Last week, at the Republican convention in St. Paul, Minnesota. I watched as history was being made.
Sarah Palin, the first woman nominated as Vice President of the Republican Party, roared like a lion and changed the entire dynamic of the 2008 Presidential race.
Her speech was more than simply effective. It was a complete paradigm shift. The platform of real America – the platform of the future – now belongs to the McCain/Palin ticket.
Just today I read the USA Today/Gallup poll for 9-5-07 through 9-7-08. The poll showed John McCain up 54% to 44% over Barack Obama. Palin Power has taken the nation by storm.
What is it about this woman that makes her so amazingly influential? I think it is her genuineness and her strength of character. Listen to this segment of Palin’s speech last Wednesday night:
“Politics isn’t just a game of competing interests and clashing parties. The people of America expect us to seek public office and to serve for the right reasons. And the right reason is to challenge the status quo and to serve the common good. Now, no one expects us to agree on everything, whether in Juneau or in Washington. But we are expected to govern with integrity, and goodwill, and clear convictions, and a servant’s heart.”
When was the last time you heard a politician speak straight from the heart and show such authenticity? When was the last time a politician spoke about a Biblical principle like having a “servant’s heart” with such sincerity? Contrast Palin’s Biblical reference to Nancy Pelosi’s outrageous claim that the Catholic Church has not determined when life begins, and you will see what makes Sarah Palin so refreshing. She is real.
So what do you think the Democratic Party, home of the second-wave feminist movement did after John McCain nominated Sarah Palin as his Vice President? They responded with nothing but pure vitriol. National Organization of Women PAC Chair Kim Gandy had this to say about Palin in a recent press release: “Sadly, she is a woman who opposes women's rights, just like John McCain.”
So because Palin does not buy into the monolithic, liberal-feminist worldview, she opposes women’s rights? It gets worse. Baltimore Sun columnist Susan Reimer, actually mocked Sarah Palin for having a 5-month old child with Down Syndrome:
“You want to look good to the evangelicals? Choose a running mate with a Down Syndrome child.”
Reimer then insults Palin for having once been a beauty queen when she wrote, “She won't be able to hold her own against Joe Biden in a vice presidential debate. But wait until the swimsuit portion of the competition.”
What is it about Sarah Palin that makes the left cringe? She is a pro-life, evangelical Christian woman for one. It is one thing for a male politician to be pro-life. For a female politician to be pro-life is total heresy as far they are concerned.
Just how deeply does Sarah Palin believe in her pro-life convictions? When told her baby would be born with Down Syndrome, Sarah Palin refused an abortion, remarking that God has a plan for her little boy. That is character and integrity in action.
Another issue that causes the left as a whole to despise Palin is that she hunts for big game like Caribou. That’s right, Sarah Palin packs heat and can even fire an M-16 rifle accurately. As an child from a military family and supporter of out troops I say: “HUA!”
Sarah Palin also opposes placing the polar bear on the endangered species list, and is a strong proponent of oil drilling in Alaska. Her husband is a snowmobile champion who once finished a snowmobile race with a broken arm. That is one tough family.
Sarah Palin is also a basketball star that led her high school to the state championship title game and was nicknamed “Sarah Barracuda” by her teammates. A barracuda is exactly what she showed herself to be as she challenged the status quo within her own party, took on the corruption in her state, and brought political reform to Alaska as mayor and Governor.
With such a record of personal and political achievements, you would think someone on the left would at least show Sarah Palin the respect she deserves? Instead of praising Palin for her achievements, the media have reduced themselves to attacking Palin’s 17 year-old daughter Bristol, for being pregnant. Just like her mother before her, Bristol chose life, not abortion. That is character and integrity in action, once again.
It appears that no matter how hard the media attack Sarah Palin and her family, the truth just makes them shine brighter and brighter.
Born of German immigrants, and growing up as a blue-collar kid in a single-parent home, rich in work ethinc and traditional values, I can relate to the Palin family. The vast majority of people in America can relate to the Palin’s too. They live paycheck to paycheck and know what it means to work for a living.
Remember when Obama showed his true elitist colors while speaking to a crowd in San Francisco? He said, “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And it’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
This Freudian slip shows that at heart, Obama is the poster child for the Democrat party, whose leadership has been out of touch with the American people for a long time now. Barack Obama is not an agent of change. He is an agent of class warfare.
Sarah Palin on the other hand is real America. I like how Investor’s Business Daily put it,
“Palin is also a straight-talker. As governor of a small-population state, she’s accessible, with a history of working with and listening to people, taking in all sides. She uses plain language and doesn’t fear gaffes. She couldn’t be further from the canned, focus-group-driven politicians who dominate politics. This builds trust. McCain’s and Palin’s similarities present an emerging political coherence and unity of message that should appeal to voters.”
Sarah Palin is a real American woman. Hear her roar.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Saturday, June 07, 2008
Triangulation
It appears the Republican brand has become tarnished and stained by the policies and actions of the last several years. Certainly, scandals like the ones involving Mark Foley, Larry Craig and Jack Abramoff come to mind. However, something much deeper than scandals, which have plagued both parties to be honest, has cost the GOP its good name.
Like a wandering nomad searching for a home, the GOP has apparently lost touch with its very soul. How did this all come about?
Let’s think back to the first two years of Bill Clinton’s presidential term. During the 1993-1994 legislative calendar years, Clinton attempted to advance some of the most hideous policy initiatives. From a tax hike on every unit of energy we use, known as British Thermal Units (BTU’s), to the socialized medicine plan that came to be known as Hillary-Care, Bill Clinton kept striking out even with a Democrat majority in Congress.
In 1994, the American public was so outraged by Clinton’s liberal activism -- this after pledging to be a new Democrat --they voted to oust the Democrat majority in Congress and replace it with a Republican majority.
Enter Dick Morris. After taking a beating in the 1994 Congressional elections, Bill Clinton reached out to his former advisor and asked him to save his presidency. Morris employed a strategy known as Triangulation to save Bill and it worked.
Triangulation is a strategy where a political candidate adopts positions his or her opponent normally takes, in order to steal the positions and the subsequent voters along with the positions.
Employing Morris’ triangulation tactics, Bill Clinton soon began talking about getting tough on crime, a traditionally Republican issue, as well as family values by advancing such ideas as the v-chip TV technology so parents could have greater control in stopping their children from watching offensive material.
By taking Republican policies away from the GOP, the Republicans had less of a platform to run on and Bill Clinton was easily reelected in 1996. In fact, the GOP lost some seats in Congress that year.
Triangulation worked well for the Democrats but what about the Republicans?
When G.W. Bush took office in 2001, he employed the same Triangulation tactics that Bill Clinton used in the 1990’s. For instance, G.W. Bush reached out to Ted Kennedy and allowed him to write the No Child Left Behind legislation that included a major increase in federal funding and mandates for public education. This was clearly a big government, Democrat style proposal that President Bush championed.
G.W. Bush even used his authority as president to embrace a big labor position by tacking on steel tariffs to foreign steel companies they were “dumping” cheap steel in the USA.
Then came the 9/11 attacks. Bush and the GOP responded by creating a new department called the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and awarding it vast amounts of federal funding. They even placed all private airport security screeners under government control by creating the Transportation Security Administration, which is under the DHS umbrella. This was all in the first year of the G.W. Bush administration.
As the years followed, even more Democrat style legislation was passed by the Republican majority in Congress and signed into law by G.W. Bush. From the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan (Part D), to a foreign policy that spread Democracy to the world (a Woodrow Wilson foreign policy ideal), the Republicans kept triangulating, which allowed them to steal issues from the Democrats and steal more Democrat seats in Congress as well.
Then a funny thing happened. In 2006, the American people had enough of budget busting spending and bureaucracy and voted for so-called “conservative” Democrats who took Southern and Midwestern congressional seats away from the Republican Party.
From 2001 to 2006, Congressional Republicans had stolen so many issues from the Democrats they stopped looking like Republicans and started looking like Democrats. When the American people are given the choice of Democrats versus Republicans that act like Democrats, they will always choose Democrats. Part of the reason is that Democrats acting like Democrats is at least genuine and authentic no matter how bad their policies are.
Democrats figured out they could counter-triangulate the Republicans by stealing issues traditionally embraced by the GOP. As such, the Blue-Dog Democrats in Congress have more than doubled their membership since the 2006 elections and have added more to their ranks due to the recent special elections. Never mind that almost all of these freshman Blue-Dog Democrats have broken their promises in some way, shape or form. They are running to the right of the GOP by using triangulation.
The only way for the GOP to win back its credibility and its brand name is to get back to basics and run to the right of the Blue-Dogs on policy, while exposing all of the Blue-Dogs’ broken promises in the process. Let’s face it, triangulation can only work for one party until the other party counter-triangulates.
Let this be a lesson for the GOP. We need to be comfortable in our own skin. The best way to keep from being branded as something else other than a Republican is to simply be a Republican and not waver from that fact.
After all, if Republicans continue to act like Democrats, the people will continue to vote for Democrats, as they will always pass out more entitlement “goodies” than Republicans.
Like a wandering nomad searching for a home, the GOP has apparently lost touch with its very soul. How did this all come about?
Let’s think back to the first two years of Bill Clinton’s presidential term. During the 1993-1994 legislative calendar years, Clinton attempted to advance some of the most hideous policy initiatives. From a tax hike on every unit of energy we use, known as British Thermal Units (BTU’s), to the socialized medicine plan that came to be known as Hillary-Care, Bill Clinton kept striking out even with a Democrat majority in Congress.
In 1994, the American public was so outraged by Clinton’s liberal activism -- this after pledging to be a new Democrat --they voted to oust the Democrat majority in Congress and replace it with a Republican majority.
Enter Dick Morris. After taking a beating in the 1994 Congressional elections, Bill Clinton reached out to his former advisor and asked him to save his presidency. Morris employed a strategy known as Triangulation to save Bill and it worked.
Triangulation is a strategy where a political candidate adopts positions his or her opponent normally takes, in order to steal the positions and the subsequent voters along with the positions.
Employing Morris’ triangulation tactics, Bill Clinton soon began talking about getting tough on crime, a traditionally Republican issue, as well as family values by advancing such ideas as the v-chip TV technology so parents could have greater control in stopping their children from watching offensive material.
By taking Republican policies away from the GOP, the Republicans had less of a platform to run on and Bill Clinton was easily reelected in 1996. In fact, the GOP lost some seats in Congress that year.
Triangulation worked well for the Democrats but what about the Republicans?
When G.W. Bush took office in 2001, he employed the same Triangulation tactics that Bill Clinton used in the 1990’s. For instance, G.W. Bush reached out to Ted Kennedy and allowed him to write the No Child Left Behind legislation that included a major increase in federal funding and mandates for public education. This was clearly a big government, Democrat style proposal that President Bush championed.
G.W. Bush even used his authority as president to embrace a big labor position by tacking on steel tariffs to foreign steel companies they were “dumping” cheap steel in the USA.
Then came the 9/11 attacks. Bush and the GOP responded by creating a new department called the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and awarding it vast amounts of federal funding. They even placed all private airport security screeners under government control by creating the Transportation Security Administration, which is under the DHS umbrella. This was all in the first year of the G.W. Bush administration.
As the years followed, even more Democrat style legislation was passed by the Republican majority in Congress and signed into law by G.W. Bush. From the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan (Part D), to a foreign policy that spread Democracy to the world (a Woodrow Wilson foreign policy ideal), the Republicans kept triangulating, which allowed them to steal issues from the Democrats and steal more Democrat seats in Congress as well.
Then a funny thing happened. In 2006, the American people had enough of budget busting spending and bureaucracy and voted for so-called “conservative” Democrats who took Southern and Midwestern congressional seats away from the Republican Party.
