January 2008 will be to democrats and republicans what March is to college basketball: Madness.
If you thought 2007 was ugly, just wait for the first presidential caucuses and primaries to get under way. Fireworks on New Year's Eve will not compare to those launching in several states to kick off this upcoming presidential election year. If the extremely early campaign season, which began unequivocally in January 2007, has been any indication, then Vote 2008 is shaping up to be a doozy of a fight. Below is a breakdown of the democratic and republican contenders....Do I sense a new reality TV show forming??
The Dems...
Hillary Clinton. Three words best describe Hillary Clinton for President: Brand-name recognition. She may be the democratic front-runner for nomination in 2008, but Mrs. Rodham Clinton had better not count her chickens before they hatch. In the early going, she is receiving pretty stiff competition from junior Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL, who has done more to energize and reinvigorate democratic voters in the past several months than Mrs. Clinton did in all of her husband’s eight years in the White House. She is neither inspiring, nor confident, nor unifying as Obama appears to be. Truth be told, Hillary represents the old guard of liberal democrats; you know, the ones who have consistently lost presidential elections since 1968. Yeah, I know Bill won two terms in office in the 1990s; but really, Clinton masqueraded as a "new democrat," and he got a lot of help (11 percent of the popular vote) from the Texas Parrot.
But I digress: Hillary and her camp are taking 2008 for granted. They think the 2008 nomination and the White House are hers for the taking; the presidency is hers to lose. Some even have gone so far as to metaphorically anoint Hillary as the next President of the United States. Lest we forget, this is still a republican democracy and not a monarchy; there are no anointed ones here.
Hillary’s campaign is reminiscent of the NFL’s 1969 Baltimore Colts, who all but laid claim to the Super Bowl III title before the game was even played. That kind of braggadoccio led to the celebrity of Broadway Joe Namath and his upstart New York Jets. The celebrity in this case may just well be Barack Obama.
As Hall of Fame baseball legend and former New York Yankee Yogi Berra once said, “It ain’t over ‘til it’s over.” Hillary would be wise to learn from history.
Barack Obama. He is the “rock star” of the 2008 presidential campaign. He is also an upstart, which historically do not have the greatest track record of winning elections. While Obama may be the “hot ticket” for democratic voters right now, there is still plenty of time in the race for him to peter out and lose steam. Remember Pat Buchanan in 1996? The populist and former republican presidential candidate caught fire early with conservative voters. But by the summer of 1996, Bob Dole had wrapped up the nomination. Barack risks falling into the same trap as Buchanan: Believing his press clippings. He is in great position and poised to upset front-runner Hillary Clinton; but if Barack gets careless with his campaign, Hillary can easily distance herself from him. She has name recognition, influence, party muscle, and the strength of her husband’s tenure in office behind her.
Where Barack may fizzle is down the stretch (like Buchanan), because of Hillary’s reach. In 1996, Bob Dole had it in with the powers of the Republican Party; something Buchanan did not have. Likewise, Hillary has the democratic machine behind her. Barack just has popularity. In a republican democracy, popularity alone does not win elections, much less nominations.
John Edwards. He is the folksy candidate, who tries appealing to the common voter through his country swagger. Unfortunately, folksy candidates don’t always “cut the mustard” as president. People want leaders, not neighbors for president; they want someone who can make the tough decisions that most of us are not willing to make. But this isn’t necessarily a stumbling block for Edwards. What may doom Edwards is his disingenuousness. To put it bluntly, he is a fake, a fraud, and a polished court room actor. He can make a person believe that he is just like their neighbor; but the reality is that John Edwards is an elitist, and not anywhere near like the common man he claims to be. After all, how many “common” people own and live in a 24,000-sq. ft. mansion? How many average folks earn a living as a trial lawyer, whose job it is to persuade juries to award their side exorbitant cash awards? And how many common men put career or political ambitions above their families when there is a personal crisis? I mean no disrespect to the Edwards’ family here, but an ordinary man whose wife is suffering from recurrent malignant cancer would want to spend as much time with her as possible, rather than spending it at the office. God only knows how much more time Elizabeth Edwards may have on this earth. John should focus all of his energy on spending quality time with her, instead of pursuing the presidency. He may well have other chances to run in the future; but when Elizabeth is gone, he won’t have any more chances to spend with her.
