Hillary on the Prowl

Hillary Clinton surprised no one when she announced her candidacy for the president of the United States this past weekend. With her towel officially in the ring, she wasted no time in condemning the War in Iraq and demanded that President Bush "extricate this country" from the conflict before the next chief executive takes office, claiming that to do otherwise would be the "height of irresponsibility."

In her rant at a townhall meeting in Iowa, she said that it was "his decision to go to war with an ill-conceived and incompetently executed strategy." This is a phenomenal sound byte that was designed to reign in her far-left critics, but it raises many questions about how Ms. Clinton views her role as a Senator.

Watch the opening statements for any Senate confirmation hearing and you will undoubtedly hear grandstanding politicians bark about the importance of the legislature's constitutionally granted powers of advice and consent in regards to the executive branch. This is nothing out of the ordinary in our system of checks and balances - each branch wants to maximize its piece of the "power pie".

As Senators are prominent national politicians, they have more than ample means to appeal to the citizenry when they disagree with a particular course of action of the executive branch. In the age of the 24 hour news cycle, I would submit to you that any Senator could find a cable news network that would be willing to grant them time to present an alternative plan to executive action. Many Senators, if not most, take advantage of this opportunity on an almost daily basis.

But not Ms. Clinton. Her first term was marked by an avoidance of potentially difficult or uncomfortable issues. She would take advantage of every photo-op with wounded soldiers, but never offered any substantive plan for winning the peace in the embattled Middle Eastern nation. When she finally did open up and offer a meaningful course of action last week, it was almost exactly President Bush's proposal (increase troop levels).

So here we have our United States Senator, a public figure whose role is to craft national policy, criticizing the administration for it's Iraq policy after staying mum on the subject for 7 years - a mere week after expressing some degree of support for the "incompetent" plan? Hmm.

If it was "his decision" to enter the war, as Ms. Clinton so eloquently pointed out, then does she share the burden of the aforementioned decision, having voted herself to authorize force in 2002 (H.J.Res 114)? If she so strongly objected to the operation's planning and execution then, as a highly visible public policy maker, why did she not make public an alternative plan? Was this out of her scope of responsibility?

President Bush crafted a strategy, executed it, and now owns it. Ms. Clinton has played politics with the issue in her buildup to a presidential run, and now is attempting to court both moderates and her critics on the quasi-socialist left - depending on the venue. This poses the question: "which constitutes the greater 'height of irresponsibility'?"

November

This November's midterm elections will be crucial in determining the course of both the War on Terror and the fate of many domestic programs. A swing the wrong way will give Democrats command and control of all House committee chairs and hinder Republican efforts to move our nation forward. One can easily say that the GOP is the party of progress, since House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's stated policy is currently to block all Republican legislative efforts. This approach begs the simple question, "does the Democratic party have its sights set on helping the American people, or winning elections?"

After years without a terrorist attack, the Democrats have caught the public in a "lull", and they have the greatest political weapon of all: hindsight. They can look back at Republican ideas and legislation and pick it to pieces. At the time such actions were taken, they more than likely either went along with it or offered no substantive alternative, but now it is fair game.

Here is why we need a Republican congress:

-Your taxes WILL be raised. Every Democratic leader in Congress has mumbled the talking point, "Sure, we'd love to cut taxes, but right now it's just not responsible." This is Big Government B.S. It is simple economic fact that cutting taxes creates jobs (more income taxes collected), increases personal spending (more sales taxes collected), and INCREASES tax revenue. The tax cuts of the '20s, '60s, '80s, and '00s all created more vastly more revenue for the government than was collected during higher tax periods. The Democrats think that they can spend your money more wisely than you can - and that's that.

