperling, counselor for domestic policy at Treasury. An ideological eclectic mix of 24 guests participated (a partial list follows), including senators and House members, David Walker (former head of the GAO), representatives of labor and business, and leaders of advocacy groups that work on entitlement reform.

No major news, but Summers and Sperling each conveyed a sense that the administration will try to move on health care before Social Security, although SS will come soon after.

Sperling said in his opening remarks that "Social Security does provide the potential for something that could be done, regardless of whether it is this year or next year. It is a conversation that has gone on this town, often not successfully."

But he said the president believes "there is a new politics out there." In his closing remarks, Sperling said "This is not about getting a commission. It is finding a process of trust, where Democrats and Republicans can come together and present something together, so it is not seen simply as an invitation to partisan attack...Holding hands and jumping together."

Summers said that health care has "overwhelming importance" in achieving "longterm budget control." He said: "But Social Security is also crucial to the nation's longterm fiscal health, and Social Security is our most important government program."

He essentially said - and this is paraphrase here -- that the downturn of the financial markets had diminished the political appetite for converting part of SS to private retirement accounts. Here is a quote: In light of "the events in the market the last couple years, the sense of the need for government to take a core public responsibility for Social Security. . .has been strengthened, at least in many people's minds. Though not perhaps all minds."

Sperling, near the session's end, advocated a change to Social Security that he had touted when he worked as an economics adviser in the Clinton White House: an "add-on" to Social Security, in which workers could set aside money in private accounts beyond their payroll taxes that go into the program itself. He said that politically, that idea - called USA Accounts in the Clinton days - should not be part of Social Security reform itself. But he said, "it doesn't mean it couldn't be part of a package."

Both Summers and Sperling said there would not be consensus in today's session about how to fix the program. They also said the public was more receptive to the government making hard decisions necessary to keep SS from running out of money in the long run, because Americans are anxious about their private retirement savings and the value of their houses.

Sperling said: "I think there may be a lot more openness than we thought in the past for people to have an honest discussion about the shared sacrifice necessary to have Social Security solvency. That this would be a sure thing they could count on, and they could count on for the next 50 to 75 years."

At the end, Sperling also tried to cut through disagreement over whether the program was in a state of crisis. "I really hate the whole argument about, is this a crisis or is this not a crisis? Why do we not want to preempt a crisis. Why do we not want to do something early? It is a shame on our political system that there has never been entitlement reform without a gun to our head. . .Wouldn't it be a tremendous confidence-building thing to act early and smart?"

Those are the highlights from the administration. By far, most of the session, which lasted slightly less than two hours, was devoted to comments from around the table.

Two Republicans, House Minority Leader John Boehner and Sen. Lindsey Graham said they were willing to work with the administration, without saying they supported any specific ideas the WH might propose. Graham said: "To this new administration, if you will push this and make it a priority, I will do everything I can to make you successful. . .I will do everything I can to make sure that demagoguery does not succeed."

Boehner said the government should consider cutting or eliminating SS benefits for older Americans with high retirement incomes. "Why don't we just admit we are broke? If you have $150,000 in non-Social Security retirement income, thanks for your contributions but phase out the benefits or eliminate them. . .I don't have any problem looking people in the eye and saying, 'Thank you for your contributions, but for the good of the country, your benefits are gone.' " He also said increases in SS payments should be pegged to the Consumer Price Index, not wage inflation. And he said "we need to get serious about raising the retirement age."

David Walker, former chief of the GAO, also said the retirement age should increase. "One think that I've heard some controversy about, the retirement age - I know it's difficult, but the simple fact of the matter is, government policy needs to encourage what is in the collective best interest of the country and what is in the collective best interest of all. Government policy needs to encourage people to work longer."

Here are most, if not all, of the participants, in order in which they spoke:
David Walker - former head of GAO.
Sen. Dick Durbin
Sen. Steny Hoyer
Rep. John Boehner
Maya MacGuinneas, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
Peter Peterson, Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics
Sen. Lindsey Graham
Sen. Amy Klobuchar
Heidi Hartmann, Institute for Women's Policy
John Sweeney - AFL-CIO
Roger Ferguson - TIAA-CREF
Randi Weingarten - American Federation of Teachers
Rep. John Tanner
Barbara Kennelly - National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare
Rep. Eric Cantor
Marty Ford - Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities
Susan Eckerly - NFIB
Ed Coyle - Alliance for Retired Americans
Kevin Hassitt - American Enterprise Institute

from the Washington Post

Pampering The Prisoners

2009-02-21T20:07:00.004-05:00

Baghdad Central Prison, previously known as Abu Ghraib, was reopened today as a five-star hotel and resort for terrorists and criminals. The Iraqi government obviously feels that the best method to discourage crime is to reward those who are convicted of it by providing "greenhouses, computer chatroom, a playground, and a sewing room." With such luxuries being served, how can one afford NOT to enter into the obviously profitable and highly prestigious business of terror?

I remark on this laughable treatment of terrorists to highlight the confused mentality the world seems to have adopted towards those who wish to cause us harm; instead of punishing them with the utmost severity, the world has come to believe that it is our duty to pity them. Imagine for a moment that you are risking your life for a cause you obviously believe very deeply in. The ultimate sacrifice for this cause is your life and the honor that will be bestowed upon you after death is something you can only dream of. The enemy against whom you fight is heavily armed and exceedingly wealthy. They have sought you out and persecuted your people for years, and despite your many attempts they continue to persist in their nonreligious ways. Now, they have managed to catch you; you who have spent your entire life trying to kill these people for mocking your god.

It is reasonable that the terrorist, being caught and convicted, should expect to be treated with the utmost harshness, perhaps even being punished by being put to death. However, instead of even slapping these people on the wrist, the Iraqi government has determined to make fools and laughing-stocks out of themselves by investing over $1 million in providing lofty and comfortable accommodations for monsters, murderers and the scum of the earth.

The terrorist is not feeling punished and the comfortable conditions will not serve to rehabilitate any of those detained, for these are not ordinary criminals convicted of robbery or grand-theft auto. No, these prisoners are radical fundamentalists who believe in their cause enough to die for it. Providing them with five-star conditions merely eases the difficulty of what should be made an impossible task - the killing and harming of innocent civilians.

"We turned it into something like a resort, not a prison."
- Mohammed al-Zeidi, director of the Iraqi Rehabilitation Department

Backing Away From Burris

2009-02-18T23:15:00.001-05:00

DURBIN STATEMENT ON SENATOR ROLAND BURRIS

"When we met with Roland Burris in January, we made it clear that in order for him to be seated in the U.S. Senate he needed to meet two requirements - first, that he submit the proper paperwork certifying his appointment, and second, that he appear before the General Assembly's Impeachment Committee to testify openly, honestly and completely about the nature of his relationship with the former governor, his associates and the circumstances surrounding this appointment."

"We asked him to testify in the impeachment proceedings, not to embarrass Roland Burris, but to give him an opportunity to clear the air regarding this appointment from a tainted governor. Our hope was that he would use that opportunity to assure the people of Illinois and the other members of the United States Senate that he was not involved in any wrongdoing."

"Now the accuracy and completeness of his testimony and affidavits have been called into serious question. Every day there are more and more revelations about contacts with Blagojevich advisors, efforts at fundraising and omissions from his list of lobbying clients. This was not the full disclosure under oath that we asked for."

"These news reports and the public statements by Roland Burris himself are troubling and raise serious questions which need to be looked at very carefully."

"The State's Attorney in Sangamon County is reviewing the affidavit and other materials associated with Senator Burris' testimony to see if criminal charges are warranted and the U.S. Senate Ethics Committee has begun a preliminary investigation into this matter."

"This is the appropriate course of action and I await the outcome of those investigations. The people of Illinois deserve nothing less."

John Adams on Religion

2009-02-18T20:23:00.001-05:00

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Do We Get To Read It???

2009-02-13T15:55:00.003-05:00

Day of the Headless Chickens

2009-02-13T15:28:00.002-05:00

The Democrats have successfully passed a bill that, as one House member has commented will "buy doorbells and doorknobs, but won't stimulate the economy." The DNC has supported this bill because they love spending money not theirs and they are eager to be able to exert their new-found control over the American people. Instead of acting rationally and responsibly, seeking areas where a stimulus package of such great costs could have actually helped people and small businesses throughout America, the Democrats pushed for hasty action. The final version of the bill, passed today 246-183, was not available for review until late last night, leaving virtually all representatives little or no tie to review the expanded bill.

As I am writing this, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) is arguing that the package does not address the issues in the economy that really needed to be addressed, and instead throws money into needless, wasteful projects. Being only one of 7 Democrats to vote against the bill, I am sure Mr. DeFazio is enduring much ridicule from his side of the aisle for not voting along the party line.

Anyway, my point is that the Democrats are in such a rush to act that they are not taking sufficient time to think. They are padding their own pockets and throwing money around as though it is water. Well, I don't think the ruling party realizes that there is a draught and during a draught you cannot simply go to your neighbors' garden hoses, fill up your swimming pool and tell them that this pool will provide more water for everyone. No one has money to spare and no one can afford to fill the Democratic pool. Telling the American commuity that they must come together to help each other out is nice, but that's not what is happening here. The Democrats are funding their pet projects, and their uncaring attitude towards the American people should spark an outcry from every single one of us.

Funny

2009-02-12T19:21:00.002-05:00

The last line is the best... just in case you don't know who Lincoln is. :)

Record price for Lincoln speech on 200th birthday

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A speech delivered by President Abraham Lincoln two days after his 1864 presidential election victory was sold for a record $3.44 million on Thursday, the 200th anniversary of his birth.

The price paid by an undisclosed buyer set a new auction record for a Lincoln manuscript, auction house Christie's said in a statement.

The handwritten four-page speech had a pre-sale estimated value of $3 million to $4 million.

"Today's auction is a testimony to Americans' and the world's abiding interest in and reverence for President Abraham Lincoln," a Christie's statement said.

The auction house said the price of $3,442,500 was not only an auction record for a Lincoln document but also for any American historical document.

In the letter, Lincoln called upon his fellow Americans to "re-unite in a common effort, to save our common country."

Lincoln successfully led the country through the Civil War, preserving the Union and ending slavery.

(Reporting by Christine Kearney, editing by Alan Elsner)

Crossing the Line

2009-02-11T10:06:00.001-05:00

While the Obama Administration fights for the speedy approval of a multi-billion dollar pork- er.. excuse me, stimulus - package, the Great Deciders in the White House are simultaneously arguing that offshore drilling should be put on hold until Americans can have more time to comment on it. Being heralded as a fresh face - a relief from politics as usual - was Obama's greatest claim to fame. As a Republican, I was somewhat dubious, or rather I was downright skeptical, of any politician's ability to bring true change, but I was especially worried about Obama because the media, as we have seen and will continue to see, has already placed him on a podium of perfection, untried and untested.

To put some much faith in one man and one institution seems naive at best and destructive at worst. The President is entrusted with the task of protecting the nation and ensuring the safety of the American people. President Obama seems not to understand his task and has not realized the divide between the legislative and executive branches of the government. Where one (Congress) is constitutionally instructed to oversee the federal monies (taxes, borrowing, etc.), the other (President) is commanded to ensure security and safety. For this the Executive must present a strong face, and a powerful persona to the world and to the people. He should not be legislating from the Oval Office, nor should he be spending such an enormous amount of time padding the pockets of his party members.

As cynical as it sounds, the truth is that the current government is slowly becoming one body. The current president is capable of exerting too much power due partially to the celebrity status bestowed upon the first family and the resulting fear many congresspeople now have in going against the president, but also because the American people have allowed the government to function with little or no oversight. We have allowed or representatives to tell us what is best for us, yet we have not truly investigated whether the decisions really are. While it is nearly impossible for the majority of us to actually keep tabs on all legislation begin discussed, we can show our elected officials that we care. Instead of simply following the media's garbled translation we must attempt to become more knowledgeable of the bills and proposals being made by our government. If we can show our leaders that we do care and we are paying attention, perhaps they will be more hesitant to infuse what can be helpful and necessary bills with earmarks, and they will think twice before reducing the American people to a "chattering class."

The Governmnet Knows Best

2009-02-10T16:05:00.002-05:00

The new stimulus bill, passed by a 61-37 vote in the Senate, does not as many of us have already known and feared, contain provisions solely necessary for the repair of the economy. One large, shocking, and seemingly ignored provision provides for the creation of new and far-reaching health care reform. This reform calls for the uniform conformity of every licensed doctor to a set of government provided rules and standards.

The doctor, under the new bill would not only have to be concerned about misdiagnosing the patient, but he or she (the doctor) will also have to ensure that all treatment, procedures, and diagnosis conform with a bureaucratic code of medicine. Fearing a fine or even the revocation of their license, doctors will become less likely to provide swift and accurate medical attention, and less, not more, lives will be saved.

I recently visited the doctor, and before being allowed in, the receptionist made me sign a form that, amongst other things, relieved the doctor of liability because "medicine is not a perfect science." As a patient, it is not very comforting to be made to sign away responsibility, however I fully understand the need for such documents. With every passing day, America becomes a more litigious nation, and above all a nation of irresponsibility on an individual level.

Apparently, the Democratic party, and the current administration does not have faith in the people's ability to decide right from wrong on their own. The idea of having every single doctor conform to a vague list of what a group of politicians feel is correct is the epitome of legislative over-zealousness.

The American public as a whole is capable of making decisions for itself. People in general are intelligent and most importantly, what is right for one person is not necessarily going to be right for another. It is the typical example of the student who having gained much "book wisdom" feels as though he is prepared to conquer the world, only to awake to the harsh reality that the world and it multiple complexities cannot truly be reduced to chapters and paragraphs.