Bill Richardson. The former New Mexico governor and U.S. Energy Department Secretary appears to be running in the middle of the pack of democratic candidates at this point in the race. He is neither a stand-out, nor front-runner, nor a “rock star.” To a vast majority of political pundits, he is just another candidate crowding the field and clogging up the road for the Hillary Express. As far as official Washington is concerned, he has next to no chance of winning the democratic nomination for president. Funny, there was a lot of the same sentiment being felt about Bill Clinton in the early days of his candidacy for president during the 1992 campaign. He was a former governor of Arkansas (where the heck is that, anyway?!?) who was dealing with allegations of sexual misconduct in the Jennifer Flowers scandal. Yet, by July 1992, William Jefferson Clinton had secured the party nomination for president and went on to upset incumbent President George H.W. Bush for the presidency that November. Richardson finds himself being characterized and categorized in much the same fashion Clinton was during his first campaign for president. Richardson, like Clinton, is being overlooked by much more higher profile candidates. But mark my words: Bill Richardson is as legitimate a candidate for the democratic nomination as any currently in the field. History has shown that the dark horse can win from time to time; albeit not with regularity. What Richardson has going for him: (1) Gubernatorial experience. This means he has been a state governor. History favors former governors, such as Bush II, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, LBJ, etc. (2) federal cabinet experience. Richardson served during Clinton’s presidency as secretary of energy in the White House cabinet. Besides Hillary, he would know better than the other candidates how things work at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. (3) U.S. Senate experience. Prior to his cabinet post, Richardson had served some time as a U.S. Senator. (4) He is Hispanic. Richardson can appeal to latino voters perhaps as no other presidential candidate has ever done before. And with a growing Hispanic population across the United States, they may well just be the swing voters every other candidate will try to attract. By virtue of his ethnicity, Richardson will have instant appeal with a great many latinos. The bottom line: Richardson has a more well-rounded resume of “leadership,” not just political experience, going for him. Beware of the dark horse, lest you be nipped at the wire.
Dennis Kucinich. I know little about the history and background of this candidate, other than the fact that he is a senior member of the House of Representatives, representing Ohio. But what I do know is that he is too far to the left for most voters in the United States. Most likely, the next President of the United States will be someone who appeals to the center. That has been a long-standing trend. Kucinich represents the traditional democratic candidate, who masquerades as champion of the "little guy" and the average Joe. Bottom line: He is just another foot soldier within the democratic ranks. He is not a member of the "top brass" as Hillary, Teddy Kennedy, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and other senate dinosaurs are. Kucinich also lacks the charisma and charm needed to be a presidential front-runner. He lacks widespread appeal. When he speaks, strange things come out of his mouth. I think he may also suffer from a bit of little man's syndrome, given his physical stature. He is of slight build and below average height. For some reason, his aura reminds me of another "little guy" who got his start with the Jacobin Society and rose to the position of Emperor of France. The only thing missing with Kucinich is a funny hat and a pose with his hand tucked in his shirt. Who knows? As the primary season gets more desperate for him, I wouldn't rule that out.
Joe Biden and Christopher Dodd. How many times have these two veteran senators ran for the democratic nomination for president? More than I care to count. I use the term "veteran senators" out of respect. But the truth is, these two career politicians are has-beens that are on their way to cushy Congressional pensions. They run for president not because they are really serious, but because they can't get enough of the attention that presidential primaries give them. Both of these fellows come from districts overshadowed by more significant senate seats in the Northeast United States, namely Massachusetts and New York. I mean, unless you live in Delaware or Connecticut, who in Washington or the rest of the country really cares? Furthermore, these democratic dinosaurs date back to the LBJ era and are old-school liberals, who historically have a hard time winning general elections. Can you say Mondale, Dukakis, McGovern, Kerry? This describes Biden and Dodd to a tee. Finally, these guys seek just about every democratic presidential nomination because they do what their party tells them to in order to make the race more interesting. These guys are dyed-in-the-wool blue-bloods, who would walk over hot coals for their party. Dodd and Biden are to the democratic primaries what a color guy is to a play-by-play announcer. They are the flavors of the month, and that's about it.
Mike Gravel. Um, who? Oh, yeah, the guy from Alaska, right? Well, consider Mr. Gravel to be like one of those obscure ornaments on a Christmas tree: You never see it, and probably don't even remember it is there. But nonetheless, in its own obscure way, it helps to decorate the tree. Gravel's purpose in the field of democratic candidates seeking the presidential nomination is the same as that of Dodd, Biden and Kucinich: It is to give the illusion that the race is not a runaway for the front-runners.
Now, the Reeps...
