Hugo Chavez, hero of the Left (aka the Democrat party), has declared that anyone who would vote against his proposed constitutional changes is a "traitor." Perhaps this is why the Democrats like Chavez so much: he stands so strongly for Democracy.
Chavez's proposed changes would remove term limits for the office of president in Venezuela, essentially opening the doors for him to become dictator-for-life.
Maybe this is why so many liberals support him: he's a hard-line Communist dictator...and for some unknowable reason, liberal elitists just love that in a foreign politician.
Liberals love to point at the Right and scream "hypocrite!" at the top of their lungs, but the Democrat party (as ironically named as it is), is more willing to support the dictator of Venezuela then they are to support the democratically elected president of their own nation...this shows their own hypocrisy: they claim to stand up for the common man, all the while doing nothing more than seeking as much power as they can get their hot little hands on.
The truth is that despite the name of their party and all of their platitudes, when liberals see Hugo Chavez, they see a dream to which they can aspire. Chavez, in all of his oppressive tyranny, is the left's role model, and they'd like nothing more than to do away with term limits for any leftist president, senator, or congressman, and consolidate their rule over the United States for the rest of the nation's existence.
That is the Left's dark secret, the one thing they don't want the general populace to catch on to.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Last Time It Was Vote or Die...Now It's Vote or iPod?!?
A survey taken at NYU found that 2/3 of students would trade their vote in the next presidential election for a year's tuition. Frankly, given today's tuition prices, that's not all that surprising.
20% said they'd trade their vote for an iPod Touch.
66% said they'd trade their vote for a free ride at NYU.
Half said they'd trade their vote for $1 million.
This is very interesting, considering that 70.5% of those surveyed said that they believe their vote counts...including 70% of those who said they'd trade their vote for tuition.
My question is this: if you really do believe that your vote counts...why would you sell it? The franchise is either vitally important or totally unimportant. There is no middle ground.
But, then, as one student put it: "It's easy to convince myself that my vote doesn't count...after all, I'm from New York, which will always be a blue state." An interesting point, but irrelevant. After all, if all conservatives in blue states just stayed home, there would never be a prayer of eventually reforming those blue states into places where common sense actually exists. There would be no counter-vote to show liberal politicians that they should tread lightly.
As another student put it: "I would be reversing history — a lot of people fought so that every citizen could be enfranchised." Your vote makes every soldier's death throughout the history of this great nation matter.
And finally, the tour de force: "Anyone who'd sell his lifelong right to vote should be deported." After all, millions of people try to immigrate to the United States every year, with the dream of becoming citizens. They work hard so that someday they or their children will eventually have the right to be called Americans and participate in the process that makes the United States the freest nation on the globe. If you're willing to throw that right away, then it's a right you don't deserve, because it's a right that's been bought and paid for with the blood of heroes.
20% said they'd trade their vote for an iPod Touch.
66% said they'd trade their vote for a free ride at NYU.
Half said they'd trade their vote for $1 million.
This is very interesting, considering that 70.5% of those surveyed said that they believe their vote counts...including 70% of those who said they'd trade their vote for tuition.
My question is this: if you really do believe that your vote counts...why would you sell it? The franchise is either vitally important or totally unimportant. There is no middle ground.
But, then, as one student put it: "It's easy to convince myself that my vote doesn't count...after all, I'm from New York, which will always be a blue state." An interesting point, but irrelevant. After all, if all conservatives in blue states just stayed home, there would never be a prayer of eventually reforming those blue states into places where common sense actually exists. There would be no counter-vote to show liberal politicians that they should tread lightly.
As another student put it: "I would be reversing history — a lot of people fought so that every citizen could be enfranchised." Your vote makes every soldier's death throughout the history of this great nation matter.
