Al Gore is at it again. This time, he has called the Bush administration "a renegade band of right-wing extremists." This leads me to believe that Al Gore wouldn't know a right-wing extremist if one slapped him across the face. Compared to George Bush, I'm a right-wing extremist. Now, it's true that if George W. Bush were in Europe, he could easily be considered a right-wing extremist...but that just is not true in the United States. As Rush Limbaugh just said, if President Bush were a right-wing extremist, a lot of conservatives would be a lot happier than they are. Personally, I wish the President leaned more to the right than he does.
In other, Al Gore-related news, scientists studying ice cores taken from the Arctic have found that the frozen land was once a tropical paradise...about 55 million years ago. So, if man-made global warming is such the threat that Gore makes it out to be, then how is it that the tropical Arctic froze over long before such things as SUVs even existed? Just a thought.
The other item that concerns me is this: on Monday (Memorial day), President Bush signed a law making it illegal for people to protest at the funerals of soldiers. This law was written and signed in response to the Westboro Baptist Church members who have been protesting soldiers' funerals, saying that the soldiers died because God hates America due to the US's acceptance of homosexuality.
Now, my knee-jerk reaction is to say that this law is a good thing - these Westboro Baptists are wackos who pervert the Christian faith and are an insult to true Christians. As a Christian, it offends me to be associated with them through the title of Christian. From this perspective, and my belief that soldiers should be thanked and respected for their sacrifice, I have no problem with this law. However, if you take a look at the First Amendment of the Constitution, it says that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." So, this law is unConstitutional. The law bars people from protesting within a certain distance from a national cemetary while a funeral is going on. National cemetaries are public property. As much as I agree with this decision, the law itself is illegal - it is superceded by the First Amendment.
I say that if our legislators really want to make these protests illegal, then they should start the process of amending the Constitution. I hope that someone sues to have this law overturned. I hope it goes all the way to the Supreme Court. And I hope the law is overturned. Not because I want the Westboro Baptists out there spouting their hatred, but because there are right ways and wrong ways of doing things in America, and this time, they're doing it the wrong way. Our government has been abusing its Constitutionally defined powers for far too long, and if this is where the line must be drawn, then I welcome the fight.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Al Gore and William Jefferson...
Well, Al Gore's new movie is set to come out. The film, "An Inconvenient Truth" basically tells us how we're all going to die from global warming. Every time I hear anything about Al Gore, I just thank God again and again that he was not elected President in 2000.
A new 70 second short released by the Competitive Enterprise Institute gives an idea of Al Gore's "carbon footprint" as compared to that of the average person. After all, we haven't been flying across the globe (in Air Force Two and private jets) telling people to reduce their energy usage.
In a completely unrelated story, Al Gore and his entourage were seen making the 500 meter drive from their hotel to the Cannes film festival...in several cars. Al, don't be telling me that I need to lower my carbon dioxide emissions when you can't even walk 500 meters from your hotel to the film festival.
In other news, Representative William Jefferson (D-LA) was filmed accepting a bribe by the FBI. So, the FBI got a warrant to search is house, and they found $90,000 of the $100,000 he had taken stashed in his kitchen freezer. They were given a tip that they could find more evidence in his office, to FBI agents got a search warrant, and searched Jefferson's Congressional office. Just what they found there has not yet been released.
There are two issues surrounding this case. First, the search of Jefferson's office has kicked off a debate about separation of powers. Does the FBI, which is a part of the Justice Department (part of the Executive Branch), have the authority to search offices of legislators? These questions have been raised primarily from the likes of Dennis Hastert (R-IL) and Nanci Pelosi (D-CA). Hastert is demanding that the FBI return files removed from Jefferson's office.
Now, this brings up an interesting (though blindingly obvious) question: is the Congress above the law? Hastert and Pelosi are alleging that the FBI search of Jefferson's office unConstitutionally breeches the separation of powers. Now, the Constitution outlines two cases in which US Congressmen can not be arrested: on the way to a vote, and on their way from a vote (which is why Patrick Kennedy, after crashing his car into a barrier because he was under the influence of drugs, said that he was on his way to a vote at 3 AM - to avoid arrest for his crime). These exemptions from arrest are to prevent the possibility of Congressmen being arrested for voting the 'wrong' way. However, separation of powers does not cover searches of Congressional offices. And, after all, you could call it checks and balances - the Executive Branch, in the form of the FBI, got a search warrant from a representative of the Judicial Branch, in the form of a federal judge, to perform a check on the power of the Legislative Branch. After all, if Congressional offices are exempt from searches in criminal investigations, then any Congressperson could get away with any kind of crime simply by hiding the evidence in his/her office. All these objections by Hastert and Pelosi amount to is the same kind of elitism that we see all too often from our legislators.
