Friday, September 30, 2005

'The Final Solution'

Bill Bennet has shown himself to be a racist. Several days ago former Education Secretary Bill Bennett expressed his attitude towards blacks in America. He claims that aborting black babies would decrease our nation's crime rate. I find these comments extremely offensive.

Now, I tend to give people the opportunity to clarify themselves whenever such idiotic statements are made. So I waited for what I expected to be an apology at least; yet, Bennet simply reiterated his claim with the following comment: "That [aborting black babies] would be an impossibly ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down."

Bennett recognizes that aborting black babies is "impossibly ridiculous and morally reprehensible," but he completes his statement claiming that the crime rate would go down. In the words of Rev. Al Sharpton, "so he [Bill Bennett] is saying that blacks and crime are synonomous." Apparently, that's exactly what he's saying.

Now in Bennett's defense he has done major things with the inner-city communities. In his own confession, he even lead the arrest of four major drug lords. However, Bennett assumes that his actions are proof of his attitude towards the black community. I disagree. In this case, Bennett's words are actually counter-productive to his actions. So, Mr. Bennett, I'm black. Should my mother have aborted me, too? I can only imagine what you'd say.

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

The Legacy of Unimaginable Trade-Offs

One major flaw of our current generation is that we have lost our understanding of legacy. History has reiterated time and again the importance of establing our 'mark' in society. That 'mark' is often insinuated through our children, through monuments, through policy changes, and through other means as well.

To lose sight of the future while forsaking the past creates a societal vacuum in the present. What I mean is that as our culture becomes increasingly nearsighted our individual and collective ambitions become more and more temporal. Our legacy becomes unimportant.

I say this in support of our nation's war efforts in Iraq. Perhaps to regain your attention after such a bold statement I should quote our nation's chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force Gen. Richard Meyers. General Meyers claims that "the outcome and consequences of defeat [in Iraq] are greater than World War II." Meyers goes on to say that "Iraq is now Al-Qaeda's center of gravity, and if terrorism wins in Iraq, the next 9/11 is right around the corner."

While I am not completely convinced that a loss in Iraq would be equivalent to a loss in WWII, I am convinced that we should analyze the ramifications of a premature military evacuation. Although much of the war details are either skewed or blurred by progandists, I implore that our nation think logically while considering the outcome of our obvious two options regarding Iraq. We could evacuate our troops, or we could remain in the nation while while continuing to train Iraqi soldiers until they were capable of fending for their own civil liberties.

General Meyers even says that we should not reallocate funds from Iraq to the relief of Katrina. Hesitantly, I say that I agree. Yet, my consent is completely dependent upon which of the two aforementioned options we as a nation choose. If we decide to continue our overseas support, then we should do so with no hesitation. And if we agree to evacuate Iraq, then it should be a complete evacuation. We should use the funds from the war, in this case, to support the relief effort of the Katrina survivors.

Regardless of the decision, the consequences are inevitable. I, personally, am thankful that I do not have to make this decision. All that I know is that whichever path we choose, we'll either have Americans who will never want to depend on our federal government again. Or we'll have a nation who remembers how we abandoned them in their moment of crisis. Which legacy would you choose...?

Saturday, September 24, 2005

Exhausted Heroes

I have noticed the insurgence of many Americans as we have committed what I consider to be high treason. Yet, I will say that such insurgence arises due to the incompetence of our federal government in foreign affairs over the last 50 years. Albeit, such incompetence should not warrant the anti-government subculture which has apparently emerged.

I can recall that about 225 years ago our pre-nation was united under the common vision of establishing our independence. This independence has been tested countless times throughout history with the war of 1812 and the ensuing Civil War five decades later. Our nation endured the Spanish American War of 1898, as well as The Great War almost a generation later.

We witnessed the rise and fall of three major fascist dictators, as well as the regime which those dictators represented. Yet, through it all the American soldier was always there. He was there battling for the ideals which he too believed. He left his home, his family, and his life in order to ensure that we might continue to salute our stars and stripes. From the surrender at Yorktown to the beaches of Normandy, our soldiers were there representing everything that gave us the right to say that we are Americans.

He fought for us at Antietam and Ghettysburg, while he cried for us on the Western Front. He even sailed to an unknown fate towards the island of Iwo Jima. He looked into the eyes of death and smiled...because he knew that American - his nation - would be proud of him.

