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 caf� 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."

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.

"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"

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

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 caused quite an uproar on and off campus. Conservative columnist Robert Novak published an article today reminding everyone that this "Democratic celebrity" has had his share of corruption charges in the past. "I had forgotten," Novak writes, "that federal prosecutors designated him an unindicted co-conspirator in the Abscam investigation 26 years ago." Murtha got out of the charges by agreeing to testify against the other conspirators.

Novak continues, "In 1980, the FBI named him as one of eight members of Congress videotaped being offered bribes by a phony Arab sheik."

The other seven targets took cash and were convicted in federal court. The videotape showed Murtha declining to take cash but expressing interest in further negotiations, while bragging about his political influence. Murtha testified against the popular Rep. Frank Thompson, which created lifelong enemies in the Democratic cloakroom. The House Ethics Committee exonerated Murtha of misconduct charges by a largely party-line vote, after which the committee's special counsel resigned in protest.

As John Murtha makes his rise within the Democratic Party, us Republicans can't be happier! Novak concludes saying, "The transfer of Murtha's tough-guy rhetoric from the back row of the hall of the House of Representatives to national television may not be what Democrats want communicating their side of the Iraq debate. It is why Murtha's candidacy for majority leader is cause for concern among serious Democrats."

The Democrats' call to cut and run seems to be falling on deaf ears. Not one, but two "pull out" bills were shot down in the Senate today. A bill that imposed a timetable requiring troops to be out of Iraq by July 1, 2007 lost 89-13. A second bill, which didn't have a timetable attached but would urge the President to provide a timetable, lost 60-39. The Democrats aren't even a unified party on the biggest issue facing America! How could we possibly trust them in a majority position?

Meanwhile, the more John Murtha talks, and the more the media and the public are reminded about his law-breaking, conspiring, bribe-taking past, the better off Diana Irey will be. Irey, Murtha's Republican opponent this November, continues to get huge national support from military families who are tired of Murtha's rhetoric. She will also be receiving the full support of the Seton Hill U. College Republicans.

Support for Ann Coulter

NewsMax.com released a poll today showing that there is strong online support for Ann Coulter and her recent run-in with the mainstream media. The poll, which was conducted by NewsMax through a number of sources including the Drudge Report and the New York Times, surveyed over 90,000 people. On average, 8 out of every 10 surveyed supported Coulter.

Consistently, 82%-87% were "pro-Coulter" in each of the five questions. The poll requires registration with NewsMax to avoid repeat voters (after all, this isn't a Chicago election).

When asked if Coulter was wrong in criticizing the "Jersey Girl" 9/11 Widows, 85% say she's not. According to the poll she also has an 87% approval rating (with a larger number of votes than most presidential polls). 82% say that the media coverage of Coulter has been unfair.

Despite the media attack on Coulter, from the likes of Matt Lauer, the NYTimes, and House Democrats, her new book "Godless" was number one on Amazon.com at the time of its release, and debuted at the top of the New York Times Bestseller List. Could it be that the media is using Coulter as a reason to show their true colors, toss aside their "unbiased reporting" and attack her views because she isn't as sugar-coated as some. She's admittedly cocky, she knows she's blunt, and she isn't afraid to stand up for herself... but most importantly, she could care less what the media thinks of her, and that is what upsets them the most. Despite every effort of the mainstream media, her book is a huge success.

While Coulter has been compared to Michael Moore in terms of "partisan extremism," I would venture to say that there is one key difference: Coulter doesn't need to exaggerate or fabricate claims to make the other team look bad.

Canadians Attack Gore Film

An article in the Canadian Free Press takes a strong look at Al Gore's claim that the majority of scientists agree with his theories on global warming. I have developed new respect for Canada and their press after reading this in-depth, and rather scathing, article about "Inconvenient Truth."

It appears that Gore is suffering from "general-itis" which has caused him to keep all of his arguments and statistics very non-specific. The article interviews a number of scientists in the field of climate studies, including Prof. Bob Carter from James Cook U. in Australia, who says, "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Scientists across Canada, America, and the rest of the world are quietly disagreeing with Gore's film, which blames humans for the melting of the ice caps, etc. Scientists in the article mainly argue that what is happening to the Earth is cyclical, and that this isn't necessarily anything new. While there aren't concrete facts about global warming one way or the other, the amount of scientists refuting Gore's claim should not be overlooked.

Carter goes on to say, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

It Pays to Be an Illegal

Ann Coulter's editorial from Sunday, June 4^th, 2006 follows below:

If Congress adopts the Bush plan and gives amnesty to illegal aliens, Senate Republicans will be asking President Cheney for a pardon.

Bush wants to grant illegal aliens amnesty while sounding like he's really cracking down on them. It tells you where Americans stand on illegal immigration that Bush has to pull the Democrat trick of hiding from the public what he really believes when it comes to immigration.

The "path to citizenship" that Bush and the Senate are trying to pawn off on Americans requires that illegals pay huge fines and back taxes. "Huge" is defined as a $2,000 fine and taxes for three of the last five years. Even with the special Two Years Tax-Free package for illegals, this is about as likely as me paying my dad back the money I "borrowed" from him when I was in college.

We're told illegal immigrants are dying to pay taxes if only they can become citizens. Oh, by the way, they also will have a panoply of government benefits available to them if they become citizens and even if they get green cards. They're probably unaware of this and are just dying to send half their paychecks to the government just like us shiftless, lazy Americans.

Inasmuch as most of these low-skilled immigrant workers are in the 0 percent tax bracket, this should be a real boon for the U.S. Treasury. Indeed, the government may end up paying the illegals money:
"Let's see, Juan. According to our records, you owe us 0 percent for the past three years, and because you qualify for the earned-income tax credit, we actually owe you! Are 20s OK?"

The Senate bill also forgives illegal aliens who have committed identity theft by stealing American Social Security numbers to get jobs.

So in addition to the Two Years Tax-Free plan for illegals, they get one free felony. Also, illegal immigrants from Mexico qualify for affirmative action, allowing them to get into U.S. colleges with lower grades and scores than Americans.

What's the process for losing your citizenship and becoming an illegal alien?

However hardworking illegal immigrants are when they come here, the moment they become citizens, they will be immediately demagogued by Democrats into viewing welfare as a universal human right, just as they now view living in America.

Of course, illegal immigrants will "work for less." They don't have to pay taxes at all now. Not only that but illegal aliens don't require their employers to comply with OSHA regulations, overtime and minimum wage laws, unemployment insurance, disability laws, the Family and Medical Leave Act, a slew of oppressive environmental regulations and 4 million other ways the government has developed to make it extremely expensive to hire legal employees.

Instead of creating a separate class of citizens who are immune from oppressive government rules, how about relieving all of us from the cost of government?

I thought all these trade agreements the free-trade fetishists have pushed on us over the years already allowed corporations to take advantage of cheap labor in other countries -- countries that don't have oppressive government regulations that make it so expensive to hire American workers. Doesn't NAFTA already allow us to buy inexpensive goods made by Mexicans in Mexico?

In addition to discriminating against American citizens in favor of illegal immigrants, Bush wants to continue our immigration policy of massively discriminating against immigrants who live farther than walking distance from the United States. America's immigration laws are applied only to immigrants who are separated from the U.S. by an ocean. But if they live near the border and can run across it, they're in.

Even if one accepts Bush's theory that we need more immigrants to do the jobs that lazy Americans won't do, isn't it possible that Korean immigrants, Italian immigrants or Indian immigrants would work hard too? But they can't run across the border to America, so they're out of luck.

And since when did conservatives start encouraging people to walk more? What are we, a bunch of Al Gores now?

***
Too good to not reprint. My father directed my attention to this article in today's edition of our local paper, the Valley News Dispatch, a sub-let of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

"United 93"

Today I finally decided to go see the film "United 93," which is a dramatic portrayal of the events on board the airplane that crashed in Pennsylvania on Sept. 11th. Before the film premiered there was a great deal of discussion as to whether or not it was "too soon" for a movie about the biggest attack on American soil in our nation's history. Once the film came out, it was met with glowing reviews. I knew I wanted to see it, but the idea of attending never seemed to come at the right time--I didn't want to ask friends to go with me, seeing as how this movie had the possibility of ruining my day.

I went alone to see the movie. In fact, I was the only person in the theater, and that was probably for the best. The movie is amazing, breathtaking, heartbreaking, and, most importantly, reverent. Paul Greengrass, the writer and director, treated the subject matter with the utmost respect and realism. It is an excellent piece of filmmaking. But more importantly, it accurately (as much as anyone else can know) takes us back to those events on 9/11 and shows us the courage aboard United 93. I am glad I saw this film alone, because sitting through it isn't easy. If I wasn't clenching my fists in anger, I was shifting in my seat, uncomfortable watching the horrific events unfold. I kept thinking back to where I was when all this was first happening--sitting in my Visual Basic class my sophomore year in high school.

It is a stark reminder of why we are in the War on Terror, why we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and why success in these countries is so important. "United 93" shows a group of terrorists who have no remorse, no second thoughts, about what they're doing. This movie not only portrays the hijacking of a plane, but the hijacking of a religion--people who have taken the peaceful message of Islam and twisted into a fundamental, violent sect. This movie also reminds us of the importance of strong national security and organization in today's America. As you watch the film, you want nothing more than to scream at the FAA, NORAD, and the air traffic controllers because of their confusion and lack of communication. I can only hope that these organizations have learned from their mistakes, just as I hope our government has learned from its security mistakes.

The movie isn't for everyone. It's a lot of work to sit through--probably the most difficult movie I've ever seen. But it honors those men and women of flight 93, and serves as a time capsule for that dark day in American history.

Another "Bullplop Moment" brought to you by CNN

Most people going to tune in to their favorite prime time shows tonight were welcomed by the President speaking from the Oval Office. President Bush took this time to discuss his stance on immigration reform. But if you're like me, and where planning on watching the address, you probably tuned in to one of the cable news stations. Those who tuned in to CNN got an even bigger surprise:

Matt Drudge reports that CNN "mistakenly" aired 16 seconds of the President rehearsing his speech prior to 8 o'clock. Watching anyone rehearse is usually less than flattering, and airing footage of the President rehearsing his very serious speech undermines the entire event. Wolf Blitzer, the stalwart defender of everything CNN does, said that it was a total accident. Only months earlier did CNN make another "mistake" by projecting a large X over the head of Vice President Cheney.

These "accidents" seem to happen at the worst possible times for the network. I've never heard of them projecting giant X's over the head of Blitzer, nor have I ever seen a reporter on the channel ever rehearsing their reports (although that isn't to say that they couldn't use a little rehearsal). Instead, these embarrassing broadcast errors only occur when President Bush or his Administration is on the air. It's hard to imagine that this is just a coincidence.

But let's give them the benefit of the doubt. Let's just say that this is an accident. No one is purposely trying to undermine and embarrass the leader of the free world. No one has a secret agenda to distract and detract from any positive news or statement that our president makes. It's just a freak occurrence that only happens at CNN, only when the President speaks. If that is true, then what does it say for the people over at CNN? Shouldn't they be the ones who are embarrassed? Shouldn't they be firing people left and right? Shouldn't we be reading about layoffs and changes in the way they do things because obviously their method of broadcasting is making them out to look like a bunch of blindfolded nincompoops?

