College Republicans

Bush Vetoes Iraq Withdrawal Bill

Yesterday, President Bush vetoed a bill that would cut spending on the war and force a timetable on our troops to return home. While the bill doesn't have the support to overrule the veto, many consider it just a symbolic stance by the Democrat-run Congress. Since taking office last November, this new Congress has done little more than symbolically vote for things.

President Bush released a statement yesterday that was brief, but extremely poignant. The copy I read was posted on HumanEvents.com. The President broke down his reason for vetoing the bill into three key points:

First, the bill would mandate a rigid and artificial deadline for American troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq. That withdrawal could start as early as July 1st. And it would have to start no later than October 1st, regardless of the situation on the ground.

It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing. All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars and gather their strength -- and begin plotting how to overthrow the government and take control of the country of Iraq. I believe setting a deadline for withdrawal would demoralize the Iraqi people, would encourage killers across the broader Middle East, and send a signal that America will not keep its commitments. Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure -- and that would be irresponsible.

Second, the bill would impose impossible conditions on our commanders in combat. After forcing most of our troops to withdraw, the bill would dictate the terms on which the remaining commanders and troops could engage the enemy. That means American commanders in the middle of a combat zone would have to take fighting directions from politicians 6,000 miles away in Washington, D.C. This is a prescription for chaos and confusion, and we must not impose it on our troops.

Third, the bill is loaded with billions of dollars in non-emergency spending that has nothing to do with fighting the war on terror. Congress should debate these spending measures on their own merits -- and not as part of an emergency funding bill for our troops.

The first two points that the President talks about are fairly well-understood arguments. Yes, we would be abandoning the mission, destroying any further credibility our troops would have in the world. And yes, the terrorists and insurgents would be waiting, like wolves, for us to leave so that they could feast. And then Congress would also basically be sentencing the remaining military and commanders to death, making them stay back and "hold down the fort" while the majority of the troops are brought home. The Iraqi government will tumble, and we'll have an even greater problem on our hands.

But it's the third point that really got me mad. The news and politicians, when writing and passing these bills, only ever touch on the main aspects of the legislation. "This will bring the troops home"; "This will save lives"; "This will get us out of the quagmire." How about "This pork will get me re-elected!" or "These earmarks are gonna build a new post office in my home town!" I think the best reason to veto any bill is to get the pork out of it!

Too often, the President has let huge, bloated pieces of legislation pass by his desk that include billions of dollars of spending on things that are irrelevant and excessive. This is partially the reason the Republicans lost so badly last November, they couldn't control the pork and earmarks. But the latest bills coming out of Congress show that this problems doesn't just lie with Republicans, it lies with Democrats too. Everyone wants to seize the day and bring home a piece of the pie to their constituents. What better way to do that than with a defense bill that is sure to pass?

So yes, Congress may have been trying to "make a statement" with this bill calling for the withdrawal of troops and the destruction of Iraq... but they were also trying to load it up like a baked potato. Thankfully, we have a Commander in Chief who is sticking by the troops, and his word.

Earth Day, Marxists, and Green Conservatives

It seems that I completely missed the whole "Earth Day" thing. I hadn't planned to miss it... it just sort of happened. Not that I would have known what to do on Earth Day anyways. I did notice the abundance of "green" signs around campus, shouting un-cited facts at me about taking shorter showers and the like. I did get a little sour when one sign, clearly giving up on the idea of promoting environmentalism with stats and reasoning, simply said "Recycle Dammit!"

That got me thinking-- not about recycling, mind you-- about the way environmentalists try to communicate with the rest of the American population. As conservatives, we aren't "against" the environment or "Green" issues, but we often find ourselves scoffing and disagreeing with environmentalists on the basis that they are often jerks. I'm not saying that all environmentalists are jerks, but thinking back to the more vocal, demonstrative enviros... yeah, I'd have to say they are. Mac Johnson, in his article You Da Man! on Human Events.com, writes:

Suppose you’re a jerk and you act like it for no reason. Why, I and others will all think you’re a jerk. But now, suppose you inform everybody that you are not just a jerk, you are angry for a cause, a good cause -- the sort of cause that makes you acting like a jerk entirely understandable, because you’re full of righteous indignation (as opposed to the petty kind.) You’re not a jerk at all; you’re a champion for some helpless Third Party, say, workers and peasants… or darters and pheasants. It doesn’t matter exactly, because you’re just too damn mad/concerned/upset/outraged/caring to piddle about details. My goodness, the Earth is in danger -- out of my way, idiot!

If someone is screaming at me "Recycle dammit!" my immediate response is "Don't tell me what to do." I'll recycle, sure, that's not the point. Anytime someone is cussed at in some imperative way, that person is usually inclined to react negatively. Because of this, Republicans and conservatives are viewed as anti-environment. We don't know how to react to the extreme environmentalists.

Right now, it's trendy to be "green." Our current culture is loving the idea of putting nature above Man. And the policies that environmentalists are fighting for may or may not help Mother Nature, but they will definitely hurt another environment: America. Johnson writes that these policies are essentially Marxist: "...Capitalism is exploiting the world, America is destroying the world, and the only solution is for the international intelligentsia to run the world."

The solutions the majority of environmentalists promote are ones of regulations and taxes. They have decided that the best way to save the world is to grow the government, punish businesses, and treat nature as an untouchable god, instead of a resource for Man. The argument has become polarized, one-sided, and often vicious (the global warming debate being just one facet of a larger discussion).

But it is possible to be both Republican and green. Teddy Roosevelt did it-- he created the first national parks. And Richard Nixon did it too-- he created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). And New Gingrich writes in his latest article that it is imperative that conservatives express and understand the ways of "green conservatism" because it's certainly out there... and it's a better solution.

Newt outlines Green Conservatism like this:

• Green Conservatism favors clean air and clean water.
•Green Conservatism understands biodiversity as a positive good.
•Green Conservatism favors minimizing carbon loading in the atmosphere as a positive public value.
•Green Conservatism is pro-science, pro-technology and pro-innovation.
•Green Conservatism believes that green prosperity and green development are integral to the successful future of the human race.
•Green Conservatism believes that economic growth and environmental health are compatible in both the developed and developing world.
•Green Conservatism believes that we can realize more positive environmental outcomes faster by shifting tax code incentives and shifting market behavior than is possible from litigation and regulation.

Some of those sound pretty basic, yet they are important to point out so that the myth of "conservative=nature hater" is erased. Rather than regulate and litigate companies into changing their ways, we need to provide them with incentives and rewards. Companies need to believe that they have to create a better, bio-friendly product in order to compete and be successful. Newt suggests offering prizes for companies to compete with government-led scientific research investments. Just look at how the X-Prize got private industries to have their own space race. The same prizes are being awarded for the next hybrids and gas alternatives.

We need to realize that America can compete globally, and eventually become more bio/eco-friendly than any other nation. But I assure you it won't be through punishing companies and growing the government. And it won't be through scaring people with end-of-the-world scenarios and anti-American-lifestyle slogans. It will be, as Newt points out, through entrepreneurialism, ingenuity, and free-market competition. That's what we do best, and that's how we'll save the planet.

"Three Scenarios" by Michael Barone

Michael Barone has declared the 2008 presidential election a period of "open-field politics" similar to what we saw in the early 90's. In his latest article, posted on Human Events, he presents three possible scenarios.

The first scenario is the "Blair Scenario:"

In the early 1990s, Britain's Conservatives were regarded as nasty but competent. Then, Britain was forced to devalue its currency. Mortgage payments shot up, and the Conservatives' reputation for competence vanished. The result: Tony Blair's Labor Party won huge victories in 1997, 2001 and 2005.

Here, the Republicans could place themselves in the same position as Tony Blair. A Giuliani or McCain could brand themselves as "New Republicans" and steer the party in a more moderate direction. This doesn't necessarily thrill me, since it's widely believed that Republicans lost the last election for not being conservative enough... getting more moderate isn't going to make you more popular.

The second scenario is the "Ike Scenario:"

In 1952, the United States was mired in a deadly conflict -- 10 times as bloody as Iraq -- that the incumbent president could not end. Then there emerged a candidate with a record of making life-and-death decisions in war: Dwight Eisenhower. Ike captured the Republican nomination from "Mr. Republican," Robert Taft, and then beat a refreshing new face from Illinois, Adlai Stevenson, who had little military experience. The victory came despite the Democrats' big edge in party identification.

Currently, none of the leading Republican or Democratic candidates really offer what Ike had to offer. The only thing close, as Barone points out, is Giuliani, who commanded a force of 40,000 law enforcement officers.

The third, and least likely, scenario is the "Perot Scenario:"

In February 1992, a short billionaire from Texas told CNN's Larry King that he might run for president. Ross Perot was able to partly self-finance a campaign, and his calls for reform stirred voters who were tired of stale, bitter partisan division.

Barone cites (other) New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg as just the man to fill the somewhat small shoes of Perot. Bloomberg supposedly makes $500 million a year and could easily finance his own campaign. While he's expressed interest in running, I don't see him as the kind of man to lead the third-party-revolution that Perot did.

In the end, Barone doesn't try to offer any answers, or pick which scenario he thinks will win. He's merely using past trends to predict the future--which is really what everyone does. All three of these are certainly plausible, but there could be others. Unfortunately, none of these three scenarios really speak much of conservatism.

How the Right Went Wrong

The latest issue of Time Magazine proclaims "How the Right Went Wrong" alongside a photo of President Reagan crying. My first thoughts, after seeing this headline on the Drudge Report, was that it was another hatchet job by this left-leaning news magazine; however, after reading it, I give them credit for really getting it right: the conservative movement, as made popular by Ronald Reagan, and in some degrees the Republican Congress of '94, has gone off track. With the 2008 presidential landscape quickly approaching, Republicans are left with few true "conservative" choices.

Karen Tumulty, author of the story, asks "What set of goals is there to hold together a coalition that has always been more fractious than it seemed to be from the outside, with its realists and its neoconservatives, its religious ground troops and its libertarian intelligentsia, its Pat Buchanan populists and its Milton Friedman free traders? " And while I don't necessarily believe that the American people have lost the goals and ideals first popularized by Reagan (low taxes, individualism, unobtrusive government, strong defense, etc), I can see how many of our neoconservative Republican politicians have.

