It's gotta be fun being a liberal. Personally, I wouldn't know, because every time I try to understand what it's like to think like a liberal I pass out, but it's gotta be nice to be able to live in constant denial of reality.
Here's what I'm referring to:
President Bush today delivered a presentation to Congress detailing the success of his administration's economic policies. In a unilateral pre-emptive strike, the New York Times today published an editorial trashing the Bush economy. The thing about the Times editorial, though, is that it is nothing more than anti-Bush propaganda.
All good propaganda must include within it a shred of truth, or, at the least, a half-truth, and the Times does this with great skill. Looking at the numbers reported in the Times, the Bush economy doesn't look very impressive, and does, in fact, look somewhat depressing. The lie in the numbers the Times uses, however, is that the numbers they report only work if you assume that President Bush's economic policy took effect the minute Bush was sworn in. The denial of reality here is that, as all good liberals do, the Times refuses to acknowledge the fact that the Bush administration inherited a recession. When President Bush took office, the previously robust economy (whose success was thanks to the Republican-dominated Congress) was beginning a downward turn, which soon became a recession (the 9/11 attacks helped greatly in this). The truth is, while the economy was headed downward during the early part of Bush's presidency, President Bush's economic policy didn't take effect until President Bush was finally able to overcome Democratic obstructionism and the 'Bush tax cuts' were passed - about 18 months into President Bush's first term. And if you calculate the numbers from the time that the President's economic policy took effect, it's extremely easy to see that President Bush's plans for the economy have been hugely successful.
The Times, however prefers to live in their own little dream world, denying any and all signs of economic success. Meanwhile, the real world suffers under the burden of continuing left-wing propaganda.
One of the most amazing things about the success of the Bush economy is that, contrary to the nay saying of liberals, government revenues have skyrocketted. That's right, President Bush lowered taxes, and revenues went up. When President Bush proposed the tax cuts, the Democrats ran around screaming about how the deficit was going to skyrocket...and with the war, it has. But, provided the Congress can restrain its penchant for funding 'bridges to nowhere', the increased revenue will allow the government to pay down the deficit.
Sometimes, however, the denial of reality is much more veiled than this blatant attempt by the Times. It seems that every month I hear the same reporter for AP radio news saying that "economic growth was not as high as experts predicted," basically framing economic growth as a bad thing because the economy didn't grow as fast as some 'experts' said it should. After hearing this for a few months, a couple of questions popped into my mind: first, just how much did the economy grow, and second, what is it about the economy that makes these experts so optimistic? After all, if experts are predicting such robust growth month after month, then either the Bush administration is doing a good job, or the 'experts' are inflating their numbers to make it look like the administration is doing poorly (because the numbers show that the economy is booming, and nowadays, liberal nay saying just shows that Dems will even deny the undeniable if it means they can attack President Bush).
The unemployment rate is at 4.6 percent. To put this in perspective, the lowest unemployment rate during the Clinton administration (which President Clinton was lauded for by the media) was 4.2 percent (through much of Clinton's presidency it was much higher)...just 0.4 percent lower than where the unemployment rate is now. Under the Bush tax cuts, tax revenue grew by $274 billion, or 14.5 percent. As President Bush stated in his address, "It's the largest increase in 24 years" (or since 1982, when President Reagan, who also lowered taxes, was in office). The Treasury Department projections say that next year, tax revenues will increase by $246 billion, or 11 percent. The original projection for this year's budget deficit was $423 billion. The actual deficit: $296 billion. Hardly the worst economy since Herbert Hoover, as the Democrats alleged before the 2004 election. The economy is booming, and as the President said, "That's what happens when you implement pro-growth economic policies."
Liberal attacks on the Bush economy are old news...and by now, they truly are just tired attempts at lying to the public. The economy has been doing great for so long that maybe the Times should change its motto from "all the news that's fit to print" to "all the DNC propaganda that we can possibly run".
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Thursday, July 06, 2006
North Korea: Psycho Communist Dictatorship, or Monumental US Failure?
Yesterday, the worker's paradise known as North Korea test-launched a long-range missile rumored to have the capability to reach the United States. The launch was a monumental failure, as the missile toppled into the Sea of Japan shortly after launch.