From 2001 to 2006, Congressional Republicans had stolen so many issues from the Democrats they stopped looking like Republicans and started looking like Democrats. When the American people are given the choice of Democrats versus Republicans that act like Democrats, they will always choose Democrats. Part of the reason is that Democrats acting like Democrats is at least genuine and authentic no matter how bad their policies are.
Democrats figured out they could counter-triangulate the Republicans by stealing issues traditionally embraced by the GOP. As such, the Blue-Dog Democrats in Congress have more than doubled their membership since the 2006 elections and have added more to their ranks due to the recent special elections. Never mind that almost all of these freshman Blue-Dog Democrats have broken their promises in some way, shape or form. They are running to the right of the GOP by using triangulation.
The only way for the GOP to win back its credibility and its brand name is to get back to basics and run to the right of the Blue-Dogs on policy, while exposing all of the Blue-Dogs’ broken promises in the process. Let’s face it, triangulation can only work for one party until the other party counter-triangulates.
Let this be a lesson for the GOP. We need to be comfortable in our own skin. The best way to keep from being branded as something else other than a Republican is to simply be a Republican and not waver from that fact.
After all, if Republicans continue to act like Democrats, the people will continue to vote for Democrats, as they will always pass out more entitlement “goodies” than Republicans.
Monday, June 19, 2006
Gitmo, FDR and Bush
Not so long ago, the American media was abuzz concerning the alleged abuse of enemy combatants being held at Guantanamo Bay (GITMO), the American military base in Cuba. Well, here we are some time later and the hard evidence of abuse occurring at GITMO has yet to surface. If anything, the hard evidence demonstrates the American news media engaged in nothing more than a modern day witch hunt against the Bush administration.
By throwing enough mud on the wall, the American media were hoping something would stick. It never did. As it turns out, the most pressing issue of concern, as it pertains to GITMO, was the admission by the Bush Administration that several members of the American military may have mishandled a Koran. This was not enough for the American media. They insisted there was evidence of abuse by the American troops at GITMO.
When Newsweek, the traditionally liberal magazine, released a story alleging American soldiers flushed a Koran down a toilet, many Muslims around the world were up in arms. Riots ensued overseas and more than a dozen people were killed during violent protests against the Koran flushing American military.
Well, as it turns out, no such Koran flushing incident occurred. Newsweek retracted its story and the cat was finally out of the bag. The American media were shown to be nothing more than a group of mudslinging reactionaries.
One might ask why the American media and the Democrat’s in Congress keep grasping at straws in order to undermine President Bush’s war against terrorism? Sour grapes would be one reasonable explanation. After working day and night to spin the media message, in order to assist both Al Gore and John Kerry in their presidential bids, the American people still elected George W. Bush as President twice; each time with a majority of more than 270 Electoral votes.
All this talk of abuse by the media and the Democrat Party only draws attention to the real civil rights abuses that occurred during a time of war. During World War II, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) began a policy of abuse that would make civil libertarians scream bloody murder had it occurred today under G.W. Bush’s watch. On February 11, 1942, FDR ordered the War Department to prepare for the entire evacuation of all Japanese-American citizens on the west coast of the United States.
Using the War Powers Act as if he were of nothing short of dictator, FDR then signed Executive Order 9066, authorizing the removal of Japanese-Americans from their very homes and placing them in prison camps. True to the words of Lord Acton, the great British historian, who once said: “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”, FDR’s power became absolute and corrupt simultaneously as he then turned his attention to rounding up German-American and Italian-American citizens and placing them in prison camps as well.
Let us not forget, these were American citizens who did not break the law. Their only crime according to FDR was their ethnicity. For this, these law abiding American citizens were taken from their homes and treated like terrorists. Talk about ethnic profiling!
Ironic isn’t it? Today, those who truly are terrorists are being held at GITMO by the Bush administration to keep America safe. For this act of defending our national security the cultural left is in an uproar. I find it quite interesting that FDR has always been an icon to the political left. He has taken on a mythical god-like status over the years. For this reason, the charges of abuse at GITMO, aimed against the Bush administration, are hypocritical to say the least.
Those imprisoned in GITMO are not American citizens. They have no Constitutional rights. Therefore their Constitutional rights can’t be violated as they have none. Yet, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) claims they do. This is laughable coming from the ACLU, an organization that was founded by three members of the Communist Party of America.
Secondly, those imprisoned at GITMO are terrorists who fit the legal category of “enemy combatants”. As enemy combatants, these terrorists are not entitled to the protection and rights of the Geneva Convention. Yet, even though enemy combatants do not have Geneva Convention protection rights, the Bush Administration has afforded these terrorists the protection rights agreed upon at the Geneva Convention.
That’s right, the Bush administration is treating the enemy combatants--some of who were caught in the very act of attacking American military personnel in Iraq, better than the terrorists deserve to be treated. Even more astounding are the conditions at GITMO.
The conditions at GITMO are far superior to the conditions these terrorists were accustomed to in their own countries of origin. Some of these terrorists are now using toilets, drinking clean water and eating three square meals a day for the first time in their very lives. The enemy combatants at GITMO are treated to Muslim diets daily - diets that meet their strict religious standards. Our military forces in Iraq are treated to suicide bombers and Improvised Explosive Devices (IED’s) on a daily basis.
The terrorists at GITMO are given the Koran (paid for by American tax dollars I might add), along with ample time to pray 5 times per day. Yet, our nation’s military is under investigation for alleged, “Christian proselytizing” at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.
Is there abuse at GITMO? Are you kidding me?! I am not claiming that there has never been nor ever will be a situation where someone is not treated in a manner which we would all like to be treated. However, there are circumstances to consider. Our military is trained to operated and function with skill and precision, however they are human, and we have to account for human error. We do not however, throw away and criticize an entire system at the fault of one do we?
Still looking for evidence of abuse at GITMO? Well, good luck. You will be hard pressed to find it.
So where did all these charges of abuse come from in the first place? You may find it interesting to know that after breaking up Osama Bin Laden’s terrorist network in Afghanistan, our nation’s military forces came upon the Al Qaeda training manual. In the manual were instructions for a member of Al Qaeda to cry “abuse” if captured by the American armed forces. The manual went on to say that forces within America would be sympathetic to the terrorists’ cause if they only cried, “abuse”.Judging by the behavior of the American media and the Democrat Party of recent months, it is easy to figure out who those sympathetic forces are.
By throwing enough mud on the wall, the American media were hoping something would stick. It never did. As it turns out, the most pressing issue of concern, as it pertains to GITMO, was the admission by the Bush Administration that several members of the American military may have mishandled a Koran. This was not enough for the American media. They insisted there was evidence of abuse by the American troops at GITMO.
When Newsweek, the traditionally liberal magazine, released a story alleging American soldiers flushed a Koran down a toilet, many Muslims around the world were up in arms. Riots ensued overseas and more than a dozen people were killed during violent protests against the Koran flushing American military.
Well, as it turns out, no such Koran flushing incident occurred. Newsweek retracted its story and the cat was finally out of the bag. The American media were shown to be nothing more than a group of mudslinging reactionaries.
One might ask why the American media and the Democrat’s in Congress keep grasping at straws in order to undermine President Bush’s war against terrorism? Sour grapes would be one reasonable explanation. After working day and night to spin the media message, in order to assist both Al Gore and John Kerry in their presidential bids, the American people still elected George W. Bush as President twice; each time with a majority of more than 270 Electoral votes.
All this talk of abuse by the media and the Democrat Party only draws attention to the real civil rights abuses that occurred during a time of war. During World War II, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) began a policy of abuse that would make civil libertarians scream bloody murder had it occurred today under G.W. Bush’s watch. On February 11, 1942, FDR ordered the War Department to prepare for the entire evacuation of all Japanese-American citizens on the west coast of the United States.
Using the War Powers Act as if he were of nothing short of dictator, FDR then signed Executive Order 9066, authorizing the removal of Japanese-Americans from their very homes and placing them in prison camps. True to the words of Lord Acton, the great British historian, who once said: “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”, FDR’s power became absolute and corrupt simultaneously as he then turned his attention to rounding up German-American and Italian-American citizens and placing them in prison camps as well.
Let us not forget, these were American citizens who did not break the law. Their only crime according to FDR was their ethnicity. For this, these law abiding American citizens were taken from their homes and treated like terrorists. Talk about ethnic profiling!
Ironic isn’t it? Today, those who truly are terrorists are being held at GITMO by the Bush administration to keep America safe. For this act of defending our national security the cultural left is in an uproar. I find it quite interesting that FDR has always been an icon to the political left. He has taken on a mythical god-like status over the years. For this reason, the charges of abuse at GITMO, aimed against the Bush administration, are hypocritical to say the least.
Those imprisoned in GITMO are not American citizens. They have no Constitutional rights. Therefore their Constitutional rights can’t be violated as they have none. Yet, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) claims they do. This is laughable coming from the ACLU, an organization that was founded by three members of the Communist Party of America.
Secondly, those imprisoned at GITMO are terrorists who fit the legal category of “enemy combatants”. As enemy combatants, these terrorists are not entitled to the protection and rights of the Geneva Convention. Yet, even though enemy combatants do not have Geneva Convention protection rights, the Bush Administration has afforded these terrorists the protection rights agreed upon at the Geneva Convention.
That’s right, the Bush administration is treating the enemy combatants--some of who were caught in the very act of attacking American military personnel in Iraq, better than the terrorists deserve to be treated. Even more astounding are the conditions at GITMO.
The conditions at GITMO are far superior to the conditions these terrorists were accustomed to in their own countries of origin. Some of these terrorists are now using toilets, drinking clean water and eating three square meals a day for the first time in their very lives. The enemy combatants at GITMO are treated to Muslim diets daily - diets that meet their strict religious standards. Our military forces in Iraq are treated to suicide bombers and Improvised Explosive Devices (IED’s) on a daily basis.
The terrorists at GITMO are given the Koran (paid for by American tax dollars I might add), along with ample time to pray 5 times per day. Yet, our nation’s military is under investigation for alleged, “Christian proselytizing” at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.
Is there abuse at GITMO? Are you kidding me?! I am not claiming that there has never been nor ever will be a situation where someone is not treated in a manner which we would all like to be treated. However, there are circumstances to consider. Our military is trained to operated and function with skill and precision, however they are human, and we have to account for human error. We do not however, throw away and criticize an entire system at the fault of one do we?
Still looking for evidence of abuse at GITMO? Well, good luck. You will be hard pressed to find it.
So where did all these charges of abuse come from in the first place? You may find it interesting to know that after breaking up Osama Bin Laden’s terrorist network in Afghanistan, our nation’s military forces came upon the Al Qaeda training manual. In the manual were instructions for a member of Al Qaeda to cry “abuse” if captured by the American armed forces. The manual went on to say that forces within America would be sympathetic to the terrorists’ cause if they only cried, “abuse”.Judging by the behavior of the American media and the Democrat Party of recent months, it is easy to figure out who those sympathetic forces are.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
We are NOT a Democracy
In 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinborough published his studies on the world's first Democracy, Greece. Tyler's studies led him to conclude that a Democracy will always fail.
Tyler found that a Democracy alone is doomed because no system of checks and balances exists to control the abuse of power. Tyler's findings led him to say:
"A Democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A Democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every Democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."
Ironically, Tyler made these statements in the same year our nation's Constitution was drafted. Some might say that Tyler's studies are out of date and therefore his findings have no bearing on government today. On the contrary, Tyler's comments have stood the test of time. During the 1930's, Germany, a Democracy at the time, elected Adolph Hitler. Clearly, without a system of checks and balances in place, the majority can vote and place a dictator in power with no recourse for removing that dictator.