Through this leviathan of a bill, the Obama administration and its lapdogs in Congress have told America and the world that an age of independence is over; it is time to hearken an era of government oversight and control. No longer will you or I have to concern ourselves over our own medicine, money, or mind; the beneficent Obama administration will care for it all. Questioning the decisions of the Administration is now "partisan" and only those who wish to sow the seeds of strife and "Washington politics" will think for themselves. During his first 100 days as President, Mr. Obama does not have many results to show. Yes, he has agreed to treat terrorist nations as though they are not, and yes he has presented America as a weak nation. It is true too, that he has asked Congress to spend enormous amounts of taxpayer dollars while not being entirely forthright about its application. We all wait with baited breath for the next of what I am sure will be many brilliant ideas from this harbinger of hope and commissioner of change. (Sorry, I'm in some kind of "alliteration mood.")

What The President Must Understand About Iran

2009-01-30T01:04:00.000-05:00

The Iranian problem extends well beyond their long-held intent to obtain a nuclear weapon. The Republic of Iran seeks the return to Islamic fundamentalism and calls for an alteration to the mindset of the world at large in favor of Islamic values and beliefs. In point of fact, the constitution of Iran boldly declares that its purpose is "to bring about the conditions under which the lofty and worldwide values' of Islam will flourish." The government of Iran in its current form will never accept a "secular" America, nor will they allow the continued existence of Israel; America's strongest ally in the region. President Obama must recognize and accept this harsh fact and through that recognition he must form a sustainable Middle East strategy that will protect America's interests and the interests of her allies.

Repairing foreign opinion of America has been one of the new president's most critical concerns. Going so far as to pronounce during his television interview with al-Arabiya that he is seeking warmer relations, Mr. Obama has made it clear that he wishes that we could all get along. No doubt Obama will do as much as he can in an attempt to come to a peaceful resolution with a hostile nation.

While his intentions can perhaps be construed as noble, Mr. Obama is in danger of making the dangerous mistake of extending the proverbial olive branch too far. When dealing with extremist nations, the religion and especially the religion of the government must not be overlooked. Although he hopes to convince the American public and the world at large that Islam can in fact be a peaceful nation, Obama negates the fact that the rulers of Iran are extreme fundamentalists. Religion does not just impact the decisions that are made at the top levels of the Iranian government, it is what dictates that those decisions be made.

Ultimately, America will have to go to war with Iran in order to ensure its own protection and safety. Maybe that war will take place during the next four years. Maybe the next president will be left holding the ball and he (or she) will have to determine the proper course of action. Inevitably, unless a drastic overhaul of the governmnet takes place, Iran will obtain a nuclear weapon and that weapon will be used to bully and initmidate the Western world. The fear of such a threat should be made a reality for this new president and the almost inconcievable concern that such weapon capablitites will fall into the hands of terrorist groups the likes of Hezbollah, must impact foreign policy at all levels.

Israel is WRONG!!!

2009-01-14T00:33:00.001-05:00

In keeping with true
journalistic standards, Mr. Bronner presents a truly unbiased
perspective on the Israel-Hamas war. Ignoring the unimportant fact that
Hamas fired nearly 5000 rockets into Israel in the past year, the IHT
comes out in defense of a people oppressed. Hamas, the protector of the
people of Gaza - upstanding, righteous, and peace-loving - has been
mischaracterized by the worlds media as demonic and hateful. In fact,
it would be dishonest to argue that the major money contributor of
Hamas - namely Iran - seeks the total destruction of israel as a
nation. It is a grand conspiracy that president Ahmadinejad really
wants the destruction of Israel. Wait, I am mistaken, he said, "the
main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime" because
Israel "is an illegitimate regime, there is no legal basis for its
existence." But truly, Iran and its puppets mean no harm. They are the
victims here, can't you see?

A Time of Terror

2009-01-04T11:32:00.002-05:00

No, I am not referring to the ongoing war in Israel. Nor am I talking about the war in Iraq or even the global War on Terror. This form of terror strikes much closer to home and its tentacles have ensnared us all. That's right, its finals week again and the teachers have ramped up their assault. In order to combat this horrid attack I must, unfortunately, take a break from this blog. But rest assured I will return victorious with my sword in hand (and hopefully not on my shield, cause that would suck.)

Thanks to all my readers, hope to see you back here starting January 15!!

George W Bush: winning the war on terror

2008-12-27T20:56:00.001-05:00

Europe's political elites are no doubt salivating at the prospect of George W. Bush departing the White House in January.

By Nile Gardiner

Criticism of George W Bush is often driven by a dislike of his personality, not analysis of his achievements Photo: EPA

On much of the world stage, President Bush has been widely reviled as one of the worst U.S. leaders of modern times, and it is hard to think of an American president who has received a worse press since Richard Nixon.

To his critics, who are legion on both sides of the Atlantic, the war in Iraq has been a monumental disaster, at a cost of more than 4,000 American lives and at least $500 billion. They see the war on terror, with the notorious Guantanamo prison camp as its symbol, as a catalyst for radicalizing tens of millions of Muslims that has made the United States a pariah in the Middle East.

The war in Afghanistan, they argue, is going badly in the face of a resurgent Taliban, the cost of Washington pouring most of its resources into Iraq. Bush, the theory goes, failed to keep his eye on the ball, weakening the fight against al-Qaeda through his supposed obsession with Iraq. He is also accused of undermining America's standing in the world, adopting a unilateralist foreign policy and refusing to work with its Allies.

Some of the criticism of Bush's foreign policy is fair. The early stages of the occupation of Iraq were poorly handled and there was a distinct lack of post-war planning. America's public diplomacy efforts have been poor or even non-existent, with little serious attempt to combat the stunning rise of anti-Americanism. More recently, Washington's failure to stand up more aggressively to Moscow after its invasion of Georgia projected weakness and indecision.

Much of the condemnation of his policies though is driven by a venomous hatred of Bush's personality and leadership style, rather than an objective assessment of his achievements. Ten or twenty years from now, historians will view Bush's actions on the world stage in a more favourable light. America's 43rd president did after all directly liberate more people (over 60 million) from tyranny than any leader since Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Widely seen as his biggest foreign policy error, the decision to invade Iraq could ultimately prove to have been a masterstroke. Today the world is witnessing the birth of the first truly democratic state in the Middle East outside of Israel. Over eight million voted in Iraq's parliamentary elections in 2005, and the region's first free Muslim society may become a reality. Iraq might not be Turkey, but it is a powerful demonstration that freedom can flourish in the embers of the most brutal and barbaric of dictatorships.

The success of the surge in Iraq will go down in history as a turning point in the war against al-Qaeda. The stunning defeat of the insurgency was a major blow both militarily and psychologically for the terror network. The West's most feared enemy suffered thousands of losses in Iraq, including many of their most senior commanders, such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Abu Qaswarah. It was the most successful counter-insurgency operation anywhere in the world since the British victory in Malaya in 1960.

The broader war against Islamist terrorism has also been a success. There has not been a single terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11, and for all the global condemnation of pre-emptive strikes, Guantanamo and the use of rendition against terror suspects, the fact remains that Bush's aggressive strategy actually worked.

Significantly, there have been no successful terrorist attacks in Europe since the July 2005 London bombings, in large part due to the cooperation between U.S., British and other Western intelligence agencies. American intelligence has proved vital in helping prevent an array of planned terror attacks in the UK, a striking demonstration of the value to Britain of its close ties to Washington.

President Bush, in contrast to both his father, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton before him, had a crystal clear, instinctive understanding of the importance of the Anglo-American Special Relationship. Tony Blair may well have been labeled Bush's "poodle" over his support for the war in Iraq, but his partnership with George W. Bush marked the high point of the Anglo-American alliance since the heady days of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.

The decision by Bush, with Blair's support, to sweep the Taliban out of Afghanistan was a brilliant move, one that not all U.S. presidents would have taken. A weaker leader would have gone to the United Nations Security Council and sought a negotiated settlement with Kabul. It was a risky gambit that was vindicated by a stunning military victory in the space of a month, with a small number of U.S. ground forces involved.

Bush also made a firm commitment to defending the fledgling Afghan government, and succeeded in building a 41-nation NATO-led coalition. The notion that the resurgence of the Taliban is America's failure is nonsense. The U.S. has more than 30,000 troops in the country under U.S. or NATO command, making up over half of all Allied forces there. Continental European allies have simply failed to step up to the plate with more troops, with almost the entire war-fighting burden placed on the U.S., UK and other English-speaking countries. Afghanistan is not a failure of American leadership, it is a damning indictment of an increasingly pacifist Europe that simply will not fight.

President Bush also recognized the importance of re-shaping the NATO alliance for the 21st Century, backing an ambitious program of NATO expansion, culminating in the addition of seven new members in 2004. He also had the foresight to support the development of a missile defence system in Europe, successfully negotiating deals with both Poland and the Czech Republic. Bush was right to back the eventual inclusion of Georgia and Ukraine in NATO, and both would be well on their way to membership today were it not for the feckless decision of France and Germany to side with Russia in blocking their path to entry.

Bush began his presidency primarily as a domestic leader. He ends it as a war leader who has left a huge imprint internationally. His greatest legacy, the global war against Islamist terror, has left the world a safer place, and his decision to project global power and military might against America's enemies has made it harder for Islamist terrorists to strike against London, Paris or Berlin.

Bush's decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power will make it less likely that rogue regimes, Iran and North Korea included, will seek to militarily challenge American power. The memory of the invasion of Iraq and the unequivocal message that sent is by far the most effective deterrent to Tehran developing a nuclear weapon.

If superpowers do not demonstrate an ability and a willingness to wield power (as Britain did on numerous occasions at the height of the Empire) their hegemony will be increasingly challenged. President Bush exercised U.S. military power to stunning effect in both Iraq and Afghanistan, an important reminder that America was still a force to be reckoned with after the 1990s humiliation of Somalia and the half-hearted missile strikes against Bin Laden in Sudan. In an age of growing threats and challenges, the projection of hard power matters, and America's next president would be wise to take heed.

Nile Gardiner is Director of the Margaret Thatcher Centre for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, DC.

Person of the Year

2008-12-22T13:52:00.002-05:00

TIME Magazine in its usual style, has pronounced Mr. Obama this year's "Person of the Year." Going so far as to chart how Obama is connected to every previous person of the year, TIME haughtily presents the president-elect as the American messiah. While Mr. Obama's victory is certainly historical, it was not his victory alone. Barrack alone did not win the elections, nor is he the one who has changed America's (perceived) past and present status as a racist nation.

The American people are the ones who deserve credit, they are the ones who turned out to vote and it was because of them that Obama won. While he certainly is now tasked with the responsibility of fixing this nations economic crisis (amongst others), Obama has not yet been tested. In fact, Barrack Obama has not made any major impact on policy during his obviously lengthy career in politics.

The Bush Shoe Attack: A Sign of Hope

2008-12-15T16:36:00.003-05:00

By Roger L. Simon

As the world knows now, a particularly juvenile Iraqi journalist threw a shoe at George Bush in Baghdad Sunday. Bush characteristically made light of the situation. If there's one thing many can agree on about the president, it's that he doesn't take insults too personally, at least in public. Good thing too, considering all the abuse that has been heaped on him in recent years. I can't imagine I would have behaved the same way. With my temper, I would probably have picked up
the shoe and gone after the dopey journo myself.

Well, maybe I wouldn't have. The clod probably did Bush a favor, making the president look good. And Bush could use it, because I can't think of a public figure in my lifetime who has been so reviled except Nixon. And Bush never did anything provably wrong. He didn't cover up an illegal break-in, try to sell a Senate seat or even have oral sex with an intern in the White House (and then claim it wasn't sex). He just did his job to the best of his ability.

Oh, yes, I forgot, the WMDs. "Bush lied and people died." Or did he? If he did, then so did those many dozens of Congress people and foreign leaders working off the same information - not to mention that no one has ever proven those WMDs weren't there. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as the famous "argument from ignorance" goes.

But more importantly and more apposite to today's event was that other, oft forgotten, reason Bush went to war in Iraq - that the only way to bring true peace to the Middle East would be through democracy. He wanted to spread the democratic system preemptively. A lot of people have sneered at that idea lately, but while they were sneering Iraq has inched forward toward a democracy. It's even turning into a (somewhat) decent place to live. That buffoon-like shoe shucker - his name is Muntazer al-Zaidi from Al-Baghdadia channel which broadcasts from Cairo - proved it. No matter what happens to al-Zaidi now (and it won't be much if anything), it will be nothing like what would have happened to him if he had hurled a shoe at the president during the previous Iraqi administration of Saddam Hussein. As we all know, in that case, he would either have had his tongue and scrotum cut out or both, if he would have survived at all.

And that's the point - something good has happened. Something very good.

What isn't so clear, yet, is how history will treat George Bush. I have a suspicion it's going to be better than a lot of people now suspect - or are willing to admit.

Roger L. Simon is an award-winning mystery author, blogger and screenwriter living in California. He is currently the CEO of Pajamas Media.

This Christmas Give The Gift of Death

2008-12-04T19:13:00.003-05:00

This year you can give that special someone the gift they've just been ready to kill for. What could be better than seeing the beaming face of a happy almost-but-not-quite mom who has just freed herself from the awful burden of caring for another human being? Because I am so sure that the gift certificates that Planned Parenthood chapters in Indiana (and coming soon to a store near you: IL, NY, AK, and MI) are offering this season will bring insurmountable joy and holiday cheer to so many caring people, I strongly suggest that these delightful little gifts be purchased for all your friends and family.

Seriously though, what is wrong with these people!? Abortion, while sometimes necessary should not be thought of as a gift! It is true that there are other uses for these gift certificates aside from abortion, and to be sure, advocates of the certificates will use that as an argument in their defense. However, at a time when the moral ramifications of abortion are still under heavy debate (a debate that perhaps could be solved simply by turning to religion for the answer - though not guns in this case, sorry Obama) it would seem unwise and perhaps overtly political to advertise the use of abortion as a gift.