It's important to note the difference between a conservative and a neo-conservative. One of the discussions I sat in on at C-PAC was "Conservatism 101" by ISI speaker Mark Henry. He explained the differences between the three original factions of the conservative movement, and the evolved three factions we see today. Basically, the conservative movement started in the 50's in response to the rise of Communism (and in protest of Truman's use of the bomb on Japan). There were three main factions: libertarians, anti-communists, and traditionalists.

Today, traditionalists are still around (mainly, but not exclusively, in what is called the "religious Right"), and so are libertarians (although they hover between the left and the right); but the anti-communists have become the neo-conservatives. To sum up neo-conservativism real quick: it is largely focused on a foreign policy doctrine of an imperialistic spread of democracy, and is routed in the writings of Leo Strauss. That said, neo-conservative has also been synonymous with a bigger, more involved government; something that no true conservative likes, and something that our founding fathers hated.

National security is vitally important, as is knowing how to handle the War in Iraq and the threat of Islamic fascists, but we as conservatives can't let the media decide for us who is going to lead our party. Time Magazine talks about how each of the candidates leading the party aren't truly conservative in every single way. We're not saying that they have to be; in fact, conservatism has always been filled with different ideas that often go against each other. But we as voters need to be able to choose who is the best candidate to revitalize the Republican party; just as Reagan did.

At C-PAC (and Time makes sure to point this out), Reagan's name was mentioned more than anyone else. He is the icon of the Republican party, and arguably the most successful conservative president we have ever had. But just standing at a podium and saying his name a bunch of times isn't going to get you elected. Since the election season as started so early, I see no reason as to why we have to settle on the candidates currently running. There are scads more presidential hopefuls that are slowly building up grassroots support (Brownback, Huckabee, etc), and others who are favored and haven't even announced candidacy (Gingrich).

I agree with a lot of what Time Magazine is saying about our party, but I don't believe that all hope is lost--as they seem to imply. The November elections were a wake up to many in the GOP, and I think that as conservative voters we should fight for the conservative values that we want to lead the party. The article quotes Richard Viguerie, a conservative activist and fundraiser: "'I'm not focusing on 2008... Realistically, it will probably take until the year 2016' before the movement regains anything resembling its former glory."

I don't know about you, but I'm not patient enough to wait that long.

Don't Take a Hike

For the past few months, and especially over Christmas break, I have been continually doing double-takes each time I walk into a familiar coffee shop. When I frequent a café enough, I know exactly how much money I need to carry with me in order to get a medium cup of coffee to sate my growing, yet pleasant, addiction; however, I am rapidly discovering that the price of a cup of coffee, both at my local independent coffee shops as well as chains like Panera, is going up. Of course, I politely ask why this is happening (in the same style as a young child asking his parents about death.) The answer I get is one I should have expected, one I warned folks about, and now one I have to live with: the minimum wage has been increased.

State legislators, in a vein attempt to get re-elected last November, raised the minimum wage over the summer. It’s going up in increments, but the end result will be $7.15. For students working part-time jobs, and high schoolers working afternoon shifts at McDonald’s, this is fabulous news. You get to make more money for doing the same work you’ve been doing! The lawmakers weren’t thinking of you when they passed this piece of legislation; they also weren’t thinking about the small businesses who have to hire less employees, cut hours, or raise prices to meet the wage hike. State politicians especially weren’t thinking of Seton Hill University, and other private institutions, when they decided to give workers more money.

If you are at a work study job on campus this semester, you probably saw firsthand how raising the minimum wage so drastically can change things. Some students are now working less hours on campus, but making the same amount of money. This doesn’t really matter to the student, however the services that this person would be supplying are getting hurt. Institutions like Seton Hill have their budgets planned out ahead of time, they have to, and when the wage laws are increased as dramatically as they have been, extra money has to be found or kids just work less.

So if raising the minimum wage isn’t about students, small businesses, or universities, who is it about? The poor. Lawmakers have constantly used the idea of raising wages to reduce the poverty level for decades. It’s an easy fix, right? Just throw money at the problem and it will go away—even if the money isn’t coming from the government, but businesses. The only problem is that raising the minimum wage doesn’t held the poor. Studies by the Employment Policy Institute (EPI) have proven that there is no evidence that poverty has been reduced by raising the wage—mainly because the majority of people working minimum wage jobs aren’t poor, they’re teenagers and retired workers.

Even more unsettling is the study that EPI did in 2005 on the proposed Pennsylvania minimum wage increase–the increase that was just passed. They came to five conclusions in their study: 1. Employees affected by the increase are younger and less educated than the average Pennsylvanian. 2. Only a tenth of the people collecting minimum wage are breadwinners for their families. 3. Four-fifths of the income gains will go to families above the poverty line. 4. The increase will cause a projected 10,027 people to lose their jobs. 5. It will end up costing businesses $262.7 million per year in labor costs. It’s no wonder why we are seeing sudden jumps in prices–and if you don’t work on the minimum wage scale you won’t have the extra money to adjust to those increases.

This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t raise the minimum wage—but raising it two dollars isn’t going to help anyone except kids working part-time jobs. Adjusting the wage to meet inflation is understandable, and arguably necessary. I can only hope that someday our legislators will look at studies done by EPI and others that prove raising the wage doesn’t help the poor. Heck, it’s not even helping this poor college student.

[Originally printed in the February issue of the Setonian and on the Setonian Online.]

Sources:
Heritage Foundation: Minimum Wage Will Not Reduce Poverty
Heritage Foundation: Who Earns the Minimum Wage? Suburban Teenagers, Not Single Parents
EPI: Does the Minimum Wage Reduce Poverty?
EPI: The Effects of the Proposed Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Increase

24: Leading the Right Television Movement?

Are shows like "24" and "The Unit" leading the way for more conservative, Right-leaning television? If you look at the people behind the two shows, and their current popularity, it may be the start of a new trend.

In a recent issue of the New Yorker Magazine, Jane Mayer writes "Whatever It Takes: The Politics of the Man Behind '24'" The article discusses the political leanings of Joel Sunrow, creator and producer of the hit show starring Kiefer Sutherland. While the article strews to the negative because it focuses on the show's penchant for torturing terrorists, it sheds some light on the creative team driving the show.

"For all its fictional liberties," writes Mayer, "'24' depicts the fight against Islamist extremism much as the Bush Administration has defined it: as an all-consuming struggle for America’s survival that demands the toughest of tactics." The New Yorker is approaching this idea has a negative one, although I'm not sure why. The show dares to be politically incorrect, much like The Unit, and identifies modern threats that actually face America.

While the show does feature a number of brutal torture scenes, they are clearly the work of imaginative fiction, rather than enactments of how the military is actually conducting itself. Mayer interviews the lead writer, Howard Gordon, a moderate Democrat, who creates many of the torture scenes himself: "Honest to God," he says, "I’d call them improvisations in sadism." The majority of the article deals with the issue of torture, and how the show may be portraying a negative message to the international audience--a message that suggests that America doesn't play by the rules of interrogation. If anything, "24" should frighten the pants off the international audience; we have a man named Jack Bauer, and he'll foil any plot you can think of in under 24 hours! The New Yorker is very concerned with the message of the show, but it isn't writing articles about how Law & Order promotes shooting Ann Coulter.

Sunrow, the producer, is a self-proclaimed "Right-Wing Nut-Job" who is close friends with Rush Limbaugh (Nobel Prize Nominee). His success with "24" should be inspiring to other conservative writers and producers. Shows like "West Wing," "Commander in Chief," "Law & Order," and others have been for too long presenting just one brand of entertainment to America (whether they readily acknowledge it or not). The fact that "24" and "The Unit" are top-rated shows should not go unnoticed. But Sunrow realizes that he is still a minority in Hollywood, and that it's not easy being a conservative in the industry:

Surnow, for his part, revels in his minority status inside the left-leaning entertainment industry. “Conservatives are the new oppressed class,” he joked in his office. “Isn’t it bizarre that in Hollywood it’s easier to come out as gay than as conservative?” His success with “24,” he said, has protected him from the more righteous elements of the Hollywood establishment. “Right now, they have to be nice to me,” he said. “But if the show tanks I’m sure they’ll kill me.” He spoke of his new conservative comedy show as an even bigger risk than “24.” “I’ll be front and center on the new show,” he said, then joked, “I’m ruining my chances of ever working again in Hollywood.”

The new show that he's referencing is called "The Half Hour News Hour," a conservative counter-part to Comedy Central's "The Daily Show." The article doesn't give many specifics, but the conservative, satirical news show is set to debut on FOX News on Feb. 18. All I have to say is: It's about time.

The Cold Hard Facts (from Canada)

A scientist from Canada is speaking out against the new Global-Warming-trend sweeping across the world. This isn't the first time that Canadian scientists have spoken out against the idea that humans are causing the Earth to heat up, and this latest article in the Canadian Free Press is more than just a bunch of hot air.

The article, Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?, is written by Dr. Tim Ball, one of the first Canadian P.h.D. in Climatology. "Believe it or not," he writes, "Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification."

Ball doesn't deny the fact that the Earth has, in the past, heated up and cooled down; however, he doesn't attribute this to CO2 emissions from humans:

"I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun."

His reasoning behind the current popularity of human-caused Global Warming is that it's a scientific theory that was declared true before it was ever tested. The line of argument behind the theory assumes that CO2 released into the air is a greenhouse gas that causes temperatures to rise, and since humans are creating more CO2 than ever before, clearly we are at fault. Scientific theories are based off of assumptions of scientists, but if those assumptions are false then so are the theories.

According to Ball, the entire Global Warming debate has been politicized far past the point of scientific theory and testing. It was accepted before it could be proven, and now politicians (and former ones, like Al Gore) are talking about it more than scientists. It is generally understood, at least by conservatives, that politicians never know more about a subject than the people directly related to it. Trust the generals on the ground during war and trust scientists during times of theoretical testing. In the case of Global Warming, environmentalists are taking the ball and running before anyone can decisively prove the theory one way or another. People are going along with it all because "no sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change." Ball writes that passive acceptance avoids conflict and advances careers. Unfortunately, this passive acceptance is leading to legislation and unnecessary environmental spending on a scientific theory that isn't proven.

Catholic Social Teaching and Conservatism

Here at Seton Hill, there is a strong emphasis on the lessons of Catholic Social Teaching (CST). Being a Catholic, myself, these lessons are nothing new to me--I've been taught to abide by them since high school. Just looking at them, though, it's easy to assume that a good number of these lessons go against the modern perception of conservatism or Republicanism.

