Call Me An Extremist

I believe that the United States should lose the pretense and call this current war what it is, a war against militant Islamists where ever they might be.  I know that makes people cringe and they call me an extremist.  The thought of this actually becoming a religious war is horrifying to so many.

If one looks at history, though, extremism isn't an insult after all.  In the 1770s, moderates hoped to work out a settlement with King George.  Instead of Americans, the majority considered themselves British citizens for as long as possible.  Extremists, however, like Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death."  Henry was right.  American liberty could only be bought with blood.

In the 1850s moderates on all sides tried to reach compromise after compromise on the issue of slavery.  John Brown knew, though, that the abolition of that horrid practice was going to require a washing in blood.  He was an extremist, but history proved him right.

In the 1930s, Winston Churchill was called an extremist because he believed that Hitler could not be appeased.  Moderates like Neville Chamberlain proclaimed "Peace in our time", not realizing what a phony peace it was.

Barry Goldwater stated, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.  Moderation in the defense of liberty is no virtue."  I agree.  Go ahead, call me an extremist.

 

 

No One Ever Talks About This

When hands are wrung and brows are furrowed over the loss of manufacturing jobs to foreign nations, the discussion always centers around how we are losing our manufacturing base and how we are supposedly going to lose our middle class.

The prophets of doom and those pushing a political agenda never mention one thing, though.  Foreign made goods imported to the United States typically cost less than American made goods.  Oh they mention that foreign workers are paid less than American workers, but they choose to ignore the fact that the goods made by these workers cost the American consumer less than comparable American made goods.

Modern America is built on consumption.  The poor in America still have televisions, stereos, microwave ovens, and, probably, cellular telephones.  The poor in America live a lifestyle that would qualify them as rich in most other parts of the world.  That is only possible because of the importation of cheap foreign goods.

Protectionist trade policies would necessarily drive those prices up.  When prices are driven up, consumption decreases.  The poor, who have less disposable income, would be the first to stop buying these so called luxuries.  In effect, protectionism would drive down the lifestyles of the people at the bottom of the ladder.

No one ever mentions this, though.  I'm no expert on trade policy, but I certainly don't see how making the poor live with less is good for the American economy.

It Did Change Him

Until today, I had not had the chance to listen to Rush Limabaugh since he returned from a drug rehabilitation program.  However, thanks to a three hour drive between Nashville and home, I got to listen to almost all the show today. 

Like most people, I wondered if anything about him would change.  Would the experience of the past few weeks cause him to lose the skills that had made him popular and controversial at the same time.

As I listened to the show today, I heard that liberals were bad and conservatives were good.  At least that hadn't changed.  I was worried that rehab would turn him into a cross between Jimmy Carter and a commune dweller.  I also heard that the Democrat party was trapped in its past.  So far so good.

Then e-mailers and callers tried to goad him into discussing the Michael Jackson situation.  It was then that I heard a change.  A subtle change, but a change nonetheless.  Rush said that his one thought when hearing all the accusations and pontificating concerning Jackson was, "What if he didn't do it?"

Yes, the guy who derided the jury for acquitting O. J. Simpson said that he was concerned about a rush to judgment in the Michael Jackson case.  For too long, it had bothered me that admirers of Ayn Rand never worried about an overzealous law enforcement.  Conservatives forgot their distrust of government when it came to police matters.  I became used to seeing conservative pundits and judges make excuses for the excesses of law enforcement.

Rush was part of that.  Yet, here he was today, refusing to condemn Michael Jackson and reminding everyone that he hasn't been convicted of anything.  I did see a change in him, and I must say I approve.

I Don't Want To Be That Enlightened

One of the requirements to being a full fledged leftist citizen of the world is the enlightened ability to see the United States as a selfish, corporato-imperialist monster that has spent the last 45 years trying to impose its will on innocent populations of other countries.

These enlightened leftists claim that they are able to look at this nation dispassionately and objectively.  These are the same people that wince at the thought of standing for the Pledge of Allegiance, with or without "under God".  In their eyes, national borders come and go, but the globe is forever.

They feel no familial loyalty to a nation they consider no better than any of one hundred other nations on the planet.  They consider their citizenship to be a mere accident of birth, and thus, see no emotional connection.

Does the emotional bond of patriotism permit one to look past some of our less than perfect moments?  Of course.  Most children consider their mother to be the prettiest woman in the world and capable of fixing every boo boo.  In the clear light of objectivity is it the truth?  Probably not.  But it doesn't matter, the emotional bond colors the vision.

I have an emotional bond to the United States of America.  I have no desire to tolerate nitpickers looking at every wrinkle and flaw she has.  The nitpickers claim to see clearly.  They claim to be enlightened.

In truth, they are moralizers, but only become morally indignant over the actions of one nation.  They claim to be dispassionate observers of the truth, but, in fact, are partisans of a dogma that seeks to tear down our national identity and demean our history.

I don't want to be that enlightened.

 

Comparing Apples And Apples

No one has ever given a satisfactory answer for this question.  How can intervention in the Balkans be right, and intervention in Iraq be wrong?

Slobodan Milosovic was a problem to his country only.  Yes, in spite of the factions, Yugoslavia was a single country.  It was forced together by outsiders who didn't understand the region, you say?  You mean like Iraq was created by the British, with Kurds, Sunnis and Shi'ites forced together without any thought given for the consequences?

Europe was unable to clean up the mess in the Balkans and innocent people were being slaughtered, you say.  The UN was unable to clean up Saddam's mess and have you read the accounts of the mass graves in Iraq?

The world supported us in the Balkans, you say?  Really?  Russia opposed us.  Western Europe had no intention of doing anything until we took the lead.

We are getting into a quagmire in Iraq.  The last time I looked we were still in the Balkans, too.  Of course you might say that we didn't have to commit to a land invasion of the Balkans.  That is true.  We bombed the country from 15,000 feet and killed more civilians than Serb troops.  Is that supposed to be better?

The war in Iraq is helping the terrorists who oppose us.  Excuse me, the war in the Balkans put us squarely on the side of the Kosovo Liberation Army.  It is a radical Muslim Army that is funded by Al Qaeda.

Other than the Balkans being Bill Clinton's idea and Iraq being George W. Bush's idea, I am at a loss to find a SIGNIFICANT difference.  Oh yeah, for some of you, that is the only difference that matters.

 

Could September 11 Have Been Prevented

There are people in this country who are convinced that September 11, 2001, could have been prevented.  They treat information glowing in the light of hindsight as clear dots that could have been connected beforehand.  There are some things that need to be considered, though.

In 2001, before the attacks, there were over 24,000 commercial flights per day.  There were over 5000 per day at major airports.  There isn't enough manpower in the country to check everyone boarding all those flights.

Additionally, the hijackers used box cutters and plastic knives to take over the planes.  Those items were not typically confiscated in 2001. There would have been no way for the government to anticipate that.