-The War on Terror WILL be compromised. Consider last week's "Path to 9/11" miniseries on ABC. The movie told the story of the leadup to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 - and much of it cast a dark shadow on Democratic appeasement of terrorists during the '90s. They were outraged that ABC would claim that Bill Clinton could have prevented 9/11. He was offered bin Laden several times and failed to act, fearing political consequence. That movie outraged the Left because it was TRUE. Furthermore, the Democrats have attempted to block the PATRIOT Act and every major attempt by the administration to monitor terrorists - including electronic surveillance, which the British used to foil last month's terror attempt - one that would have been worse than 9/11.

Politics are cyclical, and the Democrats will control the government at some point in the future. But we must hold off on that recession for as long as possible. There is too much at stake right now.

Republicans - get out and vote. Democrats - demand that your party forge an identity other than the "Party of the Filibuster".

Stay Strong

It is the butterflies. The nervousness. The apprehension, and oftentimes, the fear. Nobody likes uncomfortable or unsettling situations. But every now and then, uncontrollable circumstances test every one of us. It is at these moments, and these moments alone, that true character of a person or society is tested.

Such is the case as we mark the five year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Everyone remembers where they were or what they were doing on that infamous day. I specifically remember evacuating downtown Atlanta with businessmen, students, and tourists creating a sea of paranoid people. There were rumors flying around that Atlanta was a potential target (they actually ran that rumor on the crawl on CNN - very irresponsible). One remarkable thing that still sticks out into my mind is that I, along with everyone else, had my eyes on the buildings above me for the entire duration of the exodus. On that beautiful morning, we all expected a 747 to take our skyline and some of our citizens. The fear was tangible, the attitude was hopelessness, and I will never forget that feeling for the rest of my life.

And so it was that for weeks we kept our eyes to the skies. Our national psyche was deeply affected in a negative way, but we drove on. We gave blood. We poured billions into charities. We still went to the malls. Our stock market re-opened days later. We packed baseball and football stadiums. Many joined the armed forces. We refused to let the facists win. But it was not because we were not scared. We all still instinctively glanced at our skyline everytime we heard a plane overhead - expecting the worst.

It is often understood that courage is the absence of fear. That could not be further from the truth. True courage is demonstrated by doing what one knows to be right in spite of understood dangers and inherent fear. It is very well documented that the passengers of United 93 were apprehensive before their heroic revolt, but they did what had to be done, and that is what makes their story so impressive.

Now, we must renew our resolve to carry on with the mission started over Shanksville, Pennsylvania. It is our responsibility to both our future generations and to the oppressed peoples of the world to stand up to the Islamic-Facist movement and send its followers the message clearly expressed by General Pace today: "Not on our watch."

This mission will be long and trying. It will require sacrifices - some large, and some small, but all necessary. Most of us will not have to choose between being burned alive or jumping 100 stories to our death. Nor will most of us have to choose to either allow our airplane to be used as a missile or overrun knife-wielding terrorists and run the bird into the ground. We will have to give up some privacy at an airport. Maybe we will have to wait a little longer to get into a sporting event. We will all have to deal with the anguish and mental fatigue of a long war. We should consider these sacrifices miniscule in comparison to the ones made by our soldiers everyday. And the ones made by so many just five years ago. Above all, we must commit ourselves whole-heartedly to what must be done.

So maybe it isn't the butterflies, nervousness, apprehension or fear that defines a situation. It's how we deal with it. And how we continue to deal with it.


God bless the civilian heroes of that horrific day, our uniformed heroes of today, and above all - the cause of Freedom.

Think About This

Up until now, I thought that the best feature story that I had ever read was one that I wrote a while back. What can I say? I'm good. But Anne Hart takes the honor now, with her story "It Wasn't My Life To Take" in Sunday's Savannah Morning News. Read the whole thing - this couple is ridiculously brave.
http://new.savannahnow.com/node/131517

The Politics of Personal Responsibility

I was reading an interview with Bill Maher that lent some insight into how he developed his politics. Apparently, most of his beliefs stem from a fundamental "fear of religion", and the "devastating" impact that it can have on civil rights. Ridiculous. However, it got me thinking about how I developed my politics.