In such situations where an abortion is warranted it is important for the mother to understand that what she is doing is in fact okay. But it is okay - not because a business or lobbying group tells her it is - it is okay because she must act in such a fashion that protects her own health. (There are other situations, most notably rape where a valid argument could be made for abortion, however that brings about a whole new discussion that I won't get into here.) The use of abortion to simply avoid responsibility should NOT be allowed.

One final note: "pro-choice" advocates like to argue that because it is the woman's body it is her decision to make. What about the father? Does he have any say? After all, without him the mother would not even be dealing with the issue.

The Military At Home

2008-12-02T15:27:00.004-05:00

According to the Washington Post, "The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe."

The ACLU and libertarian groups argue that this plan "threatens to...undermine the Posse Comitatus Act," and in fact they have a valid point. If, that is, these 20,000 troops are being deployed to make house arrests, serve warrants, and deliver speeding tickets. Title 10 of the United States Code states that:

The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may
be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of
any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel)
under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a
member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search,
seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.

As such, it would appear that the Pentagon's action to create a domestic terrorist response force is lawful so long as the soldiers are assisting in and not actually executing the duties of local law enforcement. While that knowledge may not reassure the concerned citizens fearful, no doubt, of having their homes invaded by black-clad special forces wielding M16s in the dead of night, the recognition that the best trained military in the world is going to be prepared to assist in the event of a major nuclear or biological attack - which is predicted by a bipartisan commission to happen before 2013 - should comfort the rest of us.

Gates To Stay

2008-11-26T20:02:00.001-05:00

The decision to keep Secretary of Defense Robert Gates for another year is one of the best decisions the President-Elect has made so far. In the years that Mr. Gates has held his post, he has constantly reminded the military of the need to adapt to the new method of warfare that must be employed in the Middle East. Additionally, he has instituted an overhaul of weapons, calling for a new arsenal that can better equip the troops that will be called to service in these new altercations.

Obama's willingness to keep Gates shows that Mr. Obama recognizes that in some areas at least change must wait. This decision by Obama shows that he may indeed recognize that this war is actually a more prolonged and less definitively conclusive fight. In fact, with Mr. Obama at the helm, it might be easier for those military leaders who recognize the need to update the armed forces, to do so.

Great Op-Ed Piece

2008-11-19T12:04:00.001-05:00

Yes, it's from the NYT, but Thomas Friedman makes some valid points with regard to the ability of Hillary and Obama to work as a cohesive team when it comes to international policy. Read the whole piece here.

The New First Amendment

2008-11-15T19:29:00.001-05:00

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

- Amendment 1, Bill of Rights

The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights seems simple enough. Congress can't limit speech. Period. However, according to the Politico, many right-leaning media outlets are preparing to face exactly that. Aside from rumors of the rejuvenation of the Fairness Doctrine which would force radio and TV stations to provide equal airtime to opposing views, there are serious worries that the Obama administration would limit access to the president to those journalists it feels would bolster the administration's agenda.

Clearly, this is part of Mr. Obama's strategy to change the Washington politics. No longer will he allow tough, challenging questions to be asked by both conservatives and liberals alike, but rather he will seek out those few "special" members of the media who are more prepared to sacrifice their obligation to inform the public in order to get a quick story.

Sarcasm aside, it will, I am sure, be pointed out that previous presidents have granted more favorable access to those reporters who they felt would present a favorable story, however, as the president who ran on a message of change and a promise to reform politics, it is interesting that Obama has so quickly begun a campaign of politics as usual. it is my prediction that Obama will attempt to present a facade of change, but with limited opposing views, it will be hard to understand whether his proclamations are in fact truth, or if they are simply the empty words of yet another Washington insider.

Why Sarah Palin Should Not Be The Republican Choice in 2012

2008-11-11T13:17:00.000-05:00

There has been a lot of talk recently about the possibility of Palin running for president in four years. Sure, she brings a relatively fresh face to politics, and as a Washington outsider she can easily use that tactic when running against a DC insider. However, Palin also comes across as the new kid on the block all too often. Sure, she arguably has more executive experience than Obama, but that's now. In four years it will be Obama with the experiencing, and it would seem that he only becomes more persuasive the higher up the ladder he climbs. A rather goofy sounding Palin running against an incredibly articulate Obama will never work.

In four years from now, the voting public will not have forgotten the Bush years, they may or may not be happy with an Obama administration, but certainly any Republican candidate will want to distance their campaign from Bush as much as possible. If Sarah Palin runs, her campaign will immediately be connected to McCain and thus also to Bush. That's just simple campaign strategy - don't remind the voters of what they hate. But, aside from strategy, Palin does not seem to be capable of formulating her own fresh ideas; in order to rejuvenate the GOP, a leader with the energy and strength to enthuse the masses is required. Palin is not going to invigorate anyone, she isn't ready for the major leagues yet, and it is doubtful that four years will change that, especially since she seems to think that she is ready.

To All Those Who Think The GOP Is Over

2008-11-06T18:10:00.000-05:00

It's not. We've lost before. True, the Grand Old Party has been the party of power for most of a decade, but it was also the party of power during the Reagan and Bush years. Yes, we lost big. But this will simply provide momentum and inspiration to grow our base and come back stronger than ever. We are still the party of morals and a wish for a stronger America. So unless one wants to argue that Americans no longer values morals and its safety and strength in the world, it's a safe bet that the Republicans will be back in power. (Oh, and when people wake up to the harsh reality that socialism doesn't work they're gonna elect a Republican congress that will have the backbone to do what is right for the country.)

Obama Wins

2008-11-04T23:14:00.001-05:00

Well it's finally over. I truly hope that my concerns will be proven wrong. I hope that Obama will indeed be the leader he has been touted to be. Let us all wish for the success of this great nation in the future.

Iran Endorses Obama, Iraq pleads for McCain

2008-10-31T12:29:00.000-04:00

While Al Qaeda is demanding the "humiliation" of the Republican party (clearly implying that by electing a Democrat the GOP will be "degraded and defied"), Iraqis - who have seen their lives improve over the five years that the Americans have been repairing their country - are hoping for a McCain victory.

McCain understands that to truly win the War on Terror the United States must ensure the complete reformation of former terrorist strongholds. In order to do this, America cannot employ solely violent means of expulsion, rather it must pursue the creation of an education system and provide opportunities for intellectual growth in order to expel radical ideologies not simply from the actions of the people, but from their minds and from future generations as well. While the argument exists that America must focus on the situation at home - be it health care, the economic crisis, or our own school system - this argument ignores the obvious truth that in order to ensure true domestic security, safety overseas must be secured as well. It is noble to desire a leader such as Obama who promises to provide all the domestic comforts that Americans wish for. However, if this leader is not willing to engage in an active and firm foreign policy that guarantees the safety of those Americans then the validity of his domestic policies are undermined. If safety abroad is not ensured then safety at home is not either and so, all the comforts of government provided benefits will be for naught because even with their health insurance, free schooling, and extra money, Americans will still be dying (to be blunt). The federal government's first and primary prerogative must therefore be the assurance of safety from threats both at home and abroad.

It is because they recognize that McCain understands what security means that the Iraqi people would vote for him. Iraqis look at previous American endeavors and see that for all their altruism, the US, as it did in Afghanistan, always seems to leave to early. McCain will ensure that the job gets done abroad and will thereby also ensure that domestic reforms can be lasting and productive.

On November 4th a critical decision will be made by all Americans. Will we elect as the role model for the world a leader who is dedicated to the security and well being of all people and has a lengthy record of sacrificing for others? Or, will we give power to an individual whose life has been about climbing the ladder of power; who has promised much, but has given little and who has already begun limiting the speech and freedoms of those who oppose him?

Obama's New Deal No Better Than Old One

2008-10-29T15:15:00.001-04:00

By

Michael Barone

With victory in sight, Barack Obama's supporters are predicting
that he will give us a new New Deal. To see what that might mean, let's
look back on the original New Deal.

The purpose of New Deal legislation was not, as commonly thought,
to restore economic growth but rather to freeze the economy in place at

a time when it seemed locked in a downward spiral. Its central program,
the National Recovery Administration (NRA), created 700 industry
councils for firms and unions to set minimum prices and wages. The
Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA), the ancestor of our farm bills,
limited production to hold up prices. Unionization, encouraged by NRA
and the 1935 Wagner Act, was meant to keep workers in jobs that the
unemployed would have taken at lower pay.

These policies did break the downward spiral. But, as Amity Shlaes
points out in "The Forgotten Man," they failed to restore growth.

Double-digit unemployment continued throughout the 1930s; despite

population growth, the economy failed to rebound to 1920s production
levels. High taxes on high earners (a Herbert Hoover as well as
Franklin Roosevelt policy) financed welfare payments ("spread the
wealth around") but reduced investment and growth.

The political verdict was negative. New Dealers were whalloped in

the 1938 off-year elections. Polls show that Democrats would have lost
the White House in 1940 if that election had been decided on domestic
issues. But war loomed. France fell in June 1940, just before America's
two national party conventions, and Adolf Hitler and his then-ally
Joseph Stalin controlled most of the landmass of Eurasia. Republicans
did not have an experienced leader in this world crisis -- Democrats
did: Franklin Roosevelt, who cynically engineered his nomination for a
third term and then swept to victory on foreign policy.

Roosevelt had thought that economic expansion was a thing of the

past. But World War II stimulated huge growth in the American economy.
New Deal welfare programs like the Civilian Conservation Corps and the
Works Progress Administration (WPA) arts program were terminated.
Wartime domestic policies were growth stimulators. Veterans
Administration home mortgage loans, building on the FHA mortgage
program, encouraged home-buying and after the war converted a nation of
renters to a nation of homeowners. The G.I. Bill of Rights subsidized
higher education for millions of veterans.

These programs stimulated growth partly because they required real

effort -- down payments, military service -- from beneficiaries before
they received aid.

The postwar Republican Congress elected in 1946 dismantled some New

Deal anti-growth policies. Labor unions' powers to strike were sharply
restricted. Tax rates were lowered, and wage and price controls were
dismantled. Many hold-the-economy-in-place policies were retained until
the deregulation of the 1970s and 1980s. But the New Deal was
transformed sufficiently to permit buoyant economic growth for two
decades after the war.

Obama seems determined to follow policies better suited to freezing

the economy in place than to promoting economic growth. Higher taxes on
high earners, for one. He told Charlie Gibson he would raise capital
gains taxes even if that reduced revenue: less wealth to spread around,
but at least the rich wouldn't have it -- reminiscent of the Puritan
sumptuary laws that prohibited the wearing of silk. Moves toward
protectionism like Hoover's (Roosevelt had the good sense to promote
free trade). National health insurance that threatens to lead to
rationing and to stifle innovation. Promoting unionization by
abolishing secret ballot union elections.

The impulse to social engineering is unmistakable. Government

officials will allocate resources, redistribute income, and ration good
and services. Use government stakes in banks, insurance companies and
Detroit auto manufacturers to maintain the position of those already in
place, at the cost of preventing the emergence of new enterprises that
might have been spawned by the capital being allocated.

Social engineering of course is far easier when you are dealing

with an economy that is frozen in place. It's harder when you have to
deal with the creative destruction, the emergence of new firms and
businesses, and the decline of old ones, which as Joseph Schumpeter
taught is the inevitable consequence of economic growth.

Roosevelt in the 1930s had some extremely competent social

engineers, like Harry Hopkins, Harold Ickes and Fiorello LaGuardia, who
could enroll 750,000 people on welfare in three weeks and build an
airport in less than a year. But even they could not spur the economic
growth produced by utterly unknown and unconnected people, as Warren
Buffett and Bill Gates were in 1970.

When financial crisis looms, there is an impulse to freeze

everything in place and accept what is as the best there can ever be:
Barack Obama's new New Deal. The history of the old New Deal suggests
this is not a sustainable approach in the long run. (source)

Obama's Policy on Accountability

2008-10-29T14:11:00.001-04:00

While Barack Obama is arguing that "politics as usual" is not how he will run the White House, his campaign strategy has, unsurprisingly, been all about the underhandedness that has become associated with politicians. Here and here are two great examples from today's news.

Welcome to the Spin Room

2008-10-23T20:04:00.002-04:00

Thomas Sowell makes a valid point in his argumenet that it is not facts but fluff that attracts voters.

Fact Number One: It was liberal Democrats, led by Senator Christopher
Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, who for years-- including the
present year-- denied that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking big
risks that could lead to a financial crisis... It was liberal Democrats, again led by Dodd and Frank, who for years pushed for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans, which are at the heart of today's financial
crisis.

Despite these and many more facts that offer substantial proof that it is the Democratic party that must be held responsible for the current crisis, voters seem not to care. On November 4th, current polls predict, America will elect a democratic president thus giving that party supreme control over the government. The idea of checks and balances is crucial to our system of government and to ensuring our way of life. It would not be intelligent, during a time when Americans abroad are still ensuring Iraqis their freedoms on a daily basis and Americans at home are struggling to make ends meet, to elect one of the most socialist American politicians in recent history. Giving Mr. Obama the keys to the Oval office while Congress is still controlled by the Democrats undermines the fundamental principals of this nation.

Joe's Election

2008-10-16T17:53:00.001-04:00

"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

This is what Obama's economic plan boils down to. He wants to tax the "rich" to feed the "poor." Very nice sounding in theory - very socialist in reality. What ever happened to the American dream where anyone can become rich? Under the Obama Plan it would be all but impossible for new people to enter the realm of the "rich" (keep in mind that according to Obama $250,000 of income a year qualifies one as rich) when their taxes are increased the closer they get to that landmark. Essentially, what will happen is that as one works harder to earn that higher income they will be slapped with increasing taxes thus discouraging their continued efforts to break out of poverty (lower than $250,000). The socialist model doesn't work because it discourages economic growth. In this difficult economic period, the last the our country needs is another barrier to growth.