Now, let's look at the hijackers.  Other than connections to Bin Laden, these men hadn't broken any laws beyond immigration violations.  Now, if any of you have dealt with the INS, they weren't typically interested in individual illegal immigrants, and depending upon the part of the country, there might not have been any INS agents close by.

But, to satisfy the finger pointers, let's say that all twenty are targeted and  detained.  Under Federal law, prior to September 11, illegal aliens are entitled to bond.  If they had been detained without bond, the ACLU would have pounced in a heartbeat.  We can't racially profile, you know.

Further, even if they had been detained at the planes, they would have had to have been released.  They hadn't broken a law.  All we would have accomplished is to make September 11 turn into October 18 or something similar.

It might make political points to blame someone, but it is futile and shows a lack of logic.  September 11 couldn't have been prevented unless clairvoyants had been permitted to violate the Constitution.

Potential Questions For CNN's Next Dem Debate

Since CNN has chosen to use preselected softball questions for its debates, here are some possibilities:

Reverand Sharpton, what type of hair care products do you use to maintain your pompadour?

Senator Edwards, how long does it take you to blow dry your hair?

Senator Liebermann, did you speak in a monotone as a child?

Governor Dean, I've noticed that you like to roll up your sleeves.  Do you prefer to roll the sleeves with the cuffs turned inward or outward?

Senator Kerry, have you ever purchased Hunt's Ketchup?

Congressman Gephardt, do you think Tony LaRussa should be fired as the manager of the Cardinals?

General Clark, do you still wear your dog tags?

Senator Mosely Braun, why are you here?

Congressman Kucinich, if John Lennon were alive would you have him on your staff?

Last but not least, and this is for each of you, should the toilet paper face out or in?

There Must Be Morality

I'm an unashamed capitalist.  I don't believe in governmental interference in markets or prospective contractual relationships.  However, I'm not blind to capitalism's inherent risks.

Socialists see capitalism as an oppressive beast that results in massive injustice.  Without a moral society, I agree with them.  Capitalism has its roots in liberty.  Without morality, liberty is nothing more than license.  Without morality, man will have no qualms about taking advantage of another human being.

Thus, it is impossible to separate the message of liberty from the message of morality.  Whether it is based in religion or something else, there must be some moral absolutes that a society accepts.  These absolutes must be taught and given prominence. 

John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people.  It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."  Liberty and a free society cannot survive with an immoral people.  Without morality a free society will decay into a corrupt and vicious society.

The bottom line is that if we are not going to be a moral people, then we might as well let the socialists take control.

Liberals And The Masses

Have you ever heard a committed, educated liberal explain why Ronald Reagan won two landslides?  No matter where they start, they ALWAYS end up with the statement that Reagan's team "FOOLED" the American people.  This from the champions of democracy and equality.  They believed the American people were easily fooled.

The same thing occurs when a COMMITTED, EDUCATED liberal explains why most middle class Americans support tax cuts.  Almost invariably, these COMMITTED, EDUCATED liberals will say that the Republican proposing the tax cuts has "FOOLED" the American people.

Basically, the point is that anytime the masses disagree with COMMITTED, EDUCATED liberals; the COMMITTED, EDUCATED liberals will say that the American people are either fooled or don't understand the issue.

The majority of Americans oppose gun control.  The COMMITTED, EDUCATED liberal will say that the uneducated typically live in fear and don't comprehend the issue.  The majority of Americans support "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.  The COMMITTED, EDUCATED liberal says that the majority have been fooled by conservative politicians and religious leaders that want to use the issue to manipulate them.

War in Iraq, Bush's popularity, the Patriot Act, you name it.  If COMMITTED, EDUCATED liberals oppose it and they are in the minority, then they reason that the masses are subject to manipulation.  Yet, they claim they believe in democracy.  They claim to trust the will of the people.  They claim to believe in equality.

Actually all they believe in is the superiority of COMMITTED, EDUCATED liberals.

What are your favorite movies?

I believe that the type of movies that we like says a lot for our personality and, perhaps, even our politics.  It certainly tells a lot about what we like and dislike.  As a result, I think it would be fun to take a few minutes and think about what your five favorite movies are.  Who knows, you may even surprise yourself.

In no particular order, here are my five favorite movies:

1.  Tombstone

2.  Red River

3.  Casablanca

4.  The Hunt For Red October

5.  High Plains Drifter

What are your favorite movies?

 

 

We Can't Leave Now

Let me begin by saying that I don't believe that we can turn Iraq into a democracy any more than I believe that Islam is a religion of peace.  There is nothing in the life experiences or history of these people that show any inclination for freedom and representative government.  That being said, we cannot leave until we do achieve a stable and defanged Iraq.

America has had a reputation since Vietnam.  That reputation is that when the going gets tough, we get going.  As in as far away from the battle as possible.  Our aversion to casualties and long drawn out struggles is well known.  The jihadists and Ba'athists in Iraq know this.  All they think they have to do is keep engaging in one time or two time a day guerilla hits against us, and we will tuck our tails and run.

If that happens, then we might as well put a sign on our national back that says "Kick Me".  This is, and has always been, a world governed by the aggressive use of force.  We can never make the enemy like us.  If we run at the sight of blood, though, then we show the world that we are weak and will have lost much more than one war.

Whether one supported the war in the beginning or not, given the nature of the world, the necessity of staying the course is obvious.  The entire purpose of terrorism and guerilla warfare is to break the resolve of a militarily stronger enemy.  We cannot let the terrorists win.  How can people not see this?

Some Absolute Truths

Darwin may have had questionable expertise as a biologist, but he was an excellent sociologist.

The only acceptable exit strategy for any war is complete and absolute victory.

If I see a hungry person and give them bread, I am showing compassion.  If government forcibly takes money from me and gives it to a person of its choosing, then it is coerced redistribution.

All humans may be created equal, but all cultures are not.  Anyone who cannot tell the difference is willfully blind.

A third trimester fetus should be entitled to more consideration than a tapeworm and more governmental protection than a harp seal.

Governmental budget deficits are ONLY caused by excessive spending. 

If your typical modern American were standing on the banks of the Mississippi River in 1806, he or she would not expand westward until the government built a bridge and guaranteed free healthcare.

The most frightening sentence in the English language is, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."

Any person in the United States that does not reach their full potential, should only blame themselves.

 

The Founders Were Not Deists

Some in this nation get very uncomfortable if anyone mentions the religious heritage of our nation.  They immediately go on the defense, calling our Founders "deists", like they fear someone forcing them to wear a burkha.  One has to wonder if these people even know what a deist is.

The simplest way to understand deism is that it is a belief that there is a Supreme Being, but once this Supreme Being sets forth certain laws, he does not intervene in the affairs of men.  It is often called the "watchmaker theory" which states that once the watch is made and wound, the watchmaker does nothing else.

A deist would not pray for God's blessings on human endeavors because that would be futile and violative of their beliefs.  A "watchmaker" God would not and could not bless anyone or anything.  Deists know this and consider prayer a foolish exercise.

