Right News and Views

This YouTube video pretty much says it all. You can’t trust Democrats- period.

The Rocky Mountain News reports that the Democratic presidential hopefuls are unable to realize whom the real enemy is and have instead decided to slam Bush in malicious smear attacks. Obama said, “the president may occupy the White House, but for the last six years the position of leader of the free world has remained open.” No, Bush had lead- the gutlessness of the Democrats prevents Obama from realizing it is leadership. Since it’s not waving a white flag, he’s unable to recognize it as leadership.

And Hillary Clinton said that “somebody said to me that he wished we could just rewind the 21st century and just eliminate the Bush-Cheney administration, with all their mistakes and misjudgments.” Believe me, conservatives wish we could eliminate the results of every election that put any liberals in office, too. Ah, what a better world that would be. Social Security would be privatized (if not completely wiped from the face of the earth), taxes would be cut back even further, and (if we could get rid of some of those idiot big spending Republicans, too) big government spending and waste could be a thing of the past.

The article goes on to reveal how Democrats think they need to restore America’s place in the world and how they are the best hope for the nation. Increasingly, however, I see the forces of liberalism as the true threat to our nation. They never talk of how they will win the war on Terror. Rather, they honestly view Bush as the enemy. But they are the real enemy of America. Terrorist can knock down buildings and kill people but liberals make the national fabric weak, the people soft, and our moral fiber decay. They want to insist on defeat in Iraq- and when political leaders tell people things then most, like the blind sheep they are, will believe them. Eliminate the liberals and fighting off the terrorists becomes that much easier. But that’s not going to happen until people wisely exercise their right to vote.

According to this AP report, plans for a missile defense system developed by the US and laid out in Europe to defend US and allied forces against rogue states (such as Iran and North Korea) have caused a bit of an uproar in Russia. Their top politicians claim the U.S. plan may disrupt regional stability and launch a new Cold War-style arms race.

While this would be regrettable Russia needs to adjust to the new reality. It is no longer a great power and surely ought to realize by now the US is not going to attack. However, if another cold war is what they want, then by all means let them try. We’ve beaten them once and we can do it again. What a sad waste of their time and energy, though, when both could be better used to develop much-needed infrastructure.

My only real question is why doesn’t Washington keep its missile shield plans secret? Just deploy it without announcing it to the whole world.

Somewhere in the world there are elated terrorists reveling in the fact that Americans are stupid. We are like a mighty giant- strong of limb and tough of hide; but too dumb to direct our strength in any way but farce. Or maybe we’re not so much stupid, really, as we are divided. It’s as if one half of the American body invites the serpent to strike as the other half desperately attempts to either destroy the snake or drive it off.

And there really is no need to guess who is inviting the serpent in, is there? The Democratic Party has, if not having outright sided with the terrorists, at least handed them on a silver platter what even the militarily ignorant have understood throughout history; you don’t announce to your enemy when you’re ready to give up.

One simply cannot imagine Churchill telephoning Hitler in 1944 to advise that, after the dawn of the New Year, the British people will have simply given too much and will quit. Or Lincoln telegraphing Grant mere days before Appomattox to advise the general to surrender because too many troops are dying.

The Democrats are traitors to their country, traitors against our military, traitors towards the Iraqis depending on us, and traitors to peace itself- for there is no peace in surrender to the forces of militant Islam. There will be genocide in Iraq if the Democrats have their way- and eternal shame on our generation for allowing it to happen.

Read the whole, shameful act of blind idiocy in this AP story.

The AP reports that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has signaled her unwillingness to appear, yet again, before a congressional committee to respond to questions she has already answered.

The Secretary of State did agree, however, to respond by mail to questions concerning the Bush administration’s prewar claims about Saddam Hussein seeking weapons of mass destruction from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

I’ve got tons of questions but I’ll ask just one. Why have they not called Nancy Pelosi to task and harassed her over this? In 1998 (while Bill Clinton was President) Nancy Pelosi said that “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”

Clinton was president so she can’t blame Bush for “misleading” her in this instance. But she’s not even bothering to stick by her comments. Now Pelosi says “the president led us into the Iraq war on the basis of unproven assertions without evidence.” Gee, do you think Bush heard what the current speaker of the house said about Saddam back in 1998? Maybe that’s where Bush got the idea Saddam had WMD’s.

Jed Babbin on humanevents.com notes, “The Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, believes the war in Iraq is lost. There is nothing about that conclusion that bothers Reid: He is as blasé as he is certain, as resolute in pursuit of defeat as Churchill was in pursuit of victory.” Well said.