We don't need to increase taxes on Joe the Plumber in order to strengthen our economy and society, we need to make it easier for him to work so that he can buy his company, employ more workers, and eventually enable those workers to buy their own companies, thus continuing a cycle of economic growth.

The Last Debate

2008-10-15T22:34:00.001-04:00

Currently the closing statements are being made. My favorite line from the debate was McCain's final argument for vouchers when he summed up Obama's argument as "well, there aren't enough vouchers therefore we shouldn't use any even though its working."

Anyway, I'm gonna post more later but for now I want to watch the commentary...

McCain Letter Demanded 2006 Action on Fannie and Freddie

2008-10-11T19:44:00.001-04:00

Sen. John McCain's 2006 demand for regulatory action on Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac could have prevented current financial crisis, as HUMAN
EVENTS learned from the letter shown in full text below.

McCain's letter -- signed by nineteen other senators -- said that it
was "...vitally important that Congress take the necessary steps to
ensure that [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac]...operate in a safe and sound
manner.[and]..More importantly, Congress must ensure that the American
taxpayer is protected in the event that either...should fail."

Sen. Obama did not sign the letter, nor did any other Democrat.

The full text of the letter appears below.

What the Main Stream Media Doesn't Want You to Know

2008-10-06T23:16:00.002-04:00

Secret, Foreign Money Floods Into Obama Campaign

"More than half of the whopping $426.9 million Barack Obama has raised
has come from small donors whose names the Obama campaign won't
disclose."

This headline and quote from Newsmax.com shines the light on an issue that, while not necessarily illegal, is certainly crossing the threshold of proper ethics. Obama's slogan has constantly been "Change" yet, his methods have been anything but. Mr. Obama claims that he has dotted the "i"s and crossed the "t"s, but that has not been the case. I don't know who gave him the money, but I, and many other voters shure would like to. If Mr. Obama wants the American public to believe his impassioned cries of hope and belief in his ability to reform Washington, he must match those words with his actions. As of yet, he has not done so.

Biden's Fantasy World

2008-10-06T18:44:00.001-04:00

From the Wall Street Journal

In the popular media wisdom, Sarah Palin is the neophyte who knows
nothing about foreign policy while Joe Biden is the savvy diplomatic
pro. Then what are we to make of Mr. Biden's fantastic debate voyage
last week when he made factual claims that would have got Mrs. Palin
mocked from New York to Los Angeles?

Start with Lebanon, where Mr. Biden
asserted that "When we kicked -- along with France, we kicked Hezbollah
out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, 'Move NATO forces in there.
Fill the vacuum, because if you don't know -- if you don't, Hezbollah
will control it.' Now what's happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part
of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel."

The U.S. never kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, and no one else has
either. Perhaps Mr. Biden meant to say Syria, except that the U.S. also
didn't do that. The Lebanese ousted Syria's military in 2005. As for
NATO, Messrs. Biden and Obama may have proposed sending alliance troops
in, but if they did that was also a fantasy. The U.S. has had all it
can handle trying to convince NATO countries to deploy to Afghanistan.

Speaking of which, Mr. Biden also averred that "Our commanding
general in Afghanistan said the surge principle in Iraq will not work
in Afghanistan." In trying to correct him, Mrs. Palin mispronounced the
general's name -- saying "General McClellan" instead of General David
McKiernan. But Mr. Biden's claim was the bigger error, because General
McKiernan said that while "Afghanistan is not Iraq," he also said a
"sustained commitment" to counterinsurgency would be required. That is
consistent with Mr. McCain's point that the "surge principles" of Iraq
could work in Afghanistan.

Then there's the Senator's astonishing claim that Mr. Obama "did not
say he'd sit down with Ahmadinejad" without preconditions. Yet Mr.
Biden himself criticized Mr. Obama on this point in 2007 at the
National Press Club: "Would I make a blanket commitment to meet
unconditionally with the leaders of each of those countries within the
first year I was elected President? Absolutely, positively no."

Or how about his rewriting of Bosnia history to assert that John
McCain didn't support President Clinton in the 1990s. "My
recommendations on Bosnia, I admit I was the first one to recommend it.
They saved tens of thousands of lives. And initially John McCain
opposed it along with a lot of other people. But the end result was it
worked." Mr. Biden's immodesty aside, Mr. McCain supported Mr. Clinton
on Bosnia, as did Bob Dole even as he was running against him for
President in 1996 -- in contrast to the way Mr. Biden and Democratic
leaders have tried to undermine President Bush on Iraq.

Closer to home, the Delaware blarney stone also invited Americans to
join him at "Katie's restaurant" in Wilmington to witness middle-class
struggles. Just one problem: Katie's closed in the 1980s. The mistake
is more than a memory lapse because it exposes how phony is Mr. Biden's
attempt to pose for this campaign as Lunchbucket Joe.

We think the word "lie" is overused in politics today, having become
a favorite of the blogosphere and at the New York Times. So we won't
say Mr. Biden was deliberately making events up when he made these and
other false statements. Perhaps he merely misspoke. In any case, Mrs.
Palin may not know as much about the world as Mr. Biden does, but at
least most of what she knows is true.

Conclusion

2008-10-02T22:48:00.002-04:00

Biden came off as having a better command of the issues. However, Palin was charming and connected with the audience. It is fair to say that ultimately Sarah Palin did very well. She had no major "gaffes" and she was able to to go head to head with a Senator of nearly 40 years. While Fox (obviously) says that she won the debate hands down, I tend to look for the issues and substance of the arguments more than the style or showiness. So while her ability to perform on stage may help McCain - a result I am certainly hoping for - in the interest of objectivity I must say that I liked Biden a lot. Sen. Biden is good at serious speeches where he discusses critical issues with very little humor, Gov. Palin is good at connecting with the mainstream voter.

I am looking forward to seeing what the polls show tomorrow - how significant an impact will this debate have on the current ratings?

Personality

2008-10-02T22:19:00.001-04:00

"Say it ain't so Joe!" As I've said before, at the end of the night, it is her personality that will draw voters. With a quick series of teasing jokes that nobody seemed to get, Palin has just warmed up. As a whole, this debate is raather friendly, with neither side attacking to harshly, the weaknesses of the other.

Attack

2008-10-02T22:08:00.003-04:00

I wish I was better at multi-tasking, because there is so much to comment on. Essentially, Biden is coming off as strong, knowledgeable, and fed up. The Senator seems to be frustrated with Governor Palin's "talking points." I don't blame him. Biden has an enourmous resume to boast of; he is one of the most knowledgeable Senators when it comes to foriegn affairs.

Palin's most potent attacks are coming in the forms of pointing out the hypocracies of both Biden and Obama, but of "Washington insiders" in general. "I am just not used to the way you all talk." While she is not completely devoid of substansive remarks, her most sailient comments are those that point out the records of Obama and Biden. I can't help but notice that as Palin speaks, Biden chuckles and nods - sometimes it seems that he is being condescending. At other times, I think he actually likes the way palin is making her points.

Randomness

2008-10-02T22:08:00.001-04:00

Biden just mentioned that Iranian President Ahmadinejad does not control the security in Iran. "It is the theocracy that controls the security." This brings out a very valid point: Ahmadinejad does not ultimately make the decisions in Iran, the mullahs do. Therefore what really is accomplished by talking to him? Anyway, moving right along...

[On a side note Jonathan Martin does a great job blogging the debate.]

Palin just botched the nuke debate: "A deterant... is a safe stable way to use those nuclear weapons." While she is of course refering to the way America "uses" nukes, she has also opened the door (as if it really needed opening) to the double standard argument. Not only that, but she has legitimized the argument that nukes for self-defense (i.e. a deterant) is okay.

The VP Debate - First Impressions

2008-10-02T21:49:00.001-04:00

My first thought: Palin looks like a kid trying to box with Muhammad Ali. Its now half an hour into the debate, and Palin looks no more relaxed than she did 30 minutes ago. That being said, Palin is handling herself fairly well in this debate. Currently, the discussion has turned to the War in Iraq. Palin seems to be sticking to the party line: the surge worked, we must stay the course and "it would be a travesty if we quit now in Iraq" because it would constitute a failure not only there but in Afghanistan as well.

While Senator Biden is certainly coming across as the more experienced politician of the two, I am not convinced that that is a point in his favor. As Palin keeps mentioning, she is just like the rest of us; her family and issues are most similar to those of the middle class voters that are so often mentioned. While Palin is the more relatable of the two, for my part, I am enjoying hearing (and watching) Biden debate. He is confident and while not always honest, certainly presaents an image of honesty and sincerity. Biden very smoothly avoided Palins barb that he once stated that he would be honored to be on a ticket with McCain. For her part, Palin likes to mention Obama's "story" - a referance to Gwen Ifill's forethcoming book on Obama?

Whose Fault Is It?

2008-09-26T17:27:00.001-04:00

I am currently watching Harry Ried speaking on C-SPAN
and blaming the president (of course) for the economic crisis. As I
understand it, Congress is generally more directly responsible for the
taxes and laws (effecting the economy) than the president. That being
said, the economy was considered to not only be strong, but to be gaining strength, prior the arrival of the Democrats in the seat of power.

On her first day as Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi declared
that, "Today we change the direction of our country." This country's
direction has indeed changed, although not for the better; it has gone
from growing and prosperous to weak and stagnated. So to you Madam
Speaker I must offer my congratulations on a job well done. Mission
Accomplished.

Now fix your damn mess!

Homeowner Bailout

2008-09-26T17:22:00.001-04:00

While there are many criticisms of the Paulson Plan, one of the most voiced is that the plan does not bail out homeowners; a plan must be crafted to help homeowners. However "both sides seem to have forgotten that Congress approved a $300 billion mortgage rescue package in late July." I don't think that it's such a major issue that this plan seems to have been forgotten so quickly, I merely think that it is not a valid excuse for holding up the passage of a financial plan.

One More Reason to Educate Voters

2008-09-25T17:45:00.001-04:00

Using his brilliant powers of deception - excuse me, deduction - Congressman Alcee Hastings (D-FL) argued today that because she carries "guns and strip[s] moose" Sarah Palin "don't care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks." Putting aside the grammatical error (which I'm sure was used solely for dramatic emphasis), I'd truly like to understand this statement. I mean, basically, this guy is saying that a knowledge of firearms equel anti-semitism and a hatred of blacks. So, continuing this man's thought process, it would be fair to say that the entire United States armed services is really a front for the Aryan Nation?

Hastings attempted to clarify his statement as simply a comparison between Jews and blacks:

"Just like Jews, blacks care about affordable health care, energy
independence, and the separation of church and state," said Hastings.
"And just like blacks, Jews care about equal pay for equal work,
investment in alternative energy, and a woman's right to choose."

This may (or may not; seeing as how Hastings is apt to create broad generalities based on insubstantial evidence) be true, however I am sure that Jews and blacks care about national security, self-dependance, and a non-overreaching government as well, so it is just as likely that they should in fact be Republican.

Anyway, my point in all this is that I am amazed at how this idiot managed to convince people to elect him. If this was my Congressman I would be asking for a refund.

Let the Debate Begin

2008-09-24T19:02:00.001-04:00

"I'll suspend my campaign and return to Washington... I have spoken to Senator Obama... and asked him to join me."

This is leadership. This is the action we need to see. The American people, in this time of financial crisis do not need to hear partisan politicking and campaign slandering. Senator McCain has made the right choice in deciding to go to Washington for although he may not be the leading economist in the Senate, his determination to be at the center of the storm shows his recognition that the general well being of the nation is more important than anything else.

Obama's response is characteristic of his inability to actually fix problems as opposed to simply pontificating about how he is the only one who can fix them (yet never really saying exactly how he'll do that).

"It's my belief that this is exact time when the American people need to hear form the person who in approximately 40 days will be responsibly for dealing with this mess and I think that it is going to be part of the President’s job to deal with more than one thing at once."

Mr. Obama makes it sound as if the American people have not heard him (or McCain for that matter) for the past 12 months. Instead of proposing an intelligent economic plan - or at least giving us some idea of what he would do - the first term Senator is letting his personal ambition stand in the way of doing what is best for the nation.

A debate is neccessary. However, simply repeating prepared answers and reiterating talking points is not the debate needed at this time. Let the candidates debate with their actions. Let us all look at the accomplishments - both past and present - of the candidates. Let us turn to the candidates for the best actions that will stabilize and secure this country. This will be the true debate.

Checks and Balances - They're Here for a Reason

2008-09-23T23:24:00.001-04:00

A New York Times article I actually like talks about the incredible amount of power being requested by Treasury Secretary Paulson:

“Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are
non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be
reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency”

And So It Begins

2008-09-23T19:46:00.001-04:00

I take issue not with the fact that Biden is criticizing his own campaign's tactics, but rather I am worried that Obama is getting undermined and outshone by his running mate. As president of the United States, the buck must stop with Obama. It sends the wrong picture now, and would certainly send bad signals in the White House if every time "President" Obama speaks, the nation turns to Joe Biden for confirmation.

It was wrong to select Biden in the first place. The fact that his disagreements are already being publicly aired only hightens concerns that in a time of national crisis we will not have a unified front to protect national interests.

The Democrats Are Right - Part 2

2008-09-22T14:56:00.000-04:00

Just a follow up question based on the theory that if Obama loses it is because he is black. If McCain loses is it because he had a woman on the ticket?

Where's Our Congress?

2008-09-21T21:47:00.001-04:00

“We will do something this week — but if we learned anything from right
after 9/11, it’s that the biggest mistake is to pass anything they ask
for just because it’s an emergency,” Leahy says.

Yes, it is a big mistake to improve the nation's economy speedily. It as much a mistake as, say, passing a bill that would allow America to become more energy independent, before going on recess. Is it any surprise that only 20% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing?