In spite of this what does history teach us about our Founding Fathers?  Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson are always cited as the most deistic of any of our Founders, yet Franklin, himself, stated, "I believe in one God, the Creator of the universe.  That he governs it by his Providence.  That he ought to be worshipped."  A watchmaker God could not and would not govern the universe by his Providence.  Jefferson said, "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just and his justice cannot sleep forever."  A Deist's God could not do anything about it, even if his sense of justice was offended.  

George Washington, at Valley Forge, when the nation seemed at its most vulnerable prayed, "...look down from heaven in pity and compassion upon me Thy servant...."  Who would care if a God of a Deist had pity or compassion on someone?  A Deist certainly would not consider himself to be a "servant" of such a God.

The facts are that from their writings and known congregational associations, the majority of our Founding Fathers were church members.  The very first act of the Continental Congress was to pray for Divine Providence in the face of the British bombardment of Boston.  A watchmaker is incapable of Divine Providence in a crisis.

Our Founders were not Deists. Our Founders knew that only God could see this nation through its early trials and tribulations, and only God can see this nation through today.

Does The Left Believe In Choice?

Those that set the agenda for the Democrat party claim to have faith in the American people. Do they really mean it?  They constantly demand that women should have control of their bodies when it comes to abortion.  They call themselves "pro-choice".  But, are they?

These are the same elites who do not believe that you can be trusted to know what job and what job conditions are good for you. They must meddle, because you are not smart enough to walk away from low pay, long hours and unsafe conditions. They must interject themselves into the individual contractual relationship between employer and employee.

These elites do not trust you to make the right decision on what vehicle to purchase. Instead of realizing that car manufacturers make the cars and trucks that consumers want to buy, they want to restrict the types of automobiles that can be sold. Why? Because car makers are greedy and you are too stupid to purchase a safe, fuel efficient, environmentally friendly car.  If left alone, you might not make a wise choice.

These elites do not believe that you can make proper choices concerning what you eat. They seek to regulate McDonald's and other fast food places to the extent that their advertising would be restricted and their exposure to liability is increased. Why? Because you are incapable of making appropriate food choices for you and your children. 

These same elites want more Federal standards for education and oppose vouchers to encourage school choice. They don't even believe that you can decide what is best for your child's learning.

They oppose lower taxes because the Great White Father in Washington can spend YOUR money better than you can. In fact most domestic governmental programs are full of "Father Knows Best" paternalism.

These elites claim to "trust the people". They really only trust you when it comes to killing a baby.  Otherwise, they know best.

I Don't Understand

While watching some of the debate regarding the partial-birth abortion bill, one would have thought that Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer were being ordered by the government to wear burkhas and chastity belts.  Their level of passion to defend an indefensible procedure was stunning.  I truly don't get it.

Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life regarding abortion in the first trimester, how can you support partial-birth abortion?  I'm sorry, the "it isn't a baby, it's a fetus and it's the woman's body" argument doesn't cut it here.  Partial birth abortion occurs in the third trimester when anyone who has watched an ultrasound or felt their own baby kick knows that what is in there is a separate living thing.

You can't scream that the government shouldn't be allowed to get involved, either.  Most of you who support partial birth abortion would chain yourself to an iceberg to force the government to get involved to prevent baby harp seals from being clubbed.  You would have no problem with the government putting hundreds of loggers out of work to protect a spotted owl.  I would like to know how you rationalize a spotted owl or harp seal being more valuable than a viable fetus.

Doctors who perform the procedure even play mental gymnastics to justify it.  Somehow a baby who is purposely delivered breech can be killed, but not so with an identical baby coming out head first.  Almost eighty percent of partial birth abortions are performed because of fetal defects.  I'm sorry folks, that doesn't improve your argument, it just makes you sound like selfish versions of Dr. Mengele.  My wife's baby sister was born with cerebral palsy and I cannot imagine life without her.  When we were first married, my wife worked in a group home for mentally challenged adults.  Trust me, these people have value.

The partial-birth abortion law provides for an exception for the life of the mother, so that arugment isn't valid either.  It is a gruesome, horrible procedure performed on a viable fetus that has its own separate heart, brain, emotions and personality.  If partial-birth abortion is not murder, then there is no such thing.  Like I said, I don't understand.

Oh, and don't whine about the baby harp seals.

The Elites Know Best

The elites among us have consistently tried to tell us two things about the War on Terror.  First, they tell us it is not about religion.  Secondly, they tell us that the fundamentalists make up only a very small minority of the Muslim population.  Now, since opinions are like noses, let's look at some facts.

The terrorists themselves and their supporters say this is about religion.  Every pronouncement from the jihadists talks about Allah commanding them to fight us, the infidels.  They claim that the Holy Qu'ran demands it.  I know that elitists like to tell people what they are supposed to feel, think and believe; yet, if the terrorists say this is about religion how can the elitists say otherwise?

Now as for the claim that only a tiny percentage of Muslims subscribe to this fundamentalist view, the facts call that into question as well.  The examples of Saudi Arabia, Iran and Egypt are very illuminating.

The excuse given for why the House of Saud cannot help in the fight against terrorism is that the Wahabbists want to overthrow them and put in a theocracy.  If they are that much of a threat, they must control a large portion of the population.

Iran has already imposed a fundamentalist theocracy and even though they are Shi'ites, they are permitting Al Qaeda Wahabbists to keep camps and conduct training there.  Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's biggest threat is from the militants who would take over if he did not remain vigilant.  Those militants are fundamentalist Islamists.

The KLA in Kosovo, the terrorist army trying to take over the Philippines, a large portion of the population of Yemen; they are all fundamentalists.  In fact, the only two predominantly Islamic nations that do not have significant fundamentalist movements are Jordan and Kuwait; both of which are tiny by Muslim standards.  Even Turkey has problems with its religious zealots from time to time.

The elites say that there are plenty of moderate Muslims that do not support terrorism.  I am glad to hear it.  Where are they?

Trying To Understand Leftists

Surprisingly to some, I don't consider leftists to be evil people.  I don't consider them, by and large, to be stupid people.  Yet I consider leftism to be as dangerous as terrorism to the United States of America.

It is hard for me to understand leftism.  I have tried, since I first encountered professors who had opposed the Vietnam War and didn't believe that the Soviet Union was the "evil empire".  I had seen people like that on television, but to actually discuss issues with them and ask them questions was a shock.

The first thing I learned was that equality, to them, is actually more important than liberty.  They view inequality itself as a form of oppression.  Yes, I know, people can be unequal in condition without someone else causing that inequality, but leftists see the condition as evidence of oppression.

Next I learned that leftists are uncomfortable with the idea of the United States as a "superpower".  In the eyes of leftists, America is too controlled by corporate interests, which are inherently evil, to be allowed to be so dominant in the world.  The Soviet Union actually did a service by keeping some of our more insidious corporate interests in check. 

I further learned that leftists have an inherent NEED to look at the world objectively.  This notion of the United States of America being "our team", is juvenile in their eyes.  They see the hope of a peaceful unified world where there is no need for borders and armies.  The entire concept of borders, to them, is inherently discriminatory and xenophobic.