And finally, the tour de force: "Anyone who'd sell his lifelong right to vote should be deported." After all, millions of people try to immigrate to the United States every year, with the dream of becoming citizens. They work hard so that someday they or their children will eventually have the right to be called Americans and participate in the process that makes the United States the freest nation on the globe. If you're willing to throw that right away, then it's a right you don't deserve, because it's a right that's been bought and paid for with the blood of heroes.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Is This The Best The Left Has To Offer?
Rosie O'Donnell has been hired to host her own talk show on MSNBC. Apparently, MSNBC is under the impression that Bush-bashing gets ratings. When it comes to MSNBC, however, they need all the help they can get on the ratings front, so more power to them.
However, I think that the hiring of Rosie as a political commentator brings up an interesting issue: who are the primary spokespeople for the Left? Conservative talk radio grew to the heights that it has reached through people like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Laura Ingraham: for the most part, normal people who got into radio. Limbaugh and Beck started out in the radio business as disk jockeys. Later on in life they became talk radio personalities, expressing their conservative political views to millions of listeners daily. Laura Ingraham worked as a speechwriter for the Reagan Administration, and then clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas before getting into radio.
When Air America was formed in an attempt to combat the conservative dominance of talk radio, their two big-name headliners were Al Franken and Jeaneane Garofalo...two comedians with questionable talent who were only propelled into fame by their not-quite-humorous stints on Saturday Night Live. Jerry Springer also served a stint on Air America.
My question is this: am I the only one who sees the significance of this trend? The Right's big media names are thinkers and capitalists who worked hard to achieve success. The Left's big media names are three comedians and the host of a trash talk show. Of course, Air America was only a big name for a short while...then Franken, Garofalo and Springer eventually left the network due to the fact that it was a huge flop, both in ratings and revenues, and for the most part, Air America has fallen to relative obscurity.
Now, MSNBC is hiring Rosie O'Donnell, yet another comedian, as a leftist political commentator. But Rosie isn't just another lefty comedian...she's a leftist freak, one of the 9/11 truthers who believe that the WTC towers were brought down by the Bush administration. The fact that she serves as one of the Left's leading media spokespeople speaks volumes in and of itself.
Personally, I think this is a good thing. Let Rosie have her own show. Let her spread her lies and hate...let the nation see just what a freak she is. If this is the best the Left can give us, we'll take it gladly, because while Rosie the comedian isn't all that funny, Rosie the political commentator is worth quite a few laughs.
However, I think that the hiring of Rosie as a political commentator brings up an interesting issue: who are the primary spokespeople for the Left? Conservative talk radio grew to the heights that it has reached through people like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Laura Ingraham: for the most part, normal people who got into radio. Limbaugh and Beck started out in the radio business as disk jockeys. Later on in life they became talk radio personalities, expressing their conservative political views to millions of listeners daily. Laura Ingraham worked as a speechwriter for the Reagan Administration, and then clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas before getting into radio.
When Air America was formed in an attempt to combat the conservative dominance of talk radio, their two big-name headliners were Al Franken and Jeaneane Garofalo...two comedians with questionable talent who were only propelled into fame by their not-quite-humorous stints on Saturday Night Live. Jerry Springer also served a stint on Air America.
My question is this: am I the only one who sees the significance of this trend? The Right's big media names are thinkers and capitalists who worked hard to achieve success. The Left's big media names are three comedians and the host of a trash talk show. Of course, Air America was only a big name for a short while...then Franken, Garofalo and Springer eventually left the network due to the fact that it was a huge flop, both in ratings and revenues, and for the most part, Air America has fallen to relative obscurity.
Now, MSNBC is hiring Rosie O'Donnell, yet another comedian, as a leftist political commentator. But Rosie isn't just another lefty comedian...she's a leftist freak, one of the 9/11 truthers who believe that the WTC towers were brought down by the Bush administration. The fact that she serves as one of the Left's leading media spokespeople speaks volumes in and of itself.