Now I am as big a fan of a reasonable solution to the economic crisis as the next guy. I believe that too many elected officials stood still for too long. Yet, is now the time to act slowly? At a time when the nation is concerned with rising gas prices, the fall of the dollar, and collapse of major Wall Street firms, hesitance is not desirable. It is time for Nancy Pelosi to finally accept that as the leader of the majority party, it is up to her to ensure that something be done. Perhaps the Democrats could take a page out of the Republican play book and actually try to get something done for once. Nah, that would be asking too much...

The Democrats Are Right

2008-09-21T13:03:00.002-04:00

The front page of today's Politico features a story about Mr. Obama's race and how it seems to be becoming an issue in the campaign. However, the Politico states that,

"Many Democrats see the explicit discussion of race and politics as
almost unambiguously negative for Obama, a reminder to voters of
fraught questions of identity and a distraction from the economic
troubles."

This is true. By bringing in the "concern" of color, the media is distracting the public from the real issues. Whatever one's argument may be against voting for Obama, it would be naive and, in fact, irresponsible to keep him out of office because of his skin. Granted, it is justifiable to argue that because he is black he may have had different life experiences, and as a result, a different outlook on the world. That being said, I think his varied experiences would be an advantage in his pursuit of the oval office. To begrudge someone the ability to lead not because of his ideas but because he (or she) does not fit the mold is wrong.

While it is impossible to ignore the fact that there are people who won't vote for Obama because he is not white, this is not a national problem. It is the problem of a minority of individuals who are incapable of looking past themselves. In the event that Mr. Obama does not get elected, it would be unfair - no, it would be untrue and demeaning - to argue that it was because his skin is dark. It would bolster the erroneous idea that blacks cannot succeed in this country. It would also undermine the high caliber of the presidential position.

If race becomes a major factor in this contest the nation will not benefit. Instead of being about leadership and original ideas, the competition for White House will have been diminished to a playground argument. While the media may prefer to talk about race, at a time when the economy is struggling and the nation is still at war, race is not of utmost concern. Let's stay on topic people!

Why Rich Democrats Can Afford to Raise Our Taxes

2008-09-18T09:01:00.000-04:00

Um... They're rich...

McCain on Taxes

2008-09-02T20:06:00.003-04:00

The Wall Street Journal has a great article comparing McCain's tax plan to Obama's. I especially like this paragraph:

In stark contrast to Barack Obama, Mr. McCain believes that tax policy should be used to foster the creation of jobs and higher wages through economic growth, rather than to redistribute incomes. The economy is not a zero-sum game in which some people can enjoy higher incomes only if others are made worse off.

Introducing VP Sarah Palin

2008-08-29T14:19:00.002-04:00

Obma Unfit to Serve

2008-08-28T01:21:00.004-04:00

According to both Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama would be a bad president. Let me repeat: the man Obama chose to be his VP said that Obama ddoes not have the neccessary experience to be president.

Biden:

Biden Said Obama Is Not Ready To Serve As President. ABC's George Stephanopoulos: "You were asked is he ready. You said 'I think he can be ready, but right now I don't believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.'" Sen. Biden: "I think that I stand by the statement." (ABC's, "This Week," 8/19/07)

Biden: "If the Democrats think we're going to be able to nominate someone who can win without that person being able to table unimpeachable credentials on national security and foreign policy, I think we're making a tragic mistake..." (Sen. Joe Biden, "The Diane Rehm Show," 8/2/07)

Biden: "Having Talking Points On Foreign Policy Doesn't Get You There." ("Biden Lashes Out At Obama," ABC News' "Political Radar" Blog, blogs.abcnews.com, 8/2/07)

Clinton:

Obama's House

2008-08-22T10:24:00.012-04:00

While John McCain attempts to stick to the issues, Obama - the self-proclaimed harbinger of change - is busy playing dirty politics. Attempting to prove that Senator McCain is not able to relate to the pains of ordinary Americans, the one-term Senator from Illinois recently released an ad called "Seven" attacking McCain's ability to afford numerous dwellings. Capitalizing on this ad, The Politico recently asked McCain how many homes he owns and when he refused to play into this obvious trap, Mr. McCain was branded as being "unsure" of his own wealth. (Interestingly, so are the Democrats - according to Politico McCain owns at least eight homes, not seven - if he can't even get the number of properties owned by his competitor correct, how can we reasonably expect Obama to accurately assess America's security issues, foreign policy matters, to say nothing of the economy itself?)

As Obama points out, he only owns one home, thus the reasonable conclusion should be reached that he is more capable of relating to the economic pains plaguing this nation.

"But if you are like me and you've got one house, or you are like the millions of people who are struggling right now to keep up with their mortgage so they don't lose their home, you might have a different perspective."

Of course, Mr. Obama fails to mention that his one home is worth over $1.5 million dollars and that's after he was given "a sweetheart deal from a fraud embezzler like Tony Rezko" (in the words of Rush Limbaugh).

I think the words of McCain spokesman Brian Rogers sum up the situation pretty well:

"Does a guy who made more than $4 million last year, just got back from vacation on a private beach in Hawaii and bought his own million-dollar mansion with the help of a convicted felon really want to get into a debate about houses?" Roger said. "Does a guy who worries about the price of arugula and thinks regular people 'cling' to guns and religion in the face of economic hardship really want to have a debate about who's in touch with regular Americans?"

In conclusion, I just need to say that while I may have completely blown this issue out of proportion, I did so because it frustrates me to see the mainstream media falling in love with a politician to the extent that they purposely distort or simply refuse to report what one of the candidates says and does. True, I am supporting John McCain, and that certainly plays into my own biases and frustrations, however I am not entrusted with reporting the NEWS to America. When someone reads my (or anyone's) blog, they are doing so because they want to hear that person's opinions. This is not the case when reading a newspaper like the New York Times, the Washington Post, or watching the evening news or listening to the radio. These sources are supposed to provide information allowing the public to make up their own mind. It is dishonest to provide only one side of an issue to the extent that it is nearly impossible to hear the other side's point of view. Case in point: in the past two weeks I have not once seen the NYT homepage post a McCain story unless it was to attack him - yet, even while on vacation, Obama got more positive coverage and first-page stories than McCain.

Obama Shows Weakness vs. Clintons

2008-08-21T22:56:00.003-04:00

I found this interesting article from previous Clinton adviser, Dick Morris, who points out that while Obama has become a media darling his inability to control even his own convention may ultimately prove his inability to meet the extreme demands of leading this nation:

Hillary and Bill are demonstrating the ease with which Barack Obama can be pushed around. With no real leverage over Obama, they have managed to secure prime time speeches for themselves on Tuesday and Wednesday night at the convention and to get Hillary’s name placed in nomination. They have won all of their demands for convention scheduling. In the name of party unity, Obama has given away the store. After the nominations, there will be a roll call vote. This further assures that the convention will be a continuation of the primaries and that Obama will be a guest at his own convention.
This begs the basic question: Is Barack Obama strong enough to be president?

McCain, not Obama, was right about Georgia

2008-08-12T18:33:00.003-04:00

August 12, 2008

STEVE HUNTLEY shuntley.cst@gmail.com

Mention Georgia a few days ago, and most of us would have thought of the state evoked so sweetly in "Georgia on My Mind," the classic tune sung by Ray Charles. Very few of us had heard of the South Ossetia province of Georgia, the nation with the misfortune to have Russia as its neighbor, until war broke out last week.

Like Kosovo, Bosnia, Kuwait and other unfamiliar places before, Ossetia reminds us that a small, remote corner of the globe can explode into an international crisis. One who was up to speed on Georgia and the menace it faced from Russia was veteran Sen. John McCain. He had visited the Caucasian nation three times in a dozen years. When fighting erupted, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate got on the phone to gather details and issued a statement Friday summarizing the situation, tagging Russia as the aggressor and demanding it withdraw its forces from the sovereign territory of Georgia.

It took first-term Sen. Barack Obama three tries to get it right. Headed for a vacation in Hawaii, the presumed Democratic candidate for commander in chief issued an even-handed statement, urging restraint by both sides. Later Friday, he again called for mutual restraint but blamed Russia for the fighting. The next day his language finally caught up with toughness of McCain's.

Making matters worse, Obama's staff focused on a McCain aide who had served as a lobbyist for Georgia, charging it showed McCain was "ensconced in a lobbyist culture." Obama's campaign came off as injecting petty partisan politics into an international crisis. This was not a serious response on behalf a man who aspires to be the leader of the Free World. After all, what's so bad about representing a small former Soviet republic struggling to remake itself as a Western-style democracy?

The comparison between the two candidates served to emphasize the strength McCain's experience would bring to the White House in a dangerous world.

Obama's favored approach to international issues, diplomatic talks, failed to stop Russia's invasion. Vladimir Putin, a KGB bull in the former Soviet Union, wants to restore Russia as the supreme power of Eurasia and, to that end, bully former vassal states like Georgia out of their democratic ways. The fear is that Ukraine will come in his cross hairs next.

However the world's newest war ends, America's leadership must recognize and respond to the underlying dynamic of Russia's resurgent aggressive instincts -- the power bestowed on Moscow by its oil and gas riches.

While we don't get fossil fuels from Russia, Western Europe does, and the Kremlin's energy might is fueled by the worldwide demand for oil. Developing U.S. domestic energy sources and alternatives to oil will only enhance our national security and, by reducing the world's petroleum demand, undermine the economic, political and military advantage vast oil and gas reserves give to unfriendly powers like Russia, Iran and Venezuela.

Obama calls for transforming America's economy in a decade. He's got the right idea -- long term. But short term, this nation must push for energy security on all fronts -- now. That includes new offshore drilling for oil, which Obama loathes, and new nuclear plants, which he views with aversion. We can't just wait for breakthrough technologies for wind, solar and biomass energy.

McCain has got it right in advocating new offshore drilling and a federal push to add 45 nuclear generators over the next two decades. Given the evidence of Russia's energy-fueled aggression, he should abandon his opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve and to extending subsidies he favors for nuclear energy to include renewables.

As Georgia burns, we need to light a fire under all the talk about energy security and start doing what it takes to make it happen.

Pied Pipers

2008-08-06T21:51:00.003-04:00

By Cal Thomas, New York Sun

When wants and needs are confused, desires become entitlements and politicians are afraid to tell people what they need to hear. Instead they tell them what they want to hear. Anger and envy result, as well as frustration with a political system that was not designed to indulge its citizens in their lusts or subsidize their greed. The economy isn't bad. We are bad for believing that more is better and the most is best. We have an abundance of things, but a deficit of character. The economy is a false god, a golden calf. When this false god doesn't deliver, we complain to politicians who are happy to accept our faith in them to give us what we want - if we will only pledge to them our allegiance at election time.

Grand Old Party

2008-07-02T20:07:00.003-04:00

In sheer agony I am watching the progress (or lack thereof) of this presidential competition. While Obama rushes to the right, McCain is sitting back watching the days go by. Aggression. That is what this campaign is all about, and it will be the more aggressive candidate sitting in the Oval come January 09.

McCain is currently running a losing campaign. If he wants to win the election he needs to step up the pressure on Obama; he needs to bring the fight to Obama's territory. Instead, Senator Obama has brought the fight to the Republican dominated territories, forcing the GOP to go on the defensive.

Why, why, I ask, is the Republican party incapable (apparently) of fighting, of tackling the issues in a way that will show America that it cares. Where is the passion and the drive that once defined this Grand Old Party?

Politics 2.0

2008-06-06T13:16:00.006-04:00

In the 21st century America will see a drastic change in the character of its politicians. In a society obsessed with "progressiveness" as defined by its Hollywood idols, the once great leaders of the most respected nation on in history will soon be viewed as no more than mere celebrities - icons in the culture zoo that the media has built.

Hillary Clinton, for example, was never expected to win the nomination on ability or leadership qualities; she was meant to win because of her gender. Now that she has lost, cries of "sexism" will be heard and the mainstream media will accuse Americans of not being open-minded enough to vote for a woman. In a race as crucial as this one, where the ISSUES are what matters how can we as Americans allow such a crucial matter to be so belittled?

Our politicians have become accustomed to the excuse of "we are only human." Yet, political figures are not meant to be placed on the same scale as the average American for they are intended to be the leaders, chosen to do what is best for the nation while upholding a higher level of integrity and morality.

If America's leaders are allowed to be placed on the level of the average Hollywood celebrity, it should come as no surprise that the U.S. is loosing favor in the eyes of the world. The many nations look at us and see a vast community of people obsessed with themselves as typified by the average politician. The key to winning the support of the global community is not to show them that we are capable of electing a woman or a black man - of being "sophisticated" - but to show them that we are a nation of morals, ethics and responsibility.

To be a leader means to lead, not follow the wealthy, publicity-hungry masses.

How #2 Becomes #1

2008-06-05T16:02:00.005-04:00

Hillary CLinton is not giving up. She is not admitting defeat, nor is she conceding the most coveted prize in American politics to her rival Barack Obama. Clinton's long-awaited withdrawal is merely a political maneuver aimed at saving face while she continues to pursue the Vice Presidential slot on the Democratic ticket.

That's right, I said "continues" - for I refuse to believe that Clinton did not already recognize months ago that she would not be nominated for President. Hillary Clinton, in an act of brilliant political strategy fought hard to prove her necessity; to show the Democratic party that they need her in order to win this November. Hillary has already begun her campaign for VP, a fact that is obvious to anyone her saw or heard her speech last night in which it would have seemed that she was declaring victory rather than defeat.

Yet, Hillary's attempt to achieve VP will soon be brushed aside for it would be political suicide for Obama to grant her that level of closeness to himself. Firstly, Hillary's supporters and Obama's do not and never have sen eye to eye on anything. Obama runs on a platform of change, whereas Mrs. Clinton dredges up bad memories of scandal and political doublespeak. By granting Hillary the VP slot, Obama would effectively cancel out the votes of his own supporters.