Further, they see differences in viewpoint, rather than good and evil when it comes to relations between nations.  Now admittedly, they see good and evil, or rather, oppressed and oppressor, in relations between business and employee or consumer.  The United States is too big to be the good guy in their eyes.  We fit the part of oppressor much better than the oppressed in their eyes.

Having said this, I still don't get it.  They see a nation that has done better at living up to ideals than any other, and they still cringe at the thought of us being "good".  They see a nation where economic mobility is the norm rather than the exception, and they still see a negative picture.  I know this old country boy isn't the smartest guy in the room, but ...

Searching For Nuance

Leftists constantly criticize conservatives for seeing issues in terms of right and wrong, good and evil, black and white with no shades of gray.  According to leftists, we are not capable of seeing the nuances of a particular situation, particularly in the area of foreign policy.

Amazingly, they even accuse us of this when it comes to the War on Terror.  Now, very few of them are willing to say publicly that we brought 9/11 on ourselves; but they do get very uncomfortable if we view the battle in terms of a war between good and evil.  They tell us that we are being narrowminded.  They tell us that we need to give some consideration to the terrorists' point of view.  They say we need to look for the nuances.

Therefore, I am going to search for some nuance in this conflict.  Al Qaeda and its associates believe that murder is an appropriate way to get closer to God.  If that is not evil, then there is no evil on this earth.  These terrorists believe that women are nothing more than property and should not even be permitted to leave their home without a family member accompanying them.  Even leftists would agree that is evil.  So far, no nuance needed.

These people see nothing wrong with asking their children to become human bombs.  They see nothing wrong with killing your children simply because they believe differently.  That is evil.  There is no other way to describe it.  Nuances don't apply.

There can be no serious argument made that our opponents in the War on Terror are not evil.  There can be no nuance that grants them a legitimate justification for their beliefs or their actions.  Yet, the leftists don't want us calling this a war of good vs. evil.  The leftists want us to find some nuance.

Wait a minute.  Now I understand.  The leftists don't have a problem with calling our enemy evil.  The problem is that they can't bring themselves to call the United States "good".  That is the nuance they want us to see.  I should have known.

Hell Refuses To Freeze Over

I have never been a Cubs fan.  I was raised a Yankees fan and became a Braves fan by virtue of geography and cable television, so I never could understand the warm fuzzies that people got over a team that seemed destined to finish among the also rans every year.  I was simply of the opinion that their ownership didn't want to spend the money and make the committment necessary to win.  Thus, I had a hard time sympathizing with them.

However, having seen the sport that I love fall on hard times, and seeing the interest that the Cubs and Red Sox generated in this year's playoffs; I changed my mind.  I began cheering for the law of gravity to be repealed along with millions of other baseball fans.  This team seemed to have destiny on its side.  Against Atlanta, Wood and Pryor looked unstoppable, and they were up three games to one on the Marlins, a team that even the most die hard baseball fan has a difficult time appreciating.  Satan was breaking out the long underwear.

The Cubs then lose on Sunday in a game that they never seemed to want to play.  It was okay, though.  They were still up three to two and going home to the friendly confines.  All seemed to be going according to some divine plan.

On Tuesday night, the Cubs were five outs away from exorcising all the demons that had plagued them for decades, then fate, chance, the forces of evil or something snatched it all away.  The fan did nothing wrong.  He was simply trying to grab a piece of history.  He never intended to make history.

Last night was academic.  The Cubs made a gallant effort, but those of us who understand the baseball gods knew what would happen in the last chapter.  Hell is still hot and the Cubs are still cursed.  As a baseball fan, that makes me sad.

Finding Truth With The Democrats

There are two common themes that resonate through the Anybody But Bush crowd.  First, Bush's tax cuts are stated to have only benefitted the wealthy and have ruined the economy.  Second, Bush is alleged to have lied as to the justifications for the War in Iraq.  Oh sure, there are other arguments that Democrats and ABBers make, but those two are constant repetitive "amen" lines in ANY Bush hating crowd.

Unfortunately, neither charge is accurate.  Now before the Bush haters scream that I am merely a sheep repeating something that Karl Rove whispered in my ear during my daily brainwashing sessions, my information comes from two serious Democrat candidates for President.

Richard Gephardt made a surprising visit to "The O'Reilly Factor" recently, and was asked pointblank whether the administration misled him on the intelligence regarding Iraq.  Gephardt said, without equivocation, "No."  He then explained how he examined the intelligence personally and had a personal meeting with George Tenet.  He was satisfied with the intelligence then and is still satisfied with the intelligence.  So there you have it from a leading Democrat.  Bush did not lie to get authorization for war.

My source regarding taxes is none other than John F. Kerry.  In a recent debate, a woman mentioned her tax burden as a small business owner.  Gephardt was reminded that he wanted to repeal the entire Bush tax cut.  John Kerry, and this is not the first time he has done so, pointed out in some detail how eliminating the Bush tax cut would harm "working" families with children.  The bottom line is that repealing a tax cut would not harm someone if the tax cut did not initially benefit that person.  Thus, "working families" must have received a benefit from the Bush tax cuts, and recent news about consumer spending has confirmed this.

Thus, by the Democrats' own mouths, their two major issues have been stripped away as the hyperbolic campaign chatter that they really are.  What are the ABBers left with?  The only things they ever had in the first place.  Partisanship and hatred over the 2000 election.  Now those are two important campaign issues.

Something Good May Come From This

Conservatives have long been associated with a desire for smaller government, except, and this is a big exception, in the area of personal privacy issues.  One of those personal privacy issues is the prohibition and criminalization of drug use and drug addiction.  Cultural conservatives have long been associated with the notion of locking up drug offenders and passage of mandatory sentences for drug offenders.

The War on Drugs is not conservative in terms of the power it places in the hands of governmental officials.  The War on Drugs has been responsible for governmental abuses and overreaching that makes the Patriot Act pale in comparison.  You think that having a librarian calling the FBI about what books you read is bad, imagine having your home seized and sold because the government found some marijuana in your bedroom.

Rush Limbaugh has been a huge defender of the War on Drugs and has been, historically, hard on drug users.  Cultural and religious conservatives have been the most vocal in giving him an "Amen" when he would rail on those issues.  It was almost like Rush and these moralists never even realized how UN-Conservative the War on Drugs was.

We need fewer laws, not more.  The criminal code, with few exceptions, should be reserved for offenses where someone has deprived another person of life, liberty or property.  Drug abuse does none of those things.  Yes, I know, some talk about the cost to society of drug addiction.  That still does not justify using the criminal code to increase governmental power as a nanny.  It certainly does not justify using the criminal code to steal the property of individuals.

Perhaps, Rush's current troubles will cause some of these conservatives to rethink their positions on the War on Drugs and the power that a victimless crime gives to an already too powerful government.