Perhaps this is why CNN trails behind folks like Fox News. If this was a mistake, then it shows how clearly unprofessional they are. CNN has no idea how to run a news network if this kind of stuff is happening. The X over Cheney's head was no accident. Showing President Bush preparing for his speech was no accident, either. It's merely childish partisan pranks that scream "unprofessional journalists."

But hey, what do I care? No one watches CNN anyways.

SHU Welcomes John Murtha

Speaker Blast: neutral balance or balance through opposites

The timing couldn't be better for this InsideHigherEd.com article: Calling Michael Moore and Ann Coulter. I recently posted about the Andy Borowitz presentation held last Thursday, April 21st here at Seton Hill. My concern is that our campus is seeing only one side of a political bias harbored somewhere within the depths of our university.

The article from InsideHigherEd.com mentions Michael Moore's visits to college campuses during the 2004 national election. Since that election, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has been reviewing the policy on controversial speakers. (Obviously Michael Moore speaking at a school is more controversial than Andy Borowitz for the pure namesake; I insist, however, that the content is probably similar.)

As for speakers outside the classroom, the statement notes that many such invitations come from student groups seeking to promote certain views and that, as a result, �a mechanical standard of balance� would not �reflect educational objectives.� The statement continues: �So long as the range of a university�s extracurricular programming is educationally justifiable, the specific invitations of particular groups should not be vetoed by university administrators because these invitations are said to lack balance. Campus groups should not be prevented from pursuing the very interests that they have been created to explore.�

Great: let's get Ann Coulter on the invitation list.

I, for one, am tired of being blasted with liberal propaganda lectures. If, when it comes to inviting speakers to campus, we abandon the concept of a "balanced speaker" and, instead, search for a pair of speakers that balance each other I would be pleased. You want to invite Michael Moore to my campus? Go right ahead. But I want Ann Coulter or David Horowitz, Michelle Malkin, or Dinesh D'Souza scheduled the next month. And the budget? Find a way to make it work. If you can invite and pay your political idols to speak, stretch things a bit and cover some balance for a change.

Terry W. Hartle, senior vice president for government and public affairs at the American Council on Education, said he agreed that campuses should (and do) invite a range of speakers, some of them controversial, to campuses. While he said that was a good thing, he also said that �inviting controversial speakers always carries risks � there�s no way around it.�

I don't think that the fear of risk is keeping Seton Hill from conservative speakers. The "range of speakers" that Hartle feels is widely represented on campuses is stifled here. I would like to know who suggests speakers, who votes on them, and who ultimately approves the invitations. If the speakers for the annual lecture series are meant to bring many students together on a topic, a good example is Morgan Spurlock: that night Cecilian Hall was packed. I understand the popularity, but what if we invited someone equally as interesting with a different political slant? The yield would probably be bigger than the Borowitz event... because of the controversy.

Click below for pertinent quotes I pulled directly from the AAUP Policy Statement on Controversial Speakers on Campuses.

(The document itself isn't that long, if you want to read it in its entirety.)

"...'the right to access to speakers on campus does not in its exercise imply in advance either agreement or disagreement with what may be said, or approval or disapproval of the speakers as individuals.' The idea that a university 'participates' or 'intervenes' in a political campaign by providing a forum to hear speakers who have something to communicate about issues of relevance to the campaign is thus fundamentally misplaced. The idea misconceives the role and responsibility of a university, which is not to endorse candidates but to discuss issues of relevance to society.

As part of their educational mission, colleges and universities provide a forum for a wide variety of speakers. There can be no more appropriate site for the discussion of controversial ideas and issues than a college or university campus. Candidates for public office may speak on campus, as may their supporters or opponents, so long as the institution does not administer its speakers program in a manner that constitutes intervention in a campaign. Invitations made to outside speakers by students or faculty do not imply approval or endorsement by the institution of the views expressed by the speaker. Consistent with the prohibition on political activities, colleges and universities can specify that no member of the academic community may speak for or act on behalf of the college or university in a political campaign. Institutions may also clearly affirm that sponsorship of a speaker or a forum does not constitute endorsement of the views expressed."

Peggy Noonan's "Big Three"

In her latest column, Peggy Noonan gives President Bush a plan of attack for his last 1000 days. Always a source of wisdom, Noonan argues that while there will be other unforseen problems to handle, President Bush needs to focus on "the Big Three" that will make America better.

With Tony Snow as the new face of the Administration "the first round of staff changes seems ended, and the desired effect is achieved: a new start, with new people." Noonan hopes that this will lead to a new sense of dynamism and creativity within the Administration.

The three big issues that the President needs to tack, says Noonan, are "Iraq, Afghanistan and the age of terror"; "the economy"; and "the integrity of America's borders." These seem to be the three areas that concern the masses, and the three where President Bush has some really solid ideas.

The Economy is Strong, But No One Cares

Pessimism and denial are running wild as most Dems refuse to admit that the economy is doing quite well. In fact, it's doing great, and the majority of American's have no clue! In an article appearing in the Christian Science Monitor, Linda Feldmann reports the "Unemployment is at 4.7 percent, lower than the averages of the 1970s, '80s, and '90s. The economy is showing strong, consistent growth, without significant inflation. And the stock market is roaring along." Yet the majority of Americans don't seem to care.

A recent Fox News Poll reported that 59% of Americans think the economy is bad because gas is high. But if this is the only economic determiner for people, we're in trouble. While I certainly don't like the gas prices this high, one has to realize that Americans generally have more money than they used to. People can technically "afford" the raise in gas prices. That isn't to say that everyone really can, but high gas shouldn't be the only factor into whether our economy is good or bad.

Why isn't the government doing anything about the high gas prices? It's an easy question to answer: they are in the middle of a stalemate. Democrats in the Senate and House are "eager" to jump on the Republicans for not doing anything to lower prices, yet every option the GOP puts out there is shot down.

The Republicans in Congress have proposed drilling in ANWR, but we can't do that because of the mating caribou. They have proposed offshore drilling in California and Florida. Can't do that because of the fish. They have proposed building more refineries (since America hasn't built one in 30 years). Can't do that because its harmful to the environment. They have even proposed looking for oil in Utah and Colorado (the Rockies have been suspected to possibly hold more oil than Iran!), but of course we couldn't dream of doing that. Every effort to reduce the rate at the pump has been sidetracked by the other side. Their solution? Well... all they have is "conservation," which we all know isn't going to happen.

Anne Coulter has put it best: if we are in the middle of a "war for oil," why are the prices so high? If we were in Iraq to plunder their stockpiles of oil, maybe I wouldn't be paying 3.05/gal!

"The Tax Form Shuffle" or "Another Reason for Being in the GOP"

Today I dotted the I's and crossed all the T's on my tax forms. I've never been happy about having to do this, because unlike most people I know, I have to pay the government instead of getting a nice return. These are the pitfalls of freelance designing, I know, but having to go through this mess every year has done nothing but remind me why I am a Republican.

It's been the standard conservative theory that lower and less taxes will lead to a stronger, more competitive economy. Cutting down paperwork, getting rid of the IRS, and not punished successful people all tend to be high on our priority list. And far off in the distance, I hold that Libertarian dream of a true flat tax where my income is left untouched and I can buy all of the used, tax-free stuff I like... oh that will be the day.

But the Fair Tax Initiative is a long way off. While President Bush has been trying to reform the tax code, as well as making his welcomed tax-cuts permanent, most politicians don't even want to think about something as drastic as a flat tax. Why, without the IRS how would our government function? Most can't even imagine living in a country where we get to keep 100% of our paychecks and pensions. It's a shame, really. Because until then, we'll be wasting millions of those little Post-it "sign here" tabs.

The Intellectual Path Around Protest

The act of protesting is a tricky bag. Sure there are different forms of protest--but in this instance, I'm referring to the standard definition: folks standing around, waving signs and chanting catchy songs. People have been protesting in this manner for quite some time now; while at one point, this may have been effective, the act of protesting no longer moves people the way it hopes to.

If this past weekend has shown us anything, it's that people have grown tired of protests. Large rallies to "speak out" against the fourth year of the Iraq war failed miserably. Marches expected to host thousands turned up with merely hundreds. Special interest groups were frantically calling and text-messaging their friends, doing anything they can to save themselves from embarrassment. Perhaps people are sick of being yelled and chanted at, tired of being hounded by a mob of sign-wavers, proud to stand up against peer pressure.

And really, isn�t that what protests are? Large forms of peer pressure. We grow up learning to stand up to peer pressure; to do what we believe is right without listening to the ploys of those around us. If you look at the organizations that stage protests, the majority are special interest groups. Groups of people who (usually, but not always) are on the radical fringe of the issue they support, or oppose. They are grasping for your attention, relying on the powers of peer pressure to win another person over to their side. These protests hardly convey the real issue at hand, and almost never offer an ounce of intellectualism or debate.

Have you ever tried having a conversation with someone in a protest? It�s near impossible. The second you try to bring up a point on the other side of the issue, you begin to realize that this person with the sign is not listening. Soon, the debate devolves into a name-calling contest, and you are poorly outnumbered. The mob mentality is a furious foe (that sometimes can only be quelled by a fire hose).

Does protesting convince anyone? In the history of humanity, more often than not, the mob mentality is a bad experience. Large groups of people, banning together in protest, usually do nothing but upset the majority of folks. Not once have I ever witnessed someone walk by a protest and say �Hey, these people have convinced me!� Usually it�s quite the contrary; the constant chanting and heckling makes people lean further in the other direction--and with good reason, because usually a protest group is incorrect with a lot of their arguments. Look back thru history at all of the protests and mobs� not many of them ended up being right.

When I was told about a rumor that the SHU CR's would be staging a "grand protest" of the anti-war exhibit coming to campus this week, I had to laugh. Are we that unoriginal? Do we have time to stand outside of the library with large sandwich boards heckling all those who enter? No, because that neither changes people's minds nor reflects the dignity of our organization. A much finer form of protest is found in the realm of intellectualism. Minds aren�t won with harsh chants and bold strokes on poster board.

And while we certainly oppose the messages presented by this group (and this will be more evidenced at the days roll by) we�re not in to screaming and singing things that start with "hey, hey, ho, ho..." And when you are on a small campus such as Seton Hill, where everyone knows you and you know everyone, hollering at your colleagues isn't the best way to get your message across.

Penguins: "Will stay for casino"

Regardless of any good news we get in Pennsylvania, it's perpetually a struggle just to keep the state's cities alive. The threat of losing the Pittsburgh Penguins National Hockey League team has been plaguing western PA for awhile now. Even bringing Mario Lemieux back to play hasn't done all that many had hoped...

The most recent discussions involve a new arena for the team downtown--with slot machines.