Secondly, if Obama truely wants to prove his ability to lead, he will not allow the Clinton dynasty to overshadow his presidency. As she did when her husband was president, Clinton will attempt to interfere in all aspects of the presidency. It would be the first time in history that the president answered to his VP - a fact that Obama recognizes and fears.

It is for these reasons that Obama will not choose Hillary Clinton as his running mate, and it is for these reasons that the Democratic party cannot yet declare itself united, for the battle for power has merely been clouded over but not yet erased from the public eye.

EDIT: I just read this Dick Morris article which basically agrees with me but throws Bill CLinton into the mix.

US Iraq Deaths At Four Year Low

2008-06-01T11:13:00.002-04:00

US Iraq deaths 'at four-year low'

US military deaths in Iraq are said to have fallen to their lowest monthly level for four years, after about 20 soldiers were reported killed in May.

The figures for Iraqi civilian deaths vary according to different sources, but have also dropped.

Most accounts put them at about 530 - or about half the levels seen in March and April.

Meanwhile, Australia has begun withdrawing its contingent of about 500 combat troops from Iraq.

The pullout honours a pledge made by the Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, when he was elected last November.

The Australian troops had been mainly playing what they call an "overwatch" role, assisting Iraqi forces.

Troop 'surge'

The BBC's Jim Muir in Baghdad says one reason for the reduction in US military deaths was the ceasefire in early May, which stopped fighting in the Sadr City district of the Iraqi capital.

Iraqi and American troops had been engaged in an offensive there against Shia militiamen of the Mehdi Army, loyal to the cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

But our correspondent adds that the overall trend of the violence since late last summer has been downwards.

He says the US troop "surge" was clearly a big factor, as was the trend within the Sunni community to turn against al-Qaeda and other Islamic militant groups.

The withdrawal of the additional US troops brought in last year for the surge is expected to be completed by July.

On Winning a War

2008-05-30T08:59:00.004-04:00

While Obama still claims that things are not going well, and the Democrats are still claiming that the war in Iraq serves no purpose, the CIA seems to disagree. According to CIA director Michael Hayden, "Al Qaeda is essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the world."

Of course, this story will be buried in the depths of your newspaper and probably not even mentioned on the TV or radio. If the Democratic party is really concerned about America's success in Iraq and defeat of terrorism, shouldn't they be the ones publicizing this story?

Alas, the sad truth is that the leaders of the Democratic party do not care about the safety and security of this nation. No, their concern is whether a woman or an African American wins the nomination so as to "show the world" that we are more progressive.

I could be mistaken, but I don't think that bin Laden really cares if he blows up a building filled with men or women, blacks or whites, adults or children. Although they have claimed to not care, the issues of race and gender have grossly overwhelmed the Democratic party, deriving them of the ability to focus on substance and issues. While Senator McCain is visiting Iraq in order to gain firsthand knowledge of what is really going on, Senators Clinton and Obama prefer to prolong their manufactured war and merely speak about their "experience" without having the substance to back up those words.

House Democrats have passed a bill to stifle the good news that we're winning in Iraq.

2008-05-27T20:22:00.001-04:00

Safe From Truth

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, May 23, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Anti-Militarism: House Democrats have passed a bill to stifle the good news that we're winning in Iraq. They are so invested in losing that they apparently fear a popular backlash against them from victory.

Congress seems to be acting out the role of Col. Nathan R. Jessep, played by Jack Nicholson in the film "A Few Good Men." When pinned in covering up a murder, Nicholson famously yells back at Tom Cruise, playing the interrogating attorney: "You can't handle the truth!"

Democrats have decided this election year that American voters can't handle the fact that victory in Iraq is at hand.

In its passage last week of the defense policy bill, the House issued a prohibition against the Pentagon's "concerted effort to propagandize" the American public regarding the Iraq War.

It came in the form of an amendment authored by Rep. Paul Hodes, D-N.H., which also would authorize an investigation of the Defense Department's "propaganda" efforts by the Government Accountability Office.

Hodes' addition to the bill passed by voice vote and the overall bill passed the House by a large margin. The Senate will wait until after the holiday recess to consider it.

It's not as if the Pentagon brass, as they wage a global war on terrorism, don't have better things to do than sit down and answer foolish questions about public relations operations from a bunch of GAO bean-counters.

Besides, haven't congressional Democrats insisted all these years that it wasn't the military they had a problem with regarding the Iraq War? Haven't they been saying how much they support those in uniform, that our military leaders really agreed with Democrats that Iraq was unwinnable, and that it was only the civilians who run war policy in the Bush administration they were attacking?

According to Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., the Hodes provision could end up classifying even the U.S. Marines' slogan, "The Few, the Proud, the Marines," as a "concerted effort to propagandize" in violation of the law.

The Democrats' efforts to save America from good news in Iraq stem from a New York Times article last month charging that retired military officers appearing on TV were "puppets of the Defense Department" because they get frequent private briefings and talking points.

The paper called it "a symbiotic relationship where the usual dividing lines between government and journalism have been obliterated."

How divided were the lines between government and journalism when the New York Times in 2005 refused the pleas of the White House not to endanger investigations that were in progress and alert terrorist plotters by exposing the National Security Agency's secret program to monitor the international telephone calls and e-mail messages of suspected terrorists?

Or when the Washington Post that same year imperiled national security by revealing the secret CIA interrogation program in which terrorist detainees were taken to foreign prisons where information that could prevent future attacks was extracted?

Democrats seem to be motivated largely by the notion that those who wear, or have worn, the uniform of the U.S. armed forces cannot be trusted. Witness Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, last week outrageously suggesting that presumptive GOP presidential nominee John McCain looks at everything "from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous."

As will be obvious again on this Memorial Day, most Americans trust and appreciate our servicemen and women. Their wrath is sure to fall on those who pass laws that presume them to be liars.

US air strikes on Iran would be major step towards Iraq victory

2008-05-07T10:28:00.001-04:00

From DEBKAfile:

Former American UN ambassador John Bolton said that while a hostile Iranian response harming US interests existed, the damaged inflicted by Tehran would be far higher if Washington took no action. He was quoted by the UK Telegraph as urging therefore that Washington order air strikes against the Revolutionary Guards Corps camps training Iraqi insurgents.

They Deserve Our Support and Thanks

2008-05-01T13:55:00.002-04:00

WTF!?

2008-04-27T21:36:00.003-04:00

"We strategically know how to stop the city so people stand still and realize that you do not have the right to shoot down unarmed, innocent civilians," Sharpton told an overflow crowd of several hundred people at his National Action Network office in the historically black Manhattan neighborhood. "This city is going to deal with the blood of Sean Bell."

So just to clarify: In order to protest the American legal system working the way it was intended, hundreds of people should wreak havoc on many innocent and uninvolved individuals? What do they hope will be accomplished? The government is not going to say "no, we made a mistake." And if because of violent uncivil protests it does, and declares the police officers guilty, won't THAT be a perversion of justice?

"You're not really guilty, but because we're scared we'll say you are." Come on!

I'll Be Back

2008-04-15T20:26:00.002-04:00

To my loyal readers:

Unfortunately, due to a butt-load of research papers I have due in two weeks, I am forced to take a break from blogging. I appreciate your bearing with me during this difficult period of mental and emotional suffering and I look forward to seeing you back here in May.

Thanks for reading!

Stryd3r

In Memory of a Hero

2008-04-09T09:49:00.002-04:00

All Talk

2008-04-08T20:15:00.007-04:00

In the same breath, Senator Obama today said that he wants to withdraw from Iraq and begin talks with Iran to mitigate what he perceives as being a declining situation in the area. Put aside for a minute the fact that immediate withdrawal from Iraq is not in America's best interests and will in fact cause harm to this country (as stated by Amb. Crocker and Gen. Petraeus). How does Mr. Obama plan to sit at a table with Iran - a nation that has publicly declared its intent to harm America and is a known sponsor of terrorism - while presenting an image of squeamishness about power.

It may indeed be necessary to talk to Iran; to tell them to cease their nuclear program. However, Mr. Obama is not the man to do this. He cannot expect to be taken seriously if he refuses to act as necessary. America and the United Nations has already threatened sanctions on Iran and Iran has responded with haughty laughter.

The leaders of Iran are not blind to the politics of America. They recognize that the American people hold tremendous power over the decisions of their elected leaders. The sheiks understand that more often than not the president will eventually bend to the will of the people, all that need be done is simply wait for America to lose its patience.

The leader that is needed now is not one who will listen to the voice of the people, but one who will do what is right for the people. To withdraw from Iraq sends the message that Iran is correct; pump money into terrorist groups, wait a little and poof, the politicians run home. Mr. Obama is such a politician. He is not going to follow through with his threats, nor does he present an image of power and strength - an image crucial to our survival as a nation.

In Obama, the leaders of Iran have found their savior. They will be allowed to create their weapons of terror for at least four years without having to worry about much more than a few empty threats.

Freedom of Expression... Not!

2008-04-07T22:35:00.003-04:00

Americans have traditionally maintained a claim on the right of expression. In fact, it can be argued that it is that right that is the premise for all our other liberties. However, the right of expression has always given way to the right of existence - in other words the right to be protected from harm. So, when "An unprecedented security blanket will be draped across San Francisco for the US leg of the Olympic flame's global relay here Wednesday amid worldwide condemnation of China's crackdown in Tibet and its human rights record ahead of the summer games in Beijing." it is not totally uncalled for.

I do not mean to imply that Americans are being restricted in their ability to protest. The mere fact that Breitbart is reporting that so many cops will be out for the torch run is attestation to the impact the global protests have had. However, at times protesting is not enough. Studies show that unless significant monetary or physical (i.e. violent) pressure is exerted, governments will more often than not simply ignore protests.

Of course, the journalistic outcry will impact China's leaders and force them to recognize that they do not operate in a bubble. Be that as it may, I am dubious of the lasting effects this brief outcry will have on impacting significant policy change. Witness Darfur.

The Ketchup Candidate

2008-04-02T22:34:00.003-04:00

The big news for the Obama campaign today was the additional campaign trail support of Teresa Heinz Kerry. Joining Michelle Obama in Pennsylvania, Kerry compared Mr. Obama to both of her husbands who won the election in that state.

In her statements today, standing beside Kerry, Mrs. Obama said that "she has seen how the bar for her husband has been consistently raised this year, and how he has met each of the challenges." I just want to take a moment to ask what challenges??? The media has been consistently soft on Obama. They let him brush aside his mentor of 20 years as being simply a "crazy uncle." Mr. Obama has not been challenged; his claim of restoring hope and change has been proven completely false. Mr. Obama has stooped to the level of Hillary in the name calling, the lying and the general disdain for the American people.

In Defense of Decency

2008-03-28T00:27:00.006-04:00

This story is really worth the read. It not only epitomizes the true greatness of our American soldiers, but it serves as a truly touching reminder of human kindness and decency.

Boy’s Wish Comes True at Fort Sam Houston

By Phil Reidinger
Special to American Forces Press Service

FORT SAM HOUSTON, Texas, March 27, 2008 – Gavin Cox could have traveled to any exotic locale or tried any profession in the world, but this 5-year-old with leukemia had just one wish: to be a soldier.

MG Czerw teaches Gavin Cox how to shoot an M-9 pistol

His wish was granted March 18 when he became a soldier for the day here.

“He could have chosen any activity during this break in his treatments, to include Disney World,” said Gavin’s father, Troy Heminger. “He wanted to be a soldier.”

The Candidate Who Cried Wolf

2008-03-27T09:00:00.004-04:00

From Dick Morris:

Hillary simply cannot tell the truth. Here's her scorecard:

Admitted Lies

• Chelsea was jogging around the Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. (She was in bed watching it on TV.)

• Hillary was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. (She admitted she was wrong. He climbed Mt. Everest five years after her birth.)

• She was under sniper fire in Bosnia. (A girl presented her with flowers at the foot of the ramp.)

• She learned in The Wall Street Journal how to make a killing in the futures market. (It didn't cover the market back then.)

Whoppers She Won't Confess To

• She didn't know about the FALN pardons.

• She didn't know that her brothers were being paid to get pardons that Clinton granted.

• Taking the White House gifts was a clerical error.

• She didn't know that her staff would fire the travel office staff after she told them to do so.

• She didn't know that the Peter Paul fundraiser in Hollywood in 2000 cost $700,000 more than she reported it had.

• She opposed NAFTA at the time.

• She was instrumental in the Irish peace process.

• She urged Bill to intervene in Rwanda.

• She played a role in the '90s economic recovery.

• The billing records showed up on their own.

• She thought Bill was innocent when the Monica scandal broke.

• She was always a Yankees fan.

• She had nothing to do with the New Square Hasidic pardons (after they voted for her 1,400-12 and she attended a meeting at the White House about the pardons).

• She negotiated for the release of refugees in Macedonia (who were released the day before she got there).

With a record like that, is it any wonder that we suspect her of being less than honest and straightforward?

In Protest of a War

2008-03-26T14:14:00.007-04:00

It is interesting to note the different ways in which people try to make themselves heard and show that they are "involved." One may, for example, cease wearing an American flag pin on his lapel in a show of protest. Or, if especially outraged, one could throw his "hard earned" metals back to his government. Yet a third method of involvement is to go to the actual scene of the battle in the attempt to gain a firsthand knowledge of what is really going on.

I suppose what I am getting at is that there seems to be a stark difference between the Democratic and Republican party's methods of making statements. While the Democrats always choose to distance themselves from America as a form of protest, the Republicans always draw closer. While the Democratic nominees are talking about how messed up this country is; while Democratic leaders are telling Americans how bad they are, the Republican party calls for patriotism and true hope for the future.

While the Democratic leaders move away from America, the Republican leaders move closer. When asked why he was wearing a bracelet John McCain answered, "I wear a bracelet on my hand not only as a symbol of the sacrifice that a brave young man named Matthew Stanley made but that of 4,000 other brave young Americans who have served and sacrificed," McCain said "My prayers go out to those families every day, not just on the day that 4,000 brave young Americans have sacrificed."