I was sitting in my Senior Sem. class this afternoon, participating in a great lecture about CST when I heard something that really made sense--something that I had never heard in all the years that I have learned about these lessons: in order to properly enforce the lessons of Catholic Social Teaching, the outcome of your actions has to be beneficial to all parties involved. I had never realized that there were two sides to the coin of CST, but it certainly makes sense.

How does this apply to conservatism? While I'm not going to dissect every lesson from a liberal and conservative viewpoint (although it is totally possible), I'll just point out a few things. CST is supposed to inspire reflection and thought about our actions and how we contribute to society, and so therefore I totally believe that we are able to approach every lesson conservatively or liberally (it all depends on our personal choices). Some of the issues just lend themselves to Republicanism, like the lesson of Respect for Human Life, while others appear to skew more liberally, like the Principle of Participation (which deals with the forming of unions).

Looking at a number of these, however, I can see conservative means to reach the desired ends that CST has in mind. Principle of Participation stresses respect for each worker and their right to a fair and decent wage. But it also stresses the right to "private property and to economic initiative" (Reflections 5). In other words, the company is also allowed to benefit, and needs to think of its workers as well as its economic bottom line.

The example in class was about a company moving its factory from America to Mexico because it didn't have to deal with American unions and high wages. While it's easy to say "well they're slighting the American workers and taking advantage of Mexicans by paying them less!" I saw it a bit differently: firstly, they are paying them less because the peso is worth less than the dollar. But remember, CST says that the decision needs to be good for everyone. By moving their factory to Mexico, the American company is helping out the Mexican economy and helping their bottom line. If they intend to do this, however, it would be wholesome of the company to provide severance pay to the laid off workers. And if the American unions were trying to strong-arm the business into paying unfairly high wages, they're no better than the company that fired everyone. There must be a give and take in order for CST to work properly, and I believe that it's highly possible for a company to do what's best for itself while also looking out for others.

The lesson of Preferential Protection for the Poor and Vulnerable also seems, at first glance, to be a justification for support of Johnson's "Great Society" and welfare programs. While yes, I wholly agree that we must take care of the poorest members of our society, that doesn't mean we should just hand everything to them. Remember that this needs to be good for all parties. It would be much more beneficial for the government, and its welfare programs, to teach the poor to raise themselves up; it's the whole "teach a man to fish" saying. Building up the urban slums into respectable, safe communities will help bring people out of poverty (not raising the minimum wage). How do you build up these communities? Why, through small business and entrepreneurialism! If you have small businesses that are well-managed and that employ locally, then it will encourage other businesses and chains to move in as well, and more money will stay in the neighborhood, etc. It's a cycle that can work if the government can step back and let capitalism do what it does best.

Speaking of which, there is one aspect of CST that is one of the main aspects of conservatism: Subsidiarity. In the handout I received in class, written by William J. Byron for America, the National Catholic Weekly, it describes Subsidiarity as follows:

The principle of subsidiarity puts a proper limit on government by insisting that no higher level of organization should perform any function that can be handled efficiently and effectively at a lower level of organization by human persons who, individually, or in groups, are closer to the problems and closer to the ground. Oppressive governments are always in violation of the principle of subsidiarity; overactive governments frequently violate this principle.

When it comes to governments, less is more and local is better. Conservatism subscribes to the idea that the government is part of the problem, not part of the solution. If individuals or private companies can handle things on their own, then they should, and that states should certainly be able to decide for themselves what is best for their people (within reason). Just look at two examples of what the federal government has done that could have been handled on a state or local level: raising the minimum wage (something our state did do on its own, and now the whole country may be facing the same thing) and allowing abortion (something that more conservative states have been trying to break free from for some time). Now, there are some issues that are being handled by the states, things like voting to allow/disallow gay marriage, property tax reform, etc. It's great that states are deciding these things on their own, and a while it's impossible to please everyone in this case, we as citizens have a louder say in legislative decisions when it's at the local and state level.

As I said, I can't go through every aspect of CST in a single blog entry... but it's something to think about. Each one of these lessons can be solved liberally or conservatively, and while the initial outcome might be similar, the long-term effects may differ.

The President's New Plan, and Democrat Immaturity

The Democrats in Congress are bowing to the fringe anti-war protesters, aiming for political gains in 2008, and caring little about the actual situation in Iraq. That is the message that I'm getting from them as they continue to strut around Washington nay-saying the President's new strategy without offering any alternative. While it's true that the Democrats have never offered an alternative to the President's plan for Iraq (they won't even stand unified in voting the pull the troops), this latest stunt gives a hint of what the next two years will be like.

Democrats control Congress, and if they plan to take the lead in 2008 they are going to have to provide real solutions and concrete strategies for success (or failure) in Iraq. Sticking to their classic talking points of raising the minimum wage and all that jazz doesn't mean they can ignore the biggest issue of our time. Congress began disagreeing with the President's revised plan before he even publicly stated it--they had already, proudly, proclaimed that they would symbolically vote against the measures. We don't need symbolic votes from the majority party in Congress, we need ideas and action.

Yet the bickering will continue for the next two years, until Republicans get a chance of ridding America of this Dem majority; a majority that, since taking office, has done nothing but bicker and name call. Just yesterday, Senator Barbara Boxer, during a Senate hearing on the war, stated that Condoleezza Rice was not fit to make decisions on the war because she is a childless woman. Forgetting the fact that Rice is more intelligent and accomplished than Boxer will ever be, this shows the sort of mindset that Congress is in right now.

The President's plan is a risky one, and I believe its his last real chance at changing the minds of the American people when it comes to the war. He is going against the advice of his generals on the ground, and increasing troop levels to deal with the recurring insurgency in Baghdad and other areas. It's a bold move that may prove to be correct; however, if this plan doesn't work it will give Democrats an even stronger motive for waving the white flag and pulling our soldiers out of Iraq.

Dems in Congress: We Warned You About This

Now that the Democrats have a tenuous hold over Congress, they have begun to already stretch their legs and spout their frightening plans for the future. I say frightening not because I am going to lash out and attack the opposing party--unfounded negativity and opposition never solved anything. I say frightening because of the various pieces of legislation that I hear them talking about.

Firstly, they aim to raise the minimum wage and, unfortunately, they seem to have the President's support on the issue. I have written time and time again about the dangers of raising the minimum wage without protection for small businesses, as have most Republicans, however it doesn't look like these protections will be included in any new bill. I also firmly believe that the minimum wage is something that should be decided on a state-by-state basis, because some states with a higher cost of living may need to have a different min. wage than one with a relatively low cost of living or small population. However, the Democrats in Congress, specifically the House of Representatives, aim to raise the bar nationally, with little protections for small businesses. President Bush, doing everything he can to "get along" with the Dems may just let them have it-- further angering the conservative base.

Okay, raising the minimum wage isn't the worst thing in the world... but raising taxes is close. Yet the Democrats are now talking about the pay-as-you-go system that they used to employ; with the philosophy of no new programs without new taxes. This means that they will try to repeal the Bush tax cuts that have boosted the economy ever since 9/11. They seek to punish people making over $500,000 a year (i.e. punish the successful), the very people that own businesses and push the economy along. So you tax the business owners and the economy will slow, less people will get hired, and we'll have more government programs. I'm not sure how I feel about that.

And then there is talks of re-instituting the draft. I find it rather strange that the only time you hear about a draft is when Democrats are in control. If you look back through the 20th Century, you will find that no Republican has instituted a draft. They have talked about it, or reformed the draft standards, but it is always a Democrat who wants to enable conscription to raise troop levels. In the current instance, you can find most of the draft-talk coming from New York Rep. Charlie Rangel. He has issued bills in the past calling for a draft, and has voted against them when they have come to the table. The current talk about drafts are mainly aimed at making President Bush look bad--strengthening the anti-war movement and demonizing our President further. Thankfully, I believe President Bush when he says that there won't be a draft... I just feel terrible having to reassure my aunt every time I see here that I won't be drafted.

While the Republicans are hopefully taking this time to reform their party and return to their conservative roots, I can only sit and guffaw at the power-statements being made by Speaker Pelosi. Her muscle flexing at the podium, and her image-makeover as a Italian-Catholic Grandmother (instead of a radical-liberal California politician), shows that she is ready to get what she wants at whatever the cost of the country. Her statements that she is the "most powerful woman in the nation" are off-putting--not to mention that you would never hear former Republican Speaker of the House Denny Hastert say that. If you intend on "healing" American and working with the folks across the aisle, you can't go around saying that you're the new Queen of the House. While some will say that President Bush has acted similarly... he's never come out and said a statement quite like that one.

With the new Congress already taking a short work week, after pledging to go five days every week, I'm interested to see how their other plans pan out. I just hope that President Bush is ready to stand up for what he believes in, and use that veto power a little more than he did with the last Congress.

2008 GOP Primary Heats Up

The Republican campaign ticket for the 2008 race for the presidency is beginning to heat up. Early in the week, the New York Daily News released an article containing detailed information about Rudy Giuliani's campaign plan. According to the Daily News, someone sympathetic to one of Giuliani's competitors got a hold of a complete campaign plan binder and handed it off to the press.

This creates a massive uphill battle for Giuliani. The book outlined not only his plan for campaign stops and fundraisers, but also listed his personal weakness that could be exploited by opponents! Subjects like his prior marriages (included that time he had an affair) as well as his successful private business are fully detailed as weaknesses that could bring him down come election time.

According to the most recent article by the Daily News, the campaign book was lost during a campaign stop and was photocopied. NewsMax.com reports that the likely culprit may have been an aide for the Charlie Crist gubernatorial campaign in Florida. Whoever is at fault, the fact remains that it was a dirty campaign move that jeopardizes Rudy's chances.

Another man entering the race is Mass. Governor Mitt Romney, who, according to NewsMax.com, has filed his preliminary papers to run for the presidency. Unlike centrists Giuliani and McCain (who seem to be the leaders in the GOP race for '08), Romney tends to lean more conservative. While he may not have the name recognition, he can surely win over the hearts of the Christian-conservative voting block. If elected, he would also be the first Mormon to become President.

The race for the presidency truly began the day after the '04 election, but only recently has it become a more public, bloody battle. Romney, McCain and Giuliani have all been long-rumored contenders for the office, but I know others will emerge. I can only hope that Gingrich and Rice emerge as proper candidates before its too late.

The end of an era.