And while I don't follow many professional sports (I'd rather watch my 14 year-old brother play middle school basketball or Little League baseball), the NHL is terrific. After the strike, just having live games on television was a blessing (because watching the replayed "Glory Days" gets old).

Governor Rendell (D-PA), however, is up for reelection in our commonwealth, and seems willing to "promise anything," according to Tribune Review opinion cartoonist Randy Bish.

And the State of the Union is... Immaturity

Bush's State of the Union Address Tuesday night was an excellent speech for him. While he really didn't unveil anything groundbreakingly new (just reminding us of some of his domestic campaign issues, and taking a hardline stance with Iran), he did present a quality 50-minute speech that sounded good. No one's going to be attacking him on stuttering or mispronouncing words. No, Bush was superb.

I greatly enjoyed hearing about Cindy Sheehan's arrest just minutes before Bush entered the House to give his speech. Of course, she was invited there by Representative Lynne Woolsey, a Democrat from California, to do nothing but cause trouble. Security saw her walking in with a shirt that had an anti-war message on it (and the law strictly prohibits protesting inside of the House of Representatives). Looks like she'll have to wait a little longer until she can be in a room with the President again.

As is usual with State of the Union Addresses, people applaud more than the President speaks. Sometimes its a bipartisan cheer, usually when the President makes a general statement like "Americans are human" or says "I want to thank our troops." Both sides have to cheer for statements like that, otherwise they look utterly ridiculous... then again, this evening one party did end up looking utterly ridiculous, but I'll get to that. So sometimes there is a very partisan cheer. When people enter the House and sit down, the stands are divided in half, GOP on one side and Dems on the other. So it's very obvious when the Republicans agree with what the President is saying. You see an entire side of the room stand and cheer, and the whole thing sort of resembles a botched "wave" at a football game.

Tonight, however, the Democrats did find a chance to stand on their own and cheer... and their reasoning was appalling, disturbing, and down right hilarious. It came at a time when Bush was just beginning his talk about domestic issues (these resided in the second half of his speech.) Bush began saying that Congress failed to act a year ago, when he proposed plans to save Social Security. Instantly, whoops and hollars erupted from one side of the House as cameras cut to liberal Democrats jumping up and cheering like kids watching a Disney movie. I couldn't believe my eyes... they were actually celebrating LACK of ACCOMPLISHMENT. Democrats were proud of the fact they have accomplished absolutely nothing these past five years, and instead of done nothing but block and naysay everything this President would like to do. And more importantly, they were proud of not finding out a solution to a problem that will affect all of us very personally in about forty years: Social Security.

Never before have I seen a group of politicians who have lost their way like America's Democratic Senators. Instead of proposing anything new, any original ideas or plans, they will filibuster and lie about Republican intentions. The cameras cut instantly to Hillary Clinton, who was smiling and laughing like she has just won the lottery. I can only imagine what she was thinking: "We did it! We fought President Bush on his idea of fixing a problem before it happens! Now generations of young people will have terrible retirements!"

Of course, their applause was silenced once Bush finished his sentence: "yet the rising cost of entitlements is a problem that is not going away." And then a roar of Republican cheering burst out, reminding the Democrats that they have done nothing but prolong the inevitable. I couldn't help but feel like I was watching an episode of Jerry Springer-- one of the ones where the audience is split on the issue, and they squabble back and forth while the people on stage just want to finish what they were saying.

The rest of the President's speech went on unhindered by obnoxious cheers of stagnation. And while I didn't bother to listen to any of the pundits ramble on about what they thought of the speech... instead I shut off the television confident in our country's leader, and a little wary of those who celebrate failure.

Dean Breaks the Bank

The Drudge Report has reported today that the Democratic National Committee chairman, Howard Dean, is causing a few waves of displeasure amongst the party. Apparently, he has spent a good deal of their fundraising dollars!

"Congressional leaders were furious last week when they learned the DNC has just $5.5 million in the bank, compared to the Republican National Committee�s $34 million," says Drudge.

What does this mean, exactly? This will do two things: first, it will cause an even greater rift within the party. There are alot of Democrats who side with Dean (we refer to them as Deaniacs), but there is an equal, or even greater, number of Dems who can't stand the guy. This certainly isn't going to help his reputation amongst an already divided party. Secondly, this is going to hinder the party's efforts to gain seats in this upcoming mid-term election. This November's election is already shaping up to be a blood bath, and the fact that the Dems don't have alot of fundraising cash to hand out means that they're going to have to rely on other groups to aid them. These other groups consist of some rather extreme, and fringe interest organizations like MoveOn.org, ACT, and People Who Hang Out With George Soros (okay, that last one isn't an exact group.)

The Dem's not having alot in the bank sounds like it would be a sweet deal for us Republicans, and in many ways it is. But now their party will have to rely more on these interest groups, which have no problem slinging mud and calling us Nazis. Of course, I can't imagine the American public putting up with that for very long.

Peggy Noonan Takes Stock

Peggy Noon, today, released a fantastic op/ed article for the Wall Street Journal. Of course, her articles are always well thought-out and carry a solid argument. This article is no different.

Titled "Not a Bad Time to Take Stock," the article addresses the Democratic implosion during the Judge Alito hearings, and how the invention of the Internet, along with Fox News, has derailed the liberal-minded media. In it she says:

"Eleven years ago the Democrats lost control of Congress. Then they lost the presidency. But just as important, maybe more enduringly important, they lost their monopoly on the means of information in America. They lost control of the pipeline. Or rather there are now many pipelines, and many ways to use the information they carry."

The article goes on to talk about how the words of Hollywood have no influence amongst today's America, and that once powerful journalists like Walter Kronkite have turned into windbags that are easy to ignore. The emergence of conservative media outlets like Fox, Rush Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc have caused once "impartial" news reporters to be more open about their liberal biases.

For a text of the entire article, click here.

Samuel Alito's Judicial Hazing

After watching three days of Judge Samuel Alito (or as Senator Kennedy called him, "Alioto") get berated and degraded by a bunch of blowhard liberals, I reside in a state of utter bewilderment. How unruly are these Democrat Senators going to be? How far will they go for personal gain? How out of the mainstream must they travel before they become nothing more than a bunch of sour heirlooms? No, I can't even say "heirloom" because that infers some kind of sentimentality for these products of the Vietnam era.

Let me just sum up exactly what has been happening with these hearings: First, Senator Arlen Specter, for as much as PA Republicans despise him, does an admirable job of moderating this event. He has effectively questioned Alito and has defended Alito from redundant attacks. Each of the 8 Democratic Senators on the panel has asked basically the same questions again and again. They bring up Alito's failure to recuse himself from a Vanguard case in the early 90's. After that tripe, which was answered by Alito time and time again, a Republican Senator apologizes for his colleagues redundancy and begins his line of questioning. Then a crazed-Democratic Senator begins questioning him on CAP (Concerned Alumni of Princeton), inferring that Judge Alito is both sexist and racist. Afterwards, a Republican Senator apologizes for the outlandish, and demeaning personal attacks from his colleague and begins his line of questions.

Time and time again, the Democrats lower themselves to sub-human levels. They realize that they will not beat Alito on anything concerning interpretation of law and procedure. So, once all else fails, they begin throwing around inferences that he was a part of some radical anti-women group in Princeton. Of course, these Senators are merely grasping at straws, doing anything they can to appease the interest groups which back them. Do they not realize that the club CAP is merely a traditionalist group that opposed Affirmative Action and removal of the ROTC during the Vietnam War? Do they not know the facts behind the group? It's hardly anti-woman, and according to Judge Napolitano (who was a member of the CAP board), two of the folks in charge of CAP in the past were Asian-American D'Nesh DeSouza and Laura Ingraham (who is a woman, in case you didn't know.)

How far will these Democrats go? Well after the little spat that occurred between Ted "My Face Is Going to Chip Away Any Second" Kennedy and Arlen Spector, apparently they haven't gone far enough. They are obviously working towards a filibuster, which will never pass.

If you go back and look at how Republicans handled the judicial nominees by President Clinton in the 90's, you see a vastly different handling of things. They didn't put up a fuss because these nominees were pro-choice; they didn't attack them personally. Instead, they realized that they were established judges coming in on recommendation from the President of the United States. Democrats, who champion "freedom of speech" and "diversity," do nothing but attack those who don't fit their mold. They are hypocrites in every syllable of the word.

I can do nothing but sit back and laugh at the hole these Senators are digging for themselves. They are disgracing their party, and making a mockery of our entire judicial process. I liken this process to joining a fraternity. Alito just needs to get through this harsh bit of hazing before he is swept into the court by a good number of Senatorial votes.

71% of Iraqis Say "Life is good" (ABC News thinks otherwise)

ABC News reports:

An ABC News poll in Iraq, conducted with Time magazine and other media partners, includes some remarkable results: Despite the daily violence there, most living conditions are rated positively, seven in 10 Iraqis say their own lives are going well, and nearly two-thirds expect things to improve in the year ahead.

I love the fact that, despite all of this glowing good news coming out of Iraq, the mainstream media outlets (Time and ABC specifically) still try their best to cast a negative light on things. 7 out of 10 Iraqis say their living conditions are fine because this "daily violence" isn't as widespread as the media hopes. There is daily violence in America, there is daily violence in Greensburg, there is even daily violence here on the Hill, and yet we are living wonderfully.

"Surprising levels of optimism prevail in Iraq with living conditions improved, security more a national worry than a local one, and expectations for the future high," says the report by Gary Langer and Jon Cohen. Surprising? I'm not surprised at all, especially when you see the stories about the good news in Iraq.

This is all just another attempt to make this war fail, when it is succeeding on so many levels. Each election so far as been a success, and I'm anticipating hearing the results from the next one.

Limbaugh Loves Conservative Philosophy

Rush Limbaugh, in a recent article that he wrote for Opinion Journal says pretty clearly what it means to be a Republican. It's a great quote that really sums up what we're all about...

I love being a conservative. We conservatives are proud of our philosophy. Unlike our liberal friends, who are constantly looking for new words to conceal their true beliefs and are in a perpetual state of reinvention, we conservatives are unapologetic about our ideals. We are confident in our principles and energetic about openly advancing them. We believe in individual liberty, limited government, capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a color-blind society and national security. We support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts, welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, political speech, homeowner rights and the war on terrorism. And at our core we embrace and celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by any nation--the U.S. Constitution. Along with the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes our God-given natural right to be free, it is the foundation on which our government is built and has enabled us to flourish as a people.

Dittos, Rush!

Noonan Gives Bush Alternatives

Peggy Noonan, in her latest op/ed article, gives Bush a few options for backing away from the Miers debacle and starting fresh. When I first heard about the nomination of Harriet Miers, I didn't know who she was but I was fairly trusting in our president's choice. Never did I expect the outpouring of negativity from the conservative base! The most powerful commentators for the Right were telling Bush to jump ship, get rid of Miers, and admit he was wrong. If there is one thing our president refuses to do, it's admit he's wrong.

The more I hear about Miers, the more I'm unsure about her... but I'm more concerned about our political party's base. If the rumblings continue, and the party splits because the president refuses to listen to the people who fought to get him in office, then the next three years could be very difficult for us. And of course, the 2006 elections might be a little more difficult.