In response to this test, Madeline Albright came out swinging, saying that the test launch was a failure of U.S. diplomacy. Now, granted, Albright has proven herself to be little more than a leftist wacko, but unfortunately, leftist wackos tend to be treated as genuine experts by the media, and Albright is no exception.
My question is this: how is the test launch of a long range missile, which the United States and Japan have been telling North Korea would be considered an extremely threatening move, a failure of U.S. diplomacy? How, exactly, does this work?
Really, this is to be expected: the war in Iraq was seen by the left as a failure of US diplomacy, even though it was Saddam Hussein's actions that precipitated the invasion. Why should this be any different? After all, as time passes, the Left in America moves further and further left, to the point that in another couple of years, the Democratic Party will have to rename themselves the Socialist Party (or maybe even the Communist Party) just to keep from violating Truth in Advertising laws. As lefties like Albright see it, North Korea is nothing but the bright and inevitable future that America should look forward to with baited breath. Forget the fact that the blame for the fact that North Korea has nuclear weapons rests squarely on the shoulders of the Clinton Administration (Albright served as Clinton's Secretary of State). Forget the fact that Albright herself visited North Korea and spoke with Kim Jong Il, and came back talking about what a great place North Korea is and what a great guy Kim Jong Il is (he's just misunderstood, according to her).
Let's face the facts here: Just because the United States and Japan couldn't talk an insane Communist dictator out of performing a missile test that constitutes a threat to the entire region, that doesn't mean that US diplomacy has failed. It does mean that North Korea is not our friend and should not be trusted to do the right thing. It does mean that the US government should have workable military plans to quickly destroy any and all missile facilities in North Korea. It does mean that the US missile shield project is more important than ever.
And finally, it does mean that anyone with any sense at all should disregard pretty much anything that comes from the mouth of Madeline Albright.
In response to this test, Madeline Albright came out swinging, saying that the test launch was a failure of U.S. diplomacy. Now, granted, Albright has proven herself to be little more than a leftist wacko, but unfortunately, leftist wackos tend to be treated as genuine experts by the media, and Albright is no exception.
My question is this: how is the test launch of a long range missile, which the United States and Japan have been telling North Korea would be considered an extremely threatening move, a failure of U.S. diplomacy? How, exactly, does this work?
Really, this is to be expected: the war in Iraq was seen by the left as a failure of US diplomacy, even though it was Saddam Hussein's actions that precipitated the invasion. Why should this be any different? After all, as time passes, the Left in America moves further and further left, to the point that in another couple of years, the Democratic Party will have to rename themselves the Socialist Party (or maybe even the Communist Party) just to keep from violating Truth in Advertising laws. As lefties like Albright see it, North Korea is nothing but the bright and inevitable future that America should look forward to with baited breath. Forget the fact that the blame for the fact that North Korea has nuclear weapons rests squarely on the shoulders of the Clinton Administration (Albright served as Clinton's Secretary of State). Forget the fact that Albright herself visited North Korea and spoke with Kim Jong Il, and came back talking about what a great place North Korea is and what a great guy Kim Jong Il is (he's just misunderstood, according to her).
Let's face the facts here: Just because the United States and Japan couldn't talk an insane Communist dictator out of performing a missile test that constitutes a threat to the entire region, that doesn't mean that US diplomacy has failed. It does mean that North Korea is not our friend and should not be trusted to do the right thing. It does mean that the US government should have workable military plans to quickly destroy any and all missile facilities in North Korea. It does mean that the US missile shield project is more important than ever.
And finally, it does mean that anyone with any sense at all should disregard pretty much anything that comes from the mouth of Madeline Albright.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
President Bush goes to Iraq, kills terrorists, has a cheesesteak
Okay, not really...but it's the only way I could link these three stories. The big story is that President Bush has made a surprise trip to Iraq to see the troops and evaluate how the new Iraqi government is coming along. Of course, the big news yesterday was that the Iraqi branch of Al-Qaeda named a successor to Abu-Mussab Al-Zarqawi, the terrorist scum that was killed in a bombing raid last Thursday. The news there that has not been as highly reported is that US and Iraqi troops took out many of the higher-ranking Iraqi terrorists at the same time that Zarqawi was getting his little present. Thursday was a great day of success, greatly downplayed by the press. And, of course, the mainstream press continues to be totally blind to the fact that, as much as they accuse FOXNews of being a shill for the Bush administration, they themselves have become shills for the terrorists by only reporting the tragedy, and abstaining on reporting good news until they absolutely have to, such as when we get a high-profile target such as Zarqawi. But that aside, we apparently have a new #1 terrorist on our hit list...or, as President Bush put it, "I think the successor to Zarqawi is going to be on our list to bring to justice."