The second issue is this: William Jefferson is still working. When Tom Delay was indicted in Texas on trumped-up charges that amounted to little more than a political stunt, Republicans distanced themselves from him, and Democrats went on a rampage demanding his immediate resignation. Federal authorities got William Jefferson on tape accepting a bribe, and they found the cash in his home afterward (they had made copies of the bills, so they know it was the same money). Yet instead of calling for William Jefferson to step down, members of Congress are giving him the benefit of the doubt and whining about separation of powers! If William Jefferson were a Republican, Democratic Congressmen and the mainstream media would be expounding on how there is a Republican "culture of corruption" that must be stopped. But for the Democrats, this is their "Inconvenient Truth": they are just as corrupt as the Republicans. This is just more evidence that we should throw the whole lot of them out and get some honest people into Washington.
Of course, Hastert and Pelosi's objections probably just mean that they have something to hide...and they're hiding it in their offices. And if their offices can be searched, then maybe they should find somewhere else to hide the evidence of their own "culture of corruption."
A new 70 second short released by the Competitive Enterprise Institute gives an idea of Al Gore's "carbon footprint" as compared to that of the average person. After all, we haven't been flying across the globe (in Air Force Two and private jets) telling people to reduce their energy usage.
In a completely unrelated story, Al Gore and his entourage were seen making the 500 meter drive from their hotel to the Cannes film festival...in several cars. Al, don't be telling me that I need to lower my carbon dioxide emissions when you can't even walk 500 meters from your hotel to the film festival.
In other news, Representative William Jefferson (D-LA) was filmed accepting a bribe by the FBI. So, the FBI got a warrant to search is house, and they found $90,000 of the $100,000 he had taken stashed in his kitchen freezer. They were given a tip that they could find more evidence in his office, to FBI agents got a search warrant, and searched Jefferson's Congressional office. Just what they found there has not yet been released.
There are two issues surrounding this case. First, the search of Jefferson's office has kicked off a debate about separation of powers. Does the FBI, which is a part of the Justice Department (part of the Executive Branch), have the authority to search offices of legislators? These questions have been raised primarily from the likes of Dennis Hastert (R-IL) and Nanci Pelosi (D-CA). Hastert is demanding that the FBI return files removed from Jefferson's office.
Now, this brings up an interesting (though blindingly obvious) question: is the Congress above the law? Hastert and Pelosi are alleging that the FBI search of Jefferson's office unConstitutionally breeches the separation of powers. Now, the Constitution outlines two cases in which US Congressmen can not be arrested: on the way to a vote, and on their way from a vote (which is why Patrick Kennedy, after crashing his car into a barrier because he was under the influence of drugs, said that he was on his way to a vote at 3 AM - to avoid arrest for his crime). These exemptions from arrest are to prevent the possibility of Congressmen being arrested for voting the 'wrong' way. However, separation of powers does not cover searches of Congressional offices. And, after all, you could call it checks and balances - the Executive Branch, in the form of the FBI, got a search warrant from a representative of the Judicial Branch, in the form of a federal judge, to perform a check on the power of the Legislative Branch. After all, if Congressional offices are exempt from searches in criminal investigations, then any Congressperson could get away with any kind of crime simply by hiding the evidence in his/her office. All these objections by Hastert and Pelosi amount to is the same kind of elitism that we see all too often from our legislators.
The second issue is this: William Jefferson is still working. When Tom Delay was indicted in Texas on trumped-up charges that amounted to little more than a political stunt, Republicans distanced themselves from him, and Democrats went on a rampage demanding his immediate resignation. Federal authorities got William Jefferson on tape accepting a bribe, and they found the cash in his home afterward (they had made copies of the bills, so they know it was the same money). Yet instead of calling for William Jefferson to step down, members of Congress are giving him the benefit of the doubt and whining about separation of powers! If William Jefferson were a Republican, Democratic Congressmen and the mainstream media would be expounding on how there is a Republican "culture of corruption" that must be stopped. But for the Democrats, this is their "Inconvenient Truth": they are just as corrupt as the Republicans. This is just more evidence that we should throw the whole lot of them out and get some honest people into Washington.
Of course, Hastert and Pelosi's objections probably just mean that they have something to hide...and they're hiding it in their offices. And if their offices can be searched, then maybe they should find somewhere else to hide the evidence of their own "culture of corruption."
Friday, May 19, 2006
Iranian Insanity (a.k.a. Holocaust II)
One of the things that makes Iran so controversial is the fact that their president, Mahmoud Amadinejad has publicly stated that the Holocaust never happened. But, for someone who believed that the Holocaust never took place, the Iranian government is definitely taking the first steps toward their own Holocaust. A law recently passed by the Iranian parliament requires Jews and Christians to wear colored badges. The law includes a dress code, requiring all people in Iran to dress in "standard Islamic garments," and distinguishes Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians from Muslims by making them wear distinguishing markers. Jews must wear a yellow strip of cloth, Christians a red badge, and Zoroastrians blue cloth.