Continue reading for the full text of Peggy's article.

I think I know what White House aides are thinking.

They're thinking: This is the part of my memoir where we faced the daily pounding of our allies. They're thinking: This is the "Churchill Alone" chapter. They're thinking: He was like a panther in the jungle night. For five years he sat, watchful, still as marble, his eyes poised upon his prey. And then he sprang in a sudden burst of sleek-muscled focus, and when it was over his face was unchanged but for the scarlet ring of blood around his mouth. But enough about George Will. They're thinking: That's good, save it for later.

They're thinking: This will pass.

They're right. It will.

But they're going to have to make that happen.

Can this marriage be saved? George W. Bush feels dissed and unappreciated: How could you not back me? Conservatives feel dissed and unappreciated: How could you attack me? Both sides are toe to toe. One senses that the critics will gain, as they've been gaining, and that the White House is on the losing side. If the administration had a compelling rationale for Harriet Miers's nomination, they would have made it. Simply going at their critics was not only destructive, it signaled an emptiness in their arsenal. If they had a case they'd have made it. "You're a sexist snob" isn't a case; it's an insult, one that manages in this case to be both startling and boring.
Is there a way out for the White House? Yes. Change plans at LaGuardia. Remember the wisdom of New York's Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia, who said, "I don't make a lot of mistakes but when I do it's a beaut!"? The Miers pick was a mistake. The best way to change the story is to change the story. Here's one way.

The full Tim McCarthy. He was the Secret Service agent who stood like Stonewall and took the bullet for Ronald Reagan outside the Washington Hilton. Harriet Miers can withdraw her name, take the hit, and let the president's protectors throw him in the car. Her toughness and professionalism would appear wholly admirable. She'd not just survive; she'd flourish, going from much-spoofed office wife to world-famous lawyer and world-class friend. Added side benefit: Her nobility makes her attackers look bad. She's better than they, more loyal and serious. An excellent moment of sacrifice and revenge.

The president would get to announce a better nominee--I'd recommend continuing the air of stoic pain--and much of the conservative establishment would feel constrained to go along. Some would feel the need to prove their eagerness to be supportive, and how thwarted their natural impulse to loyalty was by the choice of the unfortunate Harriet. They have a base too, which means they pay a price for marching out of lockstep. Mr. Bush will have an open field. He could even shove Alberto Gonzales down their throats! Or, more wisely and constructively, more helpfully and maturely, he could choose one of the outstanding jurists thoughtful conservatives have long touted: Edith Jones, Edith Clement, Janice Rogers Brown. (Before the Miers pick a man could have been considered, but to replace Ms. Miers now it will have to be a woman. Sometimes you just can't add more layers to the story.)

Connected to this is the the modified Dan Quayle. When George H.W. Bush chose Mr. Quayle to be his vice presidential candidate, the 41-year-old junior senator from Indiana should have said, "Thanks, but I'm not ready. Someday I will be, but I have more work to do in Congress and frankly more growing to do as a human being before I indulge any national ambitions." This would have been great because it was true. When his staff leaked what he'd said, a shocked Washington would have concurred, conceding his wisdom and marking him for better things. He'd probably have run for president in 2000. He could be president now.

The best way to do the modified Quayle comes from Mickey Kaus: "How about appointing Miers to a federal appeals court? She's qualified. Bush could say that while he knows Miers he understands others' doubts--and he knows she will prove over a couple of years what a first-rate judge she is. Then he hopes to be able to promote her. Semi-humilating, but less humiliating than the alternatives. And not a bad job to get. . . . Miers could puncture the tension with one smiling crack about being sent to the minors. The collective sigh of national relief would drown out the rest of her comments." That's thinking.

If Ms. Miers did what Mr. Quayle didn't do--heck, she could wind up on the Supreme Court.

How can the White House climb down after 10 days of insisting Ms. Miers is the one? Mmmmm, sometimes you don't climb down. Sometime you just let gravity do what it's doing. You drop like an apple. Three days of silence and then the trip to LaGuardia.

The White House, after the Miers withdrawal/removal/disappearance, would be well advised to call in leaders of the fractious base--with heavy initial emphasis on the Washington conservative establishment--and have some long talks about the future. It's time for the administration to reach out to wise men and women, time for Roosevelt Room gatherings of the conservative clans. Much old affection remains, and respect lingers, but a lot of damage has been done. The president has three years yet to serve. That, I think, is the subtext of recent battles: Conservatives want to modify and, frankly, correct certain administration policies now, while there's time. The White House can think of this--and should think of it--as an unanticipated gift. A good fight can clear the air; a great battle can result in resolution and recommitment. No one wants George W. Bush turned into Jimmy Carter, or nobody should. The world is a dangerous place, and someone has to lead America.
An essential White House mistake--really a key and historic one--was in turning on its critics with such idiotic ferocity. "My way or the highway" is getting old. "Please listen to us and try to see it our way or we'll have to kill you," is getting old. Sending Laura Bush out to make her first mistake as first lady, agreeing with Matt Lauer that sexism is probably part of the reason for opposition to Ms. Miers, was embarrassingly inept and only served to dim some of the power of this extraordinary resource.

As for Ed Gillespie and his famous charge of sexism and elitism, I don't think serious conservatives believe Ed is up nights pondering whiffs and emanations of class tension and gender bias in modern America. It was the ignorant verbal lurch of a K Street behemoth who has perhaps forgotten that conservatives are not merely a bloc, a part of the base, a group that must be handled, but individuals who are and have been in it for serious reasons, for the long haul, and often at considerable sacrifice. They don't deserve to be patronized by people they've long strained to defend.

And next time perhaps the White House, in announcing and presenting the arguments for a new nominee to the high court, will remember a certain tradition with regard to how we do it in America. We don't say, "We've nominated Joe because he's a Catholic!" A better and more traditional approach is, "Nominee Joe is a longtime practitioner of the law with considerable experience, impressive credentials, and a lively and penetrating intellect. Any questions? Yes, he is a member of the Catholic church. Any other questions?"

That's sort of how we do it. We put the horse and then the cart. The arguments for the person and then the facts attendant to the person. You don't say, "Vote for this gal because she's an Evangelical!" That shows a carelessness, an inability to think it through, to strategize, to respectfully approach serious facts--failings that, if they weren't typical of the White House the past few months, might be called downright sexist.

Gore Time is for Lovers

Apparently, there are a group of folks who are working hard to get Al Gore to run again for President. Yeah, because it's such a great idea. This was first reported by US News & World Report:

"It's Gore Time," says a political strategist and fundraiser who is opening a bid to get Gore into the race. Gore friends see his recent political and business moves as proof he's preparing to run. Allies say that in speeches, Gore has found his voice to address domestic and world issues. And in raising money for his Current TV network, which targets the critical youth market, Big Al has built an issue base and donor network that's competitive with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton 's.

Hot diggity dog! Apparently "Gore Time" is an endearing term that should get people excited for Robo-Veep's return. When I read the phrase "Gore Time" I couldn't help but think of a really boring bull slamming into a small, helpless child while screaming, "I invented the internet!"

Al Gore has gone from that boring, lifeless shell of a man while under Clinton's wing, to a burly, wild-eyed CEO who often looks like Vince McMahon from the WWE. Remember when Al had that beard? Wow. I can't wait for him to run just so the GOP can put that picture in a commercial!

I actually hope that he runs. Part of me thinks he is a tad more likeable than Hillary, at least in liberal circles. Just think of all the fun sound clips we'll be able to use against him. Like that one time he freaked out and screamed "He played on our fears!" Oh that's a goodie. Al Gore has become one of the biggest jokes in politics, so let's cross our fingers and look for a Clinton vs Gore showdown!

Thoughts on Miers

After having a day to reflect, and research, President Bush's decision to nominate Harriet Miers for Supreme Court Justice I must say that I don't find myself as upset as some Republicans. There were alot of knee-jerk reactions yesterday by such prominent political commentators as Rush Limbaugh and Bill Kristol, both challenging Bush's nomination. Everyone was hoping that Bush would pick the most openly conservative justice he could find, perhaps one of his appellate court nominations, however I think Bush was pretty smart in going the route he did.

The nomination, and eventual confirmation, of Justice Roberts ended up being a larger fight than I had anticipated. It's true, there was no question about his confirmation, and the only ones that really opposed him were the leftist grand-standers who oppose everything Bush does, but do you honestly think Bush would have been able to push someone like Janice Rogers Brown through? Sure, technically it could have happened, since we have the majority in both parts of Congress, but it would have been a vicious battle that would have only served to hurt the President's approval rating even more. Bush has never been one to back away from a fight, but he also knows how to pick his battles. I see this more of a strategic move: pick someone that doesn�t have much of a record, who hasn�t been a judge before, and who�s motives are largely unknown to the public. That way Teddy, Hillary, Schumer, and the rest of the gang have hardly anything to complain about. So when Miers flies through the confirmation process, Bush wins another easy victory, and fulfills another campaign promise.

And yet conservatives are freaking out. Why? Because Miers isn�t a flag-waving anti-abortion protestor who is riding into the Senate on a white horse that has �Save the Babies� written on the side of it. Don�t get me wrong, I�m as pro-life as can be, but conservatives, especially those who only vote on abortion issues, freak out the minute a justice isn�t completely open about their views. Come on people! It�s all strategy! Why on earth would a conservative judge show their hand and tell the judiciary committee that he/she is against abortion and will overturn Roe v. Wade ASAP? With Specter heading up the questioning, that�s a ticket straight to the unemployment line. Take a hint from Roberts, who is a Catholic and a Constitutionalist; he didn�t reveal any of his views when it comes to ruling on cases. Bush himself said that these judges should not go through litmus tests, despite BOTH sides wishing they would. And so people are concerned that Miers isn�t a true �conservative judge� because she has no past record. They fear what they don�t understand, but I say hold hope. It�s true that we don�t know a whole lot about her, but slowly the facts are rising to the top� Miers has donated money to Texans United for Life, a pro-life group run by Kyleen Wright; she was also getting good marks from James Dobson from Focus on the Family. It�s these little hints that tell us where she could be headed in terms of ruling on certain cases without her coming out and proclaiming it.

Dick Cheney was interviewed on Limbaugh yesterday, and repeatedly said that she would be a conservative judge who would not legislate from the bench. I have no reason not to believe him, and I trust our President and Vice President. Bush is hoping for a speedy confirmation process so that she can get on the bench before the end of the year. He made a good move by nominating her, in my opinion.

Living to See the Second Line

"In this place, there's a custom for the funerals of jazz musicians. The funeral procession parades slowly through the streets, followed by a band playing a mournful dirge as it moves to the cemetery. Once the casket has been laid in place, the band breaks into a joyful 'second line' -- symbolizing the triumph of the spirit over death. Tonight the Gulf Coast is still coming through the dirge -- yet we will live to see the second line." These were the closing lines of President Bush's address to the nation this evening, which he gave from Jackson Square in New Orleans. President Bush gave this speech tonight to announce new initiatives regarding the rebuilding of Louisiana.