In early 2001, Middle East analyst Gerald Butt wrote on the BBC, "In a region where despotic rule is the norm, he is more feared by his own people than any other head of state." He quoted a former Iraqi diplomat living in exile: "'Saddam is a dictator who is willing to sacrifice his country, just so long as he can remain on his throne in Baghdad.'"

He was recently convicted for the massacre of 148 Shiite Muslims - the opposition to his Sunni Ba'athist party, but he is responsible for a horrific number of deaths. His crimes include the genocide of as many as two hundred thousand ethnic Kurds in two campaigns - one in 1988 and one immediately after the Persian Gulf War.Do you remember how he killed them? He killed them with nerve gasses - mustard gas and sarin. His regime was notorious for its methods of torture, which included acid baths and professional rapists. He murdered his own son-in-law. Reports that he fed political opponents into industrial meat grinders and wood chippers have never been satisfactorily proved, but significant evidence to this point was introduced at his trial.

Tonight at just past 10 PM the word went out to the world that Saddam is dead, hanged for his recent conviction. CBS's Katie Couric broadcast the report I heard, and she was careful to point out that he was accused of genocide and torture. In the face of the dozens of mass graves that have turned up in Iraq in the last three and a half years, I am dumbfounded by her inability to own up to the fact that Saddam was actually a murderous despot. Of course, her predecessor is Dan Rather, who was granted a famously chummy interview with Saddam right before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. But, looking beyond Katie Couric's lack of moral courage and inability to call a spade a spade or a brutal dictator a brutal dictator....

Many say that the death of Saddam will have no positive effects on the path to establishing a free, stable Iraq. I think we can afford to be cautiously optimistic. Those who are working to rebuild Iraq haven't had much of a psychological boost in a long time. With Saddam's death the people of Iraq can finally close the door on three blood-soaked decades and look forward. With Saddam's death the people of Iraq can finish freeing themselves of the long shadow he casts on their national consciousness. The changes may not be immediate, but they will come.

A Running Joke

The other day I got the special edition of the Running Man on DVD. Now, if you've never seen this 80's Schwarzenegger action movie, you're really missing out. It's a classy piece of kitsch based on an obscure Stephan King (aka Richard Bachman) novel: in the post-apocalyptic future, the government has enforced a police state and controls everything on TV. For entertainment, and to make sure the majority of the people don't rise up, the government creates a reality TV gameshow called "Running Man," hosted by none other than Family-Fued veteran Richard Dawson. The show pits a convicted criminal against a group of "stalkers" that try and hunt and kill him. Schwarzenegger gets wrongly accused of a crime and is forced into being a "running man"... little did they know that he was totally sweet.

Now, the premise for this movie is fairly simple, and it's clearly set in the man-movie action mold. It doesn't make you paranoid like a Philip K. Dick movie, nor does it hit you over the head with humanistic messages of Asimov. Maybe that's because it was written by a horror writer, or because it starred Arnold Schwarzenegger (the man who killed the Predator); whatever the reason, there isn't alot of thinking involved with this film. Yet somehow, Artisan Entertainment--the studio responsible for the DVD release-- found a way to force a socio-political message into this thing.

The DVD is a two-disc set, featuring some cool director's commentary, as well as a feature on the stalkers in the film. Artisan also decided to fit the DVD with two pre-produced documentaries. The first is called "Game Theory" and is about the effect of reality television on society. Clearly, this documentary was made on its own and was made to connect with the film. But that's alright, at least it sort of applies. It's true that Running Man was ahead of its time-- I remember when Ben Affleck wanted to produce an actual reality show similar in concept to the Bachman novel.

The second documentary shoved onto this special edition, however, is a little more blatant in its message and questionable in its connection to the film. Titled "Lockdown on Main Street," it's a 20 minute documentary on the Patriot Act and the "current state of privacy and criminal issues in a post-9/11 society." In other words: it's a leftist piece of propaganda. I was curious as to how this feature could possibly connect to the film, so I sat through it... and I can honestly say that it has no connection whatsoever that is relevant to the film. Artisan's move to put this feature on the DVD could mean that they are trying to extrapolate some sort of deep meaning from the film, but really it's just not there-- at least not this meaning. The documentary is one of the funniest features I've seen on a DVD since the commentary track on Mallrats. It basically features a bunch of paranoid liberal "specialists" talking about how the government could, at any moment, track our Google searches and listen in on our phone calls. Spliced between these interviews are sections of the Patriot Act, flying towards the viewer like the ominous angel of death during Passover. Running Man is never mentioned.

You could certainly draw social/political meaning from the movie--as you could with almost any movie, if you really wanted to. The world of Running Man is more similar to that of the Soviet Union pre-Glasnost, and even then, the film doesn't touch on wire-tapping or court-ordered searches. Running Man is about how television fuels the violent animal urges within, and how we are willing to push the limits of human decency when it comes to entertainment. If anything, the actual world in which Running Man takes place is poorly realized and glossed over. The director, Paul Michael Glaser, chose to show us very little of the lifestyle of the future, and focused completely on the forward momentum of Schwarzenegger's quest to clear his name.

I love analyzing the meaning behind film, and I'm willing to do it with even the basest of movies... however Artisan's poor attempt to link Running Man with a movement against the Patriot Act (an act, by the way, that has prevented countless terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11) is a shoddy piece of liberal posturing. The feature had no right to be on the DVD, and I'm sure that if Arnold found out, he would play the home version of the Running Man with the folks over at Artisan.

But hey, at least the video and audio transfer on this version of Running Man is top notch.

The Marijuana Debate

In the last ten years there's been significant debate - usually flaring up around presidential elections and Supreme Court confirmation hearings - over whether the U.S. should legalize marijuana for medical purposes. There's research that suggests that the drug can be a powerful pain reliever for people who suffer from cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, glaucoma, and a host of other diseases and disorders. At this time a dozen states have decriminalized marijuana possession and use for those who can produde a doctor's note - although, since all marijuana possession and use remains illegal under U.S. federal law, removing state penalties is largely a symbolic gesture. As in most debates that have taken place in recent years, supporters of medical marijuana cast their opponents as a lot of coldhearted folks who don't care how cancer and AIDS patients suffer. In an already emotionally-charged debate, those who oppose legalizing marijuana for medical purposes must be a bunch of angry Puritans who don't care how anyone suffers, right?

This story hit the Dallas Morning News this morning:
"A rare but expensive drug sometimes absorbed through lollipops contributed to the death of a 20-year-old Southern Methodist University student in early December.

"Jacob "Jake" Stiles was crowned Mr. University in an SMU competition on Nov. 2.

"The Dallas County medical examiner has determined that Jacob Stiles overdosed on a toxic mixture of cocaine, alcohol and the synthetic opiate fentanyl.

"The drug is used as a painkiller, but in any form fentanyl can be lethal if taken outside a prescription."

I've read the obituary round-ups for the kid who died - Jake Stiles - and by all accounts he was a really good kid. The picture that accompanies the article is of his crowning as Southern Methodist's "Mr. University." And the drug found in his body that was the most likely cause of his death?

Is a drug meant to help cancer patients manage their pain.

Fentanyl is supposed to be nearly impossible to get ahold of. It's tightly controlled and rarely presecribed. It is estimated to be one hundred times more powerful than heroin or morphine. A few weeks ago, two workers at a Dallas-area physician's office forged prescription for $40,000 worth of the drug - known commercially as Actiq and sold as lozenges on sticks for patients who have difficulty swallowing. The insurance company that processed the prescription alerted Dallas police. Is the drug found in Jake Stiles' body part of this batch, or is there another batch of fentanyl on the streets of Dallas? Despite its dangerous potency, use of the drug is on the rise among people with more money than brains.

So what does all this mean for the medical marijuana crowd? The paralells shouldn't be difficult to draw. The only differences that I see are those that can only exacerbate the problem. Marijuana is less expensive than fentanyl and has a much larger pool of potential abusers. SInce it is less potent, it will probably be less tightly-controlled. Legalizing marijuana for medical purposes can only make it easier for those who want it for decidedly non-medical purposes to get their hands on it. The way to win the drug war is not to make it vastly easier for would-be abusers to get ahold of thier drug of choice. Fentanyl is supposed to be nearly impossible to get ahold of. Tonight a college kid in Texas - a kid at one of the best and most conservative schools in the country - is dead and his corpse is full of the drug that is supposed to be so difficult to get ahold of. This is why medical marijuana has the potential to be a disaster.

Public Over Private: Issuing the PA Slots License

This morning, the Pennsylvania Gaming Commission granted a slots license to the Majestic Casino bid, which will bring gambling to the North Shore. I don't like the idea of having gambling in PA to begin with, however, thanks to Gov. Rendell, it was going to be inevitable. Being the life-long Penguins supporter that I have, I of course had to hope for the Isle of Capri plan. In the end, unfortunately, what happened was a loss for private enterprise and a win for public funding.

As a conservative, I always believe that the private industry can do it better, even in the case of building a new sports arena. It's been done in the past and has proven to be an extremely successful business model (just look at the Columbus Blue Jackets, who have an arena built completely with private dollars.) The Isle of Capri casino corporation sided exclusively with the Pens, promising to give them $290 million dollars for a new arena up-front, without any state funding. It would be the dream come true for Pens, whose lease at Mellon Arena ends in June. It would also be a triumph for private business, something that can't exactly be said for the Steelers and Pirates' stadium, which were both built with public dollars.

The choice of the gaming commission shows their continuing belief in public funding. Rather than let a private business do it all themselves, they chose to have tax payer dollars contribute to the new multi-purpose arena. I realize that there are other factors for choosing the casino--trust me, my mom is an economic developer, so I heard all sides of the story. But to reduce the argument to a black and white facet: private vs public-funded arena, this was certainly a loss for the private sector and for tax-payers everywhere.

Zucker on the Iraq Study Group

David Zucker, director of Airplane, has released another online ad, this time in response to the findings of the so-called "non-partisan" Iraq Study Group. Pretty effective stuff.

"No Diving"

Originally appearing in The Setonian 11/02/06

What's At Stake

This November 7th we will see the conclusion to one of the greatest political battles in Pennsylvanian history. We, as commonwealthers, have the honor of taking part in this battle between good and lackluster; between leader and follower; between Rick Santorum and Bobby Casey Jr. For some out there, it’s easy to write off Senator Santorum, a conservative Catholic from Penn Hills. But before you do, you must realize what’s at stake.