Personally, I think this is a good thing. Let Rosie have her own show. Let her spread her lies and hate...let the nation see just what a freak she is. If this is the best the Left can give us, we'll take it gladly, because while Rosie the comedian isn't all that funny, Rosie the political commentator is worth quite a few laughs.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Media Matters' Hypocricy
Pat Robertson announced this week that he is endorsing Rudy Giuliani for president.
In an ironic turn of events, Media Matters is attacking MSNBC for failing to attack Robertson in their coverage of his endorsement.
Robertson has been controversial in the past, but this attempt by Media Matters really is ludicrous. Here is a case of a major media organization, MSNBC, reporting the news. They were kinder to Robertson than I would expect, which is probably what got Media Matters' panties in a bunch.
This is the thing about modern liberalism: Fox News has been shown to be a bit to the right of CNN, but still to the left of the mainstream...yet liberals continue to attack them as some kind of a fascist propaganda wing of the Bush administration (this has been shown to be untrue time and time again). Then, when another leftist news organization fails to engage in smear tactics, the left yet again makes a fuss...because heaven forbid the mainstream media might actually be kind to a conservative.
In an ironic turn of events, Media Matters is attacking MSNBC for failing to attack Robertson in their coverage of his endorsement.
Robertson has been controversial in the past, but this attempt by Media Matters really is ludicrous. Here is a case of a major media organization, MSNBC, reporting the news. They were kinder to Robertson than I would expect, which is probably what got Media Matters' panties in a bunch.
This is the thing about modern liberalism: Fox News has been shown to be a bit to the right of CNN, but still to the left of the mainstream...yet liberals continue to attack them as some kind of a fascist propaganda wing of the Bush administration (this has been shown to be untrue time and time again). Then, when another leftist news organization fails to engage in smear tactics, the left yet again makes a fuss...because heaven forbid the mainstream media might actually be kind to a conservative.
Monday, November 05, 2007
GI Joe: It's just a movie based on a cartoon based on an action figure, right?
Wrong.
Glenn Beck has come under attack in the lefty blogosphere over his comments about the upcoming GI Joe movie, where Hollywood takes an American icon and turns him into an international travesty. The reports started with Media Matters and spread from there (because, rather than actually listening to conservatives, liberals just get on Media Matters' web site & parrot whatever they say).
The most interesting of these attacks that I could find came from The Huffington Post which, ironically enough, has a page dedicated to attacking Glenn Beck (which it calls "Beckwatch").
The liberal argument: it's just a movie.
And once again, the left, in reducing itself to mindless attacks, misses the whole point.
As an avid listener to Glenn Beck's radio program, I heard Beck's argument from his own mouth. He's not just talking about this movie. He's talking about the amount of anti-American propaganda coming out of Hollywood that is marketed to our children. The examples that he points out: Superman Returns, where "Truth, Justice and The American Way" was intentionally changed to "Truth, Justice...all that stuff" because the producers of the film didn't think it would be right to promote "The American Way" (despite the fact that America, despite liberals' aspirations, is still the freest, most honorable nation on the planet). Next example: Happy Feet, which was basically global warming propaganda with a pro-UN message thrown in for good measure. Now, Government Issue Joe, the Real American Hero is being turned into the "Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity." Why? Because movie producers are embarrassed of the nation that gives them the freedom to succeed like they have thus far.
Americans are tired of message movies. This is one of the main reasons that box-office figures have been down lately. Unfortunately, Hollywood just doesn't get it...they keep on churning out message movies. This is why the vast majority of my movie collection consists of films made before 1980.
There is another report out about Glenn Beck today, this one from the New York Times, criticizing Beck for his new multi-million-dollar contract ($50 million over 5 years). Beck presents himself as an average guy, but according to the New York Times, this contract makes that claim null and void.