Rudy Giuliani. “Rudy! Rudy! Rah, rah, rah!” The only Rudy more inspiring than the former NYC mayor is the Notre Dame alum who had a movie made about him. And, frankly, if many people had their druthers, they would rather elect Rudy Ruettiger president of the United States than Rudolph “Rudy” Giuliani. Hands down, Giuliani is the popular republican candidate. But popularity alone won’t elect him. What makes Rudy a strong candidate is his consistency on issues, as well as a willingness to stand in and take the punches as they come. That takes guts, which is something many politicians these days lack. I don’t think Rudy is out to win a popularity contest; he doesn’t have to, because he is already the popular candidate. Moderates and liberal republicans will flock to Rudy, who will have a tough time attracting the conservative base of the party given his liberal stands on social issues. However, like Hillary, Rudy is a brand-name candidate. He will attract republican brand voters. The greatest concerns for Rudy, though, are the skeletons in his closet; namely his marital history and iconsistent stands on major republican issues, such as second amendment, gay marriage and abortion. Most voters tend to avoid candidates who literally stick out like sore thumbs. Look for Rudy's opponents to exploit his weaknesses and attempt to make him stick out.
Mitt Romney. Although he has the look, swagger and charm of a president, Mitt also represents the old-guard, country club republican. He is financially wealthy and has a background in corporate America, which has been painted by the media as evil in modern times. Many swing voters might see Mitt as just another rich white guy looking to move into the nation's most prestigious mansion. Yet, Mitt Romney has a lot going for him as well. He seems to have a level of integrity that is uncanny in today's political climate. He has gubernatorial experience, which historically bodes well for presidential candidates. And, Mitt can hang his hat on the success of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, which he helped to reinvigorate from bust into a boon. But look for Mitt’s opponents to exploit his “180” on abortion and other issues that can and will be dug up. The effort will be to paint Mitt as a flip-flopper. And we all know how well Sen. John F. Kerry fared in 2004. Otherwise, Romney is a good communicator, has charisma, and has experience and leadership behind him as a former governor of Massachusetts. Besides, any republican who can serve a full term as governor of the most liberal state in the country, while proudly identifying himself as a mormom, must have some good qualities.
John McCain. At risk of sounding callous, if it hadn’t been for his unfortunate stint as a Vietnam POW, would we know or even care who John McCain is? Indeed, would John McCain even be the high-profile politician he is today, running for president a second time? Other than the McCain-Feingold Bill –- which blatantly violates the free-speech clause of the Bill of Rights and has handcuffed mostly his own republican party’s ability to raise campaign money –- what else is John McCain known for? He is a Vietnam POW survivor, who happened to get elected to the U.S. Senate. But John McCain is not presidential material. He is to be admired and respected for his service in Vietnam; but that does not necessarily make him an effective leader. McCain exudes neither confidence, nor inspiration, nor unification. He does not have a defined voting base, either. By and large, conservatives don’t support McCain because of his liberal stands on illegal immigration, globalization of the economy, and his voting record in support of big government. Moderate and liberal republicans also do not favor McCain because of his conservative views on abortion and other social issues. To many, McCain is just another flip-flop-wearing empty suit running for office. He is kind of like the republican version of John F. Kerry. Scary.
Fred Thompson. His political opponents will attack him on his resume. First, Thompson needs to separate himself from the “country-club republican” stereotype that his tenure in the U.S. Senate was surrounded by. If he cannot, then political enemies will succeed in painting Thompson as just another rich white guy looking to take care of his own. Second, Thompson’s career as an actor can be as much a weakness as a strength. No doubt, political opponents will attempt to paint him the same color as Reagan: a good actor and nothing more.
Dr. Ron Paul. While I respect this man for his integrity and devotion to the U.S. Constitution, his libertarian views just won't jive with the mainstream voter, who is increasingly identified as moderate and generally reluctant to accept a position of shrinking the scope and size of today's federal government back to Constitutional levels. In addition, Paul's personal stand against abortion appears to be in conflict with libertarian principles, which although do not condone abortion, also do not seek to prevent its practice. I do not get the sense that he is the "live and let live" candidate his campaign wants us to believe him to be. He is also out of touch with the reality of the War On Terror. He wants to cut-and-run in the Middle East and leave everything unfinished. I appreciate his respect for the words of America's first president, George Washington, who warned against meddling in foreign affairs. And I agree with it wholeheartedly. But financially, we can't just pull up the drawbridge and cut ourselves off from the rest of the world. Economically, we have entangled ourselves so much in China and the Middle East that a sudden retreat could cause a depression or ruin to our domestic economy. This needs to be done gradually, not all at once. As far as the War On Terror, lest we forget that the terrorists brought this war to our soil. It is more prudent to take the fight to them than let them come back here and fight us. Perhaps Paul's biggest disadvantage is not his views on the War On Terror or foreign trade, but rather his age. At 72, he would succeed Ronald Reagan as the oldest president ever to take office. That just does not happen very often. And I think the mentality of today's uninformed swing voter is to vote for the most youthful, most energetic candidate.
Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo. Good guys, great views, but too far to the right for moderate mainstream America and the swing votes there. These guys are blunt and to the point on their views. They do not sing, dance or entertain. The uninformed American voter, though, seems to like those who do. Tancredo and Hunter are the meat and potatoes of republican politics; but they are considered to be too high in fat and cholesterol for the appetites of moderate voters, whose palates tolerate only fad diets and sweet desserts as opposed to a hearty meal. What these two will do during this campaign season is help bring attention to issues that the front-runners would prefer to avoid, and that's good for debate.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Thursday, September 27, 2007
What part of “illegal” don’t we understand?
Much ado about nothing has been made concerning the current debate over illegal immigration.
I just don’t get why there is any debate at all. An illegal alien, or immigrant more softly put, is just what the term says—illegal. This means that a law has been subverted, broken or ignored. When we drive over the posted speed limit, we are ignoring and breaking the law. When we fail to report income to the IRS, we are breaking the law. And when we move to another country without reporting to the immigration authorities, we are breaking the law.
What part of “illegal” don’t we understand? When we break the law, we can expect there to be consequences. Many of us drive over the posted speed limit every day without getting pulled over and cited. But when we eventually do, we become angry and upset because we finally got caught; not because we felt picked on.
Illegal aliens probably feel picked on with all the attention on immigration these days. But the reality is that they are not being picked on. They have just gotten caught breaking the law, and “We the People” of the United States are demanding that the law be enforced. It is just that simple.
Now, I realize that deporting illegals back to their home countries threatens to break up families. After all, millions of illegals have crossed our borders over the years to have their babies in the United States. A child of an illegal born on American soil is considered a naturalized U.S. citizen. The buzz-word for these children is “anchor-baby,” the practice of which has created quite a dilemma for lawmakers, who are supposed to defend and enforce the U.S. Constitution, which applies to anyone with legal United States citizenship. Many illegals know about this loophole. Thus, the “anchor-baby” practice has grown exponentially over the years.
However, the blame for breaking up families of illegal aliens is misplaced on U.S. laws and the American people who demand enforcement. Those responsible for breaking up families are the illegals themselves. They knowingly put their families in jeopardy by crossing our borders illegally, and taking no steps to protect their families by becoming legal residents.
Lawmakers are also partially to blame for failing to enforce the immigration laws that have been on the books for decades. Because of the inaction of authorities, illegal aliens have crossed our borders by the millions without any fear of consequences, simply because they believed there would be none.
Frankly, the children of illegals should go with them—whether or not they are naturalized U.S. citizens—to avoid the break up of families. When they become legal adults, they can return here and present their birth certificates as proof of citizenship. Either that or they can be placed in temporary foster care or live with legal relatives until their parents can obtain legal status.
A third and far less advisable option is to amend the Constitution to specify that “naturalized” means those born in the United States to legal citizens. (Personally, I think this should be a last resort. I don’t like the idea of changing the language of the Constitution, because it has the potential of opening a can of worms.)
The bottom line here is that there is a right way and a wrong way to enter and live in the United States. Millions of people have done it the right and legal way before. There is no reason why they can’t continue to do so.
Relaxing immigration laws to accommodate illegals is an insult to the many immigrants who are trying and waiting to enter the United States legally. Essentially, illegals are being given a free pass to avoid the lines of immigrants lawfully seeking citizenship. This only makes those doing the right thing look like suckers.
In the rudimentary sense, allowing illegals to remain here rewards cheaters and punishes the honest. If our country is willing to look the other way on immigration laws, then what is the point of having laws in the first place? A dog without any teeth can only bark. A homeowner without any defense can only scream and yell. And a nation without enforcement of its laws is weak and vulnerable to exploitation. By ignoring immigration laws, the United States of America continues to open itself up to be undermined from within by those who wish to destroy our nation and its infrastructure—be them terrorists or other groups with agendas and ulterior motives.