If there was ever a time in Modern American politics that it was important to vote for someone, this is it. America is at a turning point as it faces new challenges abroad and at home. While you could certainly be a lemming, hop in line, and join the “anyone-but-Santorum” bandwagon, you must realize the kind of senator you would get… and more importantly, the kind of Senator you would lose.

Let’s talk about Bobby, the State Treasurer running for his sixth office in four years. Casey has lead in the polls since the beginning of this race and has kept his lead thanks to a campaign strategy of duck and dodge: duck the issues, dodge the reporters. His stances on many of the big issues facing Pennsylvania and America have been vague at best. Democrats nominated Casey as someone who would lure in moderate voters and capitalize on any anti-incumbent, anti-Republican sentiment growing in the state. He’s a candidate that can be molded any way the Democratic National Committee (DNC) would like—and that’s not something we should be “okay” with.

Santorum and Casey had a total of four debates during this election. Watching Santorum debate Casey (in any of the four debates) was like watching someone argue with a kindergartner. Casey’s answer to every question started something like this “I think we need to do everything the Bush administration hasn’t done…” and every rebuttal went a little more like “Rick voted with the president 98% of the time…” And it just went on like that, ad nauseum, until the hour was over.

This begs the question, where does Casey actually stand on the issues? He portrays himself as someone “moderate” and “in touch” with the values of Pennsylvania. He claims to be pro-life, while taking support from folks like MoveOn.org and supporting the Plan-B Morning After Pill. It’s odd that someone who is “pro-life” doesn’t receive any endorsements from the largest pro-life organizations in America (Santorum did, by the way.) Casey is a man who will say he stands for pro-life issues, but if elected, he surely won’t fight for them… he’ll just sift to the back of the Democratic pack.

Hot-button social issues aside, Casey also claims to hold a similar stance with Santorum on the issue of Iraq. Like Santorum, he isn’t for any sort of timetable, but has said little else in the ways of actually winning the war. Santorum’s stance on the Iraq war is to let our troops finish the job and slowly transfer power over to a competent Iraq government. Admittedly, we aren’t quite there yet, but both candidates agree that the “Murtha-Cut-and-Run” strategy isn’t going to solve the problem.

As for the rest of the Axis of Evil, Casey and Santorum differ greatly in terms of proportionality. Casey’s stance on both Iran and North Korea is tough sanctions. Hearing him talk about such large threats to the American way of life gives me chills—he couldn’t even name the previous Iranian president during the KDKA debate. His grasp of foreign policy issues is similar to that of a horse’s grasp of a pencil. Santorum, however, has spent much of this campaign talking about the Islamic fascist threat that America is currently facing. Santorum’s solution can be seen in his Iran Freedom and Support Act (S.333), a bill that cuts off funding to Iran and instead supports the pro-Democracy movement currently building within Iran.

An integral part of the foreign policy discussion between these two candidates is the issue of immigration reform. Casey has openly supported the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill—a bill that, if it had passed, would have granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, provided them with social security benefits, and relieved them of any back income taxes. Santorum has taken a strong stand against the bill (which was blocked by the House), and has said that he would only support a bill that addressed border security first. Casey likes to say that Santorum votes with President Bush 98% of the time, and yet on the issue of immigration, Bush and Casey are eating at the same Don Pablo’s.

Now, if you think that Casey’s grasp of foreign policy issues is a little shaky, just look at where he stands on some of the more pressing economic issues of the day. Casey’s strongest stance as to what to do with our (booming) economy is to repeal the “tax breaks for the rich.” It’s a common Democratic code-phrase for “raise taxes.” Casey said he would vote against the Bush tax cuts that have helped grow the economy tremendously after 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina. Casey fails to understand that repealing these tax cuts would do more than “stick it to the rich,” like raise the taxes of low-income families by 5%, bring back the marriage penalty, and make 50% of the child-tax credit disappear. Santorum is fighting to make these tax cuts permanent, as well as repealing the death tax (also known as the estate tax). Santorum is also fighting to reform Social Security, a system that is set to go bankrupt over the next few decades. While Santorum wants to work on giving young voters private accounts, Casey seems to think we can just grow our way out—which will be hard with all his tax increases.

Looking at where these men stand on the issues, I can’t imagine anyone wanting what Casey represents. But, say you aren’t interested in these issues; maybe you’re just looking for change. I must say that change isn’t always for the better, and a Casey win could set back Pennsylvania--12 years (the amount of time Santorum has been in office). Casey would start at the bottom of the seniority ladder. If re-elected, Santorum, however, would become the second most powerful Republican in the Senate, allowing him to have a more public, influential, role in policy and deliver even more funding and support for Pennsylvania.

A Casey win would also spell doom for Western PA. If both he and Rendell won on Election Day, then all of Pennsylvania’s leadership would be coming from the eastern fringe (Governor Rendell and Arlen Specter from Philly, Casey from Scranton). This means that when it comes time to distribute government funding, support sports teams, and make important moral rulings on stem cell research and abortion… Western Pennsylvanians are at their mercy.

So when it comes time for you to march into the voting booth on the 7th, think about what’s at stake. Do you want someone in office who is going to stand up and fight for what he believes in, or someone who is going to sit back and study his DNC-issued talking points? Do you want someone with experience and vision, or a career politician who hasn’t had much luck winning elections? We can’t afford to take a chance with the inexperienced Casey… but more importantly, we can’t afford to lose Senator Rick Santorum.

Originally appearing in The Setonian, 11/2/06

Peggy Noonan: We Need His Kind

An excerpt from Peggy Noonan's excellent new article "We Need His Kind: In Praise of Rick Santorum." To read the entire article, visit the Opinion Journal Online.

And so he has spoken for, and stood for, the rights of the unborn, the needs of the poor, welfare reform when it was controversial, tax law to help the family; against forcing the nation to accept a redefining of marriage it does not desire, for religious freedom here and abroad, for the helpless in Africa and elsewhere. It is all, in its way, so personal. And so national. He has breached the gap with private action: He not only talks about reform of federal law toward the disadvantaged, he hires people in trouble and trains them in his offices.

Santorum issues are hot issues, and raise passions pro and con.

His style has been to face what his colleagues hope to finesse. His opponent, reading the lay of the land, has decided the best way to win is to disappear. He does not like to debate. Mr. Santorum has taken to carrying an empty chair and merrily addressing it.

Mr. Santorum has been at odds with the modernist impulse, or liberalism, or whatever it now and fairly should be called. Most of his own impulses--protect the unprotected, help the helpless, respect the common man--have not been conservative in the way conservative is roughly understood, or portrayed, in the national imagination. If this were the JFK era, his politics would not be called "right wing" but "progressive." He is, at heart, a Catholic social reformer. Bobby Kennedy would have loved him.

This week I caught up with Mr. Santorum by phone as his van drove east along the Pennsylvania Turnpike toward Philadelphia.

He sounded joyful. He said this campaign was "the hardest and most wonderful ordeal I've ever been through." He said he's been taken aback by all the prayers, by all the people who've come from so far to help him. "I've never had that before. I've never had it. I met a guy from Seattle, and a guy from Waco, Texas--they came in for a week just to help me. We have 14 kids coming in from Great Britain!" He said, "Wonderful things are happening."

He sounded startled. And moved. And hopeful. Which is a funny way for a guy down 10 points to feel.

He told me something is happening. And I hope he's right. Because the U.S. Senate is both an institution and a collection of human beings, and it needs his kind.

Santorum: America's Churchill

Santorum has spent the last few weeks of his campaign touring the state giving a speech in which he defines the "gathering storm" of threats to America. This isn't fear-mongering, but rather a strong and honest warning for Americans. It's also a major reason why Senator Santorum needs re-elected.

Frank Gaffney Jr., columnist and founder of the Center for Security Policy, published an article Monday referring to Santorum as the "American Churchill." Gaffney, who introduced Santorum on three of his campaign stops, wrote, "He spoke with passion and authority about the combination of enemies who are currently joining forces – despite differences of ideology no less dramatic than those of Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Imperial Japan and Fascist Italy when they were allies during World War II – to advance a common goal of destroying America and other freedom-loving nations."

Santorum's speech comes at a time where he is fighting for his political life. This upcoming election will not only decide who goes into office, but also the course America will take. In this time of increased military threat abroad, we can't afford to have an inexperienced follower like Bob Casey Jr. in office. Gaffney writes, "Like Churchill before him, Sen. Santorum is far more than a Cassandra warning of the dangers ahead. He is a man with a record of leadership and accomplishment who both recognizes such perils and works effectively to devise and adopt appropriate strategies for dealing with them."

Gaffney compares Santorum and Casey's stance on the "gathering storm":

The commanding grasp shown by Sen. Santorum of the most important issues of our day stands in stark contrast to the haplessness of his opponent, State Treasurer Bob Casey, Jr., when it comes to the war. He has generally declined to debate the substance of the incumbent's positions and judgments, offering – often incoherently – canned talking points and platitudes seemingly focus-group tested to obscure his lack of knowledge or gravitas.

In the past few days, Sen. Santorum has found a way of starkly demonstrating to Pennsylvania's voters that Treasurer Casey is more than unprepared for the job he seeks in the U.S. Senate. He has also been missing-in-action when it comes to the role he could have been playing to support the war effort in his present job .

Pennsylvania, and America, need a strong leader like Santorum. One who understands the threats facing America, and is willing to face them head-on.

Ten Good Reasons to Vote GOP

Phil Brennan of NewsMax.com recently posted a list of reasons to vote GOP this election... a list you won't soon hear about on the major news networks:

Reason #1. The economy is kicking butt. It is robust, vibrant, strong and growing. In the 36 months since the Bush tax cuts ended the recession that began under President Clinton, the economy has experienced astonishing growth. Over the first half of this year, our economy grew at a strong 4.1 percent annual rate, faster than any other major industrialized nation. This strong economic activity has generated historic revenue growth that has shrunk the deficit. A continued commitment to spending restraint has also contributed to deficit reduction.

Reason #2. Unemployment is almost nil for a major economy, and is verging on full employment. Recently, jobless claims fellto the lowest level in 10 weeks. Employment increased in 48 states over the past 12 months ending in August. Our economy has now added jobs for 37 straight months.

Reason #3. The Dow is hitting record highs. In the past few days, the Dow climbed above 12,000 for the first time in the history of the stock market, thus increasing the value of countless pension and 401(k) that funds many Americans rely on for their retirement years.