The founders of our nation did not create a Democracy, but a Democratic-Republic. This is a balance between a Democracy, which is rule by the majority and a Republic, which is rule by the law. In our nation, the majority rules, but only within the boundaries of the law--specifically the law of the Constitution.
If tomorrow, the majority of people in one of the fifty states votes to legalize slavery, for instance, the judicial branch of our government should step in and declare the vote "un-Constitutional". In this case, the Republican part of our government would keep the Democratic part of our government in check.
So many in America believe that if a majority of voters want something to become law, it should automatically be called "Constitutional". That is not always the case. Only when the majority of people vote for change within the boundaries of the Constitution of the United States, can it then be deemed "Constitutional".
By the same token, if a judge or body of judges for instance, declares that the will of the people is "un-Constitutional" when in fact the will of the people is "Constitutional", it is up to Congress, our representatives, to put that judge's ruling in check. This can be done by way of legislation and even impeaching a judge.
Think back to the 2000 Presidential election. The Constitution of the United States allows for the election of the President of the United States by way of the Electoral College, not the popular vote. Yet, by listening to the media, Al Gore, Bill Clinton and the rest of the cultural left, you would think G.W. Bush was not elected President.
The real truth of the matter is Al Gore and his team of high priced attorneys attempted to circumvent the Constitution and have the courts name Mr. Gore President, even though G.W. Bush won the Electoral College. Thankfully, the Supreme Court upheld the Constitutional process and re-affirmed the Electoral College as the vehicle by which our nation elects its President.
Today in America, the Supreme Court is made up of three conservatives, four liberals and two moderates. Yet, the Supreme Court found in favor of G.W. Bush on one count by a 7-2 margin. This means, three conservatives, two moderates and two liberals each agreed that the Electoral College in fact elected G. W. Bush President.
So we see, the founders of our nation were amazingly astute. They created a system of checks and balances that would act like a pendulum, swinging back and forth to keep both elements of our government, the Democratic and Republican, in check. However, this system of checks and balances we live under can only be effective if "We the people" understand that a majority vote is not always right, nor is it always "Constitutional".
Tyler found that a Democracy alone is doomed because no system of checks and balances exists to control the abuse of power. Tyler's findings led him to say:
"A Democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A Democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every Democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."
Ironically, Tyler made these statements in the same year our nation's Constitution was drafted. Some might say that Tyler's studies are out of date and therefore his findings have no bearing on government today. On the contrary, Tyler's comments have stood the test of time. During the 1930's, Germany, a Democracy at the time, elected Adolph Hitler. Clearly, without a system of checks and balances in place, the majority can vote and place a dictator in power with no recourse for removing that dictator.
The founders of our nation did not create a Democracy, but a Democratic-Republic. This is a balance between a Democracy, which is rule by the majority and a Republic, which is rule by the law. In our nation, the majority rules, but only within the boundaries of the law--specifically the law of the Constitution.
If tomorrow, the majority of people in one of the fifty states votes to legalize slavery, for instance, the judicial branch of our government should step in and declare the vote "un-Constitutional". In this case, the Republican part of our government would keep the Democratic part of our government in check.
So many in America believe that if a majority of voters want something to become law, it should automatically be called "Constitutional". That is not always the case. Only when the majority of people vote for change within the boundaries of the Constitution of the United States, can it then be deemed "Constitutional".
By the same token, if a judge or body of judges for instance, declares that the will of the people is "un-Constitutional" when in fact the will of the people is "Constitutional", it is up to Congress, our representatives, to put that judge's ruling in check. This can be done by way of legislation and even impeaching a judge.
Think back to the 2000 Presidential election. The Constitution of the United States allows for the election of the President of the United States by way of the Electoral College, not the popular vote. Yet, by listening to the media, Al Gore, Bill Clinton and the rest of the cultural left, you would think G.W. Bush was not elected President.
The real truth of the matter is Al Gore and his team of high priced attorneys attempted to circumvent the Constitution and have the courts name Mr. Gore President, even though G.W. Bush won the Electoral College. Thankfully, the Supreme Court upheld the Constitutional process and re-affirmed the Electoral College as the vehicle by which our nation elects its President.
Today in America, the Supreme Court is made up of three conservatives, four liberals and two moderates. Yet, the Supreme Court found in favor of G.W. Bush on one count by a 7-2 margin. This means, three conservatives, two moderates and two liberals each agreed that the Electoral College in fact elected G. W. Bush President.
So we see, the founders of our nation were amazingly astute. They created a system of checks and balances that would act like a pendulum, swinging back and forth to keep both elements of our government, the Democratic and Republican, in check. However, this system of checks and balances we live under can only be effective if "We the people" understand that a majority vote is not always right, nor is it always "Constitutional".
The Two Party System Works Best
From the beginning of our nation and its Constitutional system, there has always been a two major party system in place. The first two party competition was between the Federalist Party and the Anti-Federalist Party. After a short while, the Anti-Federalist Party crumbled and the Democrat-Republican Party was born.
George Washington and John Adams represented the Federalist Party. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison represented the Democrat-Republican Party.
These two parties disagreed on the size and scope of the federal government and the rights of the states to rule themselves. Contrary to politics today, the founders of both parties believed in a very limited federal government, with the Democrat-Republicans believing in the weakest federal government of all. The Democrat-Republicans were the closest group to a Libertarian Party by today's standards.
Having only two major parties forced all political factions and schisms to align themselves with one party or the other. The result was a system of checks and balances where neither party had too much power. By embracing the ideas that the first party rejected, the second party kept the first party accountable and vice versa.
So what changed all that? Where in the history of our nation did the two party system, which operated as a checks and balances process, get away from the people? I believe it started with the creation of a third and fourth major party.
A third or fourth major party embraces various ideas outside the political mainstream. This allows the first two parties to no longer address those same political ideas. In other words, the two major parties no longer have to address every issue important to the people. The result is a government that is fractionalized. The status quo becomes the political norm. The electorate becomes disenfranchised.
In 1992, the third party candidate, H. Ross Perot took enough votes away from then President George H. Bush, giving Bill Clinton a successful run for the Presidency. While many conservatives like myself were up in arms when H. Ross Perot essentially helped hand Bill Clinton the White House, the same principle works against liberals when an ultra-liberal candidate is in the race.
It takes 270 Electoral College votes to win the White House. In the 2000 Presidential race, George W. Bush won 271 Electoral votes, Al Gore won 266. Ralph Nader, the third party candidate, took enough votes away from Al Gore to clear the path for George W. Bush to win a close Electoral College election.
For instance, Ralph Nader's name on the ballot in New Hampshire took enough votes away from Al Gore that George W. Bush won New Hampshire and their 4 Electoral votes. If Nader was not on the New Hampshire ballot, Al Gore most likely wins New Hampshire and receives exactly 270 Electoral votes, enough to win the White House. George W. Bush would have received 267 Electoral votes and never have become President.
This explains why so many states today, where the polls show George W. Bush and John Kerry in a dead heat, are trying to keep Ralph Nader off of their Presidential ballots. Nader can be the spoiler again for the Democrats.
As a Constitutional Conservative, I do not believe anyone has the right to deny a person the run for President, provided that person meets all legal requirements. I just believe we must accept the cold hard fact that a third or fourth party hurts all Americans wanting to vote for a President.
We should not keep someone running for President off a ballot; we should simply pick one of the two major parties and vote accordingly. Otherwise, we end up with a disenfranchised electorate, which was the outcome in both the 1992 and 2000 elections.
The two party system works every time. Whether it is the Federalist candidate vs. the Anti-Federalist candidate, or the Republican candidate vs. the Democrat candidate, each party must embrace ideas that the other has rejected. This gives everyone in our nation a voice.
In summary, the two party system is truly the most fair and most representative way to elect a President of the United States.
George Washington and John Adams represented the Federalist Party. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison represented the Democrat-Republican Party.
These two parties disagreed on the size and scope of the federal government and the rights of the states to rule themselves. Contrary to politics today, the founders of both parties believed in a very limited federal government, with the Democrat-Republicans believing in the weakest federal government of all. The Democrat-Republicans were the closest group to a Libertarian Party by today's standards.
Having only two major parties forced all political factions and schisms to align themselves with one party or the other. The result was a system of checks and balances where neither party had too much power. By embracing the ideas that the first party rejected, the second party kept the first party accountable and vice versa.
So what changed all that? Where in the history of our nation did the two party system, which operated as a checks and balances process, get away from the people? I believe it started with the creation of a third and fourth major party.
A third or fourth major party embraces various ideas outside the political mainstream. This allows the first two parties to no longer address those same political ideas. In other words, the two major parties no longer have to address every issue important to the people. The result is a government that is fractionalized. The status quo becomes the political norm. The electorate becomes disenfranchised.
In 1992, the third party candidate, H. Ross Perot took enough votes away from then President George H. Bush, giving Bill Clinton a successful run for the Presidency. While many conservatives like myself were up in arms when H. Ross Perot essentially helped hand Bill Clinton the White House, the same principle works against liberals when an ultra-liberal candidate is in the race.
It takes 270 Electoral College votes to win the White House. In the 2000 Presidential race, George W. Bush won 271 Electoral votes, Al Gore won 266. Ralph Nader, the third party candidate, took enough votes away from Al Gore to clear the path for George W. Bush to win a close Electoral College election.
For instance, Ralph Nader's name on the ballot in New Hampshire took enough votes away from Al Gore that George W. Bush won New Hampshire and their 4 Electoral votes. If Nader was not on the New Hampshire ballot, Al Gore most likely wins New Hampshire and receives exactly 270 Electoral votes, enough to win the White House. George W. Bush would have received 267 Electoral votes and never have become President.
This explains why so many states today, where the polls show George W. Bush and John Kerry in a dead heat, are trying to keep Ralph Nader off of their Presidential ballots. Nader can be the spoiler again for the Democrats.
As a Constitutional Conservative, I do not believe anyone has the right to deny a person the run for President, provided that person meets all legal requirements. I just believe we must accept the cold hard fact that a third or fourth party hurts all Americans wanting to vote for a President.
We should not keep someone running for President off a ballot; we should simply pick one of the two major parties and vote accordingly. Otherwise, we end up with a disenfranchised electorate, which was the outcome in both the 1992 and 2000 elections.
The two party system works every time. Whether it is the Federalist candidate vs. the Anti-Federalist candidate, or the Republican candidate vs. the Democrat candidate, each party must embrace ideas that the other has rejected. This gives everyone in our nation a voice.
In summary, the two party system is truly the most fair and most representative way to elect a President of the United States.
The Electoral College ...to be or not to be
It’s that time again in our nation's history. The time when pundits and political armchair quarterbacks begin to call for the end of the Electoral College.
It is easy to understand the emotion behind the call for a popular vote to elect our President. Everywhere you look today there are bumper stickers claiming our current President did not win the 2000 election. Such hysteria is typical of the far left. As always, their hysteria is based on a complete and total disregard for the facts.
Today in the U.S. a total of nine states contain more than 50% of our nation's population. By winning only those nine states in a popular vote, a Presidential candidate can write off the other forty-one states. This means a total of forty-one out of fifty states, or 82% of our nation's states, would have no voice in who becomes President.
The founders of our nation were far wiser than the contemporary critics of today. Men like John Adams, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry knew a thing or two about human nature. They knew that electing a President by way of a popular vote would result in the same tyranny they fought so hard to remove themselves from: the tyranny of a few ruling the many. This always results in the destruction of liberty.
If tomorrow the Electoral College were eliminated, those of us who live in the forty-one least populated states would become subservient to those who live in the nine most populated states. The Electoral College ensures that the person who becomes President must first win a majority vote in a majority of the states, thus ensuring that all states have representation. This also forces each Presidential candidate to campaign in all fifty states.
