Right News and Views

Rep. Charles Rangel, sadly now chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, wants to screw even more Americans to the wall and thieve even more from their paychecks. Not only will his vast redistribution scheme slow the economy but it would be just plain wrong.

But that’s what you can expect from liberals who view your money as theirs to redistribute. I hope, somehow, that this blows up in Rangel’s face and costs him not only the chairmanship but his very seat in Congress. We need leaders, not redistributors. But there are too many clueless voters to expect that.

So understand the next time you go and vote that casting your ballot for a Democrat is the same thing as opening up your wallet to a kleptomaniac (someone who has an inability or great difficulty in resisting impulses to steal). And it’s still theft, even if they do it for what they mistakenly think is the “greater good.”

A new book by Alan Greenspan (formerly the Chairman of the Federal Reserve) reportedly criticizes President Bush for out of control spending and budget deficits.

“My biggest frustration remained the president’s unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending,” Greenspan wrote in “The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World.”

Bush should be criticized for this; it is the greatest mistake of his presidency (contrary to the mistaken beliefs of those who think we should have left the monster Saddam in power).

Rather than using his considerable political sway and former majority control of both the House and Senate, Bush failed to wipe out massive Federal spending programs like Welfare and Social Security. And, though Congress should keep its own house in order, he failed to do anything about the massive and horribly wasteful pork spending by guilty members of both parties.

It is hard to imagine a conservative president with so little discipline where keeping that bloated terror on the Potomac under control is concerned. But Bush failed to shrink government. The long lens of history will show that he was right on Iraq, wiretapping, etc. But it will also show he failed utterly in beating back the threat of monster government.

You’ve got to love Ann Coulter. Her latest column again cuts the Left to ribbons.

When I first read the title to Gerard Baker’s “A quick history lesson: America is no Rome,” I harrumphed, thinking that America most certainly is like Rome. “Bread and circuses equates to Welfare/Social Security and CSPAN,” I immediately thought. But Baker was driving at a different angle.

The best passage in the entire text, concerning American forces fighting in Iraq, follows:

“Because in the end what they are doing is deeply honourable – fighting to destroy an enemy that delights in killing women and children; rebuilding a nation ruined by rapine and savagery; trying to bridge sectarian divides that have caused more misery in the world than the US could manage if it lasted a thousand years.”

And he concludes that the only workable analogy between the US and Rome is that, when “Rome fell, the world went dark for the best part of a millennium. America may not be an empire. But whatever it is, for the sake of humanity, pray it lasts at least as long as Rome.”

And that is true. America does more good in the world than probably any single person could ever realize. So I pray America lasts longer than Rome did.

But as Lincoln once noted, “if destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author.” If we do fall, our destruction will come from within; from the liberal agenda to destroy our moral center and to obtain “peace at any price.”

The must read of the day is Our New National Divide by Owen West.

The only thing West leaves out is that conservatives feel increasingly pressured to use any means necessary to combat the dangerous and degraded liberal agenda of defeat at any price.

But conservatives must remain on the straight and narrow path and not stoop to defrauding the American public to obtain their goals. They must remain truthful about the consequences of failure in Iraq, they must remain vigilant to the threat terror still poses to our nation, they must remain strong in their resolve to see our enemy defeated, and they must be honorable in all else they do and say.

If they don’t then they would be liberals and not conservatives- and we all know there are too many liberals as it is.

Harry Reid is a real piece of work. In rejecting General David Petraeus plan (someone with actual, military experience unlike the Senate Majority “Leader”) he’s fuming again in another childlike huff. If he can’t force genocide to happen quickly enough in Iraq he’ll just make a spectacle of himself before the American people. And speaking of the American people, Reid says Petraeus’ plan is “unacceptable to” them, too.

But Reid does not speak for me. He does not represent my values or my beliefs. It’s sad that there are actually others out there who think as he does and lack basic reasoning skills- but I’m certainly not one of them. And there are a lot more like me who actually do grasp the seriousness of the situation. So, what’s really unacceptable is defeat.

Too bad Reid fails to grasp so simply, so basic, so obvious a concept.

Burt Prelutsky gets it right- and could even go farther than he does in describing the “give me” attitude of not only illegals but of many Americans as well. Our whole government is becoming one large wish-fulfillment center for a great number of Americans. Social Security, free health care, free this, free that. Problem is, nothing is free. We blow billions of dollars a year as group A tries to force group B to take action because of group A’s compassion. If group A is so compassionant, let them do it and not force others to do the same.

Prelutsky sums it up nicely:

“In the past, compassion was extended to the elderly, the abused, the innocent and the infirm. But during the last few decades, it has become an entitlement demanded by members of various voting blocs. In short order, it has been transformed into political currency doled out by political hacks trolling for votes.”

That’s why I hate Welfare, that’s why I hate Social Security, that’s why I pretty much hate our entire government. So even if you don’t mind being used by others, at least don’t force the rest of us to be used along with you.

“Failure is not an option,” said Gene Kranz, lead flight director for Mission Control during the harrowing return of Apollo 13 back to the safety of earth. Harry Reid, had he not already dropped out of the School of Guts and Determination where Iraq is concerned, could take a few lessons from Kranz.