Getting Even The Enlightened Way

I will admit it.  I don't have a whole lot of compassion for Rush Limbaugh and his acknowledgment of a five year addiction to prescription painkillers.  He was too hard on drug addicts in statements made on his show, and purposely alienated Libertarians who would have agreed with him on other issues anytime they would bring up legalization of marijuana.  People who live in glass houses need to be careful what they toss.

That being said, the level of glee and frothing bloodlust from liberals regarding this issue is disgusting.  Liberals claim to have the market cornered on compassion.  No person is too bad to be unworthy of assistance and help.  Liberals claim to be more enlightened and open minded than conservatives.  That enlightenment doesn't extend to Rush, though.  We shouldn't be surprised.

Liberals' treatment of Rush actually shows us liberalism at its core.  Liberalism, their protestations to the contrary, is the politics of getting even.  Rich people must have cheated or oppressed someone to obtain their wealth.  Thus, we must get even with them.  White people have oppressed minorities for centuries, so we must get even with them.  Employers have oppressed employees, so we must get even with them.  Men have oppressed women, so we must get even with them.

Amazingly, though, with all this need for getting even that liberals have; this all changes when it comes to street crime and foreign policy.  Street criminals are always entitled to compassion.  Foreign enemies are entitled to that compassion as well. Liberals believe that street criminals and foreign enemies have been oppressed by the United States, so they are simply getting even, too.

Like I said, liberalism is all about getting even.

Why Do They Hate Us

Leftists have spent the better part of a year in agony because, in their opinion, the world hates the United States.  These handwringers can offer you reason after reason as to why, citing everything from colonialist and unilateral foreign policy, to corporate greed that intentionally keeps the rest of the world oppressed.  As with most things, leftists have this issue all wrong.

First, if we were horrible, then we would not have millions trying to get in the country.  At last count, there were over eight million illegal aliens in the United States.  Haitians risk life and limb to get to our shores.  Amazingly, there are even Cubans who still want to leave that socialist paradise and its wonderful schools and free healthcare in order to seek asylum here.  If we were as bad as the leftists say, then these same leftists would be risking their lives to get to Cuba and Mexico.  Basically, the leftists don't even believe their own garbage on this issue.

However, some in the world do hate us.  Of course, the left is convinced that this hate is due entirely to George W. Bush.  If that were the case, then the left would have to finally reject Noam Chomsky as a kook.  Chomsky has been telling the world for twenty five years that the United States deserves to be hated.  Chomsky and Michael Moore notwithstanding, there is a simple reason as to why we are hated.  We win.  We prosper.  We are free.

Think back to the 1970s.  The most hated team in the NFL was the Pittsburgh Steelers.  Why?  They won Super Bowl after Super Bowl.  Winners are hated.  Jealousy and envy are basic human emotions that the United Nations will never be able to remove from the planet.  Look at the leftists themselves.  They hate the wealthy.  They are convinced that the wealthy cheated to become wealthy.  Regardless of the truth, it makes leftists feel justified for their anger.  People around the world are no different.  They accuse the U.S. of horrible crimes, but the bottom line is that they want to justify their hatred.

Just as individuals cannot MAKE people like them, we cannot make the "world" like us.  We can join the leftists in self loathing and wrongheaded guilt, or we can thank God that we live in the greatest nation in the world.  It's your choice.

 

Wonderland Politics

At any moment, I expect to be approached by a giant rabbit informing me that he is late for an important date.  I have definitely gone "through the looking glass".  The California Recall and the Valerie Plame affair have revealed the political landscape to be a strange place indeed.

We have Democrats screaming that a womanizer and groper cannot be Governor of a state.  I could have sworn that these same Democrats had been saying since 1992, that questionable sexual behavior and old charges didn't matter and were simply distractions from the "real" issues of the day.  The Los Angeles Times is outraged because Arnold is only an "actor" but Martin Sheen's attributes were apparent to all.

We have Republicans proclaiming joy that a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control, pro-cloning supporter of the principles of the Kyoto Treaty has been elected to be Governor of the largest state in the Union.  Oh yeah, and this guy had more Kennedys on the podium during his victory speech than Republicans.  This ride needs an off switch.

On top of it all, we have Congressional Democrats horrified that a possible covert agent of the CIA has been outed.  "National security and foreign policy have been compromised", they scream.  Of course, these same Democrats spent the better part of the last decade calling the CIA murderers and drug dealers and blaming secret operations for causing the drug problem in South Central Los Angeles.  Democrats, in the 1970s, even tried to get rid of the Agency, claiming that it was a greater threat to world peace and stability than the Soviet Union.  Republicans, on the other hand, apparently, regardless of whether a law was broken or not, have taken a cavalier attitude about the traditional secrecy of the Agency.

Yet, in spite of these total reversals of position.  America is still divided.  Politically, we have not been this divided since 1860.  "Gotcha!" and "Getcha!" rule the day.  Each side hates the other side without recognizing the positions that they must defend in order to do so.  "Off with their heads" is the only order of business.  I sure hope I wake up soon.

For Conservatives only

What is wrong with the Bush political team?  Have they all quit?  I realize that part of the problem was the new tone that Bush promised.  You don't fight Democrats he said, you try to work with them. I'm sorry, working with most liberal Democrats gives me the same feeling that the thought of Charles Manson pleading to simple assault would have given Vincent Bugliosi.  Justice isn't done, and a bath is needed.

I thought Karl Rove was a genius.  But three recent incidents have got me wondering.  First, when the admittedly left of center Joseph Wilson wrote the story in the New York Times that Saddam never purchased yellowcake uranium from Niger, the administration couldn't wait to be apologetic.  Never mind that Bush said that an attempt was made, not a purchase.  Never mind that Great Britain stood behind their intelligence.  Never mind that Wilson never did any investigation other than ask the government of Niger whether they sold any to Iraq.  The Bush team caved when they didn't have to cave.

The second pathetic episode regarded David Kay's report concerning weapons of mass destruction.  The news media was thrilled to report that no stockpiles of weapons had been found, but the administration did a lousy job of pointing out what had been found, like Scud fuel, attempts to get missile technology from North Korea, starter toxins for weapons, dual use labs; all banned .  The report actually confirmed a lot of intelligence, but the administration didn't seem to care to make their case.

Now comes the story of  Valerie Plame.  The Bush team is letting the news media and the Democrats define the terms.  The Intelligence Identities Protection Act is a very specific statute with a high burden of proof.  There are serious questions about whether Ms. Plame falls into that category and whether there was an intentional leak.  Yet, the Bush administration is going along with whatever the media says about this.

Has Bush decided that he doesn't want a second term?  Politics is the art of perception.  The Bush team used to be able to play politics like Stevie Ray Vaughn on guitar.  Not lately, though.

 

What Did You Expect?

Let me begin by advising my conservative friends, I'm going to make you mad with what I'm about to say.  It needs to be said, though.  So here goes.