How many more terrorist attacks must we suffer before immigration laws and our borders are enforced? When will our country wake up to the reality that America’s sovereignty is being dissolved by the acid rain of apathy, complacency and indifference? A war has been waged on America’s culture, language and heritage by those who only have their own self interests in mind. And the self-interested, knowingly or not, have diluted the meaning and importance of being a citizen of the United States of America.
The only way to restore America’s legacy of being that shining city on a hill, full of hope and opportunity for the world’s tired and huddled masses, is not to continue down the path of open borders and government freebies for lawbreakers. This only encourages future lawlessness and brings people to our country for the wrong reasons.
The way back is to restore the value of legal immigration, making the decision of coming to America one of hope for a new life, prosperity and the opportunity to pursue dreams. Doing so may just restrain the cancer of mass ignorance of law and order that currently exists in our country.
Laws are broken everyday, but only those not enforced grow into bigger, uncontrolled problems. We best repair the leaks in the dam before it bursts, because when that happens, all that shall remain will be the aftermath. Frankly, I’d rather clean up the mess left by a few obnoxious leaks now than build the dam all over again when it is too late. Water is much harder to contain once it has spilled.
I just don’t get why there is any debate at all. An illegal alien, or immigrant more softly put, is just what the term says—illegal. This means that a law has been subverted, broken or ignored. When we drive over the posted speed limit, we are ignoring and breaking the law. When we fail to report income to the IRS, we are breaking the law. And when we move to another country without reporting to the immigration authorities, we are breaking the law.
What part of “illegal” don’t we understand? When we break the law, we can expect there to be consequences. Many of us drive over the posted speed limit every day without getting pulled over and cited. But when we eventually do, we become angry and upset because we finally got caught; not because we felt picked on.
Illegal aliens probably feel picked on with all the attention on immigration these days. But the reality is that they are not being picked on. They have just gotten caught breaking the law, and “We the People” of the United States are demanding that the law be enforced. It is just that simple.
Now, I realize that deporting illegals back to their home countries threatens to break up families. After all, millions of illegals have crossed our borders over the years to have their babies in the United States. A child of an illegal born on American soil is considered a naturalized U.S. citizen. The buzz-word for these children is “anchor-baby,” the practice of which has created quite a dilemma for lawmakers, who are supposed to defend and enforce the U.S. Constitution, which applies to anyone with legal United States citizenship. Many illegals know about this loophole. Thus, the “anchor-baby” practice has grown exponentially over the years.
However, the blame for breaking up families of illegal aliens is misplaced on U.S. laws and the American people who demand enforcement. Those responsible for breaking up families are the illegals themselves. They knowingly put their families in jeopardy by crossing our borders illegally, and taking no steps to protect their families by becoming legal residents.
Lawmakers are also partially to blame for failing to enforce the immigration laws that have been on the books for decades. Because of the inaction of authorities, illegal aliens have crossed our borders by the millions without any fear of consequences, simply because they believed there would be none.
Frankly, the children of illegals should go with them—whether or not they are naturalized U.S. citizens—to avoid the break up of families. When they become legal adults, they can return here and present their birth certificates as proof of citizenship. Either that or they can be placed in temporary foster care or live with legal relatives until their parents can obtain legal status.
A third and far less advisable option is to amend the Constitution to specify that “naturalized” means those born in the United States to legal citizens. (Personally, I think this should be a last resort. I don’t like the idea of changing the language of the Constitution, because it has the potential of opening a can of worms.)
The bottom line here is that there is a right way and a wrong way to enter and live in the United States. Millions of people have done it the right and legal way before. There is no reason why they can’t continue to do so.
Relaxing immigration laws to accommodate illegals is an insult to the many immigrants who are trying and waiting to enter the United States legally. Essentially, illegals are being given a free pass to avoid the lines of immigrants lawfully seeking citizenship. This only makes those doing the right thing look like suckers.
In the rudimentary sense, allowing illegals to remain here rewards cheaters and punishes the honest. If our country is willing to look the other way on immigration laws, then what is the point of having laws in the first place? A dog without any teeth can only bark. A homeowner without any defense can only scream and yell. And a nation without enforcement of its laws is weak and vulnerable to exploitation. By ignoring immigration laws, the United States of America continues to open itself up to be undermined from within by those who wish to destroy our nation and its infrastructure—be them terrorists or other groups with agendas and ulterior motives.
