via GlennBeck.com:
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Republicans: The Party of Border Security
An interesting case has been taking place in El Paso, Texas. Two border patrol agents were chasing down a drug smuggler who had slipped across the Mexican border with 743 pounds of marijuana. At some point during the chase, the agents believed that the drug smuggler had a gun, and they shot at him. The agents were tried for "causing serious bodily injury, assault with a deadly weapon, discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence and a civil rights violation." This week, they were convicted, with one agent receiving a 12-year prison sentence, and the other receiving a sentence of 11 years and 1 day. The drug smuggler was given immunity in exchange for his testimony against the border agents.
This is a travesty of justice. The "crime" that the border agents were guilty of was that of violating rules and procedures that essentially hamstring our border patrol agents from effectively stopping the smuggling of illegal drugs across our border (much less stopping illegal immigrants).
Today, 12 congressmen (all Republicans) submitted a letter to the White House demanding that the case be re-opened and re-investigated, and that the President pardon the two border patrol agents. This is the only course of action that makes sense; to do otherwise is to enbolden the drug smugglers and make the problem worse. White House spokesman Tony Snow has thus far refused to comment on whether President Bush will pardon the border agents, and implied that this will not happen...but we can still hope.
The challenges that we face along our border are very, very real. When the debate over border security flares up, it seems that Democrats always railroad the debate into racial terms. To do so is a great injustice to the American people. Not only are millions of illegal immigrants who refuse to acculturate into American society a threat to us, but there exists a largely unaddressed terrorism problem...not to mention the drug problem, which grows worse and worse by the day as the drug cartels become ever more militant.
Throughout the past couple of weeks, the media has been broadcasting a barrage of messages about why conservatives should stay home on November 7 and not vote - everything from alleged immorality among the ranks of Republican politicians to (more) falacious allegations of racism leveled against Republicans to self-claimed "conservatives" telling religious Republicans that they should stay home because they should keep their faith separate from their politics ("separation of church and state is in the Constitution, isn't it?).
It is true that as the majority party, the Republicans have done an abysmal job at pushing through a conservative agenda...but to say that Republicans should stay home and not vote is tantamount to saying, "if you don't feel like dropping a hammer on your foot, you should slit your throat." The Republican party is not perfect. In fact, I would go as far as to say that as time goes on, the Republican party moves further and further away from true conservative values, and will soon have to either be reformed or replaced. But handing the government over to the flaming liberals will do more harm than good. Will it tell Republican politicians that their constituents want them to stand for conservative values? Maybe. But handing Congress over to liberals will definitely halt the advancement of a conservative agenda in the short term, and will very likely harm that advancement in the long term - after all, it is very difficult to re-gain the majority once it has been lost, and getting the government to spend less money is a virtual impossibility.
Personally, when I hear the media coming up with another reason I should stay home and not vote, it only makes me want to get out and cast my ballot even more. The current status of the Republican party in relation to the true conservative movement forces me not to vote for Republicans, but rather to vote against Democrats. This is not a position I enjoy, and it is not a position that can sustain the Republican party, with so many conservatives upset with them, but for now, at least, it is more than enough reason to get up and vote on November 7...if only to keep America's progress from grinding to a screeching halt. We cannot afford to hand the War on Terror, the economy, and the security of our border over to the party that sides with terrorists, wants to raise our taxes, and would rather eliminate our borders entirely.
This is a travesty of justice. The "crime" that the border agents were guilty of was that of violating rules and procedures that essentially hamstring our border patrol agents from effectively stopping the smuggling of illegal drugs across our border (much less stopping illegal immigrants).
Today, 12 congressmen (all Republicans) submitted a letter to the White House demanding that the case be re-opened and re-investigated, and that the President pardon the two border patrol agents. This is the only course of action that makes sense; to do otherwise is to enbolden the drug smugglers and make the problem worse. White House spokesman Tony Snow has thus far refused to comment on whether President Bush will pardon the border agents, and implied that this will not happen...but we can still hope.