I was listening to the speech during my drive home, and at first I was a tad concerned about the direction he was taking that part of the country. After his ideas settled in my mind for a while, however, I realized that most of what he's promoting is routed in classic conservatism.

Bush hit the nail on the head when he said, "It is entrepreneurship that creates jobs and opportunity; it is entrepreneurship that helps break the cycle of poverty; and we will take the side of entrepreneurs as they lead the economic revival of the Gulf region." It's this sort of empowerment that will allow the people of New Orleans, who used to rely on welfare and government handouts, to take their future into their own hands, to get jobs, create businesses, and reduce the poverty level. This brand of thinking comes straight from the conservative thinker's handbook, a free market in which small businesses drive the economy. It's an incorrect stereotype (as most are) when people say that Republicans only care about big business. The truth is, they care about BUSINESS. All business, big or small. It's the very definition of capitalism and the economy that spirits democracy and freedom. By people actually working in New Orleans, in theory, the poverty level would lessen or disappear.

The one thing that initially concerned me with Bush's speech was the amount of money the federal government will be spending to rebuild. One thing that the GOP has always prided itself on, since the very beginning, is limited government. That means less spending, less federal involvement, and more freedom for the American people. Of course, this can't always be the case. That's when I realized that no matter what this money is going to be spent. It's in the statutes that we must rebuild after a disaster like this hits... so no matter if there is a Democrat or a Republican in office, the $200 billion is going to be spent. The difference lays in how it's going to be used. It's logical to assume that a Democratic president would probably hand it over as a form of welfare, giving these displaced people money until they can get back on their feet... and of course they wouldn't, they would just live the good life and never get jobs. Bush is taking the classic Republican route by saying, "We'll give you enough money to cover the costs of educating yourself so you can get a job, or the money it will cost to take care of your kids while you are out looking for a job. We'll give you some land if you promise to build a home on it. We'll give you tax breaks if you open a small business. You just have to get up and do it!" Now, I'm just paraphrasing, but this is essentially what he's doing here.

What's happening to Louisiana is a total revamp in terms of how that economy will run. The Democrats, for years, have had their chance to make things work down there. All we got was one of the most crime ridden cities in America. It's time for Republicans to give it a shot. As Rush Limbaugh said today on his radio program (the most listened radio show in the country), "It has been nothing but political opportunism and corruption and a demonstrated failure of ideology and that failure is liberalism." It's proven that conservative economic policy works, and works well. Enterprise zones and tax breaks for businesses is the best way to rebuild, and rebuild quickly. There is a reason America has the best economy in the world, it's because of the spirit of independent capitalism. And I believe that this sort of method is going to work alot faster than government handouts and welfare programs.

My only thoughts right now have to do with the other spending the government is doing right now. Despite Bush's wish to keep his bills "pork-free," senators have loaded up his farm and highway bills with so much spending that they barely resemble their once-lean selves. Every congressmen wants to grab a little cash for their state when it comes to highway repair and construction, and now the plan is so bloated that one might think a Democrat wrote it. Now that the plan to rebuild has been unleashed, I think Congress needs to go back and trim the fat off of these expensive expenditures and put some of that cash elsewhere. Oh, and tap ANWR and build some more refineries (you know, because I always have to throw that in there.)

Bush's speech was quite a home-run tonight, and will hopefully help bring up his sagging approval rating. He acknowledged the fact that government response to the crisis was terrible, and he's taking care not to just rebuild New Orleans, but rebuild it without the poverty that was so evident before. As the former Governor of Louisiana said afterwards on ABC Radio, "The devil's in the details." We'll see what happens to Bush's plan as it gets pushed through Congress.

Peggy Noonan on Bush's Katrina Reaction

A recent article by former Reagan wonder-woman Peggy Noonan answers a few questions folks are having about out President's leadership ability after the Katrina hurricane disaster. This article appeared today in the Wall Street Journal.

Life moves. Time for a quick appraisal of how Katrina and its aftermath changed the lay of the presidential land. George W. Bush still enjoys a bright spot in terms of his foes. Liberal politicians continue to respond to the calamity with delighted anguish. Their critiques are attacks and their attacks are opportunistic. Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi have come across as pols coolly using the suffering of others to club the opposition. As for liberal pundits, some of them have taken on the ways of mere party operatives: Every event exists to be used. Frank Rich, Paul Krugman: if they were dead they'd be spinning in their graves.

I will admit that the government reaction to the hurricane wasn't as fast as it should have been. It shows you how bureaucracy can muddle up response time. And while some of the blame can be placed on the shoulders of the feds (specifically FEMA), there is also a state government responsibility that should be shamed as well.

What real damage has been done to the White House? It got dinged in three areas: competence, the myth of luck, and the ability to inspire fear.

On the competence issue, the Federal Emergency Management Agency is the poster child. It was the assumption of Republicans and others that in this, the age of emergency, the managerial competence and constitutional seriousness of the Bush administration was on the case, on the job and taking care of business. But FEMA was stacked with hacks. This has been absorbed by people and will linger as an issue.

As for the myth of luck, in Washington it comes down to this. When a president is lucky, Congress and the media think he's lucky. It increases his power. When people see his power they think he's powerful. Then something happens--an earthquake, a flood, a strange scandal. The myth of luck disappears. Foes in the media and on the Hill draw blood. They are startled when they see the blood, and go for more. Things become difficult for the administration. This happens one way or another with every presidency. It just happened here.

As for fear, it is important for a White House to inspire a certain amount, and this White House has been rather wickedly good at it. The administration has kept a lot of Republicans in line because they were afraid of the personal anger and flip-switching power of the president and his aides. They will be less afraid now. That's not all bad. In fact, it's good.

For a full text of the article, click here.

Mike Likes Ike!

I've always been quite fond of our 34th President, Dwight Eisenhower, and today, for a lack of better things to do, I read up on him a bit. This guy rocked! He was a simple man who knew what he wanted, a traditional Republican and a war general who knew how to handle foreign affairs. With the help of Wikipedia, as well as a few smaller historical sources, I've come up with three good reasons while Ike kicked ass.

1) He built the highways! Holy cow, America would be nothing like it is today without Ike's visionary choice to "Americanize" the Autobahn. This inspiration came from his days as a General. He realized there was a big problem with USA's roads when it took him 62 days to cross the US with a military convoy. While he was participating in the European campaign, he saw Hitler's sweet road system and knew that would be the perfect way mobilize America. So Ike passed the largest public works bill in history, which would create a 41,000 mile highway system. Of course, this also, inadvertently, helped the cartography industry greatly. Ike also gave more work for the Department of Transportation, who have been not been getting things accomplished ever since!

2) He employed the use of spies! He was the first president to fully utilize the newly created CIA to fight off the cold war that he inherited from Truman. After ending the Korean War, Ike went full force in upholding the "Containment Policy" against the communists. Basically, he did everything he could to keep the reds sealed up in their little Russian zip-lock bag. When they did start to spread to places like Iran and the Congo, he utilized his spies to help local forces assassinate or remove totalitarian leaders from power. Ike is also the man responsible for making America the first nuclear world-super-power, building up our arms to fight the Russians in a possible WWIII scenario. Of course, with the launch of Sputnik in 1957, Ike created NASA and began the great space race. It's really amazing when you look at all of the things this man started, all the while balancing the national budget and managing three recessions during his two terms!

3) Free markets! In the style of true Republicans (and Libertarians) everywhere, Ike was a strong supporter of the free American market, something I support wholly. He was completely hands off on the matters of economy, as he believed that things would take care of themselves. It was a true test for capitalism and competition. If workers wanted jobs to stay in America they would have to fight for them, and if businesses wanted to succeed, the government wouldn't stand in their way. The economy during his eight years was a rollercoaster (much like today's). He went through three recessions, but never cut taxes. He was quoted as saying "We cannot afford to reduce taxes, reduce income until we have in sight a program of expenditure that shows that the factors of income and outgo will be balanced." This of course is slightly different from the Reaganomics principles that many Republicans hold today. I say, "Cut taxes to let the economy grow", but then again things were quite different back then. He was busy building roads, starting space programs, and raising our nuclear abilities. And he actually did balance the budget within the first three years of his presidency!

I know I went a little history crazy just now, but really the guy is awesome! It wasn't for a few decades after his presidency that people started to finally realize how influential he was. Some, at first, thought he was a lame duck because he didn't jump in front of the line with the Civil Rights movement and the McCarthy hearings, but I like to think of him as a sign of grand ideas to come. It's obvious, when you look at JFK, Nixon, and Reagan's policies that alot of the ideas behind Ike lived on.

Like a Heartless Father, We Throw Money at It

Now that the G8 summit has passed, amidst terrible bombings in London, everyone is talking about how to help Africa (a topic that seems to pop up every few years). Of course, as always, we have our friends in Hollywood telling us how things should be, with a new campaign called One. Not to mention the Live8 concerts that happened all around the world, reminding everyone that we are bad people for letting Africa become the way it is.

But is the answer to Africa's problems more money, like these celebrities seem to think? Is Bono really on to something aside from making terrible music? Or is this just another vain attempt by the celebrity elite to appear humane, and to make Bush and America look selfish and uncaring?

The truth is that President Bush has tripled funding to Africa during his term as president, and has just agreed to up it a little more on the request of our friend Tony Blair. But the answer is not to give money to the country, because we've done that in the past and everything is the same. No, the answer is to help the country flourish in the best ways possible: through industry, democracy, and capitalism.

The One Campaign, a new Hollywood marketing racket brought to you by the same folks who speak out on everything, offers this solution: the United States should give 1% of its national budget to Africa. Team America is right, these people need to be shot! Thanks George Clooney, Brad Pitt, and Nelson Mandella for that great insight on how to fix a problem. They want us to send $25 Billion dollars over there to that money pit, just so it can be squandered and spent by the tyrants, dictators, and gang lords that control most of the poorest countries. That's more money than we give NASA! It's this sort of wanton charity call that costs Americans money with little to no result.

The Live8 Campaign had a similar message, which was to give tons and tons of money to Africa. This time, however, they got gaggles of bands to play all around the world, while they show pictures of sick kids next to pictures of leaders in the G8 Summit. They effectively sent the message that these leaders are to blame for these kids being sick and hungry. And while I was happy to hear that Geldof (the Live8 organizer) said "No Bush bashing!", there were enough mixed messages sent out by these images to make people think these countries and leaders are rich, evil white guys.

These "artists" have a poor understanding of the situation over there. Bono can visit the President all he likes and compliment Bush just to win him over, but changing Africa isn't going to come with raised donations. But how do we do it? How do we bring this beautiful continent out of the "jungle", so to speak, and into the healthy real world?

Well firstly, you have to remove the dictators, terrorists, and gang lords that run those countries. Any aid given to the countries goes right into the palaces and armies of the tyrants that run them. The only way that help reaches those people is through missionaries, and I don't think all these actors in Hollywood are ready to throw down their scripts and race to feed kids. But once these evil leaders are removed, and proper and just governments are elected, then the first steps to well-being are accomplished.