Why is there this difference? Why is it that in order to show disapproval certain people feel the need to destroy that which they claim to want to protect? Finally, why is it that no matter what, no matter how bad the media makes our country out to be, and no matter how badly we are told we are "losing" there are still those who refuse to give in to defeat and continue to retain hope and optimism for their nation's future?

The Soldier

2008-03-24T22:25:00.003-04:00

I was reading a thread from a forum I like and came across this eloquent and truthful message posted by Rhonda:

It's the Soldier, not the reporter Who has given us freedom of the press.

It's the Soldier, not the poet, Who has given us freedom of speech

It's the Soldier, not the campus organizer, Who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.

It's the Soldier, not the lawyer, Who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It's the Soldier who salutes the flag, Serves under the flag and whose coffin is draped by the flag, Who gives the protester the right to burn the flag.

It is the Soldier

Yes, it is indeed the Soldier.
Check out Rhonda's homepage here for more touching tributes to our troops.

Five Years

2008-03-24T20:03:00.003-04:00

On this fifth anniversary of the troop deployment to Iraq we must take a moment to stop and think about all that has been accomplished. We must recognize the selfless sacrifice of our soldiers in their mission to dethrone Saddam Hussein, a mission that has been accomplished. Our soldiers continue to remain in Iraq protecting the freedoms that are the basis of American society: free speech, the freedom to assemble, and a free press.

American forces continue to put their own lives on the line in Iraq to protect the safety and security of those back home. The loss of life suffered by the troops should not be exploited for political gain; it should not be plastered on the front pages of our newspapers, termed a "milestone," or posted on online news sites in cheery "interactive features."

It is important to remember the troops and to thank them for their determination and courage in protecting America. While the mainstream media and politicians continue to exploit tragedy in the hopes of achieving power, we should rise above that self-interested mentality. Whether it's with a care package, a card, or a simple "Thank You," we must remind our soldiers that there are people who really, truly care.

(Send a message to a soldier through America Supports You)

They Shot at Me!!! No, wait... um... did they?

2008-03-24T18:20:00.002-04:00

"Everyone else was told to sit on their bulletproof vests," Clinton told reporters. "And we came in, in an evasive maneuver. ... There was no greeting ceremony, and we basically were told to run to our cars. Now, that is what happened."

Wait, that's not what Hillary wrote in her tell-all book. She can't figure out if she was shot at, but she wants the American people to believe that she can figure out complex economic and medical policies (not to mention an ongoing war)? Read the full story here.

Who Gives a Shiite?

2008-03-20T00:55:00.005-04:00

Yesterday the left-wing media flew into a feeding frenzy at the idea that John McCain, the self-appointed authority on all things military, "misspoke." In his numerous statements, Mr. McCain said that "We continue to be concerned about Iranian taking Al Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back."

While McCain rescinded his comments, saying that he meant that Iran is training extremists, not necessarily al Qaeda, news outlets such as the New York Times and TIME Magazine continue to jump on his apparent confusion of Sunni versus Shiite terrorism saying "The United States believes that Iran, a Shiite country, has been training and financing Shiite extremists in Iraq, but not Al Qaeda, which is a Sunni insurgent group."

Although Iran has not yet been linked to the Iraqi Al Qaeda cells, it is not because one is Shiite while the other is Sunni. Iran is a known sponsor of HAMAS, the Sunni terrorist group that operates in the West Bank and Gaza and has connections to Al Qaeda. Sudan, a sponsor of the Sunni Al Qaeda, is known to sponsor the Shiite Hezbollah. In fact, in April 2007, Reuters reported that "Iranian intelligence forces are providing support to Sunni insurgents in Iraq, in addition to Shi'ites, to destabilize the country and tie U.S. forces down."

Admittedly, it is disturbing that McCain didn't immediately realize his error in stating an unverifiable idea. However, his idea is not far-out. Iran, like other sponsors of terror, tends not to care so much about who helps it achieve its horrible ends.

In an election where so much is at stake shouldn't our journalists be focussed on the issues instead of inadvertent slips-of-the-tongue?

McCain in the Lead

2008-03-19T21:56:00.003-04:00

From today's Reuters/Zogby poll:

The poll showed Arizona Sen. McCain, who has clinched the Republican presidential nomination, is benefiting from the lengthy campaign battle between Obama and Clinton, who are now battling to win Pennsylvania on April 22.

McCain leads 46 percent to 40 percent in a hypothetical matchup against Obama in the November presidential election, according to the poll.

Matched up against Clinton, McCain leads 48 percent to 40 percent.

Read the full story here

Someone Get Me a Map!

2008-03-17T16:40:00.007-04:00

This puzzle of political double talk and confusing campaign "he said, she saids" has created a labyrinth so impenetrable that it is no wonder only 19% of Americans are satisfied with the direction of our country. Today, Hillary Clinton argued that she is the only candidate that will end the Iraq war. She rightly points out that former Obama policy adviser Samantha Powers remarked in a BBC interview that "He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator" thus further demonstrating the Obama camp's continued pattern of double speak on the campaign trail. (One must wonder in the light of three nearly simultaneous stories revealing that Obama's advisers and mentors do not share his proclaimed views - withdrawal from NAFTA, racial inclusion, and withdrawal from Iraq - if Mr. Obama is not really another politician vying for the most coveted trophy in American politics.)

Yet, Mrs. Clinton is not above this mantra, this continued theme, not of renewed hope and "change" but of talking down to the American people and to quote a one time presidential hopeful, of "playing on our fears." Although Clinton claims she will immediately withdraw troops from Iraq, she continues to straddle the fence. While she claims that she will "within 60 days of my taking office" begin to withdraw, she also has proclaimed a desire to leave special forces troops in the area, an idea that according to Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D- Minn.) "people are practical about." In the same breath however, Clinton claims that McCain has declared that he will leave troops in Iraq for another 100 years, not noting that McCain was in fact also referring to special forces troops who would be used in much the same capacity as Clinton wants - to "engage in targeted operations against al Qaeda in Iraq."

While the rhetoric on Iraq has reached its peak, the action seems to be one sided. While the Democratic contestants are arguing about what they will or won't do, only one candidate has actually taken the initiative to go visit Iraq and view the situation with his own eyes. As CNN recently reported:

McCain, who was in Iraq on Monday on a congressional trip, told CNN's John King that Clinton "obviously does not understand nor appreciate the progress that has been made on the ground. She told Gen. [David] Petraeus last year when he testified that she would have to suspend disbelief in order to believe that the surge is working. Well, the surge is working.

"So I just think what that means is al Qaeda wins. They tell the world that. And we fight here again and around the Middle East. And their dedication is to follow us home. All I can say is that this will be a big issue in the election as we approach November because at least a growing number of Americans, though still frustrated and understandably so, believe that this strategy has succeeded," he added.

At the present time, only John McCain's actions really seem to match his words.

One More Must See

2008-03-13T22:25:00.003-04:00

I'll let you draw your own conclusions on this one.

Hear the Argument, See the Arguer

2008-03-13T15:53:00.009-04:00

"He ain't white, he ain't rich, and he ain't privileged." Those are the words of Reverend Dr. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's pastor and spiritual leader. I'm just wondering: when did a guy who makes nearly one million dollars annually become "not rich?" Watch the video here of Reverend Wright's outlandish statements calling Hillary "not white enough."

Although posting these videos may come across as simply political "mudslinging," it is important to note that these statements are coming from a man who is admired and respected by one of the contenders for the Presidential nomination. The fact is that while Obama may call Wright's statements "inflammatory at times" these statements are at the core of Wright's message to his followers.

We cannot ignore the connections of the Obama campaign to people such as Louis Farrakhan and Reverend Wright. We can not ignore the fact that Barack's wife publicly said that she has never been proud of America (or rather, now that her husband's political aspirations are being realized, she is "for the fist time in my adult life...proud of my country"). All this comes from the candidate who promises "change." Change for what? If it is to spread a message of America's failing's and wrongdoings, then this is change our country can do without. I am not advocating that we ignore our mistakes, I'm simply saying that the mistakes of this country are not what the country is about. Stop campaigning on a message of putting America in "time out" and start instilling home for the future.

While Obama himself has steered clear of making inflammatory remarks, we cannot ignore his past relationships with those less politically tactful than himself.

(Video courtesy of jca325 on YouTube)

Absolute Power...

2008-03-10T18:57:00.007-04:00

As the old aphorism goes "absolute power corrupts absolutely." Which is why we don't give our public representatives absolute power. The founding fathers, in their wisdom and foresight, created a system of checks and balances; they created the ability for a public official to be impeached, and they created a system that would enable the citizen to "oversee" their representative's actions.

Today the New York Times reported a story concerning New York Governor, Elliot Spitzer, in which they quoted him as describing his behavior as "a personal matter." In his next sentence though, Mr. Spitzer apoligised "to the public to whom I promised better."

The distinction between these two statements is important to recognize. While Spitzer points out what is indeed true: his non-political actions are indeed "personal," they should not in any way be mistaken for "private." As governor of a people - the represantative not only in legislative matters, but in moral and ethical ones as well - Elliot Spitzer's personal actions must be made public.

The same holds true in fact, for any public leader or representative, and it does not matter if the act in question is as "mundane" as supposedly double-speaking about NAFTA or as closely personal as having an affair. It is important that the public continues to notice and to monitor the actions of their leaders, so as - as the Founding Father's wished - these leaders may not come to obtain absolute power. The nation's leaders must recognize and understand that they are being watched and that Republic, Democrat, or Independant, they are not above the law. The only way to ensure that our leaders understand this vital fact, is by constantly pointing ALL theirs misactions.

Sometimes these actions will appear to the public to be merely mistakes - the type of "slip-up" any person might make - and so the public will choose to forget the foley. Yet, there are times when the public will decide that the action under consideration is too great to overlook, and in that case they will decide that pressure must be exerted on their leader to regain control over him or her. It is the ability to do this that is the crucial key in ensuring a democratic republic that is America, and it is this element of "public review" that despite its critics, must be upheld and protected.

Our Prayers Are With You

2008-03-06T15:20:00.002-05:00

Our hearts and prayers are with Yeshiva Merkaz Harav as well as the families and friends of those who are there. Full story and constant coverage as well as contact information at the Jerusalem Post.

She's Baaaaack!

2008-03-05T22:25:00.003-05:00

Wow! Yesterday's primaries were incredible. Sitting by my computer watching the polls close (I know, I have no life) I was pleasantly shocked and amazed to see Hilary pull ahead of Obama to take both Ohio and Texas. While Hillary has begun talk of a "ticket with Obama," Mr. Obama says that this talk may be "premature."

Not only will this constant power struggle keep some of the excitement going in the race for the Democratic nomination, but it serves to further demonstrate the extent to which the Democratic party is divided. With the Clinton and Obama camps constantly pointing out each others faults, the GOP will have no need of running a negative campaign; focusing on the issues and keeping things positive is what will help secure a Republican White House in November.

Starbucks Talk Saves Lives

2008-03-04T00:37:00.001-05:00

Thought I'd post this (non-political) inspiring story I just read. It just serves to exemplify the type of kindness and caring that people are capable of.

Fighting for Votes

2008-03-01T21:17:00.006-05:00

As the primary in Texas looms near, both Democratic candidates are campaigning hard to get the votes they need to win the nomination. Hillary has decided that her best strategy is to emphasize her position on national security. Obama too, says that he will be strong. Let me ask this: has either one of these two candidates ever been tested? Aside from fighting with each other over who voted against what war, have either Hillary or Obama ever displayed any plan to strengthen this country's security?

If you go to Hillary's website you will see no mention of any plan to protect this country. To the extent that she even mentions national security in an obscure speech, she dances around the issues placing blame and criticism at the feet of the Bush administration. After finding Clinton's site to be sorely lacking, I clicked my way over to Obama's. He at least has a link with the actual title "Homeland Security." Here he talks about -not security - but disaster relief. OK, so maybe he got his terms slightly mixed up. Looking for a different link that might have something to do with security, safety, protection, anything, I click on "Foreign Policy." Ah, here we go: "When I am this party's nominee...I will finish the fight against Al Qaeda."

I assume Senator Obama means when he is President, but minor details aside, how can he reasonably expect to simply end the fight against a terrorist organizations whose stated objective (one of them anyway) is to destroy America? Isn't it irresponsible to publicly declare that as President one will cease the attack on this country's most dangerous enemy? Obama wants to fight poverty climate change, and disease; all lofty goals to be sure, but in the place of protecting this country?? (Oh, and by the way, this section too does not actually mention national security - he just talks about the War in Iraq and making empty economic threats on Iran.)

Hear the Crowd Roar

2008-02-28T22:00:00.004-05:00

DING! DING! DING! The bell rings, the crowd screams, the contestants enter the ring. From the audience you can see the wary look in their eyes; the way they stalk to the center, shake hands, and BANG! The first blow is thrown. Is it K.O. in the first, or do we see another round on the horizon?

Muhammad Ali versus Joe Frazier this is not. But anyone watching the twentieth – yes, twentieth – Democratic debate last night would find the analogy fitting. With Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama attacking each other so viciously, one could not help but wonder if instead of electing a president and leader, the American people will be voting for the next heavyweight champion come November.

Yet, while many Americans have thrown up their hands in despair, begging for the return to normalcy and an escape from the never-ending political talk, this twentieth debate serves as a reminder that the nation is currently enduring a period of uncertainty. While America attempts to regain its feet, the presidential nominees must present an image of strength and power in all aspects of their campaign. Whether the issue is health care, tax reform, or the war in Iraq, all the candidates must show the American people that they can be relied upon.