I've listened to Glenn Beck's program for a long time...I started listening shortly after he went national back in 2001. The truth is, Glenn Beck is an average guy...he's an average guy who dreamed of getting into radio, got into the radio business very young, got successful, had some hard times, and then changed his life and turned it into a massive success. He runs his own company, does a daily radio program and a daily TV show on Headline News, and produces a monthly magazine. Beck has earned his success, and he is a testament to the greatness of America, where a regular schlub can work hard, make a success of himself, and eventually land a $50 million contract.
Glenn Beck has come under attack in the lefty blogosphere over his comments about the upcoming GI Joe movie, where Hollywood takes an American icon and turns him into an international travesty. The reports started with Media Matters and spread from there (because, rather than actually listening to conservatives, liberals just get on Media Matters' web site & parrot whatever they say).
The most interesting of these attacks that I could find came from The Huffington Post which, ironically enough, has a page dedicated to attacking Glenn Beck (which it calls "Beckwatch").
The liberal argument: it's just a movie.
And once again, the left, in reducing itself to mindless attacks, misses the whole point.
As an avid listener to Glenn Beck's radio program, I heard Beck's argument from his own mouth. He's not just talking about this movie. He's talking about the amount of anti-American propaganda coming out of Hollywood that is marketed to our children. The examples that he points out: Superman Returns, where "Truth, Justice and The American Way" was intentionally changed to "Truth, Justice...all that stuff" because the producers of the film didn't think it would be right to promote "The American Way" (despite the fact that America, despite liberals' aspirations, is still the freest, most honorable nation on the planet). Next example: Happy Feet, which was basically global warming propaganda with a pro-UN message thrown in for good measure. Now, Government Issue Joe, the Real American Hero is being turned into the "Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity." Why? Because movie producers are embarrassed of the nation that gives them the freedom to succeed like they have thus far.
Americans are tired of message movies. This is one of the main reasons that box-office figures have been down lately. Unfortunately, Hollywood just doesn't get it...they keep on churning out message movies. This is why the vast majority of my movie collection consists of films made before 1980.
There is another report out about Glenn Beck today, this one from the New York Times, criticizing Beck for his new multi-million-dollar contract ($50 million over 5 years). Beck presents himself as an average guy, but according to the New York Times, this contract makes that claim null and void.
I've listened to Glenn Beck's program for a long time...I started listening shortly after he went national back in 2001. The truth is, Glenn Beck is an average guy...he's an average guy who dreamed of getting into radio, got into the radio business very young, got successful, had some hard times, and then changed his life and turned it into a massive success. He runs his own company, does a daily radio program and a daily TV show on Headline News, and produces a monthly magazine. Beck has earned his success, and he is a testament to the greatness of America, where a regular schlub can work hard, make a success of himself, and eventually land a $50 million contract.
Musharraf: Just What Is Going On?
Pakistan has been under martial law for about a week now, thanks to its president, Pervez Musharraf. It's unclear just what, exactly, is going on in Pakistan, but Musharraf declared a state of emergency last week and instituted martial law, citing a rise in Islamic extremism and its effect on the judiciary. The fact that the Pakistani judiciary was investigating the validity of Musharraf's election had no bearing on the declaration, I'm sure.
As someone who takes a rather dim view on Islamic extremism, I was initially willing to give Musharraf the benefit of the doubt...but as time goes on, it's looking more and more like President Musharraf is merely trying to secure his power, with or without the people's consent. Apparently, Musharraf promised that elections would be held by mid-January, and that he would step down as chief of Pakistan's army (he used to be known as General Musharraf). Now, Musharraf has buckled down on protesters, and it looks like elections could be delayed by up to a year.
Whether Musharraf will actually live up to his promises has yet to be seen...but the longer the situation goes on in Pakistan, the more it looks like Musharraf is just trying to set himself up as a dictator.
As someone who takes a rather dim view on Islamic extremism, I was initially willing to give Musharraf the benefit of the doubt...but as time goes on, it's looking more and more like President Musharraf is merely trying to secure his power, with or without the people's consent. Apparently, Musharraf promised that elections would be held by mid-January, and that he would step down as chief of Pakistan's army (he used to be known as General Musharraf). Now, Musharraf has buckled down on protesters, and it looks like elections could be delayed by up to a year.