But as this Observer piece points out, Reid may be forced to deal with the determination and courage of others whether he wants to or not.

Is victory attainable in Iraq? With Reid humbled (after his humiliating defeat at the hands of Joe Lieberman and most Republicans who blocked a vote on withdrawal), yes it is.

It always has been, of course. The only difficulty has been in getting people like Reid - who cave in to despair and work for an American defeat (intentionally or not) - out of the way.

And there are at last hopeful signs that Iraq won’t be allowed to descend into genocide.

This column discusses the unnatural fear some in our society exhibit towards Christians and Christianity in general.

You’ve seen all the popular books labeled this or that “for Dummies.” Well, that’s what Social Security is: “Retirement for Dummies.” Here is the introduction to the book I ought to write:

Retirement for Dummies: Social Security

Thinking about retirement? Why? Allowing government to take care of you through Social Security is so easy you literally don’t even have to think about it at all! Just give up your right to think for yourself and let government do the planning for you.

The Benefits

By allowing Social Security to provide for you you’ll be able to enjoy all these benefits:

~ The weight of the responsibility to be accountable and to take care of your family is given to people in Washington, DC to worry about! And we all know we can trust them!

~ The carefree, activity free, enjoyment free life of sustenance living on your small Social Security check.

~ Enjoying leisurely hours at home (because you certainly won’t have enough money travel anywhere on your Social Security check).

~ The security of being debt free (because if you’re not debt free when you retire and all you have is Social Security then you’re in big trouble).

~ Not having to worry about helping your pesky grandchildren with college or even buying them birthday or Christmas gifts (because your Social Security check barely covers the basics for your existence).

Sarcasm aside, Social Security is a fools hope- unless, of course, you want just a very, very basic existence paid for off the labor of others younger than you who are trying to provide for their own families. It may have had its place in its day, but its day is past and gone forever.

For women, I would suggest checking out this piece from womenspersonalfinance.net. Though it doesn’t attack the real problem of Social Securities existence, it at least explains that you can’t depend on it.

I also recommend reading this and this if you still labor under the false impression that Social Security is best for you.

It is a shame that the consequences to Iraq and the world if we abandon the war are not evident to all but it is nevertheless true. As Bush correctly points out, a nuclear powered Iran could, and very likely would, lead to a holocaust.

Granted, you can ignore I’mademonjihad (Ahmadinejad) and his threats. You can ignore his statements that he wants to see Israel wiped from the face of the earth. You can stick your head in the sand and passively allow the slaughter of untold millions. Or, you can stand firm with President Bush- not a perfect man, by any means – but a man who is right on this point- that terrorism and radical Islam must be destroyed.

Republican Sen. Larry Craig, if guilty of the charges, must be removed from office. There is no room for perverts in Congress. Period.

As good an explanation as any as to why Democrats keep getting elected…

They don’t come much wiser than Thomas Sowell. I’ve followed his column for years and am never disappointed in his insight and his clear and simple way of explaining whatever topic he is discussing. In his latest column, An Investment in Failure, Thomas lays out the problem that infects the very heart of so-called progressives: their desire to attack rather than to seek actual, sustainable success for those they claim to care about.

If the poor escape poverty, Thomas contends, they become “nothing” to the Left. Put simply, the Left’s success depends on the failures of others.

Failure, of course, is part of the human condition. We all experience it at times. Where the Left errs is in its attempt to remove the consequences of failure. Most people will feel sympathy for someone who has made a mistake and will hope they can somehow not have to suffer for it. The shoe, after all, could one day be on their foot.

But the Left takes this to the extreme. Failure on one person’s part, they believe, grants them the right to reach into someone else’s wallet to pay for the mistake. No learning occurs in such an environment – as adults are not so far removed from children as we would like to suppose.

Without consequences for failure there is no incentive for improvement. Yet a guilt-free, accountability-less society is the dream of the Left- a dream that will end in misery and ruin for untold numbers of people.

Kenneth T. Walsh’s The Dems’ Security Insecurity: New efforts to counter the GOP lead on national defense discusses the challenges that face Democrats in their efforts to fool Americans into believing they understand the threat of terrorism and are willing to act on that understanding.

The piece quoted Karl Rove: “Perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war. Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.”

Well said, but President Bush put it best when he noted that “The stakes in this war are high, and so are the stakes this November. Americans face the choice between two parties with two different attitudes on this war on terror. Five years after 9/11, the worst attack on American homeland in our history, the Democrats offer nothing but criticism and obstruction, and endless second-guessing. The party of FDR and the party of Harry Truman has become the party of cut and run.”

And, if they did not immediately grasp the seriousness of the situation after 9/11 then there is no doubt they still do not grasp it.

The terrorists are not stupid- just insane. It does not stretch credible reasoning to suppose they are even now plotting to attack us as much as possible after the upcoming election in anticipation of a Democratic victory. They know there will be less resistance to their onslaught if the “party of cut and run” is in power. How could they not grasp this, considering that the man so determined to fight and destroy them has been challenged so often, so loudly, and so vehemently by Democrats?

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Put simply, the enemies of President Bush are unwittingly (at least I hope it is unwittingly) helping terrorists