N0w, let's take a step back in history and look at just how similar the Iranians are getting to Nazi Germany:
In the lead-up to WWII, Germany started re-arming, despite the prohibition to such actions outlined in the Treaty of Versailles. Adolf Hitler was whipping the German people up into a frenzy, blaming their economic woes on the Jews, and spreading his message of Aryan superiority.
Currently, Iran is actively seeking nuclear weapons, despite objections from people across the globe. Ahmadinejad and Khamenei are trying to whip the Iranian people up into a frenzy, stirring anti-Jew, anti-Christian, anti-Israel, and anti-US hatred, spreading their message of Muslim superiority.
The parallels are quite obvious. World War III has already begun - Iraq and Afghanistan are the first battlefields. And while so many politicians in the US are manufacturing historic parallels between Iraq and Vietnam (which rarely, if ever, hold up to scrutiny), they would perhaps be better served to go further back in time to draw their parallels...because if the trend continues in Iran, we will have a hauntingly familiar scene - one of Hitlerian domination and genocide - and the only difference will be how high the Christian and Jew body count gets before we actually do something about it.
N0w, let's take a step back in history and look at just how similar the Iranians are getting to Nazi Germany:
In the lead-up to WWII, Germany started re-arming, despite the prohibition to such actions outlined in the Treaty of Versailles. Adolf Hitler was whipping the German people up into a frenzy, blaming their economic woes on the Jews, and spreading his message of Aryan superiority.
Currently, Iran is actively seeking nuclear weapons, despite objections from people across the globe. Ahmadinejad and Khamenei are trying to whip the Iranian people up into a frenzy, stirring anti-Jew, anti-Christian, anti-Israel, and anti-US hatred, spreading their message of Muslim superiority.
The parallels are quite obvious. World War III has already begun - Iraq and Afghanistan are the first battlefields. And while so many politicians in the US are manufacturing historic parallels between Iraq and Vietnam (which rarely, if ever, hold up to scrutiny), they would perhaps be better served to go further back in time to draw their parallels...because if the trend continues in Iran, we will have a hauntingly familiar scene - one of Hitlerian domination and genocide - and the only difference will be how high the Christian and Jew body count gets before we actually do something about it.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Finally, a little progress...
Well, the Senate has voted in a triple-layered border fence. The fence will only be 370 miles long, but it's a start. After President Bush's speech about the illegal immigration issue on Monday, there has been a lot of speculation about just what the government will do to secure the border.
In his speech, President Bush stated that 6,000 National Guard troops would be sent in to supplement the border patrol until such time as the border could be secured. However, the role of the National Guard troops is limited to that of support: operations and infrastructure. The National Guard will not be given authority to arrest or turn back illegal immigrants, because it is feared that such actions would violate posse comitatus. Of course, there remains the question of whether National Guard troops securing an international border and turning back an invasion of foreign nationals is a case of posse comitatus (posse comitatus was originally written after Reconstruction to prevent the US military from being used against US citizens), but I guess it's better to play it on the safe side...especially with the liberal judiciary we have these days.
When it comes to border security, though, there are other considerations that no one seems to want to bring up. For one thing, everyone is talking about what kind of new laws to write, when, under existing law, illegal immigration is, in fact, illegal. The problem is not an absence of law on the subject, the problem is that politically correct policies have made existing law unenforceable. For another thing, no one seems to want to bring up the issue of disease. So many people are freaked out about the bird flu and about how many millions of people will die if the H5N1 virus mutates, but no one seems to want to talk about communicable diseases brought into the US by illegal immigrants. There was a TB outbreak in Los Angeles a short time ago, mainly found among the Spanish-speaking immigrant communities. This is why we need a fence...at the least, a fence with a door, so we can check to see just who it is that is coming into America. After all, that's how it was done in the past. The Statue of Liberty doesn't symbolize everyone coming to America with zero accountability. Ellis Island was an immigrant processing center - new immigrants were checked for diseases to make sure that they weren't going to start a major outbreak in one of our major cities. With illegal immigration, there is no check, thus making us all the more vulnerable.
And, of course, there is the issue of terrorism, which very few of our politicians are wont to bring up. Just the other day, a man admitted in court that he had tried to smuggle Iranians into the United States...and this isn't the first time that US authorities have caught Iranians trying to get across the Mexican border. It definitely begs the question: if we've caught these, how many haven't we caught? How many terrorists got away with it? After all, we have thousands of people sneaking across our border every day.
Teddy Kennedy, in his criticism of the 370-mile fence, said that it looked to him like it was a "down-payment" on a fence spanning the entire border.