I am a social and fiscal conservative and free-market capitalist. Nothing irritates me more than the self-perpetuating cycle of entitlement in this country. I absolutely, positively do not look to any religion for guidance on policy. I do not worship at the altar of big corporations, as Democrats would have you believe. I base my politics entirely on personal responsibility.

I want the government to do what is necessary to keep a foreign army from invading. I want it to protect my ACTUAL rights (not the perceived ones championed by the political left) through its legal system. I want it to provide public services such as roads, bridges, etc. And that is all.

The problem with the politics of the left is that it eschews the necessity of personal responsibility. Consider the following issues:

Abortion - The rallying cry of pro-choicers is that women's rights are trampled by abortion regulation - mainly the "women's right to choose". I am 100% for the woman's right to choose. She and her partner choose to engage in the act of procreation (#1), and then they choose to not use protection (#2)! That's two choices! So choose to deal with the consequences.

Hurricane Katrina - This was easily the worst natural disaster on U.S. soil in decades. New Orleans and Louisiana officials, along with refugees, led the charge to attack the Republican FEDERAL administration for "not responding quickly enough". First of all, I specifically remember two days before the storm saying, "If that cat 5 storm hits Louisiana, New Orleans is gone because those levies won't hold." Am I an expert on the subject? No. Did I live there at the time? No. I went to New Orleans one time for 3 days. But it was common knowledge that it would be completely destroyed in a cat 3 storm! This was a cat 5 storm! If you didn't get out of the city - that's your fault. As for the local officials, they knew better than anyone else on the planet what was at stake. They didn't bus the poor or sick out of the city. They didn't offer worthwhile evacuation plans. They didn't evacuate government vehicles (such as school busses) that are costing tax payers millions to replace. They had no plan whatsoever - they were purely reactionary. There is plenty of blame to go around, and almost none of it should go to the federal government.

Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid - I am not opposed to these programs for people who are disabled, and in certain circumstances as an incentive for prospective single mothers. However, these are the entitlement beasts that have consumed our country and have us accustomed to giving 40% of our paychecks to our fatass uncle in striped pants. If you are not disabled, plan for your own retirement! Purchase your own healthcare! I can almost guarantee that you will do a better job at taking care of yourself than our government will.

I could go on and on about almost any modern issue and how the left champions shirking personal responsibility, but you get the point.

I honestly believe that once an individual has to overcome some difficulties by his- or herself, he/she cannot be a Democrat. I cannot pity those who do little or nothing to help themselves in today's society. I physically and mentally cannot do it. It was not that long ago that my dad and his 7 brothers and sisters were in a 13x13 shack in the country refusing government assistance.

Unfortunately, Americans are incredibly lazy, and once you give them a supersize serving of entitlement, it's too late.

Biden and Pluto

-Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) renewed the campaign to promote his Iraq proposal. It is a five point plan that is centered around dividing the country into three regions along sectarian lines. According to Biden, the weak national level of the government would mainly be charged with the distribution of oil revenues. For a comparison model, think of our post-revolution Articles of Confederation. The plan has some solid points to it, but there are two or three problems that I have with the proposal.

First, it includes a comprehensive withdrawal at the end of 2007. While I agree that we need to have a viable exit strategy, setting a date is no bueno. It would be a dangerous sign of weakness for an already emboldened Iran, and it would give our enemies plenty of time to strategize for post-coalition Iraq.

Second, the nation is, for the most part, divdided along sectarian lines already. One of the reasons that there is so much violence in Baghdad is because it is the melting pot of the country. It would still be the capital for the national government, so it would still have large communities of at least Sunni and Shiite Muslims. Since we could not give the city to one province and force all others out, the situation would remain the same. The plan offers no solution for developing and maintaining any kind of peace in the city. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the violence would subside.

