Right News and Views

In this weeks column I discuss the benefits of shutting down public schools in favor allowing the private sector do what it does so much better than government. I also discuss the major obstacle to this better method of education for our children; liberals.

A “supposedly liberal-leaning jurist” who understands?!?!?! I didn’t think it was possible, but Judge Richard Posner may prove me wrong with his support of secret trials for terrorists and tougher (i.e. less gutlessley liberal) methods of survalance.

“We should think of surveillance as preventative, not punitive,” Posner said. And he’s right. If you’re doing nothing wrong then you’ve got nothing to fear- except, of course, what the terrorits are doing in your city.

Grasping the situation in a way few others do, Posner points out that the US is “a law-saturated society where even non-lawyers tend to think of problems in terms of legal categories.”

“Criminal justice and war,” he contends, “are the two responses we have to terrorism. Each comes with its own legal institutions and doctrines and regimes but the struggle against international terrorism doesn’t fit either very well.”

So we have to think outside the legal box on the criminal justice side and be prepared for a long, hard sturggle on the war side. I’m glad someone “supposedly” on the left has the brains to see it and the guts to say it.

National Review reveals more liberal lunacy from our tragically left-leaning courts. Constitutional rights for enemy combatants could be described in numerous ways: foolish, silly, inane, and of course liberal but most of all dangerous.

But to liberals that is what our laws are for- to insure innocent people are easier targets for the monsters that roam among us.

I’ve always wondered how African American pastors can welcome Democrats into their churches to speak to their congregations. The Democratic Party works- in so many ways - contrary to the scriptures read from those same pulpits that it just doesn’t make sense to me. Thou shalt not kill is incompatible with abortion, for example. But after reading this interview with Angela McGlowan I think I understand. And I am eager to read her book.

Very funny, sadly true.

President Bush received a warm welcome from Albanians near the end of his eight day trip abroad. Formerly a communist country, Albania suffered under the four-decade tyrannical rule of Enver Hoxha. So its people, unlike the liberals in our own country, know that defending democracy and freedom are worth any price. Why? Because the cost of the alternative to freedom and liberty is always higher and more terrible.

An extremely poor country, Albania nevertheless has 140 troops in Afghanistan and about 120 in Iraq. President Alfred Moisiu said that as long as the United States remains, so will Albanian troops.

“Albanians know the horror of tyranny,” Bush said. “And so they’re working to bring the hope of freedom to people who haven’t known it. And that’s a noble effort and a sacrifice.”

Indeed it is. And it ought to tell us something when a mostly Muslim country enthusiastically greets our president but so many hate him at home.

As the article notes:

“Throngs of people grasped Bush’s hands, arms and fingers on the streets of Fushe Kruje, a small town near the airport where he stopped to chat in a cafe with business owners. Unused to such adoring crowds in America, Bush reveled in the attention. He kissed women on the cheek, posed for pictures and signed autographs. Someone reached out and rubbed his gray hair.”

And what does it tell us when people who were truly oppressed appreciate Bush and many Americans do not? That we take for granted our freedoms and are too decadent, lazy, and self-satisfied to lift a finger to help others obtain the same blessings we enjoy.

God bless Albania and God help America.

According to the Washington Times, Senator Joe Lieberman says that the US should be prepared to take “aggressive military action” against Iran in response to its purported killings of U.S. troops inside Iraq.

Iran is training men to come into Iraq and kill American soldiers. They are also holding Iranian-Americas for what they claim is spying.

The Senator supports air strikes. But New Mexico Gov. and Democratic presidential nominee hopeful Bill Richardson, thinks sanctions should be used.

“I would talk to them, but I would build an international coalition that would promote and push economic sanctions on them,” he said. “Sanctions would work on Iran. They are susceptible to disinvestment policy. They are susceptible to cuts, economic sanctions in commodities.”

Sure they are- now if we can get the rest of the UN to go along with us that plan might have some effect. We know how effective they were against Saddam, after all.

But I’ll stick with Lieberman’s idea so long as the UN remains an anti-American bastion of corruption and ineffectiveness.

As Lieberman correctly points out, “we cannot let them get away with it.” “If we do, they’ll take that as a sign of weakness on our part, and we will pay for it in Iraq and throughout the region and ultimately right here at home.”