How many more terrorist attacks must we suffer before immigration laws and our borders are enforced? When will our country wake up to the reality that America’s sovereignty is being dissolved by the acid rain of apathy, complacency and indifference? A war has been waged on America’s culture, language and heritage by those who only have their own self interests in mind. And the self-interested, knowingly or not, have diluted the meaning and importance of being a citizen of the United States of America.
The only way to restore America’s legacy of being that shining city on a hill, full of hope and opportunity for the world’s tired and huddled masses, is not to continue down the path of open borders and government freebies for lawbreakers. This only encourages future lawlessness and brings people to our country for the wrong reasons.
The way back is to restore the value of legal immigration, making the decision of coming to America one of hope for a new life, prosperity and the opportunity to pursue dreams. Doing so may just restrain the cancer of mass ignorance of law and order that currently exists in our country.
Laws are broken everyday, but only those not enforced grow into bigger, uncontrolled problems. We best repair the leaks in the dam before it bursts, because when that happens, all that shall remain will be the aftermath. Frankly, I’d rather clean up the mess left by a few obnoxious leaks now than build the dam all over again when it is too late. Water is much harder to contain once it has spilled.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Madam President
Some say America isn’t ready yet for a woman president. Others say we are long overdue. Frankly, I do not have reservations about a woman in the Oval Office; as long as she is the right woman. I do not believe Sen. Hillary Clinton is she.
Besides her left-wing politics, I am disturbed by her apparent motive.
Is it any wonder to the thinking person why Hillary and Bill set up residence in New York State, rather than return to the latter’s home state of Arkansas? I think Hillary knew she would not get elected to anything back in Arkansas, and her political ambitions would fade faster than a New York minute.
Furthermore, Arkansas is not exactly the nucleus of socio-political power in Washington, D.C., much less the entire country. To someone like Hillary, the state of Arkansas is akin to a backwater rest-stop on her road trip to the Beltway. She tolerated it long enough to help get her hubby elected President. Then, she was on to bigger and better things. Other than the ribbon-cutting ceremony for Bill’s library, I'm not sure Hillary has been back to Arkansas since she left there in January 1993.
But here is the real reason why Hillary packed her carpetbags for New York: She knew that she could win the Senate seat there. Her political insider friends assured her that the voters of that district would support her. She also understood that if one wants to get on the fast-track to political power in the United States of America, you have to do so either in New York, California or Texas. …Well, she wasn’t going to set foot in Bush country. And California was the territory of her good friends Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein. I guess New York was a no-brainer, then.
Hillary Clinton, I believe, does not have the best interests of the American voter at heart. I think she has her own interests at heart. Why else would she move to New York? Not because she liked the people, but rather she liked what the people there could do for her. That just goes to show how smart the folks in New York State are. They vote in an obvious carpet-bagger whose only interest is to grab a Senate seat so she could further her own political ambitions for the White House. She has totally taken advantage of the people of her district, duping them into thinking that she really wanted to be their Senator. While all along, what she really wanted was to just get her foot in the door.
Hillary timed her move perfectly, too—right after she and Bill left the White House in January 2001. By the time of the 2008 elections, she will have a term and a half of experience in the Senate to rest on her laurels.
So, buyer beware! If you vote for Hillary, just remember that you’ll be feeding the appetite of another power-hungry politician, and giving her what she covets most: More power.
Besides her left-wing politics, I am disturbed by her apparent motive.
Is it any wonder to the thinking person why Hillary and Bill set up residence in New York State, rather than return to the latter’s home state of Arkansas? I think Hillary knew she would not get elected to anything back in Arkansas, and her political ambitions would fade faster than a New York minute.
Furthermore, Arkansas is not exactly the nucleus of socio-political power in Washington, D.C., much less the entire country. To someone like Hillary, the state of Arkansas is akin to a backwater rest-stop on her road trip to the Beltway. She tolerated it long enough to help get her hubby elected President. Then, she was on to bigger and better things. Other than the ribbon-cutting ceremony for Bill’s library, I'm not sure Hillary has been back to Arkansas since she left there in January 1993.
But here is the real reason why Hillary packed her carpetbags for New York: She knew that she could win the Senate seat there. Her political insider friends assured her that the voters of that district would support her. She also understood that if one wants to get on the fast-track to political power in the United States of America, you have to do so either in New York, California or Texas. …Well, she wasn’t going to set foot in Bush country. And California was the territory of her good friends Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein. I guess New York was a no-brainer, then.