Finally, the Sunni region could become a terrorist haven. I am not certain that they will accept a deal that keeps them from possessing their Saddam-era power over the country. They can be blamed for much of the violence in the country for that exact reason. They have been the big losers since Saddam got the boot, so they have the most to gain and least to lose by continuing a campaign of carnage.

This proposal is a building block at best. But, hey, at least someone calling for withdrawals actually has a plan (I mean other than holding up signs, saying dumb things, and smelling bad).

-The International Astronomical Union voted yesterday to reclassify Pluto as a dwarf planet, cutting the number of planets in our solar system to eight. A science museum curator who decided to do the same in his institution six years ago received multiple death threats from the move's publicity. If this is any indicator, look for riots on North Avenue in Atlanta. There could be a lot of angry Tech nerds out there. (In case you're wondering, Pluto was not named after Mickey Mouse's dog. It was named as a tribute to the man who funded its discovery, Percival Lowell. They took his initials, PL, and used that as the base for what would be the new planet's name.)

Gay Marriage and the Myth of "Rights"

As the son of a Purple Heart paratrooper and a member in a long line of U.S. Army veterans, I have been taught to appreciate our rights and freedoms more than most. I understand the cost of these benefits, and have the utmost level of respect for those who sacrifice to give them to the world.

Three things agitate me: 1. those unwilling to do what is necessary to secure the blessings of liberty; 2. those who disrespect both our soldiers and our democratic processes; and 3. those who invent rights to advance their political agenda.

No single group of people is guilty of violating #3 more often than the political left of this country. Just yesterday, I heard a gay marriage advocate say that he "just wants the rights guaranteed to everyone else."

Well, guess what? I have some great news. You have the same rights as anyone else in this country. You see, marriage is not a right, it is a privilege. I do not recall seeing a fundamental right to marriage in the Bill of Rights. If it were somewhere in that wonderful text, then the government would have to provide losers like myself with a bride. Instead, you have to go through a process, and if you qualify (and only then) you are granted a marriage license.

Government is not in the business of love. It does not grant benefits to married couples because it is just so happy that Ross and Rachael finally got together. That is the role of religion, the source of marriage in the first place. Instead, the government encourages marriage for a few different reasons. I will briefly discuss the two most important:

1. To encourage population growth. The government has a compelling interest in ensuring that it will have soldiers and scientists to keep it competitive on the global scene. This seems overly simplistic, but consider the panic in Europe in regards to rapidly shrinking populations. If you don't buy the soldiers/scientists theory, then you will agree that more babies = more tax payers, and more tax payers = funded entitlement programs (social security, medicare, etc.), many of which are unfunded now.(Here is a great article from The Economist - in case you don't believe me. http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=1923383)

2. To combat crime and poverty rates and ensure the well-being of the newest generation. Several major studies have shown that children with married parents do better in every measure of well-being than their counterparts with different living situation. Therefore, the government once again has a compelling interest in encouraging marriage. (http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/marriage/facts/a0028317.cfm)

Uncle Sam views marriage as a mutually beneficial business deal. It has nothing to do with love or fuzzy warm feelings, and it is certainly not a guaranteed right. There are tangible benefits to promoting matrimony, and unfortunately homosexuals can not reciprocate government benefits.

I have heard the argument that if we do not allow gays to marry because of these factors, then old or sterile couples should not be given the privilege of marriage benefits. We call this, "grasping at straws." The fact of the matter is that these couples can still form the unit that serves as the base of our society. Additionally, they are just as able to adopt children as any other couple is to conceive themselves. The bottom line is that they meet the requirements of our democratic society to receive the benefits of the privilege of marriage. In a democracy, the people have the right to direct their own society. That said, overwhelming majorities have voted down gay marriage in various statewide referendums.

This is not a matter of discrimination. It is an issue of simply not always allowing people to do whatever they want to do just because they think it is their right.

Gay "rights" advocates have chosen the low road in debating this issue. For my views on the matter, I will undoubtedly be labeled a facist, racist, relgious fundamentalist, and all kinds of other great names. Why? Because those who invent their own rights hardly ever respect the guaranteed rights of others. My opinion is not based on religion, hate, or prejudice. It is based on political fact. And it's my right.