When we consider the 2000 Presidential election, it is easy to see that George W. Bush was the clear winner, winning thirty of fifty states. That is 60% of our nation's states. That is the only majority that matters. If the shoe were on the other foot and Al Gore won thirty of fifty states - the principle behind the Electoral College would still hold true.
The founders of our nation should be praised once again. The Electoral College system has stood the test of time and in the process, ensured that a man, who won only twenty of fifty states in the year 2000, did not become President. That is a brilliant system of checks and balances at work.
It is easy to understand the emotion behind the call for a popular vote to elect our President. Everywhere you look today there are bumper stickers claiming our current President did not win the 2000 election. Such hysteria is typical of the far left. As always, their hysteria is based on a complete and total disregard for the facts.
Today in the U.S. a total of nine states contain more than 50% of our nation's population. By winning only those nine states in a popular vote, a Presidential candidate can write off the other forty-one states. This means a total of forty-one out of fifty states, or 82% of our nation's states, would have no voice in who becomes President.
The founders of our nation were far wiser than the contemporary critics of today. Men like John Adams, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry knew a thing or two about human nature. They knew that electing a President by way of a popular vote would result in the same tyranny they fought so hard to remove themselves from: the tyranny of a few ruling the many. This always results in the destruction of liberty.
If tomorrow the Electoral College were eliminated, those of us who live in the forty-one least populated states would become subservient to those who live in the nine most populated states. The Electoral College ensures that the person who becomes President must first win a majority vote in a majority of the states, thus ensuring that all states have representation. This also forces each Presidential candidate to campaign in all fifty states.
When we consider the 2000 Presidential election, it is easy to see that George W. Bush was the clear winner, winning thirty of fifty states. That is 60% of our nation's states. That is the only majority that matters. If the shoe were on the other foot and Al Gore won thirty of fifty states - the principle behind the Electoral College would still hold true.
The founders of our nation should be praised once again. The Electoral College system has stood the test of time and in the process, ensured that a man, who won only twenty of fifty states in the year 2000, did not become President. That is a brilliant system of checks and balances at work.
The Truth about Separation of Church and State
Recently, several cases have come before the federal courts concerning religious speech and expression. These cases have exposed the confusion and misrepresentation of the First Amendment on behalf of the cultural left.
The phrase "separation of church and state" has come to be interpreted by the cultural left as a separation from religious speech in the public arena. This is completely contrary to what the First Amendment states.
The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which guarantees all Americans the freedom of speech, religion, press, petition and assembly, has this to say about religious speech: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
Simply put, no religion will be established by the state as an official religion of the nation, nor will the American people be denied the free expression of their religious beliefs. Yet, that is what is happening in America today. Everywhere we turn these days Americans who simply express their religious beliefs in an open society are constantly being targeted by employers, school officials, college professors and the media for simply engaging in their Constitutional liberties.
A practice of religious intolerance has been the norm for at least a generation and a half in America. Take for example the complaints filed with the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a religious liberty legal organization in Washington, D.C. Each year, thousands of Americans seek the ACLJ's assistance in defending their First Amendment liberties.
During a Rally Around The Flag event in Alabama a few years ago, a group of high school students voluntarily held hands and prayed around their school’s flagpole. For this the students were handcuffed and hauled to jail.
What has happened to America? Ours is a nation founded by British colonials seeking religious tolerance. How have so many Americans become so disillusioned as to think any religious speech in the public forum is actually a violation of the First Amendment?
The confusion concerning the First Amendment began with a case in 1947. In Everson vs. The Board of Education, Justice Black, an FDR appointee, rewrote the Constitution and set in motion an un-Constitutional precedent that has undermined all of our freedoms.
Justice Black took a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote to the Danville Baptist church in Virginia and used that phrase: "separation of church and state", to undermine the free speech rights of all Americans. The most interesting thing about Jefferson's use of that phrase is its true meaning.
Jefferson used this phrase as nothing more than a euphemism to express the First Amendment’s role as a preserver of free speech, not a censor of free speech as Judge Black re-interpreted it to be. Jefferson said he believed there was a "wall of separation" keeping the government from interfering in the affairs of the church, not to keep people of faith out of the political arena. Furthermore, that euphemism is Jefferson’s own opinion, not Constitutional law. The Supreme Court said so in Lynch vs. Donnelly (1984).
Again, we see the Supreme Court reinforcing the true nature of the First Amendment in the Mergens vs. West Side School (1990) case. The Supreme Court upheld the rights of all students to voluntarily pray in school; provided the government, including government paid officials (i.e. teachers, counselors) did not coerce that prayer.
It is for this reason Madeline Murray O’Hare was able to win her Supreme Court case in 1962. The Maryland school district her son attended made prayer a mandatory practice. The Supreme Court did not ban the free exercise of religion in this case, although that has come to be the spin used by the cultural left. The Supreme Court simply upheld the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
The propaganda concerning the First Amendment is staggering. Each year thousands of students are suspended, harassed, receive lower grades on their term papers, or even arrested for simply expressing their deeply held religious beliefs in the public forum. This is a direct result of the schizophrenic use of Jefferson's phrase “separation of church and state”.
The religious practice of Americans is the choice of each citizen and cannot be censored. The government cannot mandate religious practice, nor can the government deny that same practice. That is the balance of powers spelled out in the First Amendment by our nation’s founders.
The phrase "separation of church and state" has come to be interpreted by the cultural left as a separation from religious speech in the public arena. This is completely contrary to what the First Amendment states.
The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which guarantees all Americans the freedom of speech, religion, press, petition and assembly, has this to say about religious speech: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
Simply put, no religion will be established by the state as an official religion of the nation, nor will the American people be denied the free expression of their religious beliefs. Yet, that is what is happening in America today. Everywhere we turn these days Americans who simply express their religious beliefs in an open society are constantly being targeted by employers, school officials, college professors and the media for simply engaging in their Constitutional liberties.
A practice of religious intolerance has been the norm for at least a generation and a half in America. Take for example the complaints filed with the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a religious liberty legal organization in Washington, D.C. Each year, thousands of Americans seek the ACLJ's assistance in defending their First Amendment liberties.
During a Rally Around The Flag event in Alabama a few years ago, a group of high school students voluntarily held hands and prayed around their school’s flagpole. For this the students were handcuffed and hauled to jail.
What has happened to America? Ours is a nation founded by British colonials seeking religious tolerance. How have so many Americans become so disillusioned as to think any religious speech in the public forum is actually a violation of the First Amendment?
The confusion concerning the First Amendment began with a case in 1947. In Everson vs. The Board of Education, Justice Black, an FDR appointee, rewrote the Constitution and set in motion an un-Constitutional precedent that has undermined all of our freedoms.
Justice Black took a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote to the Danville Baptist church in Virginia and used that phrase: "separation of church and state", to undermine the free speech rights of all Americans. The most interesting thing about Jefferson's use of that phrase is its true meaning.
Jefferson used this phrase as nothing more than a euphemism to express the First Amendment’s role as a preserver of free speech, not a censor of free speech as Judge Black re-interpreted it to be. Jefferson said he believed there was a "wall of separation" keeping the government from interfering in the affairs of the church, not to keep people of faith out of the political arena. Furthermore, that euphemism is Jefferson’s own opinion, not Constitutional law. The Supreme Court said so in Lynch vs. Donnelly (1984).
Again, we see the Supreme Court reinforcing the true nature of the First Amendment in the Mergens vs. West Side School (1990) case. The Supreme Court upheld the rights of all students to voluntarily pray in school; provided the government, including government paid officials (i.e. teachers, counselors) did not coerce that prayer.
It is for this reason Madeline Murray O’Hare was able to win her Supreme Court case in 1962. The Maryland school district her son attended made prayer a mandatory practice. The Supreme Court did not ban the free exercise of religion in this case, although that has come to be the spin used by the cultural left. The Supreme Court simply upheld the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
The propaganda concerning the First Amendment is staggering. Each year thousands of students are suspended, harassed, receive lower grades on their term papers, or even arrested for simply expressing their deeply held religious beliefs in the public forum. This is a direct result of the schizophrenic use of Jefferson's phrase “separation of church and state”.
The religious practice of Americans is the choice of each citizen and cannot be censored. The government cannot mandate religious practice, nor can the government deny that same practice. That is the balance of powers spelled out in the First Amendment by our nation’s founders.
The Media's forgotten war
Once upon a time in recent history, a President of the United States started a war in Eastern Europe. The President claimed he sent our nation to war in Eastern Europe to liberate a people from a dictator.
Naturally, the American media stood behind this President and applauded his efforts. The American President claimed the US military and their coalition friends in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) would find mass graves of people killed by the dictator. This came to be called ethnic cleansing.
Well, no mass graves were found in the American President’s war just as no WMD’s have been found today in Iraq. Yet, this same American President was never called a liar by the American media when the mass graves failed to surface. Never did those on the political left cry foul when this same President spent billions of our tax dollars on that war.
In fact, this same American President awarded Halliburton, Dick Cheney’s former company, a no-bid contract to rebuild the nation the President helped destroy. Once again, Halliburton was awarded a “no-bid” contract. This means no other company in the world ever had a chance to win that contract except Halliburton.
I bet you never heard the American media cry foul over this American President’s no-bid contract to Halliburton.
The European War was an unprecedented event in American History. It was only the second time in history that the American military and their military allies in NATO, acted as aggressors, not defenders of freedom. The first time the American military and NATO acted as aggressors, not defenders of liberty, was when ordered to war in Bosnia by this same American President.
All told, this same American President involved our nation in this European War without even a shred of evidence that doing so was in our national interest. Yet, there was no outcry on behalf of the media, nor the political left. Never once did we see protests against this American President’s wartime actions.
Some of the failures of the American President’s efforts in the Eastern European war include:
-The bombing and destruction of a pedestrian bridge.
-The bombing and destruction of a residential neighborhood.
-The bombing and destruction of a telephone exchange office.
-The bombing and destruction of a passenger train.
-The bombing and destruction of numerous civilian vehicles.
-The bombing and destruction of a tobacco factory.
-The bombing and destruction of a TV station.
-The bombing and destruction of another residential neighborhood.
-The bombing and destruction of a passenger bus with riders inside.
-The bombing and destruction of a transformer substation causing a major blackout.
-The bombing and destruction of a hospital with patients and hospital staff inside.
By far the most hideous blunder of all, the American President’s coalition bombed and destroyed the Chinese embassy in Serbia, killing all the people within the building. All told, the American President’s war took the lives of more than 2,000 innocent people.
Each of these atrocities occurred within the first month of the American President’s war. Who was the American President? It was none other than William Jefferson Clinton.
Clinton’s Serbian War saw no outcry from the peace activists. There were no human rights activists crying over the loss of life. Michael Moore didn’t create a propaganda film about Mr. Clinton and his ties to Halliburton. The left-wing conspiracy theorists never claimed Mr. Clinton was a traitor. MoveOn.org didn’t compare Bill Clinton to Adolph Hitler.
On 9/11/01, it was Al Qaeda that attacked our nation. Since Saddam Hussein was giving aid and shelter to members of Al Qaeda, including Bin Laden’s own son, it only makes sense to remove this dictator. After all, Saddam Hussein was also giving money to radical Islamic terrorists so they could continue their murderous efforts.
As it stands today, G.W. Bush’s Iraq war has liberated 25 million Iraqi’s from a brutal dictator, broken up the Al Qaeda network in the Middle East and brought more than 60% of the Al Qaeda leadership to justice. Not a bad military record when you think about it.