Hillary Clinton, I believe, does not have the best interests of the American voter at heart. I think she has her own interests at heart. Why else would she move to New York? Not because she liked the people, but rather she liked what the people there could do for her. That just goes to show how smart the folks in New York State are. They vote in an obvious carpet-bagger whose only interest is to grab a Senate seat so she could further her own political ambitions for the White House. She has totally taken advantage of the people of her district, duping them into thinking that she really wanted to be their Senator. While all along, what she really wanted was to just get her foot in the door.
Hillary timed her move perfectly, too—right after she and Bill left the White House in January 2001. By the time of the 2008 elections, she will have a term and a half of experience in the Senate to rest on her laurels.
So, buyer beware! If you vote for Hillary, just remember that you’ll be feeding the appetite of another power-hungry politician, and giving her what she covets most: More power.
Do as I say, not as I do
When former Vice President and current celebrity Al Gore strode up the steps of the U.S. Capitol earlier this year to testify on behalf of Mother Earth, the halls of Congress hushed to hear the propaganda—er, message—that turned this once-failed presidential candidate into an overnight celebrity expert on global climate change.
The funny thing is, not even the traditionally “progressive” (read that “liberal”) news media seemed to take Gore seriously enough until Hollywood threw its weight, money and influence behind a documentary starring the former U.S. vice president. Suddenly, global climate change became a major issue deserving of attention and in need of action.
Why is it that whenever Hollywood opens its mouth and pocketbook, our popular culture decides to take on the issue as though it was some great, big crisis or problem? How is it that one drab movie about how man is destroying the earth can suddenly demand the attention of the public? The phenomenon is called “propaganda,” a tool as old as time used to persuade the masses to conform to the will and wishes of those pushing the message. But the liberal elitists smartly disguise their propaganda messages as “compassion” and “science.”
We, the subjects, are expected to conform or else face the ire of the powerful elite and risk being painted as uncompassionate, cold-hearted, uncaring slobs. This is classic peer pressure. Remember as kids how we were lectured by our parents and teachers about the dangers of peer pressure? Oddly enough, nobody seems willing to make the link between environmental propaganda and peer pressure, which is advanced through fear, guilt and threats of being ostracized. Pushers of the global warming agenda are intent on scaring people into submission by announcing that the earth will be destroyed and us along with it if we continue on our current consumption course; instilling a deep sense of guilt for driving our cars and using energy to power our lives; and placing skeptics and critics on the spot by labeling them as ignorant, stupid, greedy and selfish.
Do you know about the Weather Channel weather woman who has stated that any meteorologist who does not agree with global warming should have his or her American Meteorological Society (AMS) certification revoked? A number of weather men and women have been placed on the spot to conform to global warming theory or face losing their membership in the AMS. Can you say, “ostracize”?
Meanwhile, Al Gore and his fellow Hollywood elite are on their soapboxes preaching about the need to be “green,” and alter our lifestyles, because if we don’t then the earth will burn up and we are all going to die. Yet, Gore and his celebrity supporters are traveling around the country in their private jets, luxury motorcoaches and limousines, wining and dining on the environmentalist dollar while on the speech circuit. In fact, Gore’s 10,000 square-foot home and its gluttonous energy usage is a direct example of the very problem he is preaching about. His home, while large by most peoples’ standards, is a microcosm of the multiple mansions and luxury vacation homes owned by his Hollywood allies.
I wonder, do the stars make sure they are using fluorescent light bulbs in all of their residences? Are they careful to transport themselves only in electric hybrids or bicycles wherever they go? Do they carpool in their limos to and from studios, galas and parties? Yeah, I know Leo DiCaprio says he owns a hybrid; but does he actually use it? There’s a huge difference between owning something that sits in a garage collecting dust and actually using it.
The hypocrisy of the left—especially in Hollywood and other elite circles of liberalism, such as academia—is ripe. As I see it, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If changing our lifestyle to balance out our “carbon footprints” is necessary, then it is also needed among the elite who are preaching it. But that is not the way liberal elitists like Gore think. To them, just bringing the issue to the table is enough to make them “carbon neutral.” They are doing their part simply through discourse and activism. Therefore, they are exempt from the proposals that apply to the rest of us.
When Sen. James Imhoff, R-OK, questioned Gore during testimony about whether or not he is doing his part in this global warming problem, the former VP side-stepped the issue by saying that he is carbon neutral, because he makes up for some deficiencies by doing other green things. He rationalized the need to continue flying from place to place delivering his message of doom and destruction.