We can only hope so.
In his speech, President Bush stated that 6,000 National Guard troops would be sent in to supplement the border patrol until such time as the border could be secured. However, the role of the National Guard troops is limited to that of support: operations and infrastructure. The National Guard will not be given authority to arrest or turn back illegal immigrants, because it is feared that such actions would violate posse comitatus. Of course, there remains the question of whether National Guard troops securing an international border and turning back an invasion of foreign nationals is a case of posse comitatus (posse comitatus was originally written after Reconstruction to prevent the US military from being used against US citizens), but I guess it's better to play it on the safe side...especially with the liberal judiciary we have these days.
When it comes to border security, though, there are other considerations that no one seems to want to bring up. For one thing, everyone is talking about what kind of new laws to write, when, under existing law, illegal immigration is, in fact, illegal. The problem is not an absence of law on the subject, the problem is that politically correct policies have made existing law unenforceable. For another thing, no one seems to want to bring up the issue of disease. So many people are freaked out about the bird flu and about how many millions of people will die if the H5N1 virus mutates, but no one seems to want to talk about communicable diseases brought into the US by illegal immigrants. There was a TB outbreak in Los Angeles a short time ago, mainly found among the Spanish-speaking immigrant communities. This is why we need a fence...at the least, a fence with a door, so we can check to see just who it is that is coming into America. After all, that's how it was done in the past. The Statue of Liberty doesn't symbolize everyone coming to America with zero accountability. Ellis Island was an immigrant processing center - new immigrants were checked for diseases to make sure that they weren't going to start a major outbreak in one of our major cities. With illegal immigration, there is no check, thus making us all the more vulnerable.
And, of course, there is the issue of terrorism, which very few of our politicians are wont to bring up. Just the other day, a man admitted in court that he had tried to smuggle Iranians into the United States...and this isn't the first time that US authorities have caught Iranians trying to get across the Mexican border. It definitely begs the question: if we've caught these, how many haven't we caught? How many terrorists got away with it? After all, we have thousands of people sneaking across our border every day.
Teddy Kennedy, in his criticism of the 370-mile fence, said that it looked to him like it was a "down-payment" on a fence spanning the entire border.
We can only hope so.
Monday, May 08, 2006
It's time for a change...
With the elections coming up this November, Congressional Democrats are getting very excited about their perceived chances in light of polls indicating that the majority of Americans are dissatisfied with the leadership of the Republican party. Among the Democrats' agenda should they take leadership? Launch investigation after investigation into the Bush administration. Basically what this strategy amounts to is that as soon as they win back the congressional seats they've lost, they want to start playing dirty politics to improve their chances of getting Hillary into the White House.
There is a major problem with this agenda, though: it doesn't accomplish anything positive. And, really, this has been the failure of the Democratic party since the 2004 election. Prior to the '04 election, it made (some) sense to attack President Bush the way they did - they wanted to win beat him in the next Presidential election. After the '04 election, however, it makes no sense to go after President Bush. He can't run again, so why all of this angst? Nancy Pelosi said that they do not intend to impeach President Bush, which I honestly believe is a bald-faced lie. If they don't want to impeach the President, then why launch the investigations? They aren't satisfied with term limits - like a bunch of little children, they want their power back, and they want it NOW, and if they can't get it, the're going to whine and complain until they get what they want.
Now, I'm not totally naive: I know that the Democrats (Pelosi in particular) hate President Bush with a passion that few on this earth can truly comprehend. I know that they will contunue to attack President Bush as long as he is in the White House (and probably for a long time after he leaves). And I know that Republicans did much the same thing during President Clinton's second term (though not with the same level of venom). But, frankly, the Republican party is definitely no longer part of the solution to moving America forward. The Republicans make themselves less and less relevant with each passing day, whether it's through scandals or pork barrel spending, or claiming, as Tom Delay did, that they have cut the excess spending out of the federal budget.
Basically, both the Democrats and the Republicans have become so entrenched in Washington and so blind to the will of the people as to be a detriment to true progress. It's time for some genuine change in Washington. As a conservative, I don't really know where liberals have to go, except maybe to the Communist party...or maybe the Libertarian or Green parties. As far as conservative principles go, however, I strongly believe in the Constitution party, and I will likely vote for their candidate in the next Presidential election (especially if Jim Gilchrist from the Minuteman Project runs, as I've heard rumored that he will).
We've fallen into the fallacious thinking that politics revolves around Democrat vs. Republican. This is a mistake that conservatives can no longer afford. Political parties change ideological leanings over time, and the Republican party is no longer conservative enough to suit true conservatives. It's time for a change, especially if American conservatism is to survive. Conservatism has been rapidly dying out across Europe for some time now (to the point where many American moderates, such as President Bush, are considered extreme conservatives).