As the son of Italian immigrants - whose parent's lives were literally saved by the U.S. Army, during WW II, I applaud Mr. Bush for his vision, courage and determination. President Bush knows the best way to protect America from terrorists is to destroy their efforts before they attack, not wait for them to attack and then respond, which is precisely what John Kerry has stated he would do.
By the way, when the U.S. Army liberated my parents from the Nazi occupation of their village in 1943, Franklin Roosevelt (FDR), a Democrat, was President. If FDR had been a Republican, I wonder if the media would still remember him as a great wartime President?
Naturally, the American media stood behind this President and applauded his efforts. The American President claimed the US military and their coalition friends in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) would find mass graves of people killed by the dictator. This came to be called ethnic cleansing.
Well, no mass graves were found in the American President’s war just as no WMD’s have been found today in Iraq. Yet, this same American President was never called a liar by the American media when the mass graves failed to surface. Never did those on the political left cry foul when this same President spent billions of our tax dollars on that war.
In fact, this same American President awarded Halliburton, Dick Cheney’s former company, a no-bid contract to rebuild the nation the President helped destroy. Once again, Halliburton was awarded a “no-bid” contract. This means no other company in the world ever had a chance to win that contract except Halliburton.
I bet you never heard the American media cry foul over this American President’s no-bid contract to Halliburton.
The European War was an unprecedented event in American History. It was only the second time in history that the American military and their military allies in NATO, acted as aggressors, not defenders of freedom. The first time the American military and NATO acted as aggressors, not defenders of liberty, was when ordered to war in Bosnia by this same American President.
All told, this same American President involved our nation in this European War without even a shred of evidence that doing so was in our national interest. Yet, there was no outcry on behalf of the media, nor the political left. Never once did we see protests against this American President’s wartime actions.
Some of the failures of the American President’s efforts in the Eastern European war include:
-The bombing and destruction of a pedestrian bridge.
-The bombing and destruction of a residential neighborhood.
-The bombing and destruction of a telephone exchange office.
-The bombing and destruction of a passenger train.
-The bombing and destruction of numerous civilian vehicles.
-The bombing and destruction of a tobacco factory.
-The bombing and destruction of a TV station.
-The bombing and destruction of another residential neighborhood.
-The bombing and destruction of a passenger bus with riders inside.
-The bombing and destruction of a transformer substation causing a major blackout.
-The bombing and destruction of a hospital with patients and hospital staff inside.
By far the most hideous blunder of all, the American President’s coalition bombed and destroyed the Chinese embassy in Serbia, killing all the people within the building. All told, the American President’s war took the lives of more than 2,000 innocent people.
Each of these atrocities occurred within the first month of the American President’s war. Who was the American President? It was none other than William Jefferson Clinton.
Clinton’s Serbian War saw no outcry from the peace activists. There were no human rights activists crying over the loss of life. Michael Moore didn’t create a propaganda film about Mr. Clinton and his ties to Halliburton. The left-wing conspiracy theorists never claimed Mr. Clinton was a traitor. MoveOn.org didn’t compare Bill Clinton to Adolph Hitler.
On 9/11/01, it was Al Qaeda that attacked our nation. Since Saddam Hussein was giving aid and shelter to members of Al Qaeda, including Bin Laden’s own son, it only makes sense to remove this dictator. After all, Saddam Hussein was also giving money to radical Islamic terrorists so they could continue their murderous efforts.
As it stands today, G.W. Bush’s Iraq war has liberated 25 million Iraqi’s from a brutal dictator, broken up the Al Qaeda network in the Middle East and brought more than 60% of the Al Qaeda leadership to justice. Not a bad military record when you think about it.
As the son of Italian immigrants - whose parent's lives were literally saved by the U.S. Army, during WW II, I applaud Mr. Bush for his vision, courage and determination. President Bush knows the best way to protect America from terrorists is to destroy their efforts before they attack, not wait for them to attack and then respond, which is precisely what John Kerry has stated he would do.
By the way, when the U.S. Army liberated my parents from the Nazi occupation of their village in 1943, Franklin Roosevelt (FDR), a Democrat, was President. If FDR had been a Republican, I wonder if the media would still remember him as a great wartime President?
Civil Liberties and the GOP, what your teachers never told you
The year was 1854. A small group of disgruntled members of the Whig Party and the Democrat Party, met in a little white schoolhouse in Ripon, Wisconsin. The purpose of this meeting was to create a new political party, a party that would call for an end to slavery in the United States of America.
In 1854, both the Whig Party and the Democrat Party refused to support an end to slavery entirely. So, the people in the white schoolhouse left their prospective parties and created the Republican Party.
Abraham Lincoln was one of the persons present at the white schoolhouse meeting. Lincoln was moved with compassion for those enslaved while witnessing a slave trade. He then decided to make a firm stand against the evil of slavery.
Since the creation of the Republican Party in 1854, its members have spearheaded the Emancipation Proclamation, which liberated those who where enslaved, permanently made slavery illegal in the United States of America through the 13th Amendment of the United States Constitution and reaffirmed the civil rights of all Americans, including former slaves, by way of the 14th Amendment.
While the media and the academic elites in the major universities of America paint a rose colored picture of the Democrat Party, the truth is a significant number of the Democrat Party members opposed all of the civil rights proposals made by the Republican Party.
In fact, a full one-third of the Democrat Party was known as “ Dixiecrats,” southern Democrats that opposed any civil liberties for African-American citizens. This powerful voting block of “Dixiecrats,” caused many a Democrat to show insensitivity and bigotry toward all African-Americans.
For instance, Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR), arguably the most beloved Democrat President of all time, refused to meet with the great African-American athlete, Jesse Owens, even after Owens took home several gold medals in the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, Germany.
Owens made Adolph Hitler eat crow by defeating Hitler’s “perfect race” of athletes while in Berlin. Jesse Owens should have been considered a hero. However, FDR was beholden to the segregationists in his own Democrat Party. A meeting in the White House or anywhere else with an African-American athlete, even Jesse Owens, was considered too risky for FDR’s re-election campaign.
Fast-forward to the next executive administration. The year is 1947. The great Jackie Robinson breaks the color barrier and becomes the first African-American to play major league baseball. Such a feat should have been held in high esteem by then President Harry Truman. However, Harry Truman refused to meet with Jackie Robinson for the same reasons FDR refused to meet with Jesse Owens.
Once again, another great African-American athlete, guaranteed the same Constitutional rights as all Americans, became a sacrificial lamb on the altar of the Democrat Party machine. I bet you never heard about that in college.
The next President to occupy the White House after Harry Truman was Dwight D. Eisenhower. Eisenhower, a Republican, called for the end of segregation in the Armed Forces. He even activated the elite Army unit, the 101st Airborne, in order to assist nine African-American children in Arkansas. The children’s lives were being threatened for simply wanting to attend school with Caucasian students.
Eisenhower, the former W.W. II General, fondly referred to as “Ike”, made it completely clear to the nation that bigotry would not be tolerated on his watch. The commander of the European Campaign during W.W. II became the Commander-in-Chief of the civil liberties of all Americans.
In 1964, the Civil Rights Act came before the Congress for a vote. The bill was designed to end segregation in America. Looking at today’s modern “progressive” history, one would think the Democrat Party led the way in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and ending segregation nationwide. Think again.
Thirty-one percent of the Democrats in Congress voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This was a vote in support of Segregationist policies. The bill would have died in Congress and Segregation would never have been made illegal until 82% of the Republican Party, who voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, chose to stand for liberty.
The Republican Party saved the day and the civil rights of all Americans by providing a large majority of votes in favor of ending Segregation. Imagine what life would be like today if Segregation had never ended.
The next time you think about civil rights and civil liberties, think about who made sure that those rights would become the law of the land. Then lift your head up high if you are a Republican
In 1854, both the Whig Party and the Democrat Party refused to support an end to slavery entirely. So, the people in the white schoolhouse left their prospective parties and created the Republican Party.
Abraham Lincoln was one of the persons present at the white schoolhouse meeting. Lincoln was moved with compassion for those enslaved while witnessing a slave trade. He then decided to make a firm stand against the evil of slavery.
Since the creation of the Republican Party in 1854, its members have spearheaded the Emancipation Proclamation, which liberated those who where enslaved, permanently made slavery illegal in the United States of America through the 13th Amendment of the United States Constitution and reaffirmed the civil rights of all Americans, including former slaves, by way of the 14th Amendment.
While the media and the academic elites in the major universities of America paint a rose colored picture of the Democrat Party, the truth is a significant number of the Democrat Party members opposed all of the civil rights proposals made by the Republican Party.
In fact, a full one-third of the Democrat Party was known as “ Dixiecrats,” southern Democrats that opposed any civil liberties for African-American citizens. This powerful voting block of “Dixiecrats,” caused many a Democrat to show insensitivity and bigotry toward all African-Americans.
For instance, Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR), arguably the most beloved Democrat President of all time, refused to meet with the great African-American athlete, Jesse Owens, even after Owens took home several gold medals in the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, Germany.
Owens made Adolph Hitler eat crow by defeating Hitler’s “perfect race” of athletes while in Berlin. Jesse Owens should have been considered a hero. However, FDR was beholden to the segregationists in his own Democrat Party. A meeting in the White House or anywhere else with an African-American athlete, even Jesse Owens, was considered too risky for FDR’s re-election campaign.
Fast-forward to the next executive administration. The year is 1947. The great Jackie Robinson breaks the color barrier and becomes the first African-American to play major league baseball. Such a feat should have been held in high esteem by then President Harry Truman. However, Harry Truman refused to meet with Jackie Robinson for the same reasons FDR refused to meet with Jesse Owens.
Once again, another great African-American athlete, guaranteed the same Constitutional rights as all Americans, became a sacrificial lamb on the altar of the Democrat Party machine. I bet you never heard about that in college.
The next President to occupy the White House after Harry Truman was Dwight D. Eisenhower. Eisenhower, a Republican, called for the end of segregation in the Armed Forces. He even activated the elite Army unit, the 101st Airborne, in order to assist nine African-American children in Arkansas. The children’s lives were being threatened for simply wanting to attend school with Caucasian students.
Eisenhower, the former W.W. II General, fondly referred to as “Ike”, made it completely clear to the nation that bigotry would not be tolerated on his watch. The commander of the European Campaign during W.W. II became the Commander-in-Chief of the civil liberties of all Americans.
In 1964, the Civil Rights Act came before the Congress for a vote. The bill was designed to end segregation in America. Looking at today’s modern “progressive” history, one would think the Democrat Party led the way in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and ending segregation nationwide. Think again.
Thirty-one percent of the Democrats in Congress voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This was a vote in support of Segregationist policies. The bill would have died in Congress and Segregation would never have been made illegal until 82% of the Republican Party, who voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, chose to stand for liberty.
The Republican Party saved the day and the civil rights of all Americans by providing a large majority of votes in favor of ending Segregation. Imagine what life would be like today if Segregation had never ended.
The next time you think about civil rights and civil liberties, think about who made sure that those rights would become the law of the land. Then lift your head up high if you are a Republican
Civil Rights began with the GOP
Today in our society, so much of the political and cultural buzz centers around civil rights. Entire political groups and organizations are built around defending an oppressed people group and demanding equity for that same group. All of this is done in the name of civil rights.
What if I told you that the civil rights movement would never have happened had it not been for the Republican Party? What would your response be? Maybe, shock, awe, disbelief or even skepticism?
The story of the Republican Party may seem a little obscure today, but there is a good reason why George W. Bush has a more ethnically diverse Cabinet than any other President in history. One only has to look to the Republican Party’s first President, Abraham Lincoln, for the party’s foundational principles.
In the early 1850’s, President Franklin Pierce, a Democrat, broke his promise to the Congress by not restricting slavery in the newly founded western states of America. Pierce allowed slavery to expand in these western states and members of his own party as well as the Whig party made him pay dearly for his turncoat policy.