I rarely take joy in the suffering of others. But I am elated that the irrelevant Paris Hilton had reality rammed down her throat today.

Ordered back to jail, Hilton sobbed openly, cried out to her mother seated in the audience, and displayed to the world how pathetic she really is. I only hope other judges will take note and begin demanding that all criminals suffer their full punishment. This is, indeed, the kind of society we need- one that demands accountability for ones actions.

Though surely lost to her “fans,” Hilton’s pitiful tirade is the action of a child which, in truth, she remains. I think of the stark contrast between her and Nathan Hale who, when captured by British troops during the Revolution while on an intelligence gathering mission, purportedly said before he was to be hanged “I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.” Whether he actually uttered these specific words or not, his captors nevertheless noted his dignity, composure, and courage.

As Paris proves, money clearly cannot buy such qualities.

I’ve always believed Walter Williams to be brilliant and his latest column, Compassion vs. Reality reinforces that impression. Explaining in his clear, concise style with irrefutable logic he exposes the truth of government enforced redistribution of wealth. He says:

“The government can say, “Williams, you don’t have to serve your fellow man; through our tax code, we’ll take what he produces and give it to you.” Of course, if I were to privately take what my fellow man produced, we’d call it theft. The only difference is when the government does it, that theft is legal but nonetheless theft — the taking of one person’s rightful property to give to another.”

How true. He continues by noting that “liberals often denounce free markets as immoral. The reality is exactly the opposite. Free markets, characterized by peaceable, voluntary exchange, with respect for property rights and the rule of law, are more moral than any other system of resource allocation.”

Sadly, liberals have no respect for the voluntary exchange of resources, property rights, or the capitalistic system itself which has lifted millions of people out of poverty. Essentially, they are thieves willing to steal to gratify their immediate need of self-congratulation or to indulge their need to feel guilt for something. These needs are met by spending other people’s money to help those who have not worked to rightfully obtain goods and services on their own.

Liberals are, therefore, essentially thieves. Oh, they mean well but theft by any other name is still theft.

I’ve personally always felt that Moore was just your typical delusional liberal, albeit a bit more radical and more dangerous than the garden variety type. But perhaps he’s actually a sociopath. This piece in the Canada Free Press is a powerful denunciation of Moore and his so-called “documentaries.”

My latest column focuses of the dangerous ideas of Bill Clinton’s wife. The truly frightening thing is I’m not sure she is the worst choice the Democrats are offering for consideration in the upcoming presidential election. If any of them win, and if the liberals keep control of Congress, a new dark age of ever expanding government and shrinking liberties could ensue.

When I reflect upon the victory in 2004 I truly believed America had turned a corner and that liberalism was slowly beginning its death throws. I thought their remaining activity was merely like a snake that writhes after its head has been chopped off. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party is alive and strong (alive and well cannot be claimed because the word “well” suggests “good”). And that is something that cannot be said about the majority of Democrats.

Carefully consider what Clinton is truly proposing. Do you want to live in a communist country? If so, Hillary is your woman.

Ralph Alter explains in Idiot Compassion how liberals confuse the real thing with what Ken Wilber refers to as “idiot compassion.”

I particularly enjoyed the example he included from one of the legends surrounding Buddha. In one of his early incarnations, the Buddha supposedly met a mass-murderer who had killed thousands of men. “Acting correctly and with compassion for all sentient beings, the Buddha’s incarnation killed the murderer to prevent additional suffering.” As Alter explains, “That is true compassion!”

A real must read…

This is the third in a series of posts in cooperation with fellow blogger politicalfrenzy.com that examines the candidates seeking their party’s nomination for president. Rightnewsandviews.com will cover the Republicans and politicalfrenzy.com will cover the Democrats. Our third profile features Representative Ron Paul. And be sure to check out Joe Biden over at politicalfrenzy.com!

Name: Ronald Ernest Paul

Age: 71 (born August 20, 1935)

Home Town: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Political Positions Held: 10th Term US Representative

Military History: Paul interrupted his medical training to serve as a flight surgeon in the Air Force from 1963 to 1965. He served in the Air National Guard from 1965 to 1968 while completing his medical residency.

Accomplishments: In an effort to block the possibility of a U.N. tax, Paul successfully added an amendment to an appropriation bill that prohibited any appropriation from being used to impose any UN tax or fee on Americans.