The final story I want to talk about today has nothing to do with President Bush or Iraq. Frankly, why this story is out there is beyond me; not that it's in the press, but that it's controversial. There is a cheesesteak restaurant in Philladelphia called Geno's Steaks that has come under fire this past week for having a sign that says, "This is America. When ordering, speak English." Personally, I have no problem with that. The owner of Geno's, Joseph Vento, said in an interview with Laura Ingraham yesterday that they are not refusing to serve anyone, only insisting that they order in English...and if it's not too busy, they coach people in their ordering (if they are busy, you may not get exactly what you wanted, but you'll still get a cheesesteak). The impression that I got from the interview was that it doesn't take all that much to order at Geno's anyway - after all, how hard is it to say, "cheesesteak with whiz" (that's Cheeze Whiz for those of you who don't know), or "cheesesteak with American" (American cheese), or "cheesesteak with provolone" (you get the idea). According to Joe Vento, Hispanics have been their main hang-up when it comes to ordering. Geno's is in a community heavily populated with immigrants, but Joe said that they have yet to have problems with a Japanese, Chinese, German, Italian, or any other Asian or European immigrant. The problem is with immigrants from Latin nations insisting on speaking Spanish. Joe Vento said that they should not have to learn a new language just so that Hispanic customers could order in Spanish - after all, if he went to Italy (the nation his grandparents immigrated to America from) and couldn't speak Italian, he'd have some trouble ordering, because the Italians aren't going to go out of their way to learn English just so that American tourists have an easier time ordering food. According to Joe, the sign was up for six months before someone complained, and once that happened, it became a huge controversy. People are calling Joe Vento a racist, and the restaurant is facing the possibility of sanctions if the sign is not removed...because they want people to speak English...in America.
It just gives you the warm fuzzies, doesn't it? Frankly, it makes me want to hop on a plane to Philly for a Geno's cheesesteak.
The final story I want to talk about today has nothing to do with President Bush or Iraq. Frankly, why this story is out there is beyond me; not that it's in the press, but that it's controversial. There is a cheesesteak restaurant in Philladelphia called Geno's Steaks that has come under fire this past week for having a sign that says, "This is America. When ordering, speak English." Personally, I have no problem with that. The owner of Geno's, Joseph Vento, said in an interview with Laura Ingraham yesterday that they are not refusing to serve anyone, only insisting that they order in English...and if it's not too busy, they coach people in their ordering (if they are busy, you may not get exactly what you wanted, but you'll still get a cheesesteak). The impression that I got from the interview was that it doesn't take all that much to order at Geno's anyway - after all, how hard is it to say, "cheesesteak with whiz" (that's Cheeze Whiz for those of you who don't know), or "cheesesteak with American" (American cheese), or "cheesesteak with provolone" (you get the idea). According to Joe Vento, Hispanics have been their main hang-up when it comes to ordering. Geno's is in a community heavily populated with immigrants, but Joe said that they have yet to have problems with a Japanese, Chinese, German, Italian, or any other Asian or European immigrant. The problem is with immigrants from Latin nations insisting on speaking Spanish. Joe Vento said that they should not have to learn a new language just so that Hispanic customers could order in Spanish - after all, if he went to Italy (the nation his grandparents immigrated to America from) and couldn't speak Italian, he'd have some trouble ordering, because the Italians aren't going to go out of their way to learn English just so that American tourists have an easier time ordering food. According to Joe, the sign was up for six months before someone complained, and once that happened, it became a huge controversy. People are calling Joe Vento a racist, and the restaurant is facing the possibility of sanctions if the sign is not removed...because they want people to speak English...in America.
It just gives you the warm fuzzies, doesn't it? Frankly, it makes me want to hop on a plane to Philly for a Geno's cheesesteak.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Coulter ruffles more than a few feathers...yet again.