In 1854, Abraham Lincoln and some of his friends in the Whig Party, along with some disgruntled Democrats, created the Republican Party for the purposes of ending slavery and upholding a conservative interpretation to the U.S. Constitution. At the time, no one could have predicted the growth and influence of this new political movement.
In 1860, when Abraham Lincoln was first elected as President of the United States, he swept into office Republican majorities in both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. In that same election of 1860, every major northern state elected a Republican Governor. Truly, a political revolution had begun.
Following Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, which made all slaves legal citizens of the United States, these same Republican members of Congress passed Constitutional Amendments banning slavery and extending all the rights found in the U.S. Constitution to all citizens of all states. Doing so affirmed that the equal protection and due process rights in the U.S. Constitution extended to all citizens, as did the right to vote.
The Republican members of Congress also wrote and enacted the nation’s first Civil Rights Act which made equal rights the law for all U.S. citizens regardless of race, color or creed.
Building upon their party’s civil rights victories, a Republican Senator, Aaron Sargent, wrote the Women’s Suffrage Amendment of 1878. The amendment would allow women the same right to vote as men. The amendment failed due to strong opposition by members of the Democrat Party.
That’s right, members of the Democrat Party strongly opposed voting rights for women. American women would have to wait another 40 years to obtain the right to vote.
You may find this surprising, but it was the Democrat Party who opposed every single civil rights legislation brought forth by the Republican members of Congress just after the Civil War. Without the majority vote in Congress, these same Democrats had little ability to derail the Republican efforts for true equality. Instead, they turned to more nefarious activities to re-enslave the African-Americans set free by the Republicans.
This may be difficult to swallow, but the truth is the Southern Democrats created a mafia style organization that sought to punish all African-Americans who engaged in their newfound freedoms. Through violence, abuse and murder, this organization became the battering ram of the Southern Democrat Party. What was the name of this organization? It was none other than the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).
Does this sound too hard to believe? Well, it’s all too true and it’s only the beginning of the story.
As it turns out, the African-American people, who were the chief benefactors of the Republican-led policies, pressed on in spite of the KKK. In fact, the first ever African-American members of Congress, both in the House of Representatives and Senate, were Republicans.
In 1870, Joseph Rainey of South Carolina became the nation’s first ever African-American Congressman. Senator Hiram Revels of Mississippi became the nation’s first ever African-American Senator that same year.
As a result of strong Democrat opposition to liberty, the Republican Party drew more and more African-Americans to its membership for almost two generations. As a matter of fact, every single African-American member of the United States Congress was a Republican until 1935.
The New Deal, as President Franklin Roosevelt (FDR) called it, drove a stake right through the heart of the Republican civil rights revolution. From that point on, the Democrat Party began to overtake the Republican Party’s efforts to embrace African-Americans.
Before we honor FDR as a great civil libertarian, let’s take a look at one of his most notorious judicial nominations to the Supreme Court.
Hugo Black, the man FDR named to the Supreme Court, became famous for his re-writing of the U.S. Constitution concerning prayer in schools (a clear violation of Article One, Section One of the U.S. Constitution). Hugo Black misrepresented Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danville Baptists in 1804 and used it as a wedge against religious liberty (for the full story, see my column, “The Truth About Separation of Church and State”).
Just a little background here - Hugo Black was also a member of that mafia like organization, the KKK.
As an attorney, Hugo Black defended a member of the Klan who was charged with murdering a Catholic priest. What was this Catholic priest guilty of as far as the KKK was concerned? Speaking out against them.
Surely, this is old history some might say. The Democrats supported the end of Segregation after all, right? Unfortunately, the facts are not so cut and dry.
While 69% of the Democrat members of Congress did vote in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ended Segregation nationwide, the other 31% of Democrats who voted against the bill kept it from passing. The Democrat members of the U.S. Senate in 1964 even began to filibuster in order to keep Segregation legal.
It took the Republican members of Congress, a full 82% of whom voted to end Segregation nationwide, to pass the bill. Segregation ended nationwide when a larger percentage of Republicans voted in favor of Civil Rights. This is an amazing feat when you consider that Congressional Republicans were the minority party in 1964.
Rather than engage in class-warfare, the history of the Republican Party shows a party that has made it a practice to measure all Americans by their conduct, not by the color of their skin. That would explain why Mr. Lincoln so eloquently said, “You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatreds.”
A novel principle both yesterday and today, amazingly simple, yet profound.
What if I told you that the civil rights movement would never have happened had it not been for the Republican Party? What would your response be? Maybe, shock, awe, disbelief or even skepticism?
The story of the Republican Party may seem a little obscure today, but there is a good reason why George W. Bush has a more ethnically diverse Cabinet than any other President in history. One only has to look to the Republican Party’s first President, Abraham Lincoln, for the party’s foundational principles.
In the early 1850’s, President Franklin Pierce, a Democrat, broke his promise to the Congress by not restricting slavery in the newly founded western states of America. Pierce allowed slavery to expand in these western states and members of his own party as well as the Whig party made him pay dearly for his turncoat policy.
In 1854, Abraham Lincoln and some of his friends in the Whig Party, along with some disgruntled Democrats, created the Republican Party for the purposes of ending slavery and upholding a conservative interpretation to the U.S. Constitution. At the time, no one could have predicted the growth and influence of this new political movement.
In 1860, when Abraham Lincoln was first elected as President of the United States, he swept into office Republican majorities in both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. In that same election of 1860, every major northern state elected a Republican Governor. Truly, a political revolution had begun.
Following Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, which made all slaves legal citizens of the United States, these same Republican members of Congress passed Constitutional Amendments banning slavery and extending all the rights found in the U.S. Constitution to all citizens of all states. Doing so affirmed that the equal protection and due process rights in the U.S. Constitution extended to all citizens, as did the right to vote.
The Republican members of Congress also wrote and enacted the nation’s first Civil Rights Act which made equal rights the law for all U.S. citizens regardless of race, color or creed.
Building upon their party’s civil rights victories, a Republican Senator, Aaron Sargent, wrote the Women’s Suffrage Amendment of 1878. The amendment would allow women the same right to vote as men. The amendment failed due to strong opposition by members of the Democrat Party.
That’s right, members of the Democrat Party strongly opposed voting rights for women. American women would have to wait another 40 years to obtain the right to vote.
You may find this surprising, but it was the Democrat Party who opposed every single civil rights legislation brought forth by the Republican members of Congress just after the Civil War. Without the majority vote in Congress, these same Democrats had little ability to derail the Republican efforts for true equality. Instead, they turned to more nefarious activities to re-enslave the African-Americans set free by the Republicans.
This may be difficult to swallow, but the truth is the Southern Democrats created a mafia style organization that sought to punish all African-Americans who engaged in their newfound freedoms. Through violence, abuse and murder, this organization became the battering ram of the Southern Democrat Party. What was the name of this organization? It was none other than the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).
Does this sound too hard to believe? Well, it’s all too true and it’s only the beginning of the story.
As it turns out, the African-American people, who were the chief benefactors of the Republican-led policies, pressed on in spite of the KKK. In fact, the first ever African-American members of Congress, both in the House of Representatives and Senate, were Republicans.
In 1870, Joseph Rainey of South Carolina became the nation’s first ever African-American Congressman. Senator Hiram Revels of Mississippi became the nation’s first ever African-American Senator that same year.
As a result of strong Democrat opposition to liberty, the Republican Party drew more and more African-Americans to its membership for almost two generations. As a matter of fact, every single African-American member of the United States Congress was a Republican until 1935.
The New Deal, as President Franklin Roosevelt (FDR) called it, drove a stake right through the heart of the Republican civil rights revolution. From that point on, the Democrat Party began to overtake the Republican Party’s efforts to embrace African-Americans.
Before we honor FDR as a great civil libertarian, let’s take a look at one of his most notorious judicial nominations to the Supreme Court.
Hugo Black, the man FDR named to the Supreme Court, became famous for his re-writing of the U.S. Constitution concerning prayer in schools (a clear violation of Article One, Section One of the U.S. Constitution). Hugo Black misrepresented Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danville Baptists in 1804 and used it as a wedge against religious liberty (for the full story, see my column, “The Truth About Separation of Church and State”).
Just a little background here - Hugo Black was also a member of that mafia like organization, the KKK.
As an attorney, Hugo Black defended a member of the Klan who was charged with murdering a Catholic priest. What was this Catholic priest guilty of as far as the KKK was concerned? Speaking out against them.
Surely, this is old history some might say. The Democrats supported the end of Segregation after all, right? Unfortunately, the facts are not so cut and dry.
While 69% of the Democrat members of Congress did vote in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ended Segregation nationwide, the other 31% of Democrats who voted against the bill kept it from passing. The Democrat members of the U.S. Senate in 1964 even began to filibuster in order to keep Segregation legal.
It took the Republican members of Congress, a full 82% of whom voted to end Segregation nationwide, to pass the bill. Segregation ended nationwide when a larger percentage of Republicans voted in favor of Civil Rights. This is an amazing feat when you consider that Congressional Republicans were the minority party in 1964.
Rather than engage in class-warfare, the history of the Republican Party shows a party that has made it a practice to measure all Americans by their conduct, not by the color of their skin. That would explain why Mr. Lincoln so eloquently said, “You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatreds.”
A novel principle both yesterday and today, amazingly simple, yet profound.
Peace through Strength
In the 1980’s, President Ronald Wilson Reagan began rebuilding the U.S. military and refocusing the nation’s foreign policy on winning the Cold War. Reagan’s predecessor, James Earl Carter, the 39th President of the United States, had left the nation’s economy, fiscal policy, foreign policy and military in shambles.
President Carter also undermined U.S. relations with the Shah of Iran. Carter’s fool hearty foreign policy created a leadership vacuum in Iran. As a result, the Ayatollah Khomeini assumed power to fill that vacuum. The dictator Khomeini transformed Iran into a beachhead for the spread of militant Islam.
Through conviction, persistence and just the right amount of rugged individualism, Ronald Reagan reversed the anemic policies of Jimmy Carter. Better still, Reagan placed the U.S.A. in a position of economic and military strength it had not seen since the end of WW II.
Critics said Reagan’s ideas would never work. In fact, the critics of President Reagan’s Cold War policy asserted that Reagan would thrust the U.S.A. and the Soviet Union into a war with each other. As we know now, the critics were wrong and Reagan was right.
After years of an American foreign policy based on appeasement, which led to a complete capitulation of our nation’s armed forces, Reagan took the bull by the horns and won the Cold War. He showed the world that peace could only come through strength - a strength and resolve demonstrated by a fierce military and an effective foreign policy.
Reagan’s Cold War policy did not go over well in Washington, nor in the national media. Even Reagan’s own advisors were skeptical of his efforts. Yet, almost as soon as Reagan left the White House, the Berlin Wall fell and with it the “Evil Empire”, that was known as the Soviet Union.
In WW II, peace was obtained through strength when the United States defeated Hitler’s Nazi war machine. Peace was obtained when the United States defeated Mussolini’s Fascist agenda and Emperor Hirohito’s Imperialist Empire.
In the 1980’s, with Reagan at the helm, the United States triumphed over Marxism led by a peace through strength policy. The Great Communicator, as Reagan was called, became the Great Liberator.
Today we face a new war, one being waged in the name of terrorism. Just as the Japanese Kamikaze pilots of WW II were willing to kill themselves in order to destroy their enemies, suicide bombers in the Middle East today kill themselves by exploding bombs wrapped around their chests.
Like the Kamikaze of yesterday, the Islamic militant is promised a better world in the next life if he only kills himself while killing his perceived enemy (i.e. American soldiers, Israeli citizens, etc.).