The challenges that we face along our border are very, very real. When the debate over border security flares up, it seems that Democrats always railroad the debate into racial terms. To do so is a great injustice to the American people. Not only are millions of illegal immigrants who refuse to acculturate into American society a threat to us, but there exists a largely unaddressed terrorism problem...not to mention the drug problem, which grows worse and worse by the day as the drug cartels become ever more militant.
Throughout the past couple of weeks, the media has been broadcasting a barrage of messages about why conservatives should stay home on November 7 and not vote - everything from alleged immorality among the ranks of Republican politicians to (more) falacious allegations of racism leveled against Republicans to self-claimed "conservatives" telling religious Republicans that they should stay home because they should keep their faith separate from their politics ("separation of church and state is in the Constitution, isn't it?).
It is true that as the majority party, the Republicans have done an abysmal job at pushing through a conservative agenda...but to say that Republicans should stay home and not vote is tantamount to saying, "if you don't feel like dropping a hammer on your foot, you should slit your throat." The Republican party is not perfect. In fact, I would go as far as to say that as time goes on, the Republican party moves further and further away from true conservative values, and will soon have to either be reformed or replaced. But handing the government over to the flaming liberals will do more harm than good. Will it tell Republican politicians that their constituents want them to stand for conservative values? Maybe. But handing Congress over to liberals will definitely halt the advancement of a conservative agenda in the short term, and will very likely harm that advancement in the long term - after all, it is very difficult to re-gain the majority once it has been lost, and getting the government to spend less money is a virtual impossibility.
Personally, when I hear the media coming up with another reason I should stay home and not vote, it only makes me want to get out and cast my ballot even more. The current status of the Republican party in relation to the true conservative movement forces me not to vote for Republicans, but rather to vote against Democrats. This is not a position I enjoy, and it is not a position that can sustain the Republican party, with so many conservatives upset with them, but for now, at least, it is more than enough reason to get up and vote on November 7...if only to keep America's progress from grinding to a screeching halt. We cannot afford to hand the War on Terror, the economy, and the security of our border over to the party that sides with terrorists, wants to raise our taxes, and would rather eliminate our borders entirely.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
When the Euroweenies Attack...
Michelle Malkin via HotAir:
The European Union is launching a bid to make big government even bigger by requiring internet blog sites that ustilize video to conform to broadcasting standards, ostensibly to protect children from 'hate speech.' Considering the continuing trend on the left to classify basic conservative ideology as hateful and advocacy for conservative ideals as 'hate speech', this kind of censorship is definitely something to be avoided. Even recent trends in political correctness show us that this kind of thing is dangerous: earlier this month, a teenage girl who refused to work on an in-class school project in a group with several Asian students was suspended for racism. The problem? These were foreign exchange students from China who were speaking to each other in Mandarin, a language she didn't understand! Only one of the foreign exchange students spoke English, so the girl wanted to work with other students with whom she shared a common language, so she could understand what was going on. For that, she was suspended.
As Americans, and indeed, as humans, we need to be extremely wary of arbitrarily classifying ideas we don't agree with as racist or hate speech. Yesterday on her radio show, Laura Ingraham played clips from a debate between Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and the head of the ACLU. In this debate, Scalia warned against the prominent liberal view of the Constitution as a "living, evolving document", because in doing so, we run the risk that it will "evolve" in a way that makes our own views or ideologies illegal. Modern American liberals seek to use the judiciary to accomplish what they cannot accomplish through the elections process, whether it be maintaining a 'right' to abortion, instituting homosexual marriage, or even removing the words 'under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance. They worry about the structure of the Supreme Court, especially after President Bush's two new appointments, but what if the SC were truly a conservative court that bought in to this same method of operating? How would liberals like it if a conservative SC took it upon itself to legislate conservative ideals from the bench?
We face the same dangers from political correctness and definitions of 'hate speech.' Such ideas are double-edged blades, and a good analogy is to picture such a blade swinging as a pendulum, because this is how history shows that the political process tends to go: swinging back and forth, liberal, then conservative, then back to liberalism, then back to conservatism. What liberals are today using to cut off conservative arguments and ideas may very well come back to cut them, and liberals who would wish to restrict speech based on political correctness should remain aware of that.