Controversies: Alleged racial remarks made in Paul’s newsletter. Paul claimed the words were not his own nor did they represent his point of view (they were written, he alleged, by a ghost writer).

Fundamental Platform (culled from On The Issues):

On Abortion: Voted yes on banning partial-birth abortion but voted no on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record.

On Stem cell research: Opposed

On the economy: Supports a balanced budget

On gay marriage: Voted no on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage but yes on banning gay adoptions in DC.

On Education: Voted no on- $84 million grants for black and Hispanic colleges, allowing school prayer during the War on Terror, requiring states to test students. Voted yes on vouchers for private and parochial schools.

On Energy & Oil: Voted yes for permitting new oil refineries and voted no on both prohibiting oil drilling in ANWR and on the Kyoto Protocol. Voted to repeal the gas tax.

On Free Trade: Voted no on CAFTA, Free Trade Agreements with Australia, Singapore, and Chile. Voted yes on withdrawing from the WTO and to end economic protectionism.

On Government Reform: Voted no on campaign finance reform, restricting independent grassroots political committees, and prohibiting lawsuits about obesity against food providers. Voted yes to limiting attorney fees in class action lawsuits and on restricting frivolous lawsuits.

On Gun Control: Pro-gun rights

On Health Care: Supports abolishing the federal Medicare entitlement in favor of leaving it to the states.

On Terrorism: Voted against the Patriot Act and the Iraq war but voted yes to continue intelligence gathering without civil oversight. Voted yes to continue military recruitment on college campuses. Voted yes on SDI.

On Immigration: Rated 100% by FAIR, a voting record strongly in favor of restricting immigration.

On Tax Reform: Rated 89% by NTU, indicating a “Taxpayer’s Friend” on tax votes.

On Social Security: Rated 30% by the ARA, indicating what they term an “anti-senior voting record.” It is really a 70% pro-individual responsibility voting record.

On Welfare: Abolish federal welfare; leave it all to states.

For more info, visit Paul’s website or visit On The Issues.

Nomination Pros: There is a lot good to say about Paul and his principles. He refuses to sign up for his Congressional pension, did not allow his children to accept subsidized student loans for college, and has never voted to raise taxes or congressional pay. He has earned the nickname of “Dr. No” in that he has proven uncooperative to colleagues because he will not vote for bills that he views as spending taxpayers’ money in a wasteful manner or for bills that he feels violate the Constitution.

Nomination Cons: Though this may prove an actual pro for the upcoming election, Paul has consistently voted against the PATRIOT Act and the Iraq War.

Head to head with:
Vs. Clinton- Unknown- Paul (reasonable, unobtrusive government) is so radically opposite Clinton (gigantic, nanny government) it would prove an interesting race.
Vs. Edwards – Clobbers Edwards.
Vs. Obama – Close, but Paul wins.

Major Gerd Schroeder, United States Army, explains in this American Thinker piece why the surge is showing success and why US casualties are increasing.

He notes “it is incumbent on us as Americans to understand, as much as possible, the determinant of successes and failures that come with the war we are fighting. The raw data of news reports and heart-rending images minus the necessary analysis to place things into perspective cause many to lose heart. But true impact of what is happening in this war is positive, despite what most media report and what most people seem to believe.”

He further points out that it is a mistake to solely focus on the numbers of deaths, tragic though they may be, without consideration of the other relevant factors. “If one focuses only on the numbers,” he says, “it will invariably lead to an emotional response and so to an irrational response.”

And in war, irrational responses can lead to the disaster of genocide such as our abandonment of Vietnam led to. Those who in their time unwittingly led us down that path bear a significant burden of guilt for their lack of foresight. We cannot allow the equally naïve in our time to preside over yet another genocide.

Support the troops, support their mission. And, as Schroeder concludes, “we will win this war.”

In James Lewis’ “Su Casa es Mi Casa,” Lewis outlines the threat immigration poses to keeping the US from plunging over the edge into a liberal nightmare. “A few percentage points shift in the voting population toward the Left and it becomes increasingly impossible to change the trend,” Lewis said, referring to the impact immigration will have on elections and for liberal politicians who promise goodies bought with other people’s money. “You just sink in deeper and deeper.”

As Lewis concludes, “there’s a lot at stake.” Indeed.