Reason #4. Wages have risen dramatically. According to the Washington Post, demand for labor helped drive workers' average hourly wages, not including those of most managers, up to $16.84 last month -- a 4 percent increase from September 2005, the fastest wage growth in more than five years. Nominal wage growth has been 4.1 percent so far this year. This is better or comparable to its 1990s peaks. Over the first half of 2006, employee compensation per hour grew at a 6.3 percent annual rate adjusted for inflation. Real after-tax income has risen a whopping 15 percent since January 2001. Real after-tax income per person has risen by 9 percent since January 2001.

Reason #5. Gas prices have plunged. According to the Associated Press, the price of gasoline has fallen to its lowest level in more than 10 months. The federal Energy Information Administration said Monday that U.S. motorists paid $2.21 a gallon on average for regular grade last week, a decrease of 1.8 cents from the previous week. Pump prices are now 40 cents lower than a year ago and have plummeted by more than 80 cents a gallon since the start of August. The previous 2006 low for gasoline was set in the first week of January, when pump prices averaged $2.238. In the week ending Dec. 5, 2005, prices averaged $2.19. Today, gasoline can be found for less than $2 a gallon in many parts of the country.

Reason #6. Since 9/11, no terrorist attacks have occurred on U.S. soil. Since 9/11 the U.S. has not been attacked by terrorists thanks to such programs as the administration's monitoring of communications between al-Qaida operatives overseas and their agents in the U.S. and the monitoring of the international movement of terrorist funds -- both measure bitterly opposed by Democrats.

Reason #7. Productivity is surging and has grown by a strong 2.5 percent over the past four quarters, well ahead of the average productivity growth in the last 30 years. Strong productivity growth helps lead to the growth of the Gross Domestic Product, higher real wages, and stronger corporate profits.

Reason #8. The Prescription Drug Program is working. Despite dire predictions that most seniors would refrain from signing up to the new Medicare prescription benefits program, fully 75 percent of all those on Medicare have enrolled, and the overwhelming majority say they are happy with the program.

Reason #9. Bush has kept his promise of naming conservative judges. He has named two conservative justices to the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. In addition, he has named conservative justices who are devoted to the Constitution as it is written and not as activist liberal judges think it means. The strong likelihood that one or more justices will retire from the Supreme Court makes it mandatory for the Republicans to hold the Senate and have a chance to name new conservative justices.

Reason #10. The deficit has been cut in half three years ahead of the president's 2009 goal, with the 2006 fiscal year budget deficit down to $248 billion. The tax cuts have stimulated the economy and are working.

Santorum: We Must Keep Up the Fight!

The following is a blog entry posted on the Santorum campaign blog by none other than the Senator himself.

Voters understand the choice they're making before they go to the polls in 20 days. And campaigning hard we are ... yesterday I was in Philadelphia for several events and today I'll be spending dusk 'til dawn campaigning back home in Southwest PA.

Those reading this blog hopefully understand the stakes in this year's Election.

But just in case you need a reminder, here goes:

If you want to keep your taxes low, defeat the Islamofascist threat to our freedom, and restore sanity to our judicial system by appointing judges who won't re-write the Constitution every chance they get ...

...then my victory in Pennsylvania will help protect you and your family from the radical left seeking to seize control of the United States Senate this November.

Is that important to you? I believe it is. If you think that four years of steady economic growth hasn't been important to our country...

...if you don't want a repeat of Bill Clinton's massive tax hikes...

...and you don't like the idea of any of our troops in harms way, but you know in your heart that we cannot cut and run from Iraq...

...then you understand fully why I must be re-elected in November. All of this, plus the Supreme Court nominees and other judicial nominees are at stake, truly at risk, and you know from my record that I not only stand up for what's right, I fight for it.

As I told Pittsburgh-area radio host Fred Honsberger Tuesday, "bizarre" is a good word to describe our campaign for U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania this year. I've never been involved in a campaign like this one where someone felt so entitled to winning an office simply because they have a famous last name. And that someone I refer to is Bob Casey, Jr.

He's running a cookie-cutter campaign, repeating the same canned phrases time and again. His latest talker -- calling me desperate. My response: it's not desperation, it's exasperation. My opponent, Bob Casey, Jr. is trying to make this entire campaign a referendum on Rick Santorum and the Bush Administration. He's giving the people NO reason to vote FOR him.

He's refused to engage in substantive debate. In every debate, even the moderators or panelists felt compelled to point out that he avoided giving a straight answer to their questions. It's been like pulling teeth to get him to respond to questions. And in almost all cases, he didn't answer them all together.

It can be exasperating. But I have a lot of faith in the people of Pennsylvania, and those across this country who have been so supportive. They're going to take a look, and they're going to see someone who works hard, and worked hard to get the job; someone who works hard when he's in the job, compared to someone who feels he is entitled to this job. I think when you feel like you're entitled to something, you don't work very hard after you get it.

I have earned my support because of what I've done, what I believe in, and the vision I present. That vision includes cutting taxes to keep the economy growing and create jobs, securing our borders without providing amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, taking strong action against Islamic fascists who want to kill us, and working towards energy independence so that we're not dependent on the same people who want to kill us for oil.

I will talk about, and work on addressing, those issues all day long. My opponent avoids talking about those issues at all costs, and he doesn't come close to offering solutions.

You think I like answering every question. I don't. I get questions about my family and personal matters. But no matter the question, I answer because I believe the people of Pennsylvania and America deserve to hear from me.

I feel humbled to serve the people of Pennsylvania in the United States Senate. It is not a job that's ever been coming to me, but it's one that is worth every minute because of the difference I'm able to make in people's lives, and the opportunity I have to help secure our country for the long-term – economically, culturally and physically.

I look forward to continuing this conversation throughout the campaign and when I'm re-elected to the Senate, with your support.

Thank you, and God Bless.

Santorum vs Casey: Round 2

Last Thursday, Senator Rick Santorum and Bobby Casey Jr. went head to head in their second debate. The event, filmed at KDKA studios in Pittsburgh and moderated by Ken Rice, was the first time the two have faced off since their appearance on Meet the Press. Santorum came out swinging.

The debate exploded instantly as Senator Santorum showed us how passionate he is in fighting for this election. It was like that scene in "A Christmas Story," when Ralphie jumps on the bully and beats him to a pulp. Santorum never backed down from Casey, and while at times their arguments were inaudible, he succeeded in exposing his challenger for what he is: a pawn of the DNC without any real opinions or positions. Casey never really answered any actual policy question, and instead began to complain about the Bush Administration and saying non-answers like "I'm going to do what they haven't been able to do!"

When asked about the former-president of Iran, Casey didn't know who he was. He also didn't know how much our state is investing in companies that outsource jobs, an issue that is completely pertinent to his job as state treasurer. And Santorum made sure to point out that Casey's campaign website was actually launched before he had his State Treasurer website online--a telling sign that Casey wasn't interested in his position as treasurer, but instead wanted to continue running for various offices... six in the past four years.

The debate wasn't as much of a policy debate, like the Swann/Rendell debate weeks earlier, but rather it was more of a passionate political brawl. While there hasn't been any polls released since the debate, it will be interesting to see what the voters think of Santorum and Casey.

Friday morning saw a number of responses from newspapers across the Commonwealth:

• "The hour is as lively as a structured debate can be (mainly because the candidates so often ignore the structure) and reflected the ferocity of the Santorum campaign and the single-mindedness of Casey's."
--Philadelphia Daily News

• "Both candidates were evasive to varying degrees, but Mr. Casey more so... Mr. Santorum, as a result, appeared to have a better grasp of the issues, at least those ones that were raised yesterday." --Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

• "Several Casey ads have hammered Santorum for voting repeatedly against an increase in the minimum wage. Santorum pointed out Thursday that he also has voted 10 times to increase the minimum wage, provided the change includes ''provisions to take care of small business.'' --The Morning Call

And finally, here is Fred Honsberger's radio commentary about the debate:

The debate aired on KDKA, PCN, and C-SPAN. And while I'm sure you'll find cut-up and spun versions of the debate on YouTube, I highly recommend you find the complete, un-edited debate in KDKA's Video Library

The two will debate again on Monday, Oct. 16 in Philadelphia. KYW radio at 8:00 am. The two will meet again at 7:00 pm on WPVI-TV.

Thanks Rendell, Now My Coffee Costs More!

Last week, I was saddened by the news that Starbucks would be raising the prices of their coffee due to international coffee markets and production costs. Apparently, coffee, the second largest traded commodity next to oil, can rise and fall in price much like the gas we use in our cars. It's understandable for a large corporation like Starbucks to have to adjust according to the international markets, and there is a chance of that price falling eventually.

I was floored, however, when I walked in to my favorite coffee shop on the planet (whose name I won't mention in this article) and saw a sign that they would be raising the prices of their coffee. Could this small, independently owned business be effected by international coffee trade? I thought it was in its own economic bubble-- what happened to the bubble? Well, their bubble was burst by a big, fat, Tammany-Hall-politician from Philadelphia: Governor Ed Rendell.

The cafe was raising their prices because they have to in order to keep up with the increase in the minimum wage!

I've harped on this before, but you don't really see the negative effects of raising the wage until its too late. The price of a small cup of coffee was going up almost twenty cents, and it wasn't because the cafe wanted to raise the price or take advantage of the supply & demand setup that our economy is based on. They don't want to raise the price, but they are being forced to because people think raising the minimum wage will solve everyone's problems. I don't blame the cafe one bit, they are just doing what they have to in order to continue making a profit. I am blaming, however, our state politicians, specifically Ed Rendell, for raising the minimum wage over the summer.

When I first saw the sign next to the cash register, and then looked up at the prices (effective Oct. 2), my blood began to boil. This is exactly what I knew was going to happen and I was pissed. Sure the minor side-effects popped into my head first: I would no longer be able to get coffee for $1.05 (the same price as freedom, by the way); I would have to start carrying more change with me.

Then I thought about the negative effects that something like this has on a small business. Their image gets soiled for a period of time, as long-time customers realize that the prices have gone up. Americans hate when the prices go up on anything (we judge economic success, incorrectly, on the price of gas for Pete's sake!), and we have a tendency to not understand why prices are going up. Then again, business owners are forced to make that tough decision: do they cut back their workforce because they have to pay more, or do they raise prices and chance unpopularity. Then, if they raise prices, they might not get the same amount of business and still continue to lose money. It's not fair! And the fact that I now have to pay twenty cents more for my coffee isn't fair either.