Some EU leaders want to exempt Google and YouTube as a "concession," but considering the flak Michelle Malkin and others have taken when trying to post anti-jihad videos on YouTube (which hosts a multitude of pro-jihad videos), and the attitude Google has taken toward oppressive regimes such as communist China, this is hardly a "concession."
As Malkin says, "the price of internet freedom is eternal vigilance." This arena, the internet, is one of the last places where speech is truly free, and it is paramountly important that it stay that way, for the sake of both sides of the ideological spectrum.
The European Union is launching a bid to make big government even bigger by requiring internet blog sites that ustilize video to conform to broadcasting standards, ostensibly to protect children from 'hate speech.' Considering the continuing trend on the left to classify basic conservative ideology as hateful and advocacy for conservative ideals as 'hate speech', this kind of censorship is definitely something to be avoided. Even recent trends in political correctness show us that this kind of thing is dangerous: earlier this month, a teenage girl who refused to work on an in-class school project in a group with several Asian students was suspended for racism. The problem? These were foreign exchange students from China who were speaking to each other in Mandarin, a language she didn't understand! Only one of the foreign exchange students spoke English, so the girl wanted to work with other students with whom she shared a common language, so she could understand what was going on. For that, she was suspended.
As Americans, and indeed, as humans, we need to be extremely wary of arbitrarily classifying ideas we don't agree with as racist or hate speech. Yesterday on her radio show, Laura Ingraham played clips from a debate between Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and the head of the ACLU. In this debate, Scalia warned against the prominent liberal view of the Constitution as a "living, evolving document", because in doing so, we run the risk that it will "evolve" in a way that makes our own views or ideologies illegal. Modern American liberals seek to use the judiciary to accomplish what they cannot accomplish through the elections process, whether it be maintaining a 'right' to abortion, instituting homosexual marriage, or even removing the words 'under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance. They worry about the structure of the Supreme Court, especially after President Bush's two new appointments, but what if the SC were truly a conservative court that bought in to this same method of operating? How would liberals like it if a conservative SC took it upon itself to legislate conservative ideals from the bench?
We face the same dangers from political correctness and definitions of 'hate speech.' Such ideas are double-edged blades, and a good analogy is to picture such a blade swinging as a pendulum, because this is how history shows that the political process tends to go: swinging back and forth, liberal, then conservative, then back to liberalism, then back to conservatism. What liberals are today using to cut off conservative arguments and ideas may very well come back to cut them, and liberals who would wish to restrict speech based on political correctness should remain aware of that.
Some EU leaders want to exempt Google and YouTube as a "concession," but considering the flak Michelle Malkin and others have taken when trying to post anti-jihad videos on YouTube (which hosts a multitude of pro-jihad videos), and the attitude Google has taken toward oppressive regimes such as communist China, this is hardly a "concession."
As Malkin says, "the price of internet freedom is eternal vigilance." This arena, the internet, is one of the last places where speech is truly free, and it is paramountly important that it stay that way, for the sake of both sides of the ideological spectrum.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Check it out...
Recently, I've become enamoured with the site HotAir.com - it's a great resource for news that the mainstream media just isn't covering, as well as some worthwhile humorous tidbits.
When I saw this on HotAir today, I was disturbed, to say the least.
Lynne Stewart, an American citizen, was tried and convicted for giving material support to Arab terrorists. She was sentenced to 28 months in prison.
More details about the case in this video.
This woman gave material support to America's enemies in time of war...........sounds suspisciously like TREASON to me. Last I heard, the penalty for treason was a little more serious than 28 months jail time. The judge in this case should be thrown bodily from the bench.
When I saw this on HotAir today, I was disturbed, to say the least.
Lynne Stewart, an American citizen, was tried and convicted for giving material support to Arab terrorists. She was sentenced to 28 months in prison.
More details about the case in this video.