The next step is to enter the world market. The only way to bring people out of poverty and terrible living conditions is to trade, invest, and build up your economy. Africa is full of so many natural resources that could be developed, traded, and sold to other nations. Get rid of the gangs that control the diamond mines and bring in real, honest companies to mine that majesty and immediately you will see the markets change over there. There is also oil and other natural resources in Africa that can not only be sold to other countries, but also help to rebuild the ruined cities and countries on the continent. If you industrialize and enter into a capitalist society, things are going to turn around for the better. This certainly isn't something that's going to happen quickly, and it would take generations of people to make the change into the modern world (if that is something the people of Africa even desire), but it would certainly work better than throwing money at the problem.

A good example of what I'm talking about can be found in South Korea, a once communist strong hold liberated during World War II and the Korean War, it's now flourishing thanks to democracy and capitalism. It's capital, Seoul, is one of the most technologically advanced cities in the world. The country is currently a front-runner in the research of cloning and human DNA. Other examples of the free market working are India, which has managed to raise itself up thanks to some globalization and job creation; South Africa, which is one of the most modern countries in Africa; and many of the South American countries, which are doing very well thanks to sugar trade and tourism. It's a system that can work, and has worked in the past.

I'm not saying all money given to the country is a bad thing, because there are some nations there that have good governments, but just plain need money. However, a $25 Billion dollar whim isn't something that's going to be put to the best of uses with a good market and a reliable government to back it up.

Extraordinary Circumstances: Defined.

Last week, when John McCain and his gang of political dwarves struck a deal with Democrats saying that the Dems could only filibuster under "extraordinary circumstances." Of course, in grand political fashion, no one said exactly what that meant. All we knew was that they couldn't filibuster the three judicial nominees up for votes. Great... but what about the rest of the time? Since McCain promised we wouldn't use our Constitutional Option (and Frist said he would use it), these left-wingers could claim anything to be "extraordinary."

Just two days ago they used their kung-fu filibustering to delay (yet again) the vote for John Bolton as U.N. ambassador. Now they won't vote on him until late June, after the Senate's comfy recess. Thanks, guys, because I'm sure that "recess" is an "extraordinary circumstance."

Well because I know all of us on the right are as confused as the next about what this phrase means (just about as much as Clinton didn't know the definition of "is") I have decided to lay out some "extraordinary circumstances."

Here's a list of what I would consider "extraordinary circumstances" that would call for the Dems to filibuster a vote.

� There is a terrible Earthquake in Washington D.C.
� A power outage in Congress makes it hard to navigate a room full of desks.
� Hillary Clinton, in a rare occurrence, decides not to be a cold witch and takes everyone out for a picnic.
� Harry Reid and Woody Allen switch places (because you know they look exactly alike!) and the French don't notice a thing.
� Somewhere in Montana, a tree is being cut down. Because this means the tree no longer has more government protection than humans, the Democrats rush to its side to provide it with comfort and a promise for revenge.
� Ted Kennedy, in his normal drunken rage, drives his car into an IHop and injures John Kerry (who was making waffles, of course).
� Michael Moore is in town, so Congress takes the day off to go and watch him film.
� The opposition has to take a breather after they realize that John Bolton isn't related to Michael Bolton.
� The Left is afraid of being wrong.

Okay, so now that we have examined a few reasons that one might sensibly filibuster... let's look at the "extraordinary" circumstances today's Democrats had in mind when they made that agreement:

� The wind blows
� Plants are giving off oxygen
� The Republicans are in a majority
� Bush was re-elected.
� Food enters the body in through the mouth and exits through the rear.
� Arlen Spector is actually in town to vote.

Well... let's hope that the wind will stop blowing and maybe then we'll get some decisions out of Congress. I mean, unless of course the Republicans stop messing around and bring back the Constitutional option. Please, Senator Frist? I'll give you a cookie?

Fili-Blustered

Well the filibusterin' feces has finally hit the fan in the Senate. John McCain and his gang of 6 "centrist" Republicans have officially hijacked our majority in the Senate and are writing checks that we are going to all be paying for. While it's yet to be seen if McCain's eleventh hour deal to end the stand-off on judicial nominees is officially good or bad for the party, the majority of Republicans certainly aren't happy.

Basically, what John McCain did was this: he, along with six other Republicans and seven Democrats, came to a deal last night that would get some (but not all) of Bush's judicial nominees an up or down vote. Before this deal, Dems were threatening to filibuster the vote, pushing it off for an indefinite number of hours and accomplishing absolutely nothing. On the other hand, Republicans were threatening to pull out the Constitutional Option (referred to by the Liberal Media as the "Nuclear Option"), which would ban filibusters forever!

In this agreement, McCain promised that the GOP would take the Constitutional Option off the table if they would give three out of the five judicial nominees an up or down vote. Dems agreed to definitely give these three judges (starting with conservative judge Priscilla Owen) a vote, however the other two would be in limbo for debate. What isn't specific about this agreement is the clause that let's Dems whip out their filibuster during "extraordinary circumstances." There isn't any elaboration on this, so they could easily argue that any judicial nominee that is the least bit original or conservative could be "extraordinary."

Luckily not all of the Republicans are as stupid and cowardly as John McCain. Senate majority leader Bill Frist was quoted saying today, on the Sean Hannity radio show, that the Constitutional Option has not been taken off the table. Even though McCain said we would not use it, if Dems try and filibuster any of the judicial nominees, Frist isn't afraid to pull out the big guns.

While some folks I have spoken to about this aren't in support of getting rid of filibusters altogether (my friend Mike said "We may not need it right now, but when the GOP doesn't have majority, we'll want it back"), I think there needs to be a few boundaries. Using the filibuster to block judicial nominees has never really been done before, and its clearly a move by the Democrats to stop Bush from having his way. Sometimes the filibuster is needed, to ensure that a super majority doesn't just run like dogs and change the entire American lifestyle... but the liberals have been abusing it in the Senate for the past four years, and it's time to put a stop to this childish bickering.

And so John McCain and the power-14 have put everyone in a precarious situation. If they hold their own, that means that neither Republicans nor Democrats have majority. It also means that McCain and every Republican under his guidance will shoot themselves in the foot for any sort of re-election or 2008 presidential bid. However, if Frist can use this agreement as a springboard to getting the rest of Bush's nominees in office, then maybe it's not so bad. But no matter what happens with it, it shows you the kind of politician McCain is. A moderate, centrist, who is willing to compromise his party and the President's wishes so that he can blow his political capitol and ensure an early retirement. At least, we can only hope.

Local Politics: "Beaver County Municipal Primary Election Report"

The world of election-politics never seems to stop. As many learned the day after Bush defeated Kerry on November 2, there was already talk about who would run in '08. And of course there is already alot of jabber on the radar for the '06 Congressional elections. But, to zoom into the America a little deeper, just like the beginning to Shepherd Smith's show Studio B on Fox, I have recently found myself neck deep in the very foundation of the American political system. Today was the Beaver County Local Primary Election, the offices that make up the town governments, school boards, and judges.

If you want a taste of how America's republican government system (since we aren't a democracy) works, get involved in the system at the lowest, most local level. I found it amazing at how much easier it was to get someone elected, but also the sharp contrast in the conflicts and issues that arose between local and national candidates.

Conflicts
The names of the candidates in this election aren't really that important for the purpose of this blog entry, so I'll just refer to them as Smith and Johnson (and no, their names weren't Smith and Johnson).

I was a big supporter of Smith, mainly because he was an experienced community leader, a modest car shop worker who has had to work for everything in his life, and an all around good man. People knew him, he had no dirty secrets or weird alliances. He was running against Johnson, a spoiled young fellow who is running because everyone knows the Johnson name, and his mother wants a little more power under her bosom. Cases like this appear in local towns all across the country, I'm sure.

The interested aspect of it, when compared to the national scene, is what people find important. During the presidential election, everyone made a stink about Bush's national guard records and Kerry's Vietnam service. Did Kerry have relations with some of his interns? Did Bush snort coke at Camp David? These are the dirty issues that the pundits and tabloids argued about. What's happening on the local scene? The front page of the Beaver County Times reads "11 anonymous phone calls report that Smith doesn't have a high school degree..." People are arguing about whether or not someone has a high school degree? What was even funnier was that the Times ran a picture of Smith holding his degree, with all of the official signatures in place. (The 11 anonymous phone calls were apparently made by Johnson's mother... although that wasn't officially reported anywhere). In small town politics, drugs and war records aren't the hot topics... it's whether or not the candidates have their GED.

Even better was the controversy of Johnson running without certification. To become a district magisterial judge, you have to take a test that certifies you for the position. However only two, of the four, candidates running actually passed the test! Smith was one of them. Why would anyone vote for the guy who wouldn't be allowed to do have the job even if he won? This sort of situation happened years ago in a town neighboring to mine, and instead of the uncertified winner taking the job, a new judge had to be appointed.

My Involvement
Aside from talking up the various candidates I supported (all of which were Democrats by the way... no Republicans really run for anything in Beaver County-- however this will be changing soon) and proudly displaying their signs in my front lawn there wasn't much I could do prior to election day. However, today, I was out in the hot sun (burning like a Protestant witch) for over five hours working the polls in good old Ward 2.

I was recruited the evening beforehand, and was glad to take up the job. However, voter turnout for such po-dunk elections is never very good, especially on a beautiful day like today. And so I stood out there, with about 12 other people representing various other candidates (mayors, tax collectors, school board, write-ins, etc). The best part about it was seeing the solitary voters trickle in, and watching everyone jump out of their lawn chairs and surround them. I held back because Smith had supplied me with the best campaign gifts of all: little plastic litter bags. So after the voter was swamped with pens and stationary, I would hand them a nice little loot bag to put all of their stuff in. I'm pretty sure that's what won us the election. So remember, if you run for public office, invest in loot bags with your name on them. A gold mine for votes!

My time spend in the scorching sun was certainly not boring. There was quite a supply of colorful characters. There was the "dentally-challenged" trucker next to me, who I spent most of my time talking to. There was a 70+ year old dwarfed woman who came by and cussed out the candidates she didn't like (thank God she's a Republican). There was a crazy Italian man who cussed out the candidates he hated in broken English and fluent Italian. There were the crazy, rich, and cocky members of the Johnson family who would roll by and reaffirm everyone of their asinine attitudes. It was a good time.

The Results
I detached myself a bit from the election in order to go to Dweller practice. But it was when I returned that I got on the phones. My dad was currently down at the Smith victory party, eagerly awaiting the results. To stress the po-dunkness of this election, they held the party in a restaurant that had no TVs or internet access... so I was their only hope for updated election results. And the only way to get results (in a timely manner) is to log on to the county's website and hit "Refresh." Of course, the site was built for the bandwidth of 5 people, and was being flooded by hundreds of people dying to see some results.

Slowly but surely the final numbers streamed in, and I alerted those at the party. Our man had won... as well as the other candidates we had supported! The candidates were dual registered on the Republican and Democratic tickets and our candidates won on both. It was a sweeping victory.