Conservatives in America cannot allow the lies of the liberal left to continue. Liberals in the US, particularly those in politics (not politicians necessarily; some subtlety is required of them - I'm more referring to those such as Michael Moore, George Soros, MoveOn.org, etc.), are actively trying to redefine conservatism as nazism. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nazism is about total government control. In so very many ways, it is more akin to every example of Communism that has been displayed throughout the world: it is all about controling the people through coercion, propaganda, and brute force. Hitler lied to the people in order to subjugate and destroy the Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, etc., and try to take over the world. His secret police rounded up dissenters and imprisoned them, or worse. Stalin worked much the same way, though his murderous agenda was less obvious (which allowed him to slaughter even more people than Hitler did, something modern communists seem to conveniently forget). What's more, Stalinistic communism had (or has) a much more insidious strategy of world domination: through satellite states. Similar to Stalinistic communism is that found in North Korea, China, and Cambodia.
Conservatism has much less in common with nazism than communism does. True conservatives (as opposed to neo-cons) want a return to Constitutional government. Over the past several decades, the United States government has become much too socialistic for its own good, and America will not survive as a free nation for too much longer if the government continues to meddle in the lives of its citizens to the extent that it does. This extends to everything from entitlement programs to government regulations. An attitude pervades America wherein people rely far too much on the government to be the solver of their problems. Government should not be relied on to solve our problems. When the government becomes the ultimate problem solver, the government then has untold power over its citizens. After all, what are we to do when the government's solution to our particular problem is not the one we wish it to be? Given enough time and enough dependance on the government, the people will no longer be in the position to solve their problems on their own - government intervention will be essential to solving our problems, whether those problems be a high jobless rate, or high gas prices (both of which people are currently relying on government intervention to solve).
Our government needs drastic roll-backs in power. Instead of debating over whether we should nationalize our health care system, we should be debating over whether to keep social security and welfare. Instead of demanding that the government exercise its power and take action to reduce gas prices, we should be exercising our power as buyers to bring the price down. Here's a little hint: start refusing to pay high gas prices (through other forms of transportation), and the price will come down. The government is the reason the price of gas is so high - between high gas taxes and environmental regulations that prevent oil companies from finding new sources of oil or refining, it's no wonder the price of gas has shot up so high.
It's time for the people of America to say "enough." As I heard them called this morning, the two parties in America have become the "Republicrats." There is no major conservative party anymore. This is why it is so important for conservatives to realize that there is more to US politics than Republican vs. Democrat. The Democrats who accuse Republicans of being extremists don't have any idea what a real conservative is. And I wonder if Republicans who ran on a conservative platform even remember themselves. The day has come for the rise of a new third party. Vote Constitution.
There is a major problem with this agenda, though: it doesn't accomplish anything positive. And, really, this has been the failure of the Democratic party since the 2004 election. Prior to the '04 election, it made (some) sense to attack President Bush the way they did - they wanted to win beat him in the next Presidential election. After the '04 election, however, it makes no sense to go after President Bush. He can't run again, so why all of this angst? Nancy Pelosi said that they do not intend to impeach President Bush, which I honestly believe is a bald-faced lie. If they don't want to impeach the President, then why launch the investigations? They aren't satisfied with term limits - like a bunch of little children, they want their power back, and they want it NOW, and if they can't get it, the're going to whine and complain until they get what they want.
Now, I'm not totally naive: I know that the Democrats (Pelosi in particular) hate President Bush with a passion that few on this earth can truly comprehend. I know that they will contunue to attack President Bush as long as he is in the White House (and probably for a long time after he leaves). And I know that Republicans did much the same thing during President Clinton's second term (though not with the same level of venom). But, frankly, the Republican party is definitely no longer part of the solution to moving America forward. The Republicans make themselves less and less relevant with each passing day, whether it's through scandals or pork barrel spending, or claiming, as Tom Delay did, that they have cut the excess spending out of the federal budget.
Basically, both the Democrats and the Republicans have become so entrenched in Washington and so blind to the will of the people as to be a detriment to true progress. It's time for some genuine change in Washington. As a conservative, I don't really know where liberals have to go, except maybe to the Communist party...or maybe the Libertarian or Green parties. As far as conservative principles go, however, I strongly believe in the Constitution party, and I will likely vote for their candidate in the next Presidential election (especially if Jim Gilchrist from the Minuteman Project runs, as I've heard rumored that he will).
We've fallen into the fallacious thinking that politics revolves around Democrat vs. Republican. This is a mistake that conservatives can no longer afford. Political parties change ideological leanings over time, and the Republican party is no longer conservative enough to suit true conservatives. It's time for a change, especially if American conservatism is to survive. Conservatism has been rapidly dying out across Europe for some time now (to the point where many American moderates, such as President Bush, are considered extreme conservatives).