The Islamic militant, just like the Kamikaze pilot, is promised honor and utopia, not for the way he lives his life, but for the way he ends his life.
This kind of madness cannot be reasoned away by peace talks. No peace summit or United Nations resolution can change this pathologically fanatical mindset of suicide/murder equals utopia. Such a fanaticism can only be defeated when a greater force of strength overwhelms and eliminates that fanaticism.
Enter George W. Bush. Forging ahead while the same media elite that called Reagan a fool, now calls George W. Bush a fool, this President knows that peace can only be achieved through strength.
In a post 9/11/01 world, George W. Bush has embraced the successful policies of Ronald Reagan. In so doing, President Bush has taken the war to the fanatics before the fanatics can take the war to us again.
The results of President Bush’s policies are too overwhelming to deny. The most left wing members of the Congress and the media are now admitting Bush was right to go into Iraq.
Recently, Senators Ted Kennedy and Frank Lautenberg praised Bush for his Iraq success, demonstrated by the January elections there.
Let’s consider some of the results of Bush’s Afghanistan and Iraqi successes.
Libya’s dictator, Moammar Ghaddaffi, has offered to give up his Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Egypt has agreed to allow elections for their President. This is an amazing development when you consider that Egypt’s current President, Hosni Mubarak, has ruled that nation with an iron fist for more than twenty years.
Saudi Arabia has agreed to remove the Islamic militant propaganda from their school textbooks. An example of such propaganda found in Saudi textbooks is the very common teaching that Jews are supposedly the descendants of apes and dogs.
The Syrian government has announced it will gradually leave Lebanon and eventually no longer occupy that country.
This last development is the one to watch in the months and years to come. Syria does not want to exit Lebanon any time soon.
One reason for the Syrian occupation of Lebanon is Syria’s lack of a functional industry. Due to western influence in Lebanon prior to the Syrian occupation, the Lebanese industrial complex is far superior to Syria’s.
Another reason for Syria’s reluctance to leave Lebanon is the presence of Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hezbollah is a militant Islamic, terrorist organization whose headquarters are in Damascus, Syria.
By the way, Hezbollah receives its funding and marching orders from Iran. If Jimmy Carter had not undermined the Shah of Iran, Iran would still be a Pro-Western nation today. That means Hezbollah would have little to no power today. Weakness always fuels the fire of Arab hatred. Strength puts the fire out.
As it stands today, Hezbollah controls the border region where three countries meet: Syria, Lebanon and Israel. Armed with missiles aimed at Israel, Hezbollah will no doubt become the new focus of the Bush foreign policy strategy. As long as Hezbollah occupies the very volatile region where Israel, Lebanon and Syria meet, peace will still be beyond reach.
President Bush’s peace through strength policy is going to rattle a few cages in the Middle East. Reagan’s policies rattled a few cages too. In the end, it was Reagan’s cage rattling that liberated Eastern Europe. President Bush’s cage rattling will do the same in the Middle East.
Just as in the past, when the United States saw victory only when it stood tall and refused the policy of appeasement, President Bush is poised to become the next Great Liberator. In doing so, President Bush will bring liberty to the Middle East. We know this because history tells us so.
Peace only comes through strength.
President Carter also undermined U.S. relations with the Shah of Iran. Carter’s fool hearty foreign policy created a leadership vacuum in Iran. As a result, the Ayatollah Khomeini assumed power to fill that vacuum. The dictator Khomeini transformed Iran into a beachhead for the spread of militant Islam.
Through conviction, persistence and just the right amount of rugged individualism, Ronald Reagan reversed the anemic policies of Jimmy Carter. Better still, Reagan placed the U.S.A. in a position of economic and military strength it had not seen since the end of WW II.
Critics said Reagan’s ideas would never work. In fact, the critics of President Reagan’s Cold War policy asserted that Reagan would thrust the U.S.A. and the Soviet Union into a war with each other. As we know now, the critics were wrong and Reagan was right.
After years of an American foreign policy based on appeasement, which led to a complete capitulation of our nation’s armed forces, Reagan took the bull by the horns and won the Cold War. He showed the world that peace could only come through strength - a strength and resolve demonstrated by a fierce military and an effective foreign policy.
Reagan’s Cold War policy did not go over well in Washington, nor in the national media. Even Reagan’s own advisors were skeptical of his efforts. Yet, almost as soon as Reagan left the White House, the Berlin Wall fell and with it the “Evil Empire”, that was known as the Soviet Union.
In WW II, peace was obtained through strength when the United States defeated Hitler’s Nazi war machine. Peace was obtained when the United States defeated Mussolini’s Fascist agenda and Emperor Hirohito’s Imperialist Empire.
In the 1980’s, with Reagan at the helm, the United States triumphed over Marxism led by a peace through strength policy. The Great Communicator, as Reagan was called, became the Great Liberator.
Today we face a new war, one being waged in the name of terrorism. Just as the Japanese Kamikaze pilots of WW II were willing to kill themselves in order to destroy their enemies, suicide bombers in the Middle East today kill themselves by exploding bombs wrapped around their chests.
Like the Kamikaze of yesterday, the Islamic militant is promised a better world in the next life if he only kills himself while killing his perceived enemy (i.e. American soldiers, Israeli citizens, etc.).
The Islamic militant, just like the Kamikaze pilot, is promised honor and utopia, not for the way he lives his life, but for the way he ends his life.
This kind of madness cannot be reasoned away by peace talks. No peace summit or United Nations resolution can change this pathologically fanatical mindset of suicide/murder equals utopia. Such a fanaticism can only be defeated when a greater force of strength overwhelms and eliminates that fanaticism.
Enter George W. Bush. Forging ahead while the same media elite that called Reagan a fool, now calls George W. Bush a fool, this President knows that peace can only be achieved through strength.
In a post 9/11/01 world, George W. Bush has embraced the successful policies of Ronald Reagan. In so doing, President Bush has taken the war to the fanatics before the fanatics can take the war to us again.
The results of President Bush’s policies are too overwhelming to deny. The most left wing members of the Congress and the media are now admitting Bush was right to go into Iraq.
Recently, Senators Ted Kennedy and Frank Lautenberg praised Bush for his Iraq success, demonstrated by the January elections there.
Let’s consider some of the results of Bush’s Afghanistan and Iraqi successes.
Libya’s dictator, Moammar Ghaddaffi, has offered to give up his Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Egypt has agreed to allow elections for their President. This is an amazing development when you consider that Egypt’s current President, Hosni Mubarak, has ruled that nation with an iron fist for more than twenty years.
Saudi Arabia has agreed to remove the Islamic militant propaganda from their school textbooks. An example of such propaganda found in Saudi textbooks is the very common teaching that Jews are supposedly the descendants of apes and dogs.
The Syrian government has announced it will gradually leave Lebanon and eventually no longer occupy that country.
This last development is the one to watch in the months and years to come. Syria does not want to exit Lebanon any time soon.
One reason for the Syrian occupation of Lebanon is Syria’s lack of a functional industry. Due to western influence in Lebanon prior to the Syrian occupation, the Lebanese industrial complex is far superior to Syria’s.
Another reason for Syria’s reluctance to leave Lebanon is the presence of Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hezbollah is a militant Islamic, terrorist organization whose headquarters are in Damascus, Syria.
By the way, Hezbollah receives its funding and marching orders from Iran. If Jimmy Carter had not undermined the Shah of Iran, Iran would still be a Pro-Western nation today. That means Hezbollah would have little to no power today. Weakness always fuels the fire of Arab hatred. Strength puts the fire out.
As it stands today, Hezbollah controls the border region where three countries meet: Syria, Lebanon and Israel. Armed with missiles aimed at Israel, Hezbollah will no doubt become the new focus of the Bush foreign policy strategy. As long as Hezbollah occupies the very volatile region where Israel, Lebanon and Syria meet, peace will still be beyond reach.
President Bush’s peace through strength policy is going to rattle a few cages in the Middle East. Reagan’s policies rattled a few cages too. In the end, it was Reagan’s cage rattling that liberated Eastern Europe. President Bush’s cage rattling will do the same in the Middle East.
Just as in the past, when the United States saw victory only when it stood tall and refused the policy of appeasement, President Bush is poised to become the next Great Liberator. In doing so, President Bush will bring liberty to the Middle East. We know this because history tells us so.
Peace only comes through strength.
Ownership not loanership to fix Social Security
In 1935, The Social Security Act became law in the United States. With the creation of this government run retirement program, the American people began to see the role of government in a different manner than previous generations.
Prior to the creation of Social Security, the nation’s people were by and large independent, rugged and individualistic in nature. The birth of Social Security brought about a paradigm shift in our nation’s political, cultural and financial priorities.
The American public accepted the Social Security concept without much question. After all, they were living through the Great Depression in 1935. The government had to take a greater role in the people’s lives, right?
In 1935, the average American worker lived to be only 62 years of age. Providing retirement benefits to Americans 65 years of age, a full three years after the average American passed away, was no problem at all.
Today, the average American worker lives to be age 80. If we followed the Franklin Roosevelt (FDR) model of Social Security, Americans would receive Social Security benefits at age 83. Can you imagine what American seniors would say, if you told them they had to wait until age 83 to receive their Social Security benefits? Yet, this would be in keeping with FDR’s policies.
Think about this for a second. The average American lives longer than ever before. Yet, there are fewer younger workers to pay into the Social Security system (just one consequence of 44 million abortions since Roe V Wade). This is a perpetual problem that will continue to compound and magnify.
In 1950, 16 employed Americans paid the Social Security benefits of 1 retired American. In 2008, just three years from now, only 2 employed Americans will pay the Social Security benefits of 1 retired American. By 2018, more retired Americans will receive benefits than can be paid for by younger workers.
We face an exploding deficit like nothing we have ever seen in American history. Our federal government must pay for a growing number of seniors’ retirement benefits. This is accomplished by taking more and more money from younger workers. In return, the younger workers receive little to no Social Security benefits when they retire.
Under our current Social Security system, we must loan our retirement benefits to the federal government. In turn, the federal government pays for the benefits of elderly Americans, while promising younger workers nothing but government IOU’s.
In 1993, President Bill Clinton pushed through Congress (a Democrat controlled Congress I might add), a bill that raised taxes on Social Security benefits by 70%. That’s right, the Democrats in Congress raised taxes by 70% on American seniors receiving Social Security benefits. Yet, the problem of Social Security was not solved.
Today, eight out of every ten Americans pay more in payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare combined) than in income tax. Yet, with all this manipulating of federal tax revenue, the Social Security system is still going to be in deficit by 2018.
So how do we repair the Social Security system? How do we pay American seniors what they were promised while still providing younger Americans an equitable system of retirement? There is only one solution to this problem. Individual ownership, not loanership, will smooth out the retirement fiasco.
In the early 1980’s, both Great Britain and Chile embraced an ownership system of retirement for their people. The results in both nations are overwhelming. In Chile, the average rate of return for a retiring worker’s investment is 13%. That’s 13 times the rate of return of our current Social Security system.
In Britain, the numbers are similar, with retired Britons earning more than they ever dreamed of with the old government run system. Even Russia, the former Soviet Union, has embraced a private retirement system that has the Russians poised for ownership of a much larger return of retirement benefits.
President Bush wants to create an ownership retirement system. One where Americans ages 54 and younger are able to take one-third of their Social Security taxes and have it invested in a private fund. The remaining two-thirds of our Social Security taxes will pay for the benefits of seniors who retire under the current system.
This is a win-win situation. Those Americans aged 55 and older will receive the benefits they were promised. Those of us aged 54 and under will make up the inevitable loss of Social Security benefits through private investing - investing that yields a much higher rate of return.