This woman gave material support to America's enemies in time of war...........sounds suspisciously like TREASON to me. Last I heard, the penalty for treason was a little more serious than 28 months jail time. The judge in this case should be thrown bodily from the bench.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Political Opportunism at its worst...
This Mark Foley business is out of control. Democrats are calling for Dennis Hastert's resignation more and more loudly every day; Hastert has been all over the media denying that any cover-up took place, and now it has come out that the Congressional page that Foley was IM-ing was 18 years old at the time - in other words, of legal age.
Personally, I don't think this excuses what Foley did, and it's a good thing that he's no longer serving in the House. But quite frankly, when it comes to Hastert's resignation, the Democrats should just shut up and count their blessings - they're virtually guaranteed to win Foley's House seat next month, and if they keep on over-inflating this scandal, chances are it will come back to bite them because, despite what they think about us, the American people are not stupid. It's all too easy to see the double standard that the Dems have been hiding behind, most especially with Gerry Studds, who, as I pointed out in my last post, was actually having sex with a 17-year-old male Congressional page, and then defiantly turned his back on the House when they voted to censure him for his behavior...and was applauded for it by the Democrats.
So many Congressional Democrats have been in the press lately demanding as many Republican resignations as they can get out of this scandal, because Foley was supposedly a child-predator. But how much do the Democrats really care about children? Sure, they talk about protecting children a lot, but do they have it where it counts? I don't think so.
I've already mentioned the Gerry Studds incident. Add to that the fact that it's Democrats who have been pushing for the lowering of age-of-consent laws, and Democrats who try to protect groups like NAMBLA, and Democrats who believe that pornography should be protected speech and available to anyone who wishes to see it, and Democrats who believe that child molesters should receive counseling so they can "get better" and be put back out on the streets, even though child molesters have the highest recitivism rate of any crime out there...the numbers just don't add up here. The truth of the matter is that all of their righteous indignation is nothing more than political posturing, trying to get as much leverage as they can out of this strategically-timed scandal. History has shown us quite clearly that the Democratic Party is the party of moral relativism, and any time you see Democrats standing up for moral values, you should start sniffing around for a rat...because the only time Democrats really care about moral values is when they can somehow score political points.
What Mark Foley did was wrong. If Hastert was involved in a covering it up (which is not clear at this point, no matter what the Democrats say), he should either resign or be removed. But these facts do not excuse the Demcrats' behavior. There is an investigation underway to find out who knew what, and when they knew it. Until that investigation is complete, the Democrats need to shut their faces and let the nation take care of its business. When the investigation has run its course, then the people of America should be able to stand united in the call for the guilty to be punished...but to do so before the facts are known is inexcusable.
Personally, I don't think this excuses what Foley did, and it's a good thing that he's no longer serving in the House. But quite frankly, when it comes to Hastert's resignation, the Democrats should just shut up and count their blessings - they're virtually guaranteed to win Foley's House seat next month, and if they keep on over-inflating this scandal, chances are it will come back to bite them because, despite what they think about us, the American people are not stupid. It's all too easy to see the double standard that the Dems have been hiding behind, most especially with Gerry Studds, who, as I pointed out in my last post, was actually having sex with a 17-year-old male Congressional page, and then defiantly turned his back on the House when they voted to censure him for his behavior...and was applauded for it by the Democrats.
So many Congressional Democrats have been in the press lately demanding as many Republican resignations as they can get out of this scandal, because Foley was supposedly a child-predator. But how much do the Democrats really care about children? Sure, they talk about protecting children a lot, but do they have it where it counts? I don't think so.
I've already mentioned the Gerry Studds incident. Add to that the fact that it's Democrats who have been pushing for the lowering of age-of-consent laws, and Democrats who try to protect groups like NAMBLA, and Democrats who believe that pornography should be protected speech and available to anyone who wishes to see it, and Democrats who believe that child molesters should receive counseling so they can "get better" and be put back out on the streets, even though child molesters have the highest recitivism rate of any crime out there...the numbers just don't add up here. The truth of the matter is that all of their righteous indignation is nothing more than political posturing, trying to get as much leverage as they can out of this strategically-timed scandal. History has shown us quite clearly that the Democratic Party is the party of moral relativism, and any time you see Democrats standing up for moral values, you should start sniffing around for a rat...because the only time Democrats really care about moral values is when they can somehow score political points.