Ann Coulter's new book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, was released yesterday (6/6/06), and all of the liberals must have stayed up all night reading, because already they are all over Coulter for her usual inflamatory remarks. I've read Coulter before: I read her books Slander and Treason, and enjoyed them both immensely. I enjoyed Treason in particular, because Coulter gave the other side of the story of Senator Joseph McCarthy - the side of the story that you won't hear in any of the United States' National Institutes of Brainwashing (aka. public schools).
Well, now she's making waves again, this time talking about what faith liberals have in abortion, evolution, and welfare, among other things. She criticized a group of 9/11 widows who have been very vocal in their opposition and criticism of President Bush. As someone who has read and enjoyed Coulter's work in the past, both her books and her column (linked on the right), it is plain to me that this is just Ann being Ann - she is using pointed sarcasm to make a finer point (the point being that the widows' intentions are less than pure: several were liberal activists before 9/11 took place, and, despite their tragedy, 9/11 and their subsequent victim status has benefitted their activism greatly). Hilary Clinton even took a swing at Coulter, calling her remarks a "viscious, mean-spirited attack." Now, I'm not going to excuse Coulter's remarks. They are at the extreme edge of political incorrectness. But if there is anything that Ann Coulter is known for, it's her refusal to bow to, and over-willingness to spit in the face of political correctness. And there is ample evidence out there to show that there is more than a grain of truth to what she said.
But despite all of that, Coulter has put out another book, meriting another trip to the bookstore for me. That she's made waves doesn't surprise me in the least - I believe that her reasoning is sound, though I do disagree with her methods at times. Godless promisses to be an interesting read.
Well, now she's making waves again, this time talking about what faith liberals have in abortion, evolution, and welfare, among other things. She criticized a group of 9/11 widows who have been very vocal in their opposition and criticism of President Bush. As someone who has read and enjoyed Coulter's work in the past, both her books and her column (linked on the right), it is plain to me that this is just Ann being Ann - she is using pointed sarcasm to make a finer point (the point being that the widows' intentions are less than pure: several were liberal activists before 9/11 took place, and, despite their tragedy, 9/11 and their subsequent victim status has benefitted their activism greatly). Hilary Clinton even took a swing at Coulter, calling her remarks a "viscious, mean-spirited attack." Now, I'm not going to excuse Coulter's remarks. They are at the extreme edge of political incorrectness. But if there is anything that Ann Coulter is known for, it's her refusal to bow to, and over-willingness to spit in the face of political correctness. And there is ample evidence out there to show that there is more than a grain of truth to what she said.
But despite all of that, Coulter has put out another book, meriting another trip to the bookstore for me. That she's made waves doesn't surprise me in the least - I believe that her reasoning is sound, though I do disagree with her methods at times. Godless promisses to be an interesting read.
Monday, June 05, 2006
Hostage Situation & A Little Slight of Hand
Iran is now trying to hold America hostage, threatening the United States: if we "misbehave", they will disrupt the flow of oil out of the Middle East. Who couldn't see this one coming a mile away? After all, without oil, Iran would be an irrelevant backwater. This is another reason why we need to fire the current politicians in Washington and replace them with right-thinking people: if we were drilling for oil in ANWR, this threat from Iran, while not totally empty, would be much less significant.
As the election is nearing, we're hearing more and more about the same old election-year topics: illegal immigration and gay marriage. Here's news for you: illegal immigration will not be solved by the current political machine. It'll only be held over for twenty or so more years, until we'll be having the same debate all over again. The gay marriage amendment will be argued and debated, and then fade away just like it did last election.
The problem: the issues surrounding this debacle with Iran (and any other Middle Eastern nation) require drastic changes in US energy policy that will not be enacted due to petty partisan bickering and the environmentalist lobby. ANWR is change one. Reinstating drilling along our coastlines is change two. Increasing our refining capacity is change three. But this is just a short term solution. In the long term, we need (buzzword alert!) alternative forms of energy. Get away from dependance on Middle Eastern oil, and nations like Iran become the irrelevant backwaters that they should be...and they will no longer be able to hold US foreign policy hostage by threatening to withhold the mainstay of our economy.
On another note, the press has recently been hammering the White House over the alleged massacre in Haditha...and we'd also like to welcome back to the forefront the Vietnam comparisons. The so-called 'massacre' is now being compared to the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, in which hundreds of civilians were killed.