And she was proud of him. But as it would prove, her pride became disgust. Her salutes became middle fingers. And her smiles of approval soon became suspicious expressions of doubt. No longer is the American soldier revered. No longer do people commit suicide because they are unable to go to war (happened in WWII and maybe some others). Instead, we feign sickness. We draft dodge, and we sneer at his role.

Leave it to people like Cindy Sheehan to resurrect the spirit of the post-Vietnam era. Leave it me, to crucify it once again.

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

Katrina the Racist written by Goat

Visit (hattip:Goat) The Barynard

This is a great piece by Heather MacDonald (hattip:Michelle Malkin) that further discusses previous arguments I have made on socialist welfare and the manmade destruction in New Orleans. Sometimes when you cry wolf to often as Jesse Jackson and his cadre of bigoted racists have done you become exposed for the charlatans you are. They and the rest of the political hacks on the left continue to moan and cry while millions of american citizens have motivated the most incredible outpouring of the true american spirit in our history. I know how decent americans respond to tragedy it has been written on the pages of our history as the selfless giving people in the world.

I am proud of my country, we can do better by moving beyond socialist big government and judicial dicdat to a truelly free america. Growing up in the deep south it was very apparent that the very people, black and white , that so hated the"system"(working for a living) rely on that same system for their very survival. Unwilling to get into the "system" of education ,family and self reliance they fall behind and blame the "system" for their increasing failures.

The cycle is easy to see from that point and as it has become worse over generations as a vicious degradation of morale and self worth sets in. For the amount of money we spend on socialist welfare programs we could buy them a house and a private education and cut them loose, forever. One simple move, turn all the gov't run projects into condos and the current residents become owners of their abode, ownership brings pride,and then cut them off from welfare, permanently.

I support school vouchers so kids can get out of squalid public schools. The unionization and politically correct feel goodism of our public school system has destroyed it and the anti-family socialists are paving the way.

Katrina showed the inadequacies of bigger government, do we really want more of it?Update: Carol LieBau has an interesting take on it .

Monday, September 19, 2005

Tropical Storm Clinton

"Mr. Clinton argued that lower-income Americans had done better under the economic policies of his [Bill Clinton's] administration than they are doing now, saying the storm highlighted class divisions in the country that often played out along racial lines." - Philip Shenan: The New York Times

Former President Bill Clinton made these allegations clearly regarding President Bush's response to the hurricane relief effort. Perhaps I would not be so stirred up by these comments had Bush not appointed Clinton to raise funds for the hurricane survivors. Making such statements represents Clinton's willingness to abandon his responsbility to America in order to highlight his political perspective. In doing so, Clinton expressed his politcal views while challenging the effectiveness of the current administration.

To me, it appears that Clinton is committing a great injustice to the survivors. Instead of performing his appointed duty, he has found it necessary to elevate himself to a place where he possibly could be thwarting the effectiveness of the releif effort. This reminds me of the all but subtle comments made by hip-hop artist Kanye West. West, too, turned his back on the aid of the hurricane victims by making accusations against the president based on his own ideas (and maybe the ideas of BET and MTV, but that would imply that he's incapable of thinking for himself in regards to political issues). My point is that Bill Clinton has stooped to the mudslinging level of Kanye West. Clinton has taken advantage of the survivors by using them as a platform expecting an American emotional response for the purpose of backing his own personal agenda.

In Clinton's case, what could his agenda really be? I mean, he is not able to run for the presidential position again. Perhaps he is trying to rebuild his reputation in which his own integrity destroyed. Perhaps he is attempting to ensure the election of a 2008 democratic president. Or maybe he simply wants to tear down what's left of the reputation of our existenting president not realizing the trade-off is the lives of the survivors. Hurricane Katrina was devasting while tropical storm Clinton promises to be equally as destructive.

Friday, September 16, 2005

In'Cindy'ary Sheehan

"If George Bush truly listened to God and read the words of the Christ, Iraq and the devastation in New Orleans would have never happened." - Cindy Sheehan

How do I begin without expressing my utter frustration? Well, I suppose I have already expressed it. What kind of logistical system does Cindy Sheehan utilize in claiming that Bush reads the word of the Christ ergo 'Iraq and the devastation in New Orleans' should have never happened? Well, I suppose I could assume in the case of New Orleans that she were giving Bush supernatural capabilities wherein Bush should have divinely intervened diverting the path of Hurricane Katrina.

But, I will grant Sheehan the benefit of the doubt by assuming that she was referring to the aftermath of Katrina and the federal government's response. She posted her accusations earlier today September 16th. Perhaps Sheehan does not have a television on the bus she is riding around the country because did Bush not accept the responsibility of the aftermath in his national address?