Knowing that the current Social Security system is going to crash in thirteen years, we must act now. Otherwise, all Americans will be forced to pay for huge deficits, simply because we were too afraid to act now.
It is high time we own our retirement. Loaning our tax money to the federal government for the purposes of saving and investing has proven to be nothing more than an elaborate Pyramid Scheme.
Prior to the creation of Social Security, the nation’s people were by and large independent, rugged and individualistic in nature. The birth of Social Security brought about a paradigm shift in our nation’s political, cultural and financial priorities.
The American public accepted the Social Security concept without much question. After all, they were living through the Great Depression in 1935. The government had to take a greater role in the people’s lives, right?
In 1935, the average American worker lived to be only 62 years of age. Providing retirement benefits to Americans 65 years of age, a full three years after the average American passed away, was no problem at all.
Today, the average American worker lives to be age 80. If we followed the Franklin Roosevelt (FDR) model of Social Security, Americans would receive Social Security benefits at age 83. Can you imagine what American seniors would say, if you told them they had to wait until age 83 to receive their Social Security benefits? Yet, this would be in keeping with FDR’s policies.
Think about this for a second. The average American lives longer than ever before. Yet, there are fewer younger workers to pay into the Social Security system (just one consequence of 44 million abortions since Roe V Wade). This is a perpetual problem that will continue to compound and magnify.
In 1950, 16 employed Americans paid the Social Security benefits of 1 retired American. In 2008, just three years from now, only 2 employed Americans will pay the Social Security benefits of 1 retired American. By 2018, more retired Americans will receive benefits than can be paid for by younger workers.
We face an exploding deficit like nothing we have ever seen in American history. Our federal government must pay for a growing number of seniors’ retirement benefits. This is accomplished by taking more and more money from younger workers. In return, the younger workers receive little to no Social Security benefits when they retire.
Under our current Social Security system, we must loan our retirement benefits to the federal government. In turn, the federal government pays for the benefits of elderly Americans, while promising younger workers nothing but government IOU’s.
In 1993, President Bill Clinton pushed through Congress (a Democrat controlled Congress I might add), a bill that raised taxes on Social Security benefits by 70%. That’s right, the Democrats in Congress raised taxes by 70% on American seniors receiving Social Security benefits. Yet, the problem of Social Security was not solved.
Today, eight out of every ten Americans pay more in payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare combined) than in income tax. Yet, with all this manipulating of federal tax revenue, the Social Security system is still going to be in deficit by 2018.
So how do we repair the Social Security system? How do we pay American seniors what they were promised while still providing younger Americans an equitable system of retirement? There is only one solution to this problem. Individual ownership, not loanership, will smooth out the retirement fiasco.
In the early 1980’s, both Great Britain and Chile embraced an ownership system of retirement for their people. The results in both nations are overwhelming. In Chile, the average rate of return for a retiring worker’s investment is 13%. That’s 13 times the rate of return of our current Social Security system.
In Britain, the numbers are similar, with retired Britons earning more than they ever dreamed of with the old government run system. Even Russia, the former Soviet Union, has embraced a private retirement system that has the Russians poised for ownership of a much larger return of retirement benefits.
President Bush wants to create an ownership retirement system. One where Americans ages 54 and younger are able to take one-third of their Social Security taxes and have it invested in a private fund. The remaining two-thirds of our Social Security taxes will pay for the benefits of seniors who retire under the current system.
This is a win-win situation. Those Americans aged 55 and older will receive the benefits they were promised. Those of us aged 54 and under will make up the inevitable loss of Social Security benefits through private investing - investing that yields a much higher rate of return.
Knowing that the current Social Security system is going to crash in thirteen years, we must act now. Otherwise, all Americans will be forced to pay for huge deficits, simply because we were too afraid to act now.
It is high time we own our retirement. Loaning our tax money to the federal government for the purposes of saving and investing has proven to be nothing more than an elaborate Pyramid Scheme.
Don't Blame Bush for Katrina
Now that President G.W. Bush has apologized, at least in part, for the perceived failure of FEMA and the federal response to Hurricane Katrina, one must ask what was behind the apology in the first place? It appears Mr. Bush felt the only way to calm the public was to take responsibility for what the federal government had done. I think this is admirable but terribly unnecessary, especially when you consider the facts pertaining to the federal government’s response.
Pittsburgh Post Gazette writer, Jack Kelly, has chronicled the Bush/FEMA response to Katrina. It turns out that Bush and FEMA performed very well in comparison to past administrations. Kelly reported, “The federal response here was faster than in (Hurricane) Hugo, faster than Andrew, faster than Iniki, faster than Francine and Jeanne.”
Kelly went on to report, “The Federal government pretty much met its standard timelines, but the volume of support provided during the (first) 72-96 hours was unprecedented.”
Unprecedented? Based on what the mainstream media told us you would think this was the worst response to any natural disaster in American history.
Let’s take a look at Hurricane Floyd, which occurred in 1999 under Bill Clinton’s watch. Clinton’s hand picked FEMA director, James Lee Witt, was so overwhelmed it took months to accomplish what Bush accomplished in about a week. In fact, it took Bill Clinton five days to activate the National Guard in response to Hurricane Floyd.
So how did Bush perform? Well, once the levees broke in New Orleans, President G.W. Bush had FEMA, the Coast Guard and the National Guard on the ground in three days.
So why did President Bush wait until the levees broke to act you might ask? Well, federal law forbids the federal government from acting on behalf of state authorities until requested by those same state authorities. Here is where the rubber meets the road.
President Bush called Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco twice, and asked if she would give him the authority to bring FEMA to her state. Twice Blanco refused. The Red Cross also asked Governor Blanco for her permission to get involved in rescue efforts. Again, Governor Blanco refused. It gets worse. Governor Blanco even turned down her own Louisiana National Guard from getting involved in rescue efforts.
Fox News reported that when the Red Cross was ready to deliver food, water and necessary life saving items like hygiene equipment after the flooding began, Blanco and her staff said “no”.
The precise words used by Blanco’s people is as follows, “Look, we do not want to create a magnet for more people to come to the Superdome or Convention Center, we want to get them out,” reported Fox News.
Now that is completely backwards. In a time of natural disaster, the very thing that the state officials of Louisiana should have done was draw more of its citizens to shelter, not turn them away.
Let’s contrast Blanco’s blank response with President Bush’s swift response. In just the first week after the Hurricane Katrina disaster, more than 32,000 people were rescued by the Coast Guard. Nearly 200,000 received food, medical care and shelter. The Army Corp of Engineers even repaired breached levees and pumped water out of the city of New Orleans. Remember, this was the first week after Hurricane Katrina hit land.
Unprecedented is right!
Contrast this with the Hurricane Floyd rescue efforts under Bill Clinton’s watch. Tens of thousands of people were left stranded for days all along the eastern seaboard of Florida, North Carolina, Virginia and New Jersey. Hurricane Floyd weakened to a category 2 storm when it hit land. Katrina on the other hand was twice as severe when it hit land. Yet, the Bush administration responded much better to a storm twice as severe than the Clinton administration did to a storm half as severe.
What in the world was Governor Blanco thinking? Why did she fail to act? It seems the person at the helm of her homeland security department was none other than James Lee Witt. This is the same man who was Bill Clinton’s FEMA director during Hurricane Floyd. The same James Lee Witt who left tens of thousands of people stranded for days along the eastern seaboard. Are we beginning to see a pattern here?
James Lee Witt failed to deliver during Hurricane Floyd. James Lee Witt failed to deliver during Hurricane Katrina. It took G.W. Bush and his FEMA director, Michael Brown, to fix the mess left behind by Governor Blanco and James Lee Witt.
Oh, and Michael Brown, President Bush’s FEMA director? He responded to four previous Hurricanes with exceptional skill. Brown may have been a political appointee as far as Bush is concerned, but he grew into the position and performed exceptionally well.
In all, Louisiana was not left for dead by the G.W. Bush administration. Louisiana was left blank by Governor Blanco and her Knit-Witt state director of homeland security
Pittsburgh Post Gazette writer, Jack Kelly, has chronicled the Bush/FEMA response to Katrina. It turns out that Bush and FEMA performed very well in comparison to past administrations. Kelly reported, “The federal response here was faster than in (Hurricane) Hugo, faster than Andrew, faster than Iniki, faster than Francine and Jeanne.”
Kelly went on to report, “The Federal government pretty much met its standard timelines, but the volume of support provided during the (first) 72-96 hours was unprecedented.”
Unprecedented? Based on what the mainstream media told us you would think this was the worst response to any natural disaster in American history.
Let’s take a look at Hurricane Floyd, which occurred in 1999 under Bill Clinton’s watch. Clinton’s hand picked FEMA director, James Lee Witt, was so overwhelmed it took months to accomplish what Bush accomplished in about a week. In fact, it took Bill Clinton five days to activate the National Guard in response to Hurricane Floyd.
So how did Bush perform? Well, once the levees broke in New Orleans, President G.W. Bush had FEMA, the Coast Guard and the National Guard on the ground in three days.
So why did President Bush wait until the levees broke to act you might ask? Well, federal law forbids the federal government from acting on behalf of state authorities until requested by those same state authorities. Here is where the rubber meets the road.
President Bush called Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco twice, and asked if she would give him the authority to bring FEMA to her state. Twice Blanco refused. The Red Cross also asked Governor Blanco for her permission to get involved in rescue efforts. Again, Governor Blanco refused. It gets worse. Governor Blanco even turned down her own Louisiana National Guard from getting involved in rescue efforts.
Fox News reported that when the Red Cross was ready to deliver food, water and necessary life saving items like hygiene equipment after the flooding began, Blanco and her staff said “no”.
The precise words used by Blanco’s people is as follows, “Look, we do not want to create a magnet for more people to come to the Superdome or Convention Center, we want to get them out,” reported Fox News.
Now that is completely backwards. In a time of natural disaster, the very thing that the state officials of Louisiana should have done was draw more of its citizens to shelter, not turn them away.
Let’s contrast Blanco’s blank response with President Bush’s swift response. In just the first week after the Hurricane Katrina disaster, more than 32,000 people were rescued by the Coast Guard. Nearly 200,000 received food, medical care and shelter. The Army Corp of Engineers even repaired breached levees and pumped water out of the city of New Orleans. Remember, this was the first week after Hurricane Katrina hit land.
Unprecedented is right!
Contrast this with the Hurricane Floyd rescue efforts under Bill Clinton’s watch. Tens of thousands of people were left stranded for days all along the eastern seaboard of Florida, North Carolina, Virginia and New Jersey. Hurricane Floyd weakened to a category 2 storm when it hit land. Katrina on the other hand was twice as severe when it hit land. Yet, the Bush administration responded much better to a storm twice as severe than the Clinton administration did to a storm half as severe.
What in the world was Governor Blanco thinking? Why did she fail to act? It seems the person at the helm of her homeland security department was none other than James Lee Witt. This is the same man who was Bill Clinton’s FEMA director during Hurricane Floyd. The same James Lee Witt who left tens of thousands of people stranded for days along the eastern seaboard. Are we beginning to see a pattern here?
James Lee Witt failed to deliver during Hurricane Floyd. James Lee Witt failed to deliver during Hurricane Katrina. It took G.W. Bush and his FEMA director, Michael Brown, to fix the mess left behind by Governor Blanco and James Lee Witt.
Oh, and Michael Brown, President Bush’s FEMA director? He responded to four previous Hurricanes with exceptional skill. Brown may have been a political appointee as far as Bush is concerned, but he grew into the position and performed exceptionally well.
In all, Louisiana was not left for dead by the G.W. Bush administration. Louisiana was left blank by Governor Blanco and her Knit-Witt state director of homeland security
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)