The current outrage over Arnold's groping and the absolute glee over the possibility of Rush's drug abuse should be expected.  Yes, it is politically motivated.  Yes, it is a double standard compared to how Democrats are treated for the same offenses.  But it is to be expected.  Moralizers always get skewered worse by their sins than rogues do.

Look back to the 1992 presidential campaign.  Written in small letters, under "It's the economy stupid" on the Clinton campaign was the statement that personal character does not matter.  Everyone knew that Bill Clinton had Hugh Hefner tendencies.  It was part of his charm.  The Republicans should have realized this after the '92 election, but persisted in their attempts to bring him down, using primarily, issues of personal character to do it.  They should have spent more time washing the windows in their glass houses.  We lost two House Speakers because of it.

Bush's past with alcohol is treated worse than Teddy Kennedy's past with alcohol.  Why?  Republicans try to present themselves as more moral than Democrats.  Therefore ANY chink in the armor is going to be pounced upon like it were a fumbled football.  Arnold's 30 year old groping is more relevant than similar behavior by Clinton or Kennedy, simply because he is associated with the Republican party.  Republicans should not expect any sympathy from the Democrats now that the shoe is on the other foot.

Rush has spent entire hours on his radio show making fun of Libertarians, who would otherwise support his views, because of their desire for decriminalization of marijuana.  He shouldn't expect any sympathy if it comes to light that he has been abusing pain pills.  Never mind that the left treats drug abuse as a disease.  Republicans treat drug abuse as a moral problem and THAT is the standard THEY must live up to.

Is it fair?  Maybe, maybe not.  It is a fact, though.  Republicans shouldn't have expected anything else.

 

Politically correct v. right. PC favored by 10

Rush should have known better.  No matter how FACTUALLY ACCURATE his statement was, he should have known better.  Rush Limbaugh has gotten nailed to the wall for statements he made about the NFL brass and the news media.  Yes, that is who he was talking about.  His only comments directed toward Donovan McNabb, quarterback of the Philadelphia Eagles were that he was overrated.  That is a charge that has been made of quarterbacks, black and white, ever since the advent of the T formation.

Rush said that the media and the NFL muckety muck were proclaiming McNabb to be better than he is to show the world that the league has a successful black quarterback.  The reason behind this is two fold.  First, the NFL has recently suffered from extortion by Jesse Jackson, which resulted in the silly rule that any NFL team had to interview a black coach for any opening that team might have.  The team is under no obligation to hire the coach, it simply has to interview one.  Secondly, the NFL wants to show the world how advanced and enlightened it is by having a successful black quarterback.  It is very similar to what John Kerry did when he proclaimed that he had a black friend. 

Before you say that the NFL is past such ideas, since they have had Randall Cunningham and Doug Williams, let us look at the facts.  Cunningham suffered criticism throughout his career that he was an athlete playing quarterback.  No one ever claimed he was at the level of Dan Marino, Joe Montana or John Elway.  Doug Williams won a Super Bowl and had a spotty career otherwise.

So, the bottom line is, that Rush was RIGHT, as his fans are fond of saying.  However, he should have known better.  The politically correct thought police have taken over America.  There are some things that cannot be said in polite circles, even the polite circles of an NFL pregame show.  Rush may have been right, but he certainly was not politically correct.  In this modern enlightened world in which we live, we have a valuable object lesson as to which is more important.

Top Ten Ways To Tell If Your Wife's A Spy

10.  Instead of a tribal tattoo on her lower back, she has a tattoo of the CIA emblem.

 9.   You give her a new diamond ring for your anniversary, but she still chooses to wear her secret decoder ring.

 8.   At parties she introduces herself as "Smith, Jane Smith".

 7.   When you go on family vacations, she typically has to fight off teams of black clad ninjas everytime you leave the motel.

 6.   Her package of birth control pills doubles as a radio transmitter.

 5.   She refers to her boss by using a single letter rather than a name.

 4.   She keeps getting taped messages in the mail that self destruct after ten seconds.

 3.   She asks you to go to a small African nation to ask a government official about baking a yellow cake.

 2.   Her car has all kinds of cool gadgets.

 1.   She gets nervous everytime you mention Karl Rove's name.

 

 

"Isn't this funny"

John "Doc" Holliday, the tubercular Old West gambler, lived his life with a single determination.  That determination was that he was going to die with his boots on, rather than in bed from the disease that was robbing his breath.  He didn't get his wish, and is reported to have looked at his bare feet while lying on his death bed and stating, "Isn't this funny?"

I see the same amusing irony in the Democrats and their mad dash to prosecute someone for leaking the name of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, a CIA employee, to the press.  The Democrats are screaming about special prosecutors, felonies, and the undermining of our national security apparatus.  Of course, never mind that these are the very same people who were stating in 1998 that the concept of an independent prosecutor had outlived its usefulness, and that these are the very same people who saw nothing wrong with Hillary obtaining the FBI files of political enemies.

The major irony in all this, is that the Democrats have discovered a love for covert operations and the Central Intelligence Agency.  The left has spent the better part of the last 30 years trying to abolish the CIA and do away with covert operations.  The Church Commission, named for Senator Frank Church, went out of its way to nitpick every operation conducted by the Agency; EVEN DURING THE HEIGHT OF THE COLD WAR.

Even more recently, you can find papers that have been written by leftist think tanks and liberal academics that decry covert operations as being unseemly for a democracy.  Democrats are noted for their operation to covert operations.  Some, during the Reagan Administration, went as far as to imply that the CIA was more dangerous than the Communists.  The left was appalled, when in a similar case, President Reagan prosecuted Samuel Morrison for leaking photographs to Jane's Defense Weekly.

Yet, now, when there is political advantage to be gained, the Democrats have become the party of the sanctity of covert operations.  The Democrats are concerned about the damage this incident will have on national security.  They have become the number one defenders of the intelligence community.

If there is an honest Democrat out there, he or she should look down at his or her toes and say "Isn't this funny?"

Reminiscences

I suppose every generation comments on how much the world changes in their lifetime, but looking back, I am really amazed at how things are different than they were when I was a kid.

When I was born, my parents still had a working outhouse.  It was right next to the chicken lot.  The house that was originally on my parents' property only had jury-rigged indoor plumbing, and the new house was only a couple of years old when I came along.

The road that we lived on wasn't really paved.  It was a narrow gravel road upon which the county would spray tar every so often to give the illusion of paving.  My friends and I would ride horses on that road for miles and seldom see a car or truck belonging to a stranger.

I was in school before we had air conditioning, and while other kids got to watch three channels on television, we only got two channels until Daddy broke down and bought that UHF antenna.  It would be years later before he decided that color television was worth the money.  Of course, Daddy was one of these men who believed that watching television was a waste of time unless the news, a baseball game, or Gunsmoke was on.

As I got older, I raised calves, beans and tobacco to make spending money and money for school.  By then, horses were less important than cars and my friends and I would spend Friday nights and Saturday nights sitting on the hoods of our automobiles in front of the CO-OP.  It wasn't a very productive way to spend one's time, but it seemed like the thing to do.