My question now then is: what does Sheehan demand of president Bush? And, why are the cries of such an obviously bitter left-winged liberal even considered? What party you associate with doesn't matter to me, but please don't allow personal experiences and emotions to cloud your judgment, Cindy.

One commenter on her blog made this statement: "You need to consider running for political office one day. You have what it takes no doubt, and you represent a HUGE amount of people and they way they think." WOW! I say agaain: wow. I think that Cindy should run. She should run away to Never, Never Land because obviously she has no desire to grow up.

In'Cindy'ary makes statments claiming that the looters were merely stealing to provide basic nutrients for themselves. I know that we need food, water, clothing, and shelter. I was unaware that televisions and jewelry were amongst our basic necessities. Perhaps, I should return to grade school in order to get a recap of human sustenance.

She mentions that the soldiers were armed. Well did not the Lt. Gen. of the US Army fervently issue a mandate for the soldiers to enter the zone with their guns pointed downward? I'm beginning to think that perhaps one of the looters should allow Cindy to barrow a television so that she can become more informed. (sigh)

My point is this. It's okay to disagree with the Bush administration. But please disagree logically. Give credit where credit is due, and constructionally critize whenever necessary. And before any 'smart mouths' can read this, I'll say: It's not always necessary....

Thursday, September 15, 2005

One Nation Over God

One judge has once again decided that the term 'one nation under God' is unconstitutional; therefore, it has been this judge's decision to expel the pledge of allegiance from public schools.

Now, I do have an opinion about this: it's absurd. I begin by exclaiming that the pledge of allegiance is a patriotic decree which to me ignites a child's nationalism. In fact, the plege of allegiance is just as necessary as the national anthem when instilling a sense of national pride within an individual. So, this judge in his furious anger with God decides to disspate the pledge. Okay. Let me say that in politcally correct terminology. So, this judge in his furious anger with God decides to dissipate the pledge. Supreme Court Judge Nominee Roberts puts it this way, "This judge does not intend to protect our citizens from all things unconstitutional, but this judge intends to declare war upon all things religious."

Now, for this judge who is an atheist (self professed) contests God upon the grounds that God does not exist. Well, I am not attempting to prove his existence; yet, I am compelled to ask this question: If we discount God's existence solely upon our inability to see him, then can we not on the same grounds dismiss so many other seemingly intangibles?

What I mean is this: we believe in courage, we belive in patriotism, and we believe in ethics. Prove to me that these exist. Better yet, prove to me that we can live without them. Imagine a world without courage, without patriotism, and without ethics. In such a world, we would be demolished by anarchy (even though anrchy wouldn't exist), we could not muster any national unity (even though this wouldn't exist), and we could never confront the issue (even though fear wouldn't exist either).

My point is that such a world could not exist because the intangibles define our existence. That said, how could we ever discount the presence of a higher power? To me, that's absurd. Considering the absurdity of the idea, would it not make sense for us to grant such a higher power some type of thanks as we express our national pride. What really is the problem with 'one nation under God?' Or have we become so prideful that we are now one nation over God?

Burning the 'Bush': Not a Republican Just Concerned

Quite often there are many in our nation and even gloabally whose desire is to "burn the Bush." In other words, these people desire to set ablaze our respected president any chance that they get. Time and time again our president is bombarded with accusations that may or may not be true; yet, he is continously accused.

It seems that the basis of many of the accusations is that George Bush cares only about enconomic gain, and he has no real compassion for the common man. I disagree.

I have seen this man in one of his more compassionate moments as he arrived in Biloxi, MI in order to comfort the locals in that area. Was he there for the popular vote? Well, that would be a stupid assumption because he cannot run for another presidential term.Was he there because of the Biloxi's position as an economic asset? Certainly not. Was he there simply due to national pressure and political pressure? I suppose you could make a case - although such a case would seemingly have no foundation. Or was he there simply for moral support as the leader of our nation? I would contend that this is his objective indeed.

There are numerous images of our great leader talking with the locals of Biloxi while comforting them in various ways as they poured out their hearts to him. He greeted many of the men, women, and children in the area bringing them hope and encouragement, and there was not one person who did not show obvious signs of appreciation for his presence there. Sounds like compassion to me. So, those whose desire it is to burn the 'Bush' have two options: extinguish the flame, or find more fuel for your apparently dwindling fire.