Despite the obvious break-down of the My Lai parallel in that we're talking about 24 people as opposed to an entire village, the ecstasy the press seems to be going through over this incident is disgusting. If these troops committed the crime, they will and should be punished to the full extent of the law. But the press, especially here in America, seems to be pre-judging this case before the verdict is in...even before all of the evidence is collected (you can say 'allegedly' all you want...we can still tell). After all, there was another recent investigation into an 'alleged' massacre, in which the US soldiers involved were cleared of any wrongdoing. Already as a response to the Haditha story, the Administration is making all US troops go through ethics training...training which any and all officers in the military already go through. If these troops did commit this massacre, it wasn't due to a lack of training. Stop treating the American people like children (but, then, that's what political correctness is all about, isn't it?).
I go into all of this for a very specific reason: while the press is having such a field day over whatever happened in Haditha, they are relatively ignoring stories like this one: Iraqi militants dragged 21 students off of a convoy busses and murdered them. Ironically enough, the number of students massacred was almost as many as were 'allegedly' massacred in Haditha...and this is just one of many instances where the 'insurgents' have wantonly killed Iraqis in what the press called 'sectarian violence.' Is that how it works? If you're a US soldier and kill someone, it's a horrible, awful thing, but if you're an insurgent and kill someone it's 'sectarian violence'? Is that how this little game goes?
Let's get real here. If one murder is horrible, so is the other. You can't justifiably crucify US soldiers with no proof and, at the same time, explain away the enemy's actions as just being the usual thing. That's not how real life works.
As the election is nearing, we're hearing more and more about the same old election-year topics: illegal immigration and gay marriage. Here's news for you: illegal immigration will not be solved by the current political machine. It'll only be held over for twenty or so more years, until we'll be having the same debate all over again. The gay marriage amendment will be argued and debated, and then fade away just like it did last election.
The problem: the issues surrounding this debacle with Iran (and any other Middle Eastern nation) require drastic changes in US energy policy that will not be enacted due to petty partisan bickering and the environmentalist lobby. ANWR is change one. Reinstating drilling along our coastlines is change two. Increasing our refining capacity is change three. But this is just a short term solution. In the long term, we need (buzzword alert!) alternative forms of energy. Get away from dependance on Middle Eastern oil, and nations like Iran become the irrelevant backwaters that they should be...and they will no longer be able to hold US foreign policy hostage by threatening to withhold the mainstay of our economy.
On another note, the press has recently been hammering the White House over the alleged massacre in Haditha...and we'd also like to welcome back to the forefront the Vietnam comparisons. The so-called 'massacre' is now being compared to the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, in which hundreds of civilians were killed.
Despite the obvious break-down of the My Lai parallel in that we're talking about 24 people as opposed to an entire village, the ecstasy the press seems to be going through over this incident is disgusting. If these troops committed the crime, they will and should be punished to the full extent of the law. But the press, especially here in America, seems to be pre-judging this case before the verdict is in...even before all of the evidence is collected (you can say 'allegedly' all you want...we can still tell). After all, there was another recent investigation into an 'alleged' massacre, in which the US soldiers involved were cleared of any wrongdoing. Already as a response to the Haditha story, the Administration is making all US troops go through ethics training...training which any and all officers in the military already go through. If these troops did commit this massacre, it wasn't due to a lack of training. Stop treating the American people like children (but, then, that's what political correctness is all about, isn't it?).
I go into all of this for a very specific reason: while the press is having such a field day over whatever happened in Haditha, they are relatively ignoring stories like this one: Iraqi militants dragged 21 students off of a convoy busses and murdered them. Ironically enough, the number of students massacred was almost as many as were 'allegedly' massacred in Haditha...and this is just one of many instances where the 'insurgents' have wantonly killed Iraqis in what the press called 'sectarian violence.' Is that how it works? If you're a US soldier and kill someone, it's a horrible, awful thing, but if you're an insurgent and kill someone it's 'sectarian violence'? Is that how this little game goes?
Let's get real here. If one murder is horrible, so is the other. You can't justifiably crucify US soldiers with no proof and, at the same time, explain away the enemy's actions as just being the usual thing. That's not how real life works.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)