Conservatives in America cannot allow the lies of the liberal left to continue. Liberals in the US, particularly those in politics (not politicians necessarily; some subtlety is required of them - I'm more referring to those such as Michael Moore, George Soros, MoveOn.org, etc.), are actively trying to redefine conservatism as nazism. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nazism is about total government control. In so very many ways, it is more akin to every example of Communism that has been displayed throughout the world: it is all about controling the people through coercion, propaganda, and brute force. Hitler lied to the people in order to subjugate and destroy the Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, etc., and try to take over the world. His secret police rounded up dissenters and imprisoned them, or worse. Stalin worked much the same way, though his murderous agenda was less obvious (which allowed him to slaughter even more people than Hitler did, something modern communists seem to conveniently forget). What's more, Stalinistic communism had (or has) a much more insidious strategy of world domination: through satellite states. Similar to Stalinistic communism is that found in North Korea, China, and Cambodia.
Conservatism has much less in common with nazism than communism does. True conservatives (as opposed to neo-cons) want a return to Constitutional government. Over the past several decades, the United States government has become much too socialistic for its own good, and America will not survive as a free nation for too much longer if the government continues to meddle in the lives of its citizens to the extent that it does. This extends to everything from entitlement programs to government regulations. An attitude pervades America wherein people rely far too much on the government to be the solver of their problems. Government should not be relied on to solve our problems. When the government becomes the ultimate problem solver, the government then has untold power over its citizens. After all, what are we to do when the government's solution to our particular problem is not the one we wish it to be? Given enough time and enough dependance on the government, the people will no longer be in the position to solve their problems on their own - government intervention will be essential to solving our problems, whether those problems be a high jobless rate, or high gas prices (both of which people are currently relying on government intervention to solve).
Our government needs drastic roll-backs in power. Instead of debating over whether we should nationalize our health care system, we should be debating over whether to keep social security and welfare. Instead of demanding that the government exercise its power and take action to reduce gas prices, we should be exercising our power as buyers to bring the price down. Here's a little hint: start refusing to pay high gas prices (through other forms of transportation), and the price will come down. The government is the reason the price of gas is so high - between high gas taxes and environmental regulations that prevent oil companies from finding new sources of oil or refining, it's no wonder the price of gas has shot up so high.
It's time for the people of America to say "enough." As I heard them called this morning, the two parties in America have become the "Republicrats." There is no major conservative party anymore. This is why it is so important for conservatives to realize that there is more to US politics than Republican vs. Democrat. The Democrats who accuse Republicans of being extremists don't have any idea what a real conservative is. And I wonder if Republicans who ran on a conservative platform even remember themselves. The day has come for the rise of a new third party. Vote Constitution.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Moussaoui Gets Life
Well, after weeks of angst in the press, the jury has finally reached a verdict. The jury in the Zacarias Moussaoui case came back with a sentence of life in prison. Moussaoui decided to take the opportunity to try and rub it in everyone's face, saying, "America, you lost." The question is, did we really lose?
Personally, I don't think there was any way we could totally win in this case. It was a win/win - lose/lose situation. Execute him and he's dead, but we run the risk that he is seen as a martyr. Give him life, and stash him away in a cell never to be heard from again, and justice is still done, yet America seems weak for not executing him. The only way I think we could truly win in this situation would be to execute him via firing squad with bullets dipped in pigs' blood (something I believe the Israelis did, and a tactic possibly used by General John 'Black Jack' Pershing prior to WWI, though I haven't found a confirming source on that). That'll never happen (Congress ordered the military not to use bullets manufactured in Israel because it would be politically incorrect), but one can hope.
Well, that's not the only way we could win...we could also hang him with a lard-soaked rope...but that won't happen, either.
But either way, Moussaoui was wrong: America hasn't lost. Yes, America faced a great loss on 9/11, but this silly verdict isn't the indictment of America that people seem to think it is. Moussaoui himself lost the day he was caught. This verdict is a sign of America's slide toward its eventual downfall - when we become too PC to execute a confessed terrorist who would gladly kill as many Americans as he could were he given the chance simply because he was teased as a child, you know that America has some serious problems. But America hasn't lost.
Not yet.
Hopefully, not ever.
Personally, I don't think there was any way we could totally win in this case. It was a win/win - lose/lose situation. Execute him and he's dead, but we run the risk that he is seen as a martyr. Give him life, and stash him away in a cell never to be heard from again, and justice is still done, yet America seems weak for not executing him. The only way I think we could truly win in this situation would be to execute him via firing squad with bullets dipped in pigs' blood (something I believe the Israelis did, and a tactic possibly used by General John 'Black Jack' Pershing prior to WWI, though I haven't found a confirming source on that). That'll never happen (Congress ordered the military not to use bullets manufactured in Israel because it would be politically incorrect), but one can hope.