Whether Musharraf will actually live up to his promises has yet to be seen...but the longer the situation goes on in Pakistan, the more it looks like Musharraf is just trying to set himself up as a dictator.
Banning Smoking At Home?
That's where things are heading. Apparently, there are many cities in California that have banned smoking in apartments. Normally I wouldn't have a problem with this: I am not a smoker, and I don't enjoy breathing cigarette smoke.
But this speaks to a bigger issue.
California has already outlawed smoking in bars & restaurants. Other states have jumped on this bandwagon, and some areas are further looking to ban smoking in cars. If banning smoking in apartments becomes the next big thing, in a natural progression, the next step will either be banning smoking altogether, or just having a collection of laws that amount to the same thing (yes, smoking is still legal...you just can't do it indoors or outside. Anywhere else is fine).
For one thing, banning things has a pretty bad record in America...just take a look at prohibition. For another thing, Americans don't need a "mother" government telling everyone what they can and cannot do (it didn't work for "mother Russia," either).
The people of America need to stop buying into these stupid liberal arguments based on emotion rather than logic. If there is enough of a demand for "smoke-free" housing, then apartment managers should designate certain of their apartment complexes as "smoke-free." The fact that this isn't happening speaks to the fact that the demand just isn't high enough.
The government needs to step back and let the market work...but that isn't going to happen as long as the people keep buying in to liberal lies about how the government can make life better for everyone. Governments never make nations great. People do. Let the people make their own decisions.
One more thing: the government imposes taxes on cigarettes to pay for various social programs (this is especially true here in California). Then, the government continues to ban smoking in certain areas. Sooner or later, smoking will be banned altogether, either in an up-front law banning smoking altogether, or in a large, convoluted collection of laws making it illegal to smoke anywhere. So, if smoking is illegal, how will they pay for their social programs? They'll have to raise money for them somewhere else, which means that each and every person who cheered the tax increases on cigarettes because they don't support smoking will end up having to carry the tax burden that cigarette taxes carried for so long.
But this speaks to a bigger issue.
California has already outlawed smoking in bars & restaurants. Other states have jumped on this bandwagon, and some areas are further looking to ban smoking in cars. If banning smoking in apartments becomes the next big thing, in a natural progression, the next step will either be banning smoking altogether, or just having a collection of laws that amount to the same thing (yes, smoking is still legal...you just can't do it indoors or outside. Anywhere else is fine).
For one thing, banning things has a pretty bad record in America...just take a look at prohibition. For another thing, Americans don't need a "mother" government telling everyone what they can and cannot do (it didn't work for "mother Russia," either).
The people of America need to stop buying into these stupid liberal arguments based on emotion rather than logic. If there is enough of a demand for "smoke-free" housing, then apartment managers should designate certain of their apartment complexes as "smoke-free." The fact that this isn't happening speaks to the fact that the demand just isn't high enough.
The government needs to step back and let the market work...but that isn't going to happen as long as the people keep buying in to liberal lies about how the government can make life better for everyone. Governments never make nations great. People do. Let the people make their own decisions.
One more thing: the government imposes taxes on cigarettes to pay for various social programs (this is especially true here in California). Then, the government continues to ban smoking in certain areas. Sooner or later, smoking will be banned altogether, either in an up-front law banning smoking altogether, or in a large, convoluted collection of laws making it illegal to smoke anywhere. So, if smoking is illegal, how will they pay for their social programs? They'll have to raise money for them somewhere else, which means that each and every person who cheered the tax increases on cigarettes because they don't support smoking will end up having to carry the tax burden that cigarette taxes carried for so long.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Hilary Clinton: The Worst Thing Since Sliced Bread
The repercussions over this past week's Democrat presidential debate continue...and Hilary Clinton has proven to the world that she would make one of the worst presidents in US history.