What Mark Foley did was wrong. If Hastert was involved in a covering it up (which is not clear at this point, no matter what the Democrats say), he should either resign or be removed. But these facts do not excuse the Demcrats' behavior. There is an investigation underway to find out who knew what, and when they knew it. Until that investigation is complete, the Democrats need to shut their faces and let the nation take care of its business. When the investigation has run its course, then the people of America should be able to stand united in the call for the guilty to be punished...but to do so before the facts are known is inexcusable.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
The Mark Foley Controversey...why Democrats cannot be trusted.
This Mark Foley madness is now permeating the news media, and, like nearly ever other issue involving Washington politics, it's becoming an absolute mess.
For those not following the story, it was revealed that Republican Representative Mark Foley had been engaging in inappropriately sexual instant messages with underage male Congressional pages. There were also some less-inocuous emails, as well.
There are several reasons that this scandal has become such a mess. First is that many Democrats are taking great pleasure in Foley's fall, as they always seem to do whenever they can point at a Republican and shout "hypocrite!". Rush even played a quote this morning from a Democrat saying that people who don't take pleasure in seeing a hypocrite taken down have something wrong with them. Personally, I take no pleasure in this at all, because the acts occurred. Am I glad that Foley is out of power? Yes. But to take pleasure in this kind of a scandal - when children have been exploited? That is taking it too far.
Another reason that this is such a mess is that each side is accusing the other of knowing about the messages for some time, but doing nothing about it - the Republicans to cover it up, and the Democrats to wait until the most politically advantageous moment. Now, Republicans apparently reprimanded Foley when they heard about the emails and told him to stop, but they did not take the matter any further because they did not know about the instant messages, which were much more graphic. Still, Democrats are pushing for Dennis Hastert's resignation for not doing more. This does not, however, mean that the Democrats are clean: a George Soros-funded blog was the first to publish the story, and there are questions as to how long they had the incriminating instant messages before publishing them. The timing of the release makes it extremely suspect...and thankfully, there will be a throrough investigation into who knew what, and when.
The truth, however, is that as much as Mark Foley, a supporter of President Clinton's impeachment, comes across as a hypocrite through this scandal, the truth of the matter is that the Democrats have no less egg on their own faces. Gerry Studds (D-Mass.) was exposed as having had a sexual relationship with an underage Congressional page in 1983 - he continued to serve in the House until his retirement in 1997. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) was reprimanded in 1990 when it was revealed that a male prostitute that Frank had hired was running a prostitution ring out of Frank's apartment - Frank still serves in the House. Mel Reynolds (D-Ill.) ran for a seat in the House in 1993. In 1994, he was indicted for having sex with an underage campaign volunteer. On August 22, 1995, he was convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography. He resigned his seat on October 1, 1995, after his conviction. In 1997 (while still in prison for the other charges), he was convicted of bank fraud and lying to SEC investigators. He received a presidential pardon from Bill Clinton - whose philandering was publicly defended as a "personal matter" by Democrats.
The disgusting thing about this debate is that the Democrats are reveling in the fact that a Republican Congressman was caught betraying his moral principles...yet these selfsame Democrats try their very hardest to avoid having moral principles (or, at least, naming them publicly), so that they won't get caught betraying those principles.
That Republicans and conservatives come out for moral values does not mean that we ourselves are perfect. It does, however, mean that we believe that our leaders shoud be held to a higher standard. Mark Foley is no longer serving in the House because his behavior was inappropriate and reprehensible. Tom Delay stepped down from his leadership position because he had been indicted - despite the fact that the indictment was obviously groundless and politically motivated. Newt Gengrich stepped down and resigned amid allegations that he was having an affair with a House aide.
Republicans have standards, and when those standards are violated, the violators are punished. Democrats seem to think that they can get away with avoiding consequences by imposing no standards of behavior except those arbitrarily imposed in order to embarrass Republicans, but eventually, enough of the American people will get wise to this charade that few Democrats will be electible.