But doesn't that mean that if the minimum wage goes up all the wages should also increase? No way, Manuel! Maybe if you're a member of the AFL-CIO, who constantly fights for hirer minimum wages so that they themselves can charge more. But if you're like me, who works on a scale disconnected from standard wage prices, you're helpless. You just have to pay more for goods and services. Great. Thanks, Rendell.

Liberals, and fighters of the higher wage, that are reading this are probably saying to themselves: this isn't a black and white issue, there are many facets to consider, blah, blah, yatta, yatta. It's easy for me to see issues from a 'one or the other' standpoint--especially when the issue involves my infinite love for that hot (and sometimes cold) lifeforce: coffee. This time, I see the issue of minimum wage as black as my coffee and as white as my cream.

Wallace Sparks Clinton's Rage

Over the weekend, Chris Wallace, of FOX News Sunday, sat down with former-President Bill Clinton to talk with him about his new global initiative. Wallace, in an interview with Fishbowl DC shortly after interviewing Clinton, said that they had agreed to split the fifteen minute interview into two halves: one half dedicated to Clinton's new charity (CGI) and the other dedicated to whatever topic Wallace chose.

When Wallace asked Clinton about not doing enough to catch Osama bin Laden while in office, Clinton exploded. Wallace said later, "I felt as if a mountain was coming down in front of me." Clinton's lashing out soon made Drudge headlines--while video captures could be found all over YouTube.

Dick Morris, a former Clinton advisor, in an article published this morning in The Hill, writes about how Clinton showed America is true face: "There he was on live television, the man those who have worked for him have come to know – the angry, sarcastic, snarling, self-righteous, bombastic bully, roused to a fever pitch." Morris writes that Clinton's arguments with Wallace are based on distortions of both the questions asked and the true history.

Clinton told Wallace, “There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk Down.” Nobody said there was. The point of citing Somalia in the run up to 9-11 is that bin Laden told Fortune Magazine in a 1999 interview that the precipitous American pullout after Black Hawk Down convinced him that Americans would not stand up to armed resistance

Morris's past experience with the former president give him a little more credibility than your every-day op/ed columnist. Morris recalls speaking with Clinton around the time of the first WTC bombings, saying "In my frequent phone and personal conversations with both Clintons in 1993, there was never a mention, not one, of the World Trade Center attack. It was never a subject of presidential focus."

Clinton made it a point to state that President Bush had a whole 8 months to catch bin Laden after taking office--but, as Morris says, "he [Clinton] should candidly acknowledge that eight years of blame fall on him." In the interview, Clinton claims to have left the Bush Administration a clearly laid out plan for dealing with Osama; while today, Secretary of State Rice rebutted saying they were left no such thing.

"Path to 9/11" Follow-Up

As a follow-up to previous post about the double-standard going on with the ABC miniseries and the Bush-assassination film, I came across a very honest column written by the miniseries' author.

"The Path to Hysteria" was published in the Wall Street Journal today by screenwriter Cyrus Nowrasteh. In it, he talks of death threats he received, along with inquiries into his personal life, by various Democratic objectors to the miniseries. "In addition to the death threats and hate mail directed at me, and my grotesque portrayal as a maddened right-winger, there developed an impassioned search for incriminating evidence on everyone else connected to the film."

Nowrasteh, an Iranian-American born in Colorado, talks about being completely ethnically profiled by the L.A. Times. "To them [the Times] I was an Iranian-American politically conservative Muslim. It is perhaps irrelevant in our brave new world of journalism that I was born in Boulder, Colo. I am not a Muslim or practitioner of any religion, nor am I a political conservative." Apparently it's okay when a liberal newspaper stereotypes someone.

He goes on to commend ABC and defend "Path to 9/11":

Despite intense political pressure to pull the film right up until airtime, Disney/ABC stood tall and refused to give in. For this--for not buckling to threats from Democratic senators threatening to revoke ABC station licenses--Disney CEO Rober Iger and ABC executives deserve every commendation. Hence the 28 million viewers over two nights, and the ratings victory Monday night (little reported by the media), are gratifying indeed.

"The Path to 9/11" was set in the time before the event, and in a world in which no party had the political will to act. The principals did not know then what we know now. It is also indisputable that Bill Clinton entered office a month before the first attack on the World Trade Center. Eight years then went by, replete with terrorist assaults on Americans and American interests overseas. George W. Bush was in office eight months before 9/11. Those who actually watched the entire miniseries know that he was given no special treatment.

It's excellent to see the man standing up for himself, especially after the series was such a success. Hopefully everyone will remember how these Democratic senators and lawyers acted next time they champion their party as the party of "freedom of speech."

Filming a Double-Standard

When ABC wanted to air a docu-drama miniseries about the events leading up to September 11th, the Clinton Administration, along with scads of other Democrats, complained about the depiction of Clinton, Berger, Albright and others in the film. While President, Bill Clinton passed up numerous opportunities to either capture or kill Osama Bin Laden, but he and members of his administration wanted ABC to cut any scene about such matters from the film. They claimed that the scenes in the film were "fictional" and "exaggerated" eventhough NewsMax.com published a recording of Clinton admitting his Bin Laden mistakes in a 2002 interview.

And so, as always, when something isn't going the way Democrats like, they run to their lawyers. Because of legal pressures being placed on ABC by Clinton's lawyers, the scenes revolving around Clinton's decision not to capture Bin Laden were edited.

Did the Bush Administration complain at all about blame being placed on them in the film? Nope. Did President Bush run to his lawyers when Michael Moore made an entire movie attacking him? Nope. In actuality, I can't recall one time when President Bush, or a member of his administration, sued someone for making a movie or show attacking them. Yet, when ABC tries to tell some form of the truth (the series is a "docu-drama," not a "documentary") Clinton jumps all over it and makes them change it.

Now look at this latest film debuting in Toronto: Death of a President. The film, made in England, depicts President Bush being shot and killed during a fictional visit to Chicago in 2007. The filmmakers went out of their way to make the movie as realistic as possible, digitally graphing President Bush's real face on to an actor's body. They splice this with real footage of Bush visiting Chicago on past occasions to make the whole thing seem all the more real. The movie then continues to show what it would be like under a Cheney presidency.

The mere idea that a filmmaker (a foreigner no less) would make a movie about the murder of a sitting president is indecent and uncalled for. You may disagree with the man and his policies, but going out of your way to make a realistic demonstration on how to kill him is ridiculous. But, as absurd as it all seems, President Bush has yet to sick a team of lawyers on the people responsible for this film. While I certainly think he should, as the film (unlike the ABC docu-drama) actually presents a security threat, it is important to note that he hasn't. Bush continues to take heat from the radical left, and he doesn't retaliate.

When President Clinton threatens to sue ABC for making a drama about his failures, it's considered righteous and deserved. If President Bush would ask that a film depicting his murder not be shown in America, people would cry that he was limiting someone's rights or taking away their freedoms. There is a double standard happening here that just isn't sitting well with me.

Standing Behind Israel

Do you show restraint when a mosquito bites your arm? No. You kill it so that it doesn't return for more blood. So, should a small, ever-threatened country like Israel show restraint when it is constantly pestered by Islamic extremists? I think not. This is Israel's chance to finally be rid of these Islamo-fascists who want nothing more than to destroy the last remaining Jewish state on the planet. Yet many in the world seem to think Israel should "play nice" and limit its capacity for defense. How dare they create an example by defending themselves against Islamic bullies!

America, and specifically President Bush and his administration, are doing the right thing. While the United Nations (in all of it's power and wisdom) is busy writing resolutions calling for an immediate ceasefire, and other nations are condemning Israel for their "lack of restraint," we stand by their side. We're not about to tell them how to run their country, or how to defend themselves-- if anything, we are hoping that Israel will help us out by defeating one of the many factions involved in the War on Terror. But our country isn't united in this stance of "Let Israel defend herself." Like most issues, it has become quite partisan-- with the majority of Republicans standing behind Israel, and the majority of Democrats saying that America should remain neutral. Democrats would like us to just toss aside the decades of support we've given the country of Israel and say "You know what... we don't want to pick a side this time." We can't be fare-weather Israeli-supporters. It's all or nothing.

Dick Morris describes the current situation a little harsher in an article published two weeks ago: "The global condemnation of Israel is simply illustrative of the low esteem attached to Jewish blood in this world where anti-Semitism comes disguised as morality and a commitment to peace."

In his article, Morris touches on an idea that had coincidentally crossed my mind: why is it that Jewish Americans continue to vote Democrat. They are a voting block that has consistently voted for liberals in the past, while the folks that they vote for consistently refuse to stand up for Israel. The specific example Morris cites is the 1996 fight between Israel and Hezbollah: "Clinton’s willingness to use American power to force a cease-fire on Israel before it had fully eradicated Hezbollah stands in stark and sharp contrast to George Bush’s insistence on letting Israel proceed with its attacks until the terrorist group is neutralized. In a nutshell, this illustrates the difference between the Democratic and Republican approaches to Israeli security." (emphasis added)

Morris writes that here in America, it is the "Christian-right" that stands up for the country of Israel, not the Jewish voters. While the majority of Jews may hold liberal social and economical values, one would think that they would put those aside and consider their homeland when going to the polls. Yes, Israel is important to all three religions (of the book) involved in this constant struggle, but it arguably means the most to the Jewish people.

President Bush has always been very strong in his realization of the War on Terror and all of its facets (despite what his critics may think). His decision to stand behind Israel, and (hopefully) not waiver will be the best thing for the overall War on Terror, assuming Israel can seize the moment and eliminate Hezbollah.

Murtha Digs a Ditch

To lie in, perhaps? Let's hope so.

Murtha's doing all he can to get dirt on Diana Irey, the Republican woman who is challenging him for the seat in the 12th Congressional district of Pennsylvania.

Thing is, there is no dirt. Not even dust--Diana has showed up at the polls every single time since 1986.

The only thing that Murtha's digging for is hopefully going to bury his career as a congressman. We need a change, and it's looking like Diana Irey is the woman for the job.

(Link via Michelle Malkin's blog)

An International Hadleyville

Victor David Hanson, in the latest issue of the National Review Online, addresses the idea of President Bush as a cowboy and the recent claims by Time Magazine that his "cowboy diplomacy" days are over. In "How Now, Cowboy?", Hanson discusses the traditional role of the cowboy (created largely by Hollywood). In almost every sense, the cowboy is always a loner, fighting for his own traditional code of honor, much like knights or samurai--alot of societies tend to have their own hero stereotypes like that.