Now, the road by the house is really paved, complete with double yellow lines.  City water is available, but my Mama stubbornly clings to her well.  Subdivisions and trailer parks have taken over the farm land and most houses have cable or satellite dishes.  Where everyone knew everyone else, now most who live on the road are strangers. 

Things sure have changed.  Yeah, I know, every generation says that.

The threat that is unreported

There have been a couple of recent news items that have not gotten the coverage they deserve.  First, a Muslim cleric, working with the detainees at Guantanamo, was arrested for espionage.  Then just within the past day or two, another worker at Gitmo was arrested for espionage.

The news media has attempted to portray the radical Muslims who are responsible for recent acts of terrorism against this nation as no more than a few wild eyed fundamentalists that are not anymore widespread than our own militia groups are.  We are repeatedly told that mainstream Islam is a religion of peace.

That may be true, but, if you recall, the outrage against Osama and his followers was somewhat muted in the mainstream Muslim community.  Oh, they condemned the loss of life, but the mainstream Muslim clerics obviously attempted to walk a tightrope to keep from offending the militants, which they must know make up a larger portion of their population than is reported.

Further, if you study Islam, national ties are almost irrelevant in comparison to religious ties.  I am not saying that a Muslim cannot be a loyal American, but their religion calls for their identity to come from their duty to Allah. Statements by leading Muslims in this country, since September 11, 2001, talk about how American Muslims even considered the possibility of Islam becoming the leading religion of the United States.

Now we have two Muslim Americans working for the enemy in Gitmo.  I realize that I am sounding like a bigoted Islamaphobe in this piece, but it seems like the threat may be larger than we have wanted to believe.  We, as a nation, do not want to consider the possibility that the hatred toward us is widespread and based on culture and religion rather than things we can control.

American liberals, in fact, want to believe that any animosity directed toward the United States is as a result of our conduct, that can be changed.  They poo poo any notion that nothing we can do, short of national conversion, will change the minds of these people.

Perhaps it is just coincidence that two American personnel at Gitmo have chosen the enemy over their own country.  Perhaps they are two isolated incidents.  However, is it not slightly possible that the threat is greater than we WANT to believe?  Can we not consider that potential and ALL its ramifications without bigotry being involved?

What to do with Clark

Wesley Clark will have to improve his Q and A skills to survive the Democrat debates, but if he does, he has one huge advantage over the rest of the dwarfs.  Clark, at least, looks presidential.  I realize that is a silly way to pick a President.  By all accounts, Abraham Lincoln didn't LOOK Presidential.  But, fortunately for Abe, he didn't have to appear on television.  Today, the right "look" is a must.

The real question is what will Hillary do if Clark begins looking like he really can win.  I know you in the kneepad brigade refuse to believe that the Clintons EVER do anything in their own self interest.  But, Noam Chomsky not withstanding, human nature requires that we humans are consistently motivated by self interest.

Hillary cannot permit a Democrat to win the White House in 2004, other than her.  She is not suicidal enough to run against an incumbent in the primaries of 2008 and she is not foolish enough to wait until 2012 to run.  2008 is her year.  It always has been.  At least after 9/11.  As soon as Hillary decided that Bush could not lose in 2004, she began planning for 2008.  All of you, if you have the guts to be intellectually honest, know that I am right.

But now, Bush might be vulnerable.  Dean, Kerry, Grumpy, Sleepy and the gang don't scare her.  Regardless of what you true believers want to think, there isn't a one of them that could win a national election.  Clark has to scare her.  He is a General.  We rednecks in the heartland like generals.  He is good looking and has some charisma.  That means the soccer moms may come back to the Democrat party.

Hillary cannot allow this.  It is going to be interesting to see what happens.  Most of you don't want to believe that politics is this base, but you are kidding yourselves.  Hillary cannot even let the good General even SNIFF the presidency.  If he wins, she loses.  Stay tuned.

Lose the hyphen

What I am about to say is going to cause some to incorrectly label me as a racist. Racism is a belief that certain races are genetically superior to other races. Racists can be either white, black or Asian, even though a prominent black professor once said that blacks were incapable of being racist. A comment he made to attempt to justify his own racist tendencies. I am not a racist.


I am a culturalist, though. I am an American, and I believe that American culture is superior to the culture of modern Europe, the culture of Asia, the culture of Latin America and the culture of the Middle East. Some will say, though, "Does not an Indian or a Frenchman or a Russian have the right to be proud of their culture and think that it is superior?" To that I say, absolutely, however, once that Indian, Frenchman or Russian decides to become an American, that needs to change.


After 1776, our Founding Fathers were no longer Englishmen or English-Americans, they were Americans. If a person of Irish descent prefers Ireland to the United States, then he or she should move to Ireland. If a person of Mexican heritage prefers Mexico to the United States, then he or she should cross the Rio Grande. If you want to be an American then you need to lose the hyphen. That goes for African-Americans, Arab-Americans, Jewish-Americans and on and on.

America's history is as the land of opportunity.  We made that history as the Great Melting Pot.  Now we have become the Great Tossed Salad.  All that will accomplish is the Balkanization of America.  Check the history of the Balkans.  Ethnic rivalries have plagued that region for a thousand years.  As long as WE persist in multiculturalism and hyphenated Americanism, ethnic strife HERE will only persist and worsen.

If we want to be Americans then we need to be Americans.  Period.

Maybe it is time for an exit strategy

Democrats love to talk about exit strategies as if they are some elusive mystical goal at the end of a knight's quest.  However, a look through our history shows that we have never been good at exiting, once our military has become entrenched someplace.

Example number one is the Philippines.  We obtained it in the Spanish American War in 1898 and 1899 and still have approximately 1000 troops there.  We have between 50,000 and 70,000 troops in Germany and World War II has been over for almost 60 years and the Cold War has been over for ten years.  We have 48,000 military personnel in Japan.  Yep, World War II again.  The Korean War has been in ceasefire mode for about 50 years and yet we have 37,000 troops in South Korea.  Additionally, we have about 7000 troops in the Balkans and I have not mentioned the troops stationed in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

Yet, George W. Bush is called imperialist.  My God, leftists, do you even have a clue how stupid you sound?  We spent the entire 20th Century putting our troops all over the world and George W. Bush had nothing to do with that.

I will agree, though, it may be time for an exit strategy, a worldwide exit strategy.  We certainly do not want to appear to be imperialist, now do we?

Conservatives have no place in modern America

Nothing to say

Politics is my heroin.  I need it.  I am obsessed with it in all its glory and all its corruption.  I read everything I can about political philosophy.  From Machiavelli to Marx, from Goldwater to Chomsky, I read it.  I want to learn about all the different theories behind the role of government in society and how politics affects our day to day lives.  I am fascinated with political campaigns from local elections all the way to the national scene. 

Having said that, it would be safe to assume that I am going to be glued to the Democrat presidential debate tonight on FoxNews Channel.  Right?  Wrong.  The problem is that none of the candidates have anything to say to the American people or about their real political philosophies.  None of them have any strong positive belief system that they have shared with the public. 