Well, that's not the only way we could win...we could also hang him with a lard-soaked rope...but that won't happen, either.
But either way, Moussaoui was wrong: America hasn't lost. Yes, America faced a great loss on 9/11, but this silly verdict isn't the indictment of America that people seem to think it is. Moussaoui himself lost the day he was caught. This verdict is a sign of America's slide toward its eventual downfall - when we become too PC to execute a confessed terrorist who would gladly kill as many Americans as he could were he given the chance simply because he was teased as a child, you know that America has some serious problems. But America hasn't lost.
Not yet.
Hopefully, not ever.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Now for the backlash...
Well, May Day is over...and while the organizers and protestors would like the "day without an immigrant" to be a notorious day that goes down in the history books, according to the initial reports, it doesn't look like they quite had the effect they desired...and with signs like this one, that's no surprise.
On a more serious note, illegal immigrants (and some legal immigrants) abandoned their jobs yesterday to go protest. Their goal: to bring the US economy to a screeching halt. Did it work? Heck no. Why? Because America will not be cowed by a group that is protesting illegally, and who should not even be in this country.
The main point here is immigration law. These protestors are out their spouting their "unless you're an Indian, you're an immigrant" nonsense. Guess what? I'm not an immigrant. I was born here to people who were born here who were born to people who were born here who were born to people who were born here...and on and on. My family has been in America for several generations. And guess what? The pilgrims on the Mayflower weren't illegal immigrants...because there was no immigration law. In fact, America as an established nation had no immigration law for quite some time, until the nation's leaders realized that if they didn't regulate immigration, we were going to have a problem. They realized that we need not only to know just who is coming into our country, but to turn some people away in the interests of the betterment of America. That's how the system works. Some people get in, but we can't take everyone. This is the danger of illegal immigration: we have no idea just who is coming into our nation. We don't know if they have a criminal history. We don't know if they're smuggling drugs in. We don't know if they're carrying some communicable disease. We have no way of knowing whether they're looking for work or looking for an opportunity to carry out a terrorist attack on the United States. This is why it's so essential that we close our border. This is why we have an immigration process. The fact that immigration to America was unrestricted, unmonitored, and unregulated at one point does not, by extension, mean that it's okay to ignore the laws that are in place now, just because you feel like it.
If Arizona wasn't a desert, I would want to live there. Why? Because their legislators are actually making sense. While the California State Assembly voted (along party lines - it's a liberal-dominated Assembly) to officially endorse the May 1 protest, Arizona lawmakers are talking about deploying the National Guard along their border to curb illegal immigration. I think this is a great idea. We already know that border enforcement works - every place along the border that has been monitored by the Minutemen has seen a reduction in illegal immigration. Does this mean that the Minutemen have been effective? Not necessarily, because they cannot patrol the entire border (and if they did, somebody would probably get shot by a drug trafficker). The illegal immigrants go around to avoid them. This is why it is so essential that if we fence in the border, we fence in the entire border - if we fence in the high-trafficked areas, then the traffic will move to where there is no fence.
The main problem is that people define their behavior as legal because they believe it should be legal...does that mean we should let bank robbers off the hook because they believe their behavior should be legal? What about rapists? What about child molestors? Where does this disregard for the law stop?
On a more serious note, illegal immigrants (and some legal immigrants) abandoned their jobs yesterday to go protest. Their goal: to bring the US economy to a screeching halt. Did it work? Heck no. Why? Because America will not be cowed by a group that is protesting illegally, and who should not even be in this country.
The main point here is immigration law. These protestors are out their spouting their "unless you're an Indian, you're an immigrant" nonsense. Guess what? I'm not an immigrant. I was born here to people who were born here who were born to people who were born here who were born to people who were born here...and on and on. My family has been in America for several generations. And guess what? The pilgrims on the Mayflower weren't illegal immigrants...because there was no immigration law. In fact, America as an established nation had no immigration law for quite some time, until the nation's leaders realized that if they didn't regulate immigration, we were going to have a problem. They realized that we need not only to know just who is coming into our country, but to turn some people away in the interests of the betterment of America. That's how the system works. Some people get in, but we can't take everyone. This is the danger of illegal immigration: we have no idea just who is coming into our nation. We don't know if they have a criminal history. We don't know if they're smuggling drugs in. We don't know if they're carrying some communicable disease. We have no way of knowing whether they're looking for work or looking for an opportunity to carry out a terrorist attack on the United States. This is why it's so essential that we close our border. This is why we have an immigration process. The fact that immigration to America was unrestricted, unmonitored, and unregulated at one point does not, by extension, mean that it's okay to ignore the laws that are in place now, just because you feel like it.