Commenting last Thursday, Reid said: “I believe … that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week.”

Consider that not even all the troops that make up the surge have arrived yet and we are still receiving credible reports that it is indeed accomplishing its initial goals. My question is how dare Reid make so blatant a politically motivated statement when our soldiers lay recovering in hospitals, families and friends who have lost loved ones in the war struggle with their grief, and, above all, our soldiers are still risking their lives. But for what? A war that a former attorney with no military service to his country says is lost? It is a slap in the face to our military and their families to basically claim that the over 3,000 who have already died in Iraq died for nothing.

No comments on how to win – since he thinks the surge is a failure – were forthcoming from the Senator.

As if taxes weren’t high enough (I just sacrificed nearly all of my free time for the last three months working extra before April 17 hit) according to the New York Times Democrats want to raise them even more. Those Democrats vying for the presidential nomination say they “would raise a variety of taxes on affluent people but extend President Bush’s tax cuts for middle- and lower-income families.” Well, half of this statement is true.

It continues: “Americans know there is a difference between keeping taxes as low as possible on the middle class, and giving away the bank to the wealthiest Americans,” said Bill Burton, a spokesman for Senator Obama. Gee, I did not know giving away the bank entailed people keeping what they earned with their own labor.

And this always gets me- see if you pick up on it. “If President Bush’s tax cuts are extended, the wealthiest 1 percent will save more than the bottom 80 percent combined, at a cost of $1 trillion over 10 years.” A cost? A cost? It does not “cost” the government anything to leave peoples money where it belongs- in the people’s control.

The usually gutless Republicans are already indicating they will attack this plan, which they realize will be a “mammoth tax increase that would threaten the economy and fuel growth in government spending.” Democrats countered that their plan would bring more “fairness” to the tax system and help pay for “needed” expansions of social programs.

Here are some ideas for Congress: cut back on all the dead wood, forgo all the massive pork projects, trim the fat (or, better yet) do away with all the “social programs” all together.

Next year, I guess I better give up all my extra free time and work instead. That way, I can pay for all those people who won’t work. And Democrats say taxes aren’t fair right now- yeah, well, they got that right; just not the way they think. And their plan will only make it worse.

Hokie Spirit Memorial Fund

April 16, 2007, will be remembered as one of the darkest days in the history of the Virginia Tech community and the world beyond.

To remember and honor the victims of those tragic events, the university has established the Hokie Spirit Memorial Fund to aid in the healing process and generate financial support.

The fund will be used to cover expenses including but not limited to:

• Grief counseling
• Memorials
• Communication expenses
• Comfort expenses
• Incidental needs

If you plan to give, please click the link below:

I’m a big fan of Old Time Radio. As the “theater of the mind” it provides as good or better entertainment than what most media outlets churn out today. The Shadow, Jack Benny, X Minus One, The Six Shooter, The Adventures of Superman; any genera for any age found its way onto the airwaves from the 1930’s through the early years of the 1960’s. Television eventually ended radio’s role in providing such entertainment, relegating the medium mostly to music and news.

But I – and many others, too, nevertheless thrill to tales from radio’s golden age. One of my favorites is Gunsmoke and last night, while working at my desk, I listened to a few episodes. This series, known for its gritty realism, is widely regarded by OTR fans as one of the finest radio dramas of all time. As many people know it was a hugely popular television series (to date, the longest running series of all time). Well, the television series would never have existed without the popularity of the radio series.

I’m not a particular fan of Westerns myself but Gunsmoke always delivers the goods- solid story, solid acting, and the series almost always gave listeners thought-provoking entertainment. I had never listened to these particular episodes before and so was surprised to find one relevant to the events in Virginia. Entitled Reluctant Violence, the episode struck me as very timely in light of the shootings. Its about a man who wants the people of Dodge City to give up their guns.

If you’re familiar with the television show only then the radio drama will be somewhat familiar but decidedly different. Both are timeless classics; unfortunately, the issue of violence with guns is also timeless.

The two Americas of John Edwards by Jeff Dobbs is worth reading just because it is so funny. I personally have never liked Kerry’s former running mate- his attacks on Wal-Mart, his concern (which I believe is a sham) for the poor, and of course his “two Americas” garbage rubs me the wrong way.

He doesn’t like Wal-Mart because it is a private industry providing low prices; not government redistributing wealth.

If he really carried for the poor then he would give up most of his vast riches to charities and not attempt to take from the average taxpayer to fund his ideas. After all, he’s super rich. His record, as I understand it, is an award of $30 million dollars for a plaintiff and you know his services netted him a hefty portion of that amount. And that is just one case out of who knows how many?