Foley is now in rehab for alcoholism. Personally, I think this is a dodge - he should jailed for exploiting minors, and apparently offering alcohol to minors. I don't know what the charges would be, exactly, but he should definitely be charged. Alcoholism does not and should not explain away this kind of reprehensible behavior, and it should not be accepted as an excuse by Foley.
For those not following the story, it was revealed that Republican Representative Mark Foley had been engaging in inappropriately sexual instant messages with underage male Congressional pages. There were also some less-inocuous emails, as well.
There are several reasons that this scandal has become such a mess. First is that many Democrats are taking great pleasure in Foley's fall, as they always seem to do whenever they can point at a Republican and shout "hypocrite!". Rush even played a quote this morning from a Democrat saying that people who don't take pleasure in seeing a hypocrite taken down have something wrong with them. Personally, I take no pleasure in this at all, because the acts occurred. Am I glad that Foley is out of power? Yes. But to take pleasure in this kind of a scandal - when children have been exploited? That is taking it too far.
Another reason that this is such a mess is that each side is accusing the other of knowing about the messages for some time, but doing nothing about it - the Republicans to cover it up, and the Democrats to wait until the most politically advantageous moment. Now, Republicans apparently reprimanded Foley when they heard about the emails and told him to stop, but they did not take the matter any further because they did not know about the instant messages, which were much more graphic. Still, Democrats are pushing for Dennis Hastert's resignation for not doing more. This does not, however, mean that the Democrats are clean: a George Soros-funded blog was the first to publish the story, and there are questions as to how long they had the incriminating instant messages before publishing them. The timing of the release makes it extremely suspect...and thankfully, there will be a throrough investigation into who knew what, and when.
The truth, however, is that as much as Mark Foley, a supporter of President Clinton's impeachment, comes across as a hypocrite through this scandal, the truth of the matter is that the Democrats have no less egg on their own faces. Gerry Studds (D-Mass.) was exposed as having had a sexual relationship with an underage Congressional page in 1983 - he continued to serve in the House until his retirement in 1997. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) was reprimanded in 1990 when it was revealed that a male prostitute that Frank had hired was running a prostitution ring out of Frank's apartment - Frank still serves in the House. Mel Reynolds (D-Ill.) ran for a seat in the House in 1993. In 1994, he was indicted for having sex with an underage campaign volunteer. On August 22, 1995, he was convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography. He resigned his seat on October 1, 1995, after his conviction. In 1997 (while still in prison for the other charges), he was convicted of bank fraud and lying to SEC investigators. He received a presidential pardon from Bill Clinton - whose philandering was publicly defended as a "personal matter" by Democrats.
The disgusting thing about this debate is that the Democrats are reveling in the fact that a Republican Congressman was caught betraying his moral principles...yet these selfsame Democrats try their very hardest to avoid having moral principles (or, at least, naming them publicly), so that they won't get caught betraying those principles.
That Republicans and conservatives come out for moral values does not mean that we ourselves are perfect. It does, however, mean that we believe that our leaders shoud be held to a higher standard. Mark Foley is no longer serving in the House because his behavior was inappropriate and reprehensible. Tom Delay stepped down from his leadership position because he had been indicted - despite the fact that the indictment was obviously groundless and politically motivated. Newt Gengrich stepped down and resigned amid allegations that he was having an affair with a House aide.
Republicans have standards, and when those standards are violated, the violators are punished. Democrats seem to think that they can get away with avoiding consequences by imposing no standards of behavior except those arbitrarily imposed in order to embarrass Republicans, but eventually, enough of the American people will get wise to this charade that few Democrats will be electible.
Foley is now in rehab for alcoholism. Personally, I think this is a dodge - he should jailed for exploiting minors, and apparently offering alcohol to minors. I don't know what the charges would be, exactly, but he should definitely be charged. Alcoholism does not and should not explain away this kind of reprehensible behavior, and it should not be accepted as an excuse by Foley.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)