The basic gist of Hilary's screw-up revolves around Chris Matthew's question about the recent New York program involving allowing illegal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses. Upon asking the question, Hilary's first response was to endorse the idea...and then, within two minutes of her first response, she backtracked, denouncing the program.
Hilary Clinton has tried very hard to be "all things to all people," basically vascillating back and forth on several issues, the most worrisome of which include illegal immigration and the War on Terror.
There have been further questions over documents pertaining to Hilary's tenure as First Lady, which have been sealed in her husband's presidential library. It's been confirmed that over 3 million documents pertaining to Hilary's health care plan are still sealed.
Hilary's defense for all of the opposition to her: she's being ganged up on because she's a woman. This, more than anything, shows just how bad of a president Hilary would make. Hilary has breezed through the primary process thus far, but as soon as her opponents start turning up the heat, she tries to use her gender as a shield. This is just what we need in a president: as soon as Ahmadinijad, Putin, Chavez, or Kim Jong Il start attacking her, her defense will be to accuse them of being meanies - bullies ganging up on the girl.
Ironically, that may just be the one thing that would inspire the UN to real action: whining and complaining by a Clinton.
The basic gist of Hilary's screw-up revolves around Chris Matthew's question about the recent New York program involving allowing illegal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses. Upon asking the question, Hilary's first response was to endorse the idea...and then, within two minutes of her first response, she backtracked, denouncing the program.
Hilary Clinton has tried very hard to be "all things to all people," basically vascillating back and forth on several issues, the most worrisome of which include illegal immigration and the War on Terror.
There have been further questions over documents pertaining to Hilary's tenure as First Lady, which have been sealed in her husband's presidential library. It's been confirmed that over 3 million documents pertaining to Hilary's health care plan are still sealed.
Hilary's defense for all of the opposition to her: she's being ganged up on because she's a woman. This, more than anything, shows just how bad of a president Hilary would make. Hilary has breezed through the primary process thus far, but as soon as her opponents start turning up the heat, she tries to use her gender as a shield. This is just what we need in a president: as soon as Ahmadinijad, Putin, Chavez, or Kim Jong Il start attacking her, her defense will be to accuse them of being meanies - bullies ganging up on the girl.Ironically, that may just be the one thing that would inspire the UN to real action: whining and complaining by a Clinton.
Friday, November 02, 2007
Deficit Spending Greater Moral Issue than Abortion?
Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) has been quoted as saying that deficit spending is a greater moral issue than abortion, because it will leave non-aborted US citizens to pay off their parents' debt.
According to Coburn, "[President Bush] hasn’t been the ideal president when it comes to limited federal spending." Talk about the greatest understatement of the past seven years. President Bush has been absolutely horrible when it comes to limiting government spending...but one reason for this is because he hasn't vetoed the horrific spending bills sent to him by Congress, which continues to indulge in massive pork-barrel spending despite protestations and calls for increased "transparency" by several members.
Personally, I don't think that deficit spending is a greater sin than abortion...murder will always out-weigh financial over-extension in my book, but Coburn does have a good point: our government has more power and spends more money today than it ever has, and this spending has been increasingly irresponsible in light of the threats that our nation faces (and each and every Democrat presidential candidate wants to raise taxes and further increase spending!). We face many external threats: Islam0-fascist terrorism, Chinese and Venezuelan communism, belligerence by Russia, the Iranian nuclear program...the list goes on. But even the combination of these threats cannot defeat America unless we first defeat ourselves.