I really am getting spoiled with this whole "winning elections" thing. So far every campaign I have been involved with has won. Beginning with Melissa Hart and Bush in 2000, carrying over to 2004's huge GOP win, and now this local election. God help me if I lose an election, I'm going to be much more disappointed than any normal loser. You democrats must be used to this sort of thing by now.

Ah well... all I can say is that this is quite an exciting hobby I have, and I think I may enjoy the local elections a tad more than the national ones. These ones are more personal, you have more of an immediate impact, and you get to see the losers every day at the grocery store. Politics are cut-throat no matter what level you are at. Just ask my brother, who will be running for re-election as class president. Maybe he'll recruit me as his Karl Rove.

Tim Murphy Changes Hearts

Last Friday the Seton Hill University College Republicans presented an event called �Social Security Reformation� with Congressman Tim Murphy. The purpose of the event was to promote awareness of the problem with the current system, and to talk about how to fix the darn thing. This was the main event after a whole semester of efforts by the group, and things turned out quite well.

The most successful part of the event was the presence of a handful of Democrats who attended to hear what we had to say. The stance of most Dems, or at least the ones in Congress, is that the President�s plan is hogwash. However, no Democrat has introduced a good plan, or any plan, to help fix the problem. They just nay say. This was a big complaint of Tim Murphy�s, who is quite passionate about fixing things in a non-partisan manner. So for the Democrats who came to the event, they got a chance to hear the whole story from the Republican side (without any of that media spin.)

Congressman Murphy didn�t necessarily back one solution, and actually seemed like he wasn�t quite sure which plan would fix it. In the end he settled on a cocktail of solutions, involving private accounts, a sliding scale of returns, and a few other ideas. The event wasn�t a huge push for the Bush agenda of private accounts, but it certainly didn�t ignore them. And I think it was talking about them in between the other ideas that made them seem like a better deal. Rather than focusing on the accounts as the be-all-end-all (which not even the President says they are), Murphy presented them as a small incentive to be built in to the program along with other fixes. It was this way of presenting them that, I believe, really sold them to the nay-sayers in the crowd.

My roommate, Stephen Puff, is a pretty left-winged New England Democrat (seeing as he�s from Maine, you don�t get much more New England than that�) and he attended the event to finally get a good picture of the issue at hand. He�s been hearing me talk about this stuff for over five months now, it was time to see what�s going on. And after hearing the whole story, he openly told me �I want a private account right now!� He walked away from the event with a totally new outlook on Social Security and it�s purpose in the nation. He thoroughly enjoyed Tim Murphy and his down-to-earth presentation, and said that had he known who he was in November, he would have voted for him. That gave me a glimmer of hope for this country� there are some Democrats out there willing to listen to reason, willing to think about things instead of towing the party lines. Puff is now a promoter of change in the system, and he told me that later that day he was talking to kids about the private accounts over dinner.

If there was thing I set out to do when planning this event, it was that. To get people thinking and talking about how to change things. Puff, and hopefully other Democrats there (I didn�t get a chance to talk to everyone), was open minded and after he heard all of the facts, he realized how much things need changed. He also, during the question and answer session, expressed his anger with the Dems in Congress, who refuse to work together on the issues.

This ends the first year for the SHU College Republicans, and we accomplished quite a bit. Thanks to everyone who helped put this event together, and to those who have supported our cause (both publicly and privately.)

"President Bush's News Conference" or "Why Ain't Survivor On?!"

Tonight President Bush gave what was only his fourth televised press conference since he won presidency in 2000. It's no secret that President Bush hates the press, and who can blame him, the majority of them give him quite a bum wrap. But things have become so muddled and deadlocked on Capitol Hill over the past month that things needed to be set straight. Partisan politics has become so polarizing and biting that everyone seems to be at a standstill as far as Social Security, UN Ambassador Bolton, and Bush's judicial nominees. And so this evening Bush, with an air of lightheartedness and a stern 9 minute speech, made it clear where he stands.

The main subject of his speech, and some of the questions, was what interested me the most: the future of social security. It's no secret where I stand on the issue, and that I've made it a point for the College Republicans at SHU to focus on the issue this semester. For the most part, Bush and Vice President Cheney have been traveling the country promoting private accounts but have said little about their other plans to fix the system. They never claimed private accounts would fix it alone, so there had to be other changes to make the whole boat solvent again. Tonight, Bush announced those proposals:

It's a plan drawn out by a Democratic Senator (a move showing Bush's bi-partisan agenda on the matter) that involves a sliding scale for increased benefits, favoring lower income workers. Everyone gets increased benefits as they retire, however lower income workers (those who paid into the system with minimum wage all their lives) will get a bigger payout than the wealthier Americans. While some Republicans (like my Dad) may not enjoy this idea, since it is a major re-distribution of wealth, I think it's a step in the right direction. You figure, the middle class and wealthier workers are more likely to invest in the private accounts program, therefore gaining back more to begin with... so it would all balance out. Bush presented a much sharper, clearer plan for fixing Social Security, something none of the leading Democrats in Congress have been able to do.

He then spoke on gas prices, and the importance of developing other forms fuel. He spoke about his energy plan, which has already been approved by the House, which calls for a number of things: building more refineries, advancement of clean nuclear power, and the drilling of ANWR (finally!). He also emphatically stated that there will not be price gouging at the gas stations across the country.

The question and answering session, which took up a majority of the event, focused on everything across the board, from the North Korean threat, to Putin selling arms to Syria, to No Child Left Behind and religion in politics.

Bush is having a hard time right now, and there isn't much he can do about it. The Dems in the Senate are causing a stink, all stemming from their still-sore wounds received in the past election, and Bush going on national TV to plead his case is definitely going to help. Bush has sort of been sitting back on his hands over the past month, allowing these talking heads to walk all over his stances on things. Well now Bush is fighting back, taking it to the people, and making himself clear. The public (and polls have shown) are tired of the partisan bickering going on in Congress. Nothing's getting done, and too many people (and I'm not going out on a limb when I say it's mainly Democrats) are just being negative without providing solutions. Bush did that tonight... so let's see who catches on.

An Echo of History, A Call to Speak Up for Terri Schiavo

The fact that the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, and Florida Judge George Greer has also refused Governor Jeb Bush�s request to take custody of Terri Schiavo � Things look very bad for Terri now. Soon she will go into a severe decline that will cause irreversible damage to her. Then it will be too late for her tube to be reinserted.

I am still trying to figure out how this can be happening in America. I want to share with you an example from one of my areas of history that I am very interested in: the Holodomor (the Ukrainian collectivized forced famine under Stalin from 1932-1933). To briefly sum it up, because the Ukrainians refused to participate and give up their privately-owned farms and join collectivized kolkhozes, Stalin ordered Soviet troops to take away the Ukrainians� food supplies, money, and valuables. He let them starve to death in order to force them to join the kolkhozes. Robert Conquest�s The Harvest of Sorrow gives accounts of huge piles of rotting food surrounded by Soviet guards who were ordered to shoot anyone who tried to take the food. The Ukrainians suffered horribly in the Holodomor. Whole villages were wiped out and black flags were placed at the entrances of villages to indicate that everyone in the village was dead. I�ll never forget an account I read online of a starving mother who saw a turkey in the yard, ran out, killed it and made a stew out of it. Afterwards, she realized that the �turkey� was her own daughter and she ran out of the house screaming and cursing the Soviets, who shot her to death. A woman was shot down by troops for stealing just a few potatoes for her starving children. These are the images that come to my mind when I hear Terri Schiavo�s mother Mary pleading to the politicians and judges to save her daughter�s life, and when I hear of people getting arrested solely for trying to sneak in some water, etc. for Terri. I also think of the (mostly Democratic) Congressmen and the judges who say they are merely upholding the law, and how similar their arguments sound to those of the Soviet guards during the Holodomor, arguing that they were just following orders to justify themselves in letting the Ukrainians starve to death. How scary it is, that Terri�s case echoes the Holodomor.

Where are the people at Seton Hill talking about this? Where are our Catholic professors and administration? Why haven�t/aren�t they saying anything about this? It�s not like they haven�t spoken out about other political/religious issues. Isn�t SHU a Catholic university? Why are so few students talking about this? This is a monumental case � Not only is this woman�s life in immediate danger, but this case opens the can of worms for euthanasia. Where is the Catholic Church? Today during the Good Friday mass (and yesterday during the Holy Thursday mass, too) we prayed for about everyone in the entire world: the Church, the Pope, those getting baptized, Christian unity, the Jews, those in public office, those who don�t believe in Christ, those who don�t believe in God. We also prayed for those who need special assistance, but never named Terri Schiavo publicly. (Although in the past, we�ve prayed for the victims and families of other tragic cases, such as the Wilkinsburg shootings a few years ago, Columbine, etc.) Where the heck IS everyone????

I am asking all Catholics, pro-lifers, and Republicans to mobilize. Pray for her and her parents, pray to the very end that a miracle could be granted and that divine intervention could come on behalf of this poor woman. Don�t forget Terri, don�t forget this case � This is merely a precedent of things to come. If (this case goes as it looks like it will go) we stay quiet and let this case go by without any protest, Terri�s death will be on each of our hands, and in the future, we will be battling the scourge of euthanasia in addition to abortion. Innocents like Terri will be put to death, because they can�t speak for themselves � We see it each day with abortion, we see it now. We must stand up for them! We have voices � We MUST use them!!

I would like to share this poem (with which I�m sure most of you are familiar) by Pastor Martin Niem�ller (written in regards to the Holocaust) and which I have constantly been thinking about because of poor Terri�s case:

First they came for the Jews

First they came for the Jews

And I did not speak out �

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the communists

And I did not speak out �

Because I was not a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists

And I did not speak out �

Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me �

And there was no-one left

To speak out for me.

***

This is just the beginning�

Mike Hinzman's "Why Communism is Horse S***"

My good friend Mike Hinzman is a very outspoken guy. Specifically when it comes to putting his degree in political science to work. But luckily, he's on our side. Here is an entry he posted on the Cellar Dwellers Blog-o-Rama a while back, that I thought was very good and pertinent to our discussions here in the CR.

Now, most of my blogs are indeed not funny, just sort of ranting. Well this one is no different. I have a friend that went back to school. He's a little older than me and last night at about 1 AM we had a discussion on the computer about politics. He went to an "We hate Bush" kind of rally in Oakland. He said I would have not liked it since I was "one of those..you know Rs." (republicans, which seems to now be the party of the people strangely enough from what the news says. They want to give the power to you instead of taking it and letting decisions be made by the government, cause apparently the democrats know what I need more than I do! But that�s another argument)

He then proceeded to say that the whole system needs to be changed. I was like "What? What? What?" a la Kyle's mom on South Park. He said democracy exploited people. And I laughed and asked what system does not? Democracy is the longest running and most successful political experiment in all of the world's history. He argued that monarchies were longer, so I had to point out that every time a new king or queen takes the throne, it's a whole different government. We've had the same government for centuries now. How awesome is that? It may not be perfect, but it's the best there is.