Lastly, there are not two Americas; there are millions of Americas. Every individual lives in different circumstances in this country. You’ve got a lot of homeless, a lot of rich, and a whole lot in between. That’s life- and we don’t need a rich pretty boy telling us we should let government take care of everything.

Here is my latest column as it appears in the Catoosa County News. This week’s topic concerns abortion. It is a complete coincidence that it was published on the same day as the Supreme Court’s landmark decision to support the Partial Birth Abortion Ban bill.

As an opponent of abortion I’ve all too often condemned the practice in the harshest of terms without offering any alternative. Most pro-lifers do. And, to be sure, it is a practice that justly deserves condemnation. Increasingly, however, I see that our energy and resources should be spent in finding alternatives that work, that help women, rather than on the legality of the issue itself. Outlaw it and the number of abortions will drop drastically. But just outlawing it would do nothing to address many of the reasons women consider it in the first place.

Pro-lifers have attacked the problem from the wrong angle, in other words. Don’t get me wrong- legal abortion in the US – enshrined into our laws - is an abomination against not only God but against the very principles we claim we live by. But let us rather focus on saving the lives of the unborn than on the laws. I hope this column opens the door to dialogue that moves us all in that direction.

Today the Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on the partial-birth abortion. According to Mark Sherman of the Associated Press, it was a 5-4 ruling that the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman’s “constitutional right” to have an abortion.

Conservative bloggers have already gone wild in spreading the good news. Still, there is much work ahead in making all abortions a thing of the past- but this is an important, indeed a landmark, first step down the road leading back towards respecting the sanctity of life.

Bush’s two appointments did not disappoint as both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito were in the majority. The three other justices that supported the ruling were Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia.

Praise be to God for this answer to so many prayers.

This American Thinker piece by Rocco DiPippo (who has first-hand experience living in Iraq) is without question the finest expression of stating the case for staying the course in Iraq I’ve yet seen. But it’s the story the MSN does not want you to see. It is the story of hope in Iraq- how the surge is making progress and working. It is also a devastating condemnation of the left’s reasoning and actions concerning Iraq.

DiPippo pretty much says it all right here:

“It is indeed time for the Left to prove, through action, that it is truly concerned for the welfare of the oppressed. And there is no better way for it to accomplish that than by putting aside its vile hatred of the President, and supporting the soldiers and the policy makers who are trying to bring peace and stability to the Iraqi people, a people who for forty years, have truly been oppressed. The new Iraq security plan implemented by President Bush is helping end that oppression. And since the Left long ago anointed itself the champion of the oppressed, it makes sense for it support that plan, instead of trying to subvert it.”

An excellent question- one I’m sure the left has an answer for while it conveniently ignores the truth of DiPippo’s admonition.

Every man is entitled to his opinion but Michael Daly went over the top in this New York Daily News piece. Written within 24 hours of the shooting, while family and friends were living through the very first moments of shock, grief, and pain Daly proceeded to blame them for the deaths of the students. There is only one person to blame and that’s the student that pulled the trigger.

Guns don’t kill people- people kill people.

According to Robert Byrd and David Obey, Bush has only two choices- he can cave in and bring the troops home (what Byrd and Obey call “reaching across party lines to establish common ground on a strategy for ending US involvement in Iraq’s Civil War”) or he can continue on in the vein of Churchill, Roosevelt, Lincoln, and other great political leaders in the time of crisis and demand victory (what Byrd and Obey call “continue to divide the country by clinging to his failed policy.”) See how cleverly the avoide using the word victory? It’s not winning in Iraq to them, it’s “ending US involvement.”

Bush actually has a third choice- which is the one he’s pursuing. He’s ramming down the throats of defeatist Democrats the surge and there is not a thing they can do about it.

It is interesting that they twice mention “dividing the country.” The country is already divided- and it will stay divided. This will not change. Most conservatives do not want to be united with a group of people who start something and don’t finish it. Most conservatives do not want to be united with a group of people that stand for government at the expense of liberty. Most conservatives do not want to be united with a group of people that believe in any abortion, at any time, and for any reason. They want to defeat these kinds of people and remove them from power. Liberals feel the same way about conservatives.

“Unite the country” rather than divide it sure sounds nice- but that’s all it does is sound nice. It’s not possible. Bush was naïve for believing otherwise at the beginning of his first campaign and Byrd and Obey are now. But I think Bush has learned that you can’t reason with Democrats- you just have to ignore them when you can and fight them when you must.