If Arizona wasn't a desert, I would want to live there. Why? Because their legislators are actually making sense. While the California State Assembly voted (along party lines - it's a liberal-dominated Assembly) to officially endorse the May 1 protest, Arizona lawmakers are talking about deploying the National Guard along their border to curb illegal immigration. I think this is a great idea. We already know that border enforcement works - every place along the border that has been monitored by the Minutemen has seen a reduction in illegal immigration. Does this mean that the Minutemen have been effective? Not necessarily, because they cannot patrol the entire border (and if they did, somebody would probably get shot by a drug trafficker). The illegal immigrants go around to avoid them. This is why it is so essential that if we fence in the border, we fence in the entire border - if we fence in the high-trafficked areas, then the traffic will move to where there is no fence.
The main problem is that people define their behavior as legal because they believe it should be legal...does that mean we should let bank robbers off the hook because they believe their behavior should be legal? What about rapists? What about child molestors? Where does this disregard for the law stop?
Monday, May 01, 2006
The Day Without an Immigrant
Well, today is May Day, that old Communist/Pagan holiday. It just makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside to know that the Communist lobby is using the immigration issue to bring back May Day. And none of these groups is being shy about their goals. The news agencies say that they are boycotting to show how much influence immigrants have in the US economy...but in reality, they want to show how much influence illegal immigrants have in our economy. What's more, they are willing to disrupt other peoples' lives in order to achieve their goals: they have, in fact, stated that one of their goals is to close down several major US cities. The purpose? It's not enough that they themselves are boycotting - they have to clog up our infrastructure and disrupt the lives of legitimate Americans to make it look like they have more influence than they actually do.
Personally, I think that this protest will ultimately create a backlash for the pro-amnesty movement that is the face of the protest. When the rubber meets the road, how does shutting down "Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Tuscon, Phoenix, [and] Fresno" help anyone? America is, in so many ways, a consumerist society. So go ahead, hurt people where it counts: in their pocketbooks. Then step back, and see what happens. They will either cringe in fear, or fight back. Personally, I don't think that America has degenerated to the point where they will allow a bunch of illegal immigrants demanding rights that they are in no way entitled to to hold their nation hostage. The illegal immigrant loby keeps pushing...I say let them. Pretty soon, America will push back, and neither the communists nor the illegal immigrants will like it. Just wait.
On a (somewhat) related note, a union rally in Mexico soon turned into an anti-America rally - apparently, several Mexicans (who are still in Mexico) don't like the influence America has over it's economy. Here's an easy solution to that: Presidente Fox, take your citizens back! There is a river of American money flowing into Mexico on a daily basis - it's one of the top two moneymakers for the Mexican economy. Without the United States, Mexico would be just as irrelevant as it should be. America, the world's bastion of freedom, is all too easy to demonize, but these Mexicans need to take a good look in a mirror. The US is far from the worst of their problems. If they really want something to protest, they should be out there protesting the fact that Vicente Fox can't seem to get their economy up and running. They should get rid of that travesty, vote in a government that works (not the communists that are poised to take over after Fox leaves office), and pay some serious attention to developing their own economy instead of sucking money away from the United States. Then, when they themselves become self-sufficient, they can protest the US to their hearts' content.
Personally, I think that this protest will ultimately create a backlash for the pro-amnesty movement that is the face of the protest. When the rubber meets the road, how does shutting down "Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Tuscon, Phoenix, [and] Fresno" help anyone? America is, in so many ways, a consumerist society. So go ahead, hurt people where it counts: in their pocketbooks. Then step back, and see what happens. They will either cringe in fear, or fight back. Personally, I don't think that America has degenerated to the point where they will allow a bunch of illegal immigrants demanding rights that they are in no way entitled to to hold their nation hostage. The illegal immigrant loby keeps pushing...I say let them. Pretty soon, America will push back, and neither the communists nor the illegal immigrants will like it. Just wait.
On a (somewhat) related note, a union rally in Mexico soon turned into an anti-America rally - apparently, several Mexicans (who are still in Mexico) don't like the influence America has over it's economy. Here's an easy solution to that: Presidente Fox, take your citizens back! There is a river of American money flowing into Mexico on a daily basis - it's one of the top two moneymakers for the Mexican economy. Without the United States, Mexico would be just as irrelevant as it should be. America, the world's bastion of freedom, is all too easy to demonize, but these Mexicans need to take a good look in a mirror. The US is far from the worst of their problems. If they really want something to protest, they should be out there protesting the fact that Vicente Fox can't seem to get their economy up and running. They should get rid of that travesty, vote in a government that works (not the communists that are poised to take over after Fox leaves office), and pay some serious attention to developing their own economy instead of sucking money away from the United States. Then, when they themselves become self-sufficient, they can protest the US to their hearts' content.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)