The current crop of Democrat candidates have only one message.  They hate George W. Bush.  Their discussion of actual issues and how to deal with those issues consists of all the depth of an internet message board.  They want your vote, but they want it based on the fact that they are not George W. Bush.  Now, that is good enough for a Democrat primary season that will bring out the pirahnas of the party.  But for someone who wants to see vision and a real belief system it is a waste of time.

Oh, I'm sure that plenty of Democrats will disagree with my assessment but if they are honest with themselves, none of these candidates are political philosophers.  Al Gore was portrayed as a political thinker even though he really wasn't.  But the nine candidates on the stage tonight could make Al Gore actually appear to be Thomas Hobbes.  They are that shallow.

They hate Bush.  They tell jokes about Bush.  They would do SOMETHING different than Bush.  Now you've heard what they are going to say tonight.  So, you might as well join me and watch "Cupid" instead.  The thought processes on that show will be much more substantial than anything these nine have presented thus far.

My manifesto

1.  I believe in the Constitution of the United States of America, as it is written.  That includes the Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendments.  I do not believe in "penumbras", "implied powers" or the need for a judge to look to the laws of some foreign country to determine what the law of the United States is.  The Constitution is THE authority.

2.  I believe in the sovereignty and independence of the United States of America.  I do not believe that this nation should ever have to subjugate its will to that of any world body.

3.  I believe in a strong national defense and the protection of the nation state, the United States of America, from all entities and nations that seek to destroy her or that give aid and comfort to those that seek to destroy her.

4.  I believe that the FEDERAL government must be limited to those functions that are authorized by the Constitution.  If the citizenry decides that the Federal government should engage in activity not authorized by the Constitution, then the appropriate remedy is a Constitutional amendment.

5.  I believe in liberty.  Liberty includes the right to engage in conduct that does not interfere with other individuals' liberty and further includes economic liberty to engage in activity for profit without governmental interference unless such conduct constitutes harm to another person.

6.  I believe that earned income is the property of the wage earner until such time as the government takes it in the form of taxes.  Therefore, tax cuts cannot be equated with government spending because the money does not belong to the government until it recieves it.

7.  I believe that government is the least efficient entity available for attempting to solve social ills and that typically government exacerbates the problems it attempts to solve.

8.  I believe that the best thing government can do for the economy is to stay out of the way and permit people to compete and be productive.

9.  I believe that liberty is more desired than equality.

10.  I believe that most human achievements have been reached by men and women pursuing their own self interests.

11.  I believe that with liberty comes the responsibility to behave in a manner consistent with traditional morality as advanced by Judeo-Christian teachings.

Looking for a message

Don't you find the nine dwarfs running for President as Democrats amusing?  In last night's debate they attempted to top each other in Jay Leno style shots against President Bush.  Perhaps after the 2004 election they can open a comedy club together.  John Kerry drew laughs when he said the only jobs the President had created were the nine candidates standing on the stage.  Unfortunately no one held Monsieur Kerry down and DEMANDED that he explain how the government is supposed to create private sector jobs.

John Edwards had his Leno moment when he said that the only Spanish Bush has spoken to American jobs is "Hasta La Vista".  I just wish someone had hooked him to a lie detector and asked him if he supported a real tightening of immigration policy. But these two examples are typical of what was said last night.

The bottom line was they should be President because they hate George W. Bush.  Did any of them explain anything?  Of course not.  Did any of them offer logical solutions to problems that government can solve?  Are you kidding?  It didn't happen and it won't happen.

Americans are too easy on politicians.  In our culture of instant gratification we are satisfied with late night comedy and angry whining.  The politicians know this.  The Democrats running for President are glad that you don't take the time to study the economic theories behind various proposals.  The Democrats running for President are glad that you don't know a lot about the rest of the world and the true nature of our enemies.

It is all part of this elitist mentality the leaders of the Democrat party have.  They know best and they don't have time to explain it to you.  So they are just going to act outraged and tell a few jokes.  Someday, somewhere, though, maybe someone will ask them, "What are you going to do differently?"

It's Time to Wake Up

I won't lie.  I'm frustrated by the Bush administration and its behavior in the War on Terror.  No, I don't believe that the war in Iraq was a distraction.  I believe it was part of the War on Terror.  My frustration is based on a belief that the administration refuses to recognize the threat from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.  I realize that our State Department has had a blind spot toward the House of Saud for decades.  After September 11, 2001, though we cannot afford to wear blinders with regard to anyone.

Now new information revealed by Gerald Posner seem to prove that the Saudi and Pakistani governments maintained relationships with Al Qaeda operatives before, during and after September 11.  According to Posner, when Abu Zubaydah was captured, he expressed relief when he believed that his interrogators were Saudi intelligence officers.  He then began naming names of top Saudi and Pakistani officials that were his contacts.

To borrow a word popular with young people, "Duh!"  This is news?  Given what we know about the movements of Osama and his cronies, and given what we know about the political climate in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, what is shocking about this?

My question is whether this revelation will be enough to make the Bush administration crack down on Pakistan and the House of Saud.  We may need their help in some areas, but not at the expense of allowing them to actively support those that want to destroy us.

Please don't misunderstand.  I'm not about to become a Democrat.  Remember, Jimmy Carter, when trying to impress the Nobel Peace Prize committee advocated unilateral nuclear disarmament by the United States.  The Progressive Caucus would require that we play "Mother may I?" with the United Nations before engaging in military action.  Bill Clinton treated terrorism like a crime instead of an act of war and patted himself on his back when low level terrorist grunts were captured and prosecuted.  This is the same Bill Clinton who, according to a new book, practically worked to avoid capturing or killing Bin Laden.  Nope, trusting our national security to Democrats is not an option.

I just want to see the Bush administration wake up.  The Saudis and Pakistanis have more in common with our enemies than they have in common with us.  They cannot be trusted.  They are not our friends.

 

The one time that Marx was right

Just to give you an idea of what to expect from Ward of the Court, I thought my first entry would enlighten everyone on a little known fact.  Karl Marx believed in supply side economics.  Yep, that's right.  The economic theory that underpins modern conservative thought and is repeatedly ridiculed by the left was accepted by Karl Marx the godfather of communism.

Before you pass out from amazement, let me provide a little context.  Marx despised the free market.  He believed that in the industrial age in the free market, the worker was little more than a commodity.  Thus, he certainly did not advocate supply side economics.  However, in a speech in Brussels in 1848, Marx said:

The most favorable condition for the worker is the growth of capital.  This must be admitted.  If capital remains stationary, industry will not merely remain stationary but will decline, and in this case, the worker will be the first victim.  He will go to the wall before the capitalist.

Of course Marx went on to claim that the worker will go to the wall in the free market under any system, but his admission that supply side economics was better for the worker in a free market society is startling nonetheless.

So the next time some leftist makes fun of supply side economics, you might want to remind them that even Marx admitted that it worked.