Since 9/11, much of Bush's foreign policy has consisted of this loner, cowboy attitude. That's not say that it's necessarily a bad thing; I think it's high time America stood up for itself and presented our detractors with a clear choice: are you with us or not? Of course, I was as saddened as most conservatives when I heard Bush admit that his 'wanted dead or alive' lingo was off-base. I was proud of the fact that the man didn't pull his punches--it was very Reagan-esque. But at the present, President Bush has seemed to calm down a bit, taking the road of diplomacy and multi-lateralism. These aren't bad things by any means (every situation calls for different tactics), and Hanson seems to allude that before it's all said and done, he may very well dispatch of a few more "bad guys" before riding off into the sunset. Each President seems to have his own style of dealing with the foreign powers, whether it's just appeasing them so that they go away, or standing up to them and rallying the world behind the cause. Bush knows what he has to do, and is more than willing to include those who understand what's at stake.

Europe, Hanson writes, prefers their American leaders a little differently. "Their preferred American leader is a metrosexual John Kerry or Al Gore who wears tasteful earth tones, dribbles effusive praise of the U.N., and speaks at Davos of coalition building, Kyoto, and consultation with the EU." I couldn't have put it better myself.

While Hanson writes of many Western movies that are similar to the situation the POTUS is currently in, his best example is taken right from "High Noon." In "High Noon," Marshall Kane (played by Gary Cooper) is left to defend a town that doesn't want him there. Kane, instead of going on a honeymoon with his wife, stays back to fight the returning villain (who was just released from prison and took the first train back). Everyone thinks he's crazy for staying; the townspeople tell him to run; no one is on his side. No one else sees the threat of the returning murderer. "The truth is that we live in a global Hadleyville suffering from the delusion that international communications, cellphones, and the Internet...equate to civilization. In fact, they are only a thin and flashy veneer atop a wild and savage world where outlaw regimes like North Korea, Saddam's Iraq, and Iran push until pushed back."

While the many of Americans, and the world, sit back and see Bush as the loner who is out there fighting a foe that doesn't exist, they are acting as the people of Hadleyville. Bush may not have a large posse backing him up, but that doesn't mean the fight isn't worth fighting.

Gingrich Outlines WWIII

Newt Gingrich, one of America's foremost leaders of conservatism, has written what he describes as the Third World War in his column Winning the Future. He writes, "...I am now firmly convinced that the world confronts a situation that is frighteningly similar to a Third World War, one every bit as serious and dangerous as the two great conflicts of the 20th Century." The recent attacks by Hezbollah against Israel lead his list of events that mark the beginning of this war:

• An Iran-Syrian-Hezbollah-Hamas terrorist alliance is waging war against Israel in both southern Lebanon and Gaza. Hezbollah has launched more than 1,000 rockets into northern Israel in the past few days alone.
• Seven bombings in Mumbai, India, killed more than 200 people.
• North Korea, which is in public contact with Iran, launched seven missiles, including an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of hitting the West coast of the continental United States, in deliberate contempt of repeated warnings from the American and Japanese governments and the United Nations Security Council.
• Seven Americans were seen on video tape in Miami pledging allegiance to al Qaeda.
• A plot to bomb New York City subways and tunnels was discovered.
• Eighteen Canadians, plotting terror, were arrested with twice the explosive force used in the Oklahoma City bombing and a plan to blow up the Canadian parliament.
• The British government reported that it has uncovered more than 20 "major conspiracies" by Islamic terrorists, and as many as 1,200 potential terrorists now live in the United Kingdom.

The nations of the world seem to be split on the current conflict between Israel and Hezbollah/Hamas, but Newt clearly defines it as an "us vs. them" scenario. Although he isn't just talking about America versus the world... but rather, civilization versus terrorism. "The American people and free people everywhere must come to recognize that we are in a world war that pits civilization against terrorists and their state sponsors who wish to impose a new dark age -- with them in charge." This means that countries like Russia and China will need to decide which side they want to align themselves with, and stop trying to have it both ways.

While I'm not totally sure if this is World War Three (or Four), I do know that if this war in the Middle East spreads any more, every nation that deals with any country in that area is going to have to be involved.

PA Hikes Up the Wage

The idea of raising the minimum wage always sounds like a good thing, right? Wrong. In fact, raising the minimum wage does tremendous damage to small businesses and the consumer. It's a subject that traditionally Republicans have been against, which is why I was so surprised when I heard that a bill raising the wage $2.00 was making it through our state government and was being signed into law by Governor Rendell.

Why on earth would our elected officials (and especially the Republicans) in the state House and Senate vote for such a thing? They clearly didn't listen to their constituents, and instead went ahead with their "pay raise" mentality. Perhaps they thought they would try and make up for their pay grab last summer by raising the wages of everyone else, instead of themselves. Whatever their reasoning, it worked. Now the minimum wage is on the incline in our state.

I guess I should be happy that it was a state decision and not a national one (as most things should be). But the passing of this pay raise only really does two things: help get our legislators re-elected, and make Governor Rendell look good.

Now, you may be saying: What's the problem with raising the minimum wage? Imagine a pond, sitting very still, very calm. Now toss a pebble labeled "$2.00 increase" into that pond and examine all of the ripples it creates. Firstly, it will hurt small businesses. While the raise is incremental over two years, and businesses with under 10 employees are put on a slower increment track, the fact is that these companies are going to have to pay there workers more than they had planned. Then you must look at the next ripple: if the businesses have to pay their employees more, they are going to have to charge more for their product. Which means that the price of goods will rise to cover the price of wages. So suddenly everyone will have to pay a little bit more for the stuff they normally buy, which is something that, as Americans, we always have trouble dealing with. And of course Unions will be demanding more money now as well, which is something they have always done when the minimum wage is raised.

The common argument for raising the wage is quite naive: how are people supposed to raise a family on $5.15/hr? They aren't. The minimum wage was never created to support a family, but rather it was to encourage growth and education. It was designed for students and people starting on the low end of the totem pole, hoping to work their way up. It is specifically not a "Living Wage" (which is a wage limit designed to support a standard of living). For those trying to make it a living wage, they are stretching a system that simply wasn't designed for that sort of thing.

As my brother says, it's like trying to park an SUV in a compact car space. People are still going to try to make it work, and it's only going to end in disaster.

Novak: Murtha's Helping Irey

Conservative pundit Robert Novak continues his series of columns on Jack Murtha as he takes a good look at Diana Irey's increasing chances of victory this November. "Rep. John Murtha (D.-Pa.) appears to be suffering 'Daschle-itis,' a figurative disease which makes entrenched incumbents become national celebrities and, in the process, risk alienating the voters that put them in office."

Murtha continues to speak out against the war, seemingly saying anything to stay in the spotlight and impress the members of his party. I can't help thinking of him as the little boy at the wedding, ready to do or say anything for the attention of the big kids.

Novak writes:

Murtha's opposition to the war has never been the real issue. His assertion that the U.S. is the greatest danger to world peace is only the most recent and perhaps most striking example of his potentially dangerous venture into the great left. Even more offensive were his statements condemning Marines who allegedly participated in a massacre in Iraq, which gave no regard to the presumption of innocence or the existence of evidence (the Marines involved maintain their innocence).

Commissioner Diana Irey continues to get national support, as well as increasingly good press and support. "His [Murtha] district went for John Kerry with only 51% in 2004. What originally seemed like a long-shot bid by Diana Irey (R.) to unseat Murtha has taken on new credibility as she raises money from the Internet and as Murtha makes more and more outrageous statements."

Debunking the "Pro-Choice" Tag

The National Catholic Registry published an article explaining why using the term "pro-choice" instead of "pro-abortion" doesn't work. The article was written because of two letters the magazine received, one questioning their use of the phrase "pro-abortion" and the other questioning the "nominally" pro-life stance of Bobby Casey Jr.

In opinion polls, most Americans say they are against most abortions. But America’s voters are basically divided into three camps. The two smallest camps are the activists for whom abortion is the major issue – those who want to ban it on the one hand, or make it unrestricted on the other.

The rest are in the uncommitted camp. They aren’t always sure what they think of abortion, but they know they don’t like extremism. The trick for politicians is to signal to whichever activist camp they want on their side without looking too extreme for the uncommitted camp.

That’s how the terminology “pro-choice” came to be. “Pro-choice” is meant to suggest that a politician doesn’t really support abortion, but will leave the issue in the hands of mothers and abortionists. But this linguistic trick wouldn’t work on almost any other issue.

If a city councilman said he was “pro-choice” on whether or not people should be allowed to use fireworks when and where they please, it would be clear to all that he was “pro-fireworks.” Journalists would look into his relationship with the fireworks industry.

If a state senator was “pro-choice” as regards people’s right to do drugs in her state, she would be “for legalizing drugs.” If a U.S. senator were “pro-choice” when it came to immigrants staying or leaving, he would be called “for open borders.”

When it comes to abortion, a matter of life and death, using honest language is more important, not less. That’s why we use the term “pro-abortion.”

The article, which reaches a national audience, then focuses on our PA race for Senate. While both candidates claim to be "pro-life," only one has clearly risen to deserve the title: Rick Santorum. Bobby Casey may pro-life, but if so he has a funny way of showing it. He refuses to clearly answer questions about his stance on abortion, while supporting the rejection of pro-life justices. Most recently, he was endorsed by Planned Parenthood.

Many questions remain – questions Casey has not adequately answered. Why does a pro-lifer want to block pro-life justices? Why did Casey headline a “bisexual and transgendered rights” event? Why did a Pennsylvania pro-lifer choose to run against pro-life Santorum instead of pro-abortion Specter? Why doesn’t Planned Parenthood oppose Casey? Why did abortion activist Kate Michelman decide not to run against Casey, and endorse him instead?

And so to answer the question of why Senator Santorum is the true "pro-lifer" of the two, the Register writes:

Because Rick Santorum has been the indispensable man in the Senate on pro-family issues throughout his tenure there. Without him, there would be no partial-birth abortion ban headed to the Supreme Court. He hasn’t simply been an ally, he’s been the Senate leader defending marriage, opposing embryonic stem cell research and cloning, and articulating all aspects of the abortion debate.

So we'll see, in the coming months, if Bobby ever takes a clear stance on this important issue.

Murtha's Devious Past

Did you know that Seton Hill recently had an unindicted criminal for a commencement speaker? Of course, I'm talking about John "Jack" Murtha, who's speech last month ca