I asked him for alternatives. He said ... socialism. Which of course can't work in a country as large in land and population as the US. There are places like Norway that have socialistic tendencies and they work for the small freezing country of the hot, tall, and all super white.

He said you just have to have enough people to want it, that�s all. That�s all? That�s the hardest thing of all and that�s why it won�t work. Cuba has been trying for a long time to be a communist state. They have a small population and small amount of land to control, and THEY can�t even get their shit together. There are less minds to change there than anywhere else.

This is why communism is absolute horseshit.

Here�s an example: You�re at a store. The clerk says, �I�ll give whoever gets to the counter first all their stuff for free, or you can both get here at the same time and I�ll give you 50% off.� Now, some people would want to work together, but most people would be like �screw him� and try and get free stuff. We are ready to screw the other person for personal gain. There can be none of those people at all for communism or true socialism to work. Personally, I�m glad to be one of those greedy bastards. That�s what makes our economy run: the search for more for me.

I said that for any step towards a social society, you have to change the hearts of men and women, not the government. Government and indeed all sovereignty is granted by the people. So unless all the people want it, it doesn�t happen. You can�t change people�s heart with force. That will make them resent you and hate your happy, feel good government.

He said it takes time. I told him that�s impossible. For as many as you change to your mindset, there will be changing back, or switching to the other side for the first time. The only way to change it is all together with a Marxist revolution (to see a great example of what that is, watch the movie ANTZ). You get rid of the people that don�t agree. The workers rise and revolt. And the world becomes a time share, kibbutz style.

Communism is great on paper. Socialism seems even workable on paper. But there is one problem: people tend to be jerks. You go back to Marx and Rousseau and they think people are naturally good. But there is a whole other camp of people that think people are naturally bad. I�m in the latter simply because if we were meant to be good, it�d be a lot easier to be good than bad.

So while communism is a fun thing to talk about in college, and even a nice daydream. It�s never going to happen cause someone will always take advantage of the situation. Read Animal Farm by Orwell. All there needs to be in one person to screw it up. With democracy, if one person is screwing up, the people kick his or her ass to the curb. That�s why we need to vote. You do have the power, like He Man. People discount that power, but it�s tough, and right now, mostly old people use it.

So get out of your peace and love hippy haze, your happy land of suger plum trees and lollipop lakes and wake up and smell the crusty burnt 7-11 coffee at the bottom of the pot. Democracy is ever changing and slightly flawed but anything else just doesn�t make sense. So yes, communism is horse shit.

Conservative Commentary: Clash of Civilizations

Thursday, Feb. 10th, Dr. Abdul Dardery presented a lecture entitled "Clash of Civilizations: America vs Islam." The lecture was given in the Administration building as part of a discussion series named after President Boyle.

The main subject of his speech was the misunderstood values that both America and the Muslim world hold. A misunderstanding that is leading to a "clash" that is both unhealthy and threatening throughout the entire globe. He spoke of education and reasoning to fully understand the Muslim objective, as well as Islam's need to be rational and understand Western culture. It was an interesting speech, one I would have attended regardless of a class assignment, but ultimately one I must ponder.

Prof. Dardery presented Islam as the mysterious outcast of the Religions of the Book. He goes as far to say that "Islam is the most misunderstood religion in the world." In fact, and I must agree, that the religion is not only understood by most Americans but it's also misunderstood by most of its radical members. These members, of course, being the ones who are terrorizing the Middle East in a "jihad" against the infidels.

His main three instances of a "clash" were found in Palestine, Afghanistan, and Iraq, but he did make mention that there were more all across the world. While all three of these clashes have different scenarios and motives behind them, he views them all as clashes of civilizations, and perhaps religions. Dardery then went on to say that almost every Muslim country is ruled by a dictatorial regime or government, something that is going to have to change in order to return the power to the People. He was very adamant about returning the government to the hands of the citizens of Islam, and therefore creating democracy (something the Bush administration has been saying since the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan.)

Prof. Dardery's solution to these clashes? That there needs to be a common ground where communication can begin. He made references to the House of Wisdom (a gathering of Jews, Christians, and Muslims during the 8th Century) and to a League of Islam. There needs to be a dialogue between these cultures so that everyone can be on the same level and learn that we are all children of the same God. This is what Dardery called "the New Paradigm;" Islam in America and everyone living with differences but understanding.

I couldn't help but question his message, which asked for peace and talk to resolve this conflict known as "America vs Islam." He spoke at great length on the situation in Gaza and the conflict between Israel and Palestine. The only way to resolve that situation, he said, is to have a third party step in, sit everyone down, and get them talking. I got the feeling that he wants this to happen with every hostile Muslim nation. We will all be able to sit down and discuss our differences and in the end give the People what they want. While this is a great idea, a message of peace in the Middle East and acceptance of people's religious differences, it is more than a tad na�ve.

I questioned Dardery about the invasion of Iraq by Coalition forces. "Is it not fair to say that no dictator like Saddam would ever be toppled by discussion. Force was necessary by a third party, to help the Iraqi people regain power." He agreed with me, that the invasion of a Iraq was not necessarily a bad thing, but he expressed his fear of a quasi-democracy arising in Iraq; a democracy that would eventually lead to a dictatorship. He also pointed out that he felt the Iraqi war was a "clash" that wasn't healthy for Islamic relations.

In the end, I walked away from this lecture with the sense that his message had missed its mark. I would love to think that we lived in a world where people could sit down and work out everything, a world where insurgents and terrorists were rational and listened to reasoning. But we don't live in that world. We live in a world where freedom has to be fought for, where democracy is a tough sell to power hungry fascist leaders in the Middle East.

There are always going to be disputes in the world, and the majority of them won't be caused by religion differences. If we have learned anything from history, it's that the most important thing to governments is land. There have been wars and disputes over land all the way back to the Babylonians. People can talk about religion, come to agreements, but someone's always going to want your land.

The war in the Middle East isn't going to be solved any time soon, but we are definitely taking steps in the right direction. The Iraqi elections defied every critic and came away being more successful than most American elections. Afghanistan's elections were also successful, and marked a new beginning for their shaky government. Palestine and Israel are in the middle of peace talks, something that has become easier now that Arafat is out of there. Different circumstances and situations will require different tactics and gameplans. Some governments will need to be taken with military force, some people will have to be liberated with the use of bullets. To think that we can just talk everything out isn't going to work. A prime example of this is the situation with North Korea, who has revealed its nuclear arsenal after months of 6-party talks which accomplished little. And as the Palestinians have showed us (during the Clinton administration) that even if you can meet 95% of someone's demands, it isn't always good enough.

Prof. Dardery and his message are well noted and important. He is doing what he can to promote knowledge and understand between these two cultures. In the same sense one can't be na�ve about this whole thing.

Dick Morris Says It All

Dick Morris, former advisor to the Clinton Administraion, is one of the most powerful private citizens in America. Aside from publishing numerous books, including "Because He Could" and "Rewriting History," Dick Morris is also the writer behind the film "FahrenHYPE 9/11." He is also a regular consultant to the FOX News Network. Suffice it to say, the man knows his stuff.

In a recent article linked by the Drudge Report to The Hill, Morris speaks on the theory of Condoleezza Rice running for the presidency in 2008. It's a move that would not only be historically groundbreaking, but also one that would prove to be a possible nail in the coffin of the Hillary campaign.

To stop Hillary, draft Condi
by Dick Morris

As she tours the continent after her Senate confirmation, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is like a rock star � her every movement, her every meeting covered by an adoring media.

America�s first black female secretary of state is doing in public what she has always done in private � speaking frankly about America�s priorities and the realities of the post-Cold War world. As she jokes with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, loosening up his dogmatic anti-American policies, lectures Russia about freedom and warns Israel of tough decisions ahead, one thing is obvious: A star is being born.

Traveling without the entourage customary for secretaries of state, on time, mapping out in advance her first six months of travel, Rice is a new force in American politics.

As the Republican Party casts about for a viable presidential candidate in 2008 to keep Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) out of the White House, attention will inevitably focus on Rice, the woman who may stand between Clinton and the presidency.

Since Bush�s success in Iraq has laid the basis for negotiation in the Middle East, there is every prospect that Rice may preside over a diplomatic triumph in catalyzing the discussions between Sharon and Abbas. The firm American stand in Iraq will also make more likely success in Korea and Iran, all of which would add to the prestige of Rice.

The political fact is that a Rice candidacy would destroy the electoral chances of the Democratic Party by undermining its demographic base. John Kerry got 54 percent of his vote from three groups that, together, account for about a third of the American electorate: African-Americans, Hispanics and single white women. Rice would cut deeply into any Democrat�s margin among these three groups and would, most especially, deny Clinton the strong support she would otherwise receive from each of them.

Rice�s credentials for a candidacy are extensive and will grow throughout her tenure at the State Department. As former chancellor of Stanford University, she would have much in common with the pre-political careers of Woodrow Wilson and Dwight Eisenhower, presidents of Princeton and Columbia universities. Her service as national security adviser during a war and her current efforts as secretary of state demonstrate her ability to handle crises and to conduct herself with dignity and impact on the world stage.

As a social conservative and deeply religious person, she would face no bar in winning the votes of the Christian right, so crucial to winning the Republican nomination. Unlike former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani (R) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) � both of whom could probably win in November � she would be very attractive to the pro-life, anti-gun-control, anti-affirmative-action base of the GOP.

America longs to put the period on the disgraceful chapter in our nation�s history that began when the first slave arrived at Jamestown, Va., more than 400 years ago. We also want to send a message to every girl, and every African-American or Hispanic baby, that there is no ceiling and that you can rise as far as your ability will carry you. The day Condi Rice is sworn in as president, regardless of the fate of her administration, that message and the punctuation of our history of racism will be obvious.

Of course, she isn�t running � nor is there any indication that she is harboring thoughts of a candidacy. But as her visibility increases, so will her viability. It may just be possible to draft Condi into the race. A real presidential draft movement hasn�t happened since 1952, when Republicans urged Eisenhower to get into the race. A draft-Condi movement seems almost antiquated in this era of ambitious and self-promoting candidates, but it may well fill a deep need in the electorate to vote for someone who is running in response to a genuine call of the people.

Condi Rice is a work in progress. Her rise has been impelled by her merits and achievements rather than any efforts on her part to curry favor in the media. She is still working and still progressing. But keep your eye on this political star. It is rising and may one day be ascendant.

Help Save Social Security

President Bush is facing alot of opposition from the left about how Social Security should be fixed. Basically they don't think it should be fixed. So in order to send them the Right message, everyone should sign the official state by state petition to make sure we have money when we grow up!

Sign the Petition for PA!

Why We are in Iraq

I recommend this fantastic article (originally a speech at Georgetown University) by David Horowitz. Entitled Why We are in Iraq, it's an extensive and detailed article explaining exactly why it's important we are in the current war. So before you write off President Bush's war effort, I recommend you read this current and intelligent speech.

Found on Frontpagemag.com The article.