Barack Obama, a one term senator from Illinois may not be everyone’s first choice for president however one cannot help but notice the vigor, excitement, and youthfulness with which he approaches this campaign and politics in general. While Hillary Clinton and John McCain – both Washington “veterans” – bring to the table their many years of experience in the Senate, this experience alone may not be enough to take them to the White House.

America is looking for that guy they can relate to; the candidate with that cool, relaxed blend of breezy know-how; the attitude that shouts confidence and reliance. The American people want to be told that everything will be okay, and for this they have found Obama. The fact that he has “no” experience is not a disadvantage; it is his greatest blessing. Obama can tell the people that he is not jaded by D.C. politics. Obama alone will find the solution.

While his jabs may not clock in at the breathtaking speeds of Ali’s, Obama certainly has schooled himself in the ability to “Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.” If the Republicans hope to win the White House in nine months they must hone that fighting wit of John McCain, but more importantly they must infuse their campaign and their party with the same freshness that Obama brought to his. The American people know that they are in for a few more rounds (at least); the winner will be the one who can carry the audience with him to the finish

2008-02-20T16:47:00.002-05:00

Huckabee attacks GOP - look at what the left has forced us to do: instead of being able to debate the issues we are now diminished to internal controversy and strife. The GOP risks losing this upcoming election because it cannot unite. Instead of showing the people of America that we are the party of ideas, that we can restore the excitement and appreciation of government, we are confirming the fears and suspicions of the people at large. One term Senator Barack Obama is running on a platform of change. He says that he can restore unity to America, and he brings with him a sense of vitality and life. Instead of allowing ourselves to be brought to the level of an idealist, unrealistic liberal, shouldn't we, the party of responsibility and tradition restore the tradition of excellence and pride that was and should still be the just claim of this nation.

2008-02-18T13:08:00.005-05:00

An essay for class debating Affirmative Action (by me)

In order to gain a full understanding of the debate surrounding affirmative action in colleges one must first realize the purpose of college and university. While it is certainly true that institutions of higher learning exist to educate students, it must be realized that this is not the sole mandate of an institution of higher learning. Today’s modern universities must enable students to recognize and to maximize their potential. Students of all races, religions, and genders must be allowed to move forward and to bestow themselves with the self confidence and courage that can come only with the recognition of their hard work paying off. As Thomas Sowell profoundly states in his book, Race and Economics, “…those methods which are more direct and immediate – job quotas…subsidies… preferential treatment – tend to undermine the self reliance and pride of achievement in the long run.” (Sowell qtd in Thomas, 106) Supporters of affirmative action no doubt mean well, yet their actions are in fact detrimental, racist, and sexist, enforcing a mentality of inferiority rather than instilling beliefs of accomplishment and endless opportunity. University is not merely an outlet of higher education, it is a venue for sophistication and enlightenment; to admit individuals based on the color of their skin is to enforce a mentality of separateness and difference; a mentality that is anathema to those who seek to expand their mind and their view of the world in which they live.

When the white student applies for college acceptance he does so by submitting his SAT scores, his GPA, and a list of his scholastic accomplishments. When the African American applies, it would appear as though supporters of affirmative action are telling him to do so with the submission of his neglected childhood, a sad tale of the life he lived in the slums, and a list of America’s egregious history of slavery. In the words of Dana White, an International Associate for the Heritage Foundation, “It is time for liberal black leaders to stop hiding behind racism and admit that our priorities as a community have become our greatest hurdle to achieving long-term success… They must stop blaming white Americans for the sins of the past and set goals for the future.” (White) It is time that America as a nation recognize that blacks are not a race of pitiful, helpless subhumans; they are fully capable and in fact desire to be given challenges equal to those that face the white community.

The debate over affirmative action has traditionally been – and still is – one raised primarily by the black community. One must consider why Asian-Americans, Hispanics, and Jews have not been as vociferously opposed to ceasing affirmative action policies. As suggested by Ms. White, who is herself an African American:

Other communities suffer systematic discrimination: Koreans, Chinese, Latinos and Jews, to name a few. But within these communities people encourage each other to go to school, get good grades and go to college. In some communities not earning a graduate degree is shameful. Only within the black community is academic or entrepreneurial success openly chastised. (White)

It is the black community that suffers the most from this self-inflicted repression. The black student is led to believe that without a helping hand – a boost from the kind white man in the admissions office – he or she will never succeed. According to The Affirmative Action Myth, an executive policy analysis written by Marie Gryphon, a lawyer and a policy analyst with the Cato Institute's Center for Educational Freedom, “Recent sociological research demonstrates that preferences hurt campus race relationships. Worse, they harm minority student performance by activating fears of confirming negative group stereotypes, lowering grades, and reducing college completion rates among preferred students.” (Gryphon, 1) This twenty-six page in-depth analysis of affirmative action policies debunks nearly all pro-affirmative action arguments. Ms. Cecila Conrad argues in response to the passing of the California Civil Rights Initiative (Proposition 209) that, “The end of race-based affirmative action in professional schools is likely… to reduce the supply of African American physicians and lawyers.” (Conrad) Ms. Gryphon, however, writes based on research done by William G. Bowen, the former president of Princeton, and Derek Bok, the former president of Harvard that:

The reason that affirmative action does not affect college access is that most four-year colleges and universities in America are not selective; they take anyone with a standard high school education. Preferences are policy only at the 20–30 percent of American colleges that have substantially more applicants than places. Students attending those schools have many other college options. The reason that minority students do not get college degrees as often as white students is not competitive admissions policies. Rather, the problem is that most minority students leave high school without the minimum credentials necessary to attend any four-year school, selective or not.[1] (Bowen and Bok qtd in Gryphon, 4)

The excuses for the failure of a more significant number of blacks to achieve a higher education are abundant. As Clarence Thomas, one of the most prominent Supreme Court justices in this nation’s history and himself a black American writes, “It was far more common… to argue that whites, having caused our problems, should be responsible for solving them instantly, but while that approach was good for building political coalitions and soothing guilty white consciences, it hadn’t done much to improve the daily lives of blacks” (Thomas, 106) Thomas suggests that one should “Do for self, brother.” Blacks must take responsibility for their own lives and instead of constantly seeking to blame the distant past, they must move forward with the focus being on result-oriented goals.

If advocates of affirmative action truly seek to assist blacks and to enable them to gain the competitive edge that will not only allow their admission to top ranking universities but will simultaneously diversify those learning environments to the benefit of all students, attention must be focused on repairing the public high school systems in black communities. In order to ensure that more blacks are capable of attending high level four-year universities, the high school system must adequately prepare the students for the challenges they will meet in college. As stated previously, the problem is not that blacks are being racially sorted out from their white peers when applying for college, “Rather… [it] is that most minority students leave high school without the minimum credentials necessary to attend any four-year school.” (Bowen and Bok qtd in Gryphon, 4)

An overwhelming plethora of information ranging from professor’s testimonies to psychological and sociological research data suggests that the policies of affirmative action cause more harm than good. The idea of being admitted based on the color of one’s skin is tinted with racism. The admittance of students in order to “diversify” creates the mental image of tokens. Thomas Sowell writes, “Even in the absence of overt hostility, black students at M.I.T. complained that other students there did not regard them as being desirable partners on group projects or as people to study with for tough exams.” (Sowell, 148) The idea of giving free handouts promotes the idea that it is not important for people to be self-supporting. It robs blacks of their self-confidence and dignity. Forcing students to accept blacks that were admitted to schools not based on their academic credentials but on their color does not diversify universities, it fosters isolation and resentment. “Law professor Eugene Volokh relates the story of a law student who claimed that he and his friends chose classes with high minority enrollments because they believed that competition for good grades would be less severe.” (Volokh qtd in Gryphon, 11) The students felt that because the class was comprised mostly of affirmative action admitted minorities the overall level of intelligence would be lower and they would therefore have a greater chance to look good.

The time has come to end affirmative action, to stand up for the rights of minorities to be treated the same as their white brothers and sisters. It is not too much to permit students to display their own capabilities. We must not rob them of the pride and joy, the satisfaction and confidence that will come upon the recognition of their own potential and their own ability to succeed.

Works Cited

Conrad, Cecilia. Black Enterprise Feb. 1997

Gryphon, Marie “The Affirmative Action Myth.” 14 Feb 2008 .

“Joie Jager-Hyman: Ending Affirmative Action May Hurt White Students - Politics on The Huffington Post.” 8 Feb 2008 .

Thomas, Clarence. My Grandfather’s Son. New York: Harper Collins, 2007

White, Dana “Who Says I'm Inferior?” June 27, 2003 .

Bibliography

“Affirmative Action (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).” 8 Feb 2008 .

“Affirmative Action and the College Admissions Process.” 5 Feb 2008 .

Conrad, Cecilia. Black Enterprise Feb. 1997

“CNN.com - Narrow use of affirmative action preserved in college admissions - Dec. 25, 2003.” 5 Feb 2008 .

“CNN.com - Powell defends affirmative action in college admissions - Jan. 20, 2003.” 5 Feb 2008 .

“FOXNews.com - The Affirmative Action Myth - Blog | Blogs | Popular Blogs | Video Blogs.” 5 Feb 2008 .

Gryphon, Marie “The Affirmative Action Myth.” 14 Feb 2008 .

“InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies.” 14 Feb 2008 .

“Is the end near for affirmative action?” 8 Feb 2008 .

“Joie Jager-Hyman: Ending Affirmative Action May Hurt White Students - Politics on The Huffington Post.” 8 Feb 2008 .

“pa540.pdf (application/pdf Object).” 14 Feb 2008 .

Sowell, Thomas. Race and Economics. D. McKay Co, 1975.

“SoYouWanna know about affirmative action in college admissions? | SoYouWanna.com.” 5 Feb 2008 .

“The downside of ending affirmative action for whites. Why ASIAN-Americans gain.”

“The Wall Street Journal Online - Featured Article.” 12 Feb 2008 .

Thomas, Clarence. My Grandfather’s Son. New York: Harper Collins, 2007

White, Dana “Who Says I'm Inferior?” .

“Why Black Americans Should Look to Conservative Policies.” .

[1] Emphasis added

2008-02-04T21:09:00.003-05:00

Freedom...

In his essay, “Learning to Read,” Malcolm X writes about his incarceration and how, through his discovering a love of books and knowledge, he ultimately becomes a powerful civil rights activist. Malcolm X exclaims upon beginning to read and write that, “[he] had never been so truly free in [his] life.” This statement from a man who is jailed in a prison, the antithesis of anything remotely related to liberty! Yet indeed, Malcolm X was free because although he could not speak as he pleased, or socialize without restraint, (or do much else with any semblance of personal choice) Malcolm X possessed the truest independence there is: the freedom of thought. Through introspection and much diligence, Malcolm X transformed himself from a lowly street criminal into a world-renowned and respected civil rights advocate.

What exactly is “Freedom by Thought?” Malcolm X actually exerted his independence of unrestrained thought through the action of studying. One may, in fact be compelled to question the notion of a liberty such as thought, if it is not one that can always be used and applied. There are countries such as Iran and Burma that prohibit such manifestations of independence as uncensored speech, the right to bear arms, and freedom of assembly. Yet, on closer inspection, the answer is “Yes.” Yes, there are oppressive regimes that prohibit people from gathering, for fear that ideas and thoughts may be exchanged. Yes, there are countries like Iran and Burma, in which people are killed for holding certain religious or moral beliefs that may offend the controlling government. But this is exactly the point. All these forms of self-authority can always be influenced and controlled, if not directly prohibited by external forces such as governments or individuals who don't want to allow certain liberties to their fellow people, while hypocritically crying out for the preservation and even protection of their own.

The enabler of all liberties, and therefore the most valuable of them all is thought. Even while individuals are not allowed to exchange ideas, the individual self can still have ideas. And if an individual is verbally and mentally strong enough and persuasive enough, these ideas will eventually manifest themselves in the individual's actions and teachings.

Witness the great leader Mahatma Gandhi, whose ideas on non-violence and peaceful disobedience ultimately led to the emancipation of India. Gandhi, who theorized and preached that pacifism, simplicity in day-to-day living, and truth are the cornerstone of a virtuous life, began his journey of leadership with the idea that emancipation from the oppressive British Empire was ideal for the Indian nation. It was not solely through his activism (or rather inaction) that Gandhi gained support, but it was his teachings and ideology which garnered such a large following. The actions of Gandhi inspired numerous other activists such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Nelson Mandela. It was Gandhi's teaching that caused others to fight to enact their ideas, yet it was by the inability of government and society to restrict unbridled thought that allowed these leaders to rise.

The power of truly independent thinkers to reform society is so compelling that mighty historical empires such as Athens have killed people like Socrates, who attempted to express their thoughts. Yet, even as he was about to die, Socrates was still teaching his ideas, leaving behind devoted followers and scholars such as Plato, to pass down his ideas for the benefit and enlightenment of all future generations. For, no matter how liberated one may be in their lifetime, no matter how much they are permitted to speak and to assemble, there is always the inevitable restriction of death; the master and ultimate regulator of all man's actions. Men will always attempt to act and do as they please, yet it is only their teachings, their legacy, their thoughts, and their ideas that will outlast them and stand the test of time. It is only through one's thoughts that one may escape any and all oppression and restriction, be it physical, emotional, or spiritual. It is because thoughts cannot be suppressed that great men attempt to leave a legacy.

“Thought” alone is the truest representation of Freedom. As Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardoza writes in his opinion for Palko v. State of Connecticut: “Freedom of thought is...the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom.” It is from the cradle of thought that all forms of freedom are raised.

Sources

The U.S. Constitution
“Learning to Read” by Malcolm X
“Indian Independence movement” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Independence_movement
“Mahatma Gandhi” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_gandhi
“Freedom of Thought” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_thought
Palko v. State of Connecticut “FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State Resources, Forms, and Code.” http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=302&invol=319 (accessed October 17, 2007).
The Apology by Plato