Why I Was Wrong

When I am wrong, I would rather admit it than go on looking like a fool.
A few posts ago, I argued that it was dangerous that Arabs view the recent conflict in the Middle East as a victory for Hezbollah. It is, and I made some good points, but I now see that Israel really did lose.
At the outset of the battle, each side had strategic objectives. Israel wanted to have its two kidnapped soldiers returned and Hezbollah disarmed. Neither happened. Hezbollah wanted to surivive. That did happen.

Israel still has the buffer, and at the time of my last post I thought that the U.N. peacekeeping force could be trusted to disarm the terrorist organization. I usually have no faith in the U.N., but for some reason I did in this case. I was wrong. After begging for a cessation of violence on the condition that peace keepers maintain a buffer zone and disarm Hezbollah, no nations have stepped up to the plate by volunteering troops.

I will no longer put any faith in the U.N. to handle difficult situations. If you do, then you are an ignorant sucker, plain and simple.

sensational!

What a tumultuous week in global affairs.

In the past few days, we have seen:
-A spoiled terrorist attack that would have been deadlier than 9/11 and directly affected two Western Democracies;
-A harsh armed conflict in the middle east that pitted the region's only Democracy against an Iranian/Syrian funded terrorist organization;
-The intense diplomatic negotiations to bring a cessation of violence in the middle east;
-The ousting of a respected three term Senate incumbent in a primary;
-The activist judicial ruling against the domestic surveillance program;
-AND-
-The outrageously anti-Semitic behavior of soon-to-be-former congressthing Cynthia McKinney.

We now face:
-A long, heated campaign season that will ultimately decide the fate of American invovlement in the middle east;
-A controversial national debate on the limits of the government in prosecuting the War on Terror;
-An extremely volatile situation in southern Lebanon spurred by delays and unwillingness to deploy a U.N. peace-keeping force - which could lead to more hostility in the very near future;
-AND-
-A tough diplomatic battle in regards to dealing with Iran and Syria's support and funding of Hezbollah, Russia's $1 billion weapon sale to Iran, and the UN resolution to scold the Iranians in regards to the upcoming nuclear crisis. In more general terms, the mad dictator, Ahmadinejad, who is convinced that the end of the world is at hand and that he is the one who is to bring it about in the next week.

BUT

All that I have seen on the news for the past day and a half is a 5 year old girl who was killed ten years ago and the pathological pedophile who claims to be responsible.

This is an awful situation for the family, but the media has nothing on which to base its reports and this is very, very old news with a very, very limited scope. Over 2,000 children were killed in 1996 when this case originally came to the public's attention. This one just happened to be the most photogenic.

The real death that should be a top story is that of quality journalism - which unfortunately died out some time in the mid '90s as a result of the growth of the 24 hour news market and America's relentless craze for sensationalism.

Cable news should be called "cable speculation". They report what they hear and deal with the consequences later. Consider the Sago mining tragedy. The media reported that all but one of the miners were alive and the families were overcome with joy. They showed footage of them hugging, crying tears of joy and singing. An hour later, the talking heads confessed that they had gotten the story wrong. All but one of the miners was killed.

Just yesterday, a 60 year old woman had a claustrophobic fit on an airplane and the captain decided to ground the flight to take care of the situation. Two major networks reported that a woman with a screwdriver, vaseline, matches (all of which are banned on commercial flights), and a note with a reference to al-Qaeda was raising hell. When the truth was revealed, their defense was, "well that's what we heard!" It has since been reported that she might have had two of the items with her on the plane, but this still represents shaky journalism.

The blame cannot be placed squarely on the shoulders of the anchors, producers, and network executives. It should be placed on the American public. After all, the networks are just runnning what the market demands.

Start demanding quality - at least in the area of news.