The US has been in moral decline for decades. The Cold War has moved to an internal conflict as the Democrat party threatens to make the US a socialist state. Political correctness threatens to shut down freedom of speech, and even freedom of thought in the US. The environmentalist movement seeks to send the US back to the days of the caveman. Religion and the moral values that go with it are constantly under attack (unless that religion seeks to denigrate and/or destroy the US, in which case it is celebrated). Our politicians are oblivious to the will of the people, choosing instead to stand up for special interest groups, selling US sovereignty up the river. Even as outside threats align to destroy the US, the threats from within our nation are combining, bringing about the eventual destruction of the freest nation on planet Earth. The people of the United States of America must wake up, or the destruction of this great nation will be on our doorstep before we know it.
Senator Coburn was right about one thing: "If we have only 11 percent support, are we a legitimate government? The 11 percent who have confidence in us, what hole are they in?” Congress has an 11% approval rating for a reason: they are an illegitimate government that refuses to conform to the will of the people. They have ignored the wishes of their constituents, whether Left or Right, and have only sought to advance their own self-interest: their quest for continued power.
The House of Representatives recently announced that it is shortening its work week to 4 days. While on the one hand this bespeaks the laziness of Congress (the Democrats, who have accomplished nothing since their takeover in 2006, ran on the promise to work harder to pass meaningful legislation), I cannot shake the thought that the less time Congress spends making law, the better. The modern Congress has proven to be a disaster, and my personal opinion is that they should meet only long enough to pass that legislation that is absolutely essential...one or two days per year should do it.
Our government is out of control, and it needs to be reigned in. Spending needs to be cut, and Congress needs to be restricted to its Constitutional limitations. The people need to send a clear message to our politicians in 2008 by electing true conservatives to Congress.
According to Coburn, "[President Bush] hasn’t been the ideal president when it comes to limited federal spending." Talk about the greatest understatement of the past seven years. President Bush has been absolutely horrible when it comes to limiting government spending...but one reason for this is because he hasn't vetoed the horrific spending bills sent to him by Congress, which continues to indulge in massive pork-barrel spending despite protestations and calls for increased "transparency" by several members.
Personally, I don't think that deficit spending is a greater sin than abortion...murder will always out-weigh financial over-extension in my book, but Coburn does have a good point: our government has more power and spends more money today than it ever has, and this spending has been increasingly irresponsible in light of the threats that our nation faces (and each and every Democrat presidential candidate wants to raise taxes and further increase spending!). We face many external threats: Islam0-fascist terrorism, Chinese and Venezuelan communism, belligerence by Russia, the Iranian nuclear program...the list goes on. But even the combination of these threats cannot defeat America unless we first defeat ourselves.
The US has been in moral decline for decades. The Cold War has moved to an internal conflict as the Democrat party threatens to make the US a socialist state. Political correctness threatens to shut down freedom of speech, and even freedom of thought in the US. The environmentalist movement seeks to send the US back to the days of the caveman. Religion and the moral values that go with it are constantly under attack (unless that religion seeks to denigrate and/or destroy the US, in which case it is celebrated). Our politicians are oblivious to the will of the people, choosing instead to stand up for special interest groups, selling US sovereignty up the river. Even as outside threats align to destroy the US, the threats from within our nation are combining, bringing about the eventual destruction of the freest nation on planet Earth. The people of the United States of America must wake up, or the destruction of this great nation will be on our doorstep before we know it.
Senator Coburn was right about one thing: "If we have only 11 percent support, are we a legitimate government? The 11 percent who have confidence in us, what hole are they in?” Congress has an 11% approval rating for a reason: they are an illegitimate government that refuses to conform to the will of the people. They have ignored the wishes of their constituents, whether Left or Right, and have only sought to advance their own self-interest: their quest for continued power.
The House of Representatives recently announced that it is shortening its work week to 4 days. While on the one hand this bespeaks the laziness of Congress (the Democrats, who have accomplished nothing since their takeover in 2006, ran on the promise to work harder to pass meaningful legislation), I cannot shake the thought that the less time Congress spends making law, the better. The modern Congress has proven to be a disaster, and my personal opinion is that they should meet only long enough to pass that legislation that is absolutely essential...one or two days per year should do it.
Our government is out of control, and it needs to be reigned in. Spending needs to be cut, and Congress needs to be restricted to its Constitutional limitations. The people need to send a clear message to our politicians in 2008 by electing true conservatives to Congress.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Racist "Diversity" Program Defeated in Delaware
Last week, stories began emerging about a program on the campus of the University of Delaware. The program required that all students living on-campus be subjected to indoctrination.
Under the program, students are required to acknowledge that:
Thanks to the vigilance of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), the program has been suspended. The fact that the program has been widely reported on in conservative talk radio probably helped as well, but the publicity originated with FIRE, and FIRE is to be thanked for keeping the University of Delaware accountable for this blatant attempt at racist indoctrination.
This program goes to show just how empty the left's cries of tolerance truly are: tolerance only extends to those radical views held by the left. If it's good news for whitey, the left doesn't like it. If it engenders hatred for the United States or Christianity or the white race in general, then the left is okay with it (until they get called on it).
All of this begs the question: why was a program like this started in the first place?
For some reason, liberals cannot get past the 1950s. They seem to be stuck with the idea that the entire nation is divided by race and that, given the chance, white people will rise up and re-institute segregation (or maybe even slavery) because we all hate minorities so much.
The truth is that the US has taken great strides forward when it comes to racism. No, America's not perfect, but race relations in the US are much better off than liberals let on. When it comes down to it, America's main problem with race relations comes from the Left: any time the smallest action may potentially be perceived as racist, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton jump all over it, screaming "RACISM!!!" False allegations of racism are so abundant on the left that
in the end, all they do is cheapen the cries of true racism. People of all races have been trying to fight racism for decades, but throwing 50-year-old sins back in the faces of today's white people will not help anyone.
Unfortunately, this is where leftist politically-correct "tolerance" is taking us: we will be so tolerant a society that there will be no freedom of speech, no freedom of action, and no freedom of thought that does not conform to the left's template.
Thank goodness the Left lost this battle...and may they lose many more in the future.
Under the program, students are required to acknowledge that:
- All white people are racist.
- It is impossible for any minority to be racist, because they don't have a racially biased system to back up their beliefs.
- Reverse racism is a term used by racists who are in denial.
- Non-racist: a non-term.
- Racism and white supremacy are synonymous.
Thanks to the vigilance of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), the program has been suspended. The fact that the program has been widely reported on in conservative talk radio probably helped as well, but the publicity originated with FIRE, and FIRE is to be thanked for keeping the University of Delaware accountable for this blatant attempt at racist indoctrination.
This program goes to show just how empty the left's cries of tolerance truly are: tolerance only extends to those radical views held by the left. If it's good news for whitey, the left doesn't like it. If it engenders hatred for the United States or Christianity or the white race in general, then the left is okay with it (until they get called on it).
All of this begs the question: why was a program like this started in the first place?
For some reason, liberals cannot get past the 1950s. They seem to be stuck with the idea that the entire nation is divided by race and that, given the chance, white people will rise up and re-institute segregation (or maybe even slavery) because we all hate minorities so much.
The truth is that the US has taken great strides forward when it comes to racism. No, America's not perfect, but race relations in the US are much better off than liberals let on. When it comes down to it, America's main problem with race relations comes from the Left: any time the smallest action may potentially be perceived as racist, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton jump all over it, screaming "RACISM!!!" False allegations of racism are so abundant on the left that
in the end, all they do is cheapen the cries of true racism. People of all races have been trying to fight racism for decades, but throwing 50-year-old sins back in the faces of today's white people will not help anyone.
Unfortunately, this is where leftist politically-correct "tolerance" is taking us: we will be so tolerant a society that there will be no freedom of speech, no freedom of action, and no freedom of thought that does not conform to the left's template.
Thank goodness the Left lost this battle...and may they lose many more in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)