Uh, sorry, Al, that doesn't cut the mustard. First, you should down-size from a 10,000 square-foot house that sucks at least three times as much energy out of the environment than your typical American’s home. Second, trade in your SUVs, town cars and limousines for the tiny little hybrid that the rest of us are urged to drive. Third, stop flying around on jets, using up jet fuel and expelling contaminants into the air. Instead, use the Internet, which you claim to have invented, to conduct virtual conferences.
If you do need to be somewhere in person, then drive your hybrid or ride your bicycle. But you might want to give yourself a few days or weeks to get to where you are going. Hybrids don’t fly as fast as planes do.
The whole global climate change craze doesn't just smell of hypocrisy to me; it stinks to high heavens. Frankly, if the left wants to become “carbon neutral,” maybe it should clean up its stench of hypocrisy first.
The funny thing is, not even the traditionally “progressive” (read that “liberal”) news media seemed to take Gore seriously enough until Hollywood threw its weight, money and influence behind a documentary starring the former U.S. vice president. Suddenly, global climate change became a major issue deserving of attention and in need of action.
Why is it that whenever Hollywood opens its mouth and pocketbook, our popular culture decides to take on the issue as though it was some great, big crisis or problem? How is it that one drab movie about how man is destroying the earth can suddenly demand the attention of the public? The phenomenon is called “propaganda,” a tool as old as time used to persuade the masses to conform to the will and wishes of those pushing the message. But the liberal elitists smartly disguise their propaganda messages as “compassion” and “science.”
We, the subjects, are expected to conform or else face the ire of the powerful elite and risk being painted as uncompassionate, cold-hearted, uncaring slobs. This is classic peer pressure. Remember as kids how we were lectured by our parents and teachers about the dangers of peer pressure? Oddly enough, nobody seems willing to make the link between environmental propaganda and peer pressure, which is advanced through fear, guilt and threats of being ostracized. Pushers of the global warming agenda are intent on scaring people into submission by announcing that the earth will be destroyed and us along with it if we continue on our current consumption course; instilling a deep sense of guilt for driving our cars and using energy to power our lives; and placing skeptics and critics on the spot by labeling them as ignorant, stupid, greedy and selfish.
Do you know about the Weather Channel weather woman who has stated that any meteorologist who does not agree with global warming should have his or her American Meteorological Society (AMS) certification revoked? A number of weather men and women have been placed on the spot to conform to global warming theory or face losing their membership in the AMS. Can you say, “ostracize”?
Meanwhile, Al Gore and his fellow Hollywood elite are on their soapboxes preaching about the need to be “green,” and alter our lifestyles, because if we don’t then the earth will burn up and we are all going to die. Yet, Gore and his celebrity supporters are traveling around the country in their private jets, luxury motorcoaches and limousines, wining and dining on the environmentalist dollar while on the speech circuit. In fact, Gore’s 10,000 square-foot home and its gluttonous energy usage is a direct example of the very problem he is preaching about. His home, while large by most peoples’ standards, is a microcosm of the multiple mansions and luxury vacation homes owned by his Hollywood allies.
I wonder, do the stars make sure they are using fluorescent light bulbs in all of their residences? Are they careful to transport themselves only in electric hybrids or bicycles wherever they go? Do they carpool in their limos to and from studios, galas and parties? Yeah, I know Leo DiCaprio says he owns a hybrid; but does he actually use it? There’s a huge difference between owning something that sits in a garage collecting dust and actually using it.
The hypocrisy of the left—especially in Hollywood and other elite circles of liberalism, such as academia—is ripe. As I see it, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If changing our lifestyle to balance out our “carbon footprints” is necessary, then it is also needed among the elite who are preaching it. But that is not the way liberal elitists like Gore think. To them, just bringing the issue to the table is enough to make them “carbon neutral.” They are doing their part simply through discourse and activism. Therefore, they are exempt from the proposals that apply to the rest of us.
When Sen. James Imhoff, R-OK, questioned Gore during testimony about whether or not he is doing his part in this global warming problem, the former VP side-stepped the issue by saying that he is carbon neutral, because he makes up for some deficiencies by doing other green things. He rationalized the need to continue flying from place to place delivering his message of doom and destruction.
Uh, sorry, Al, that doesn't cut the mustard. First, you should down-size from a 10,000 square-foot house that sucks at least three times as much energy out of the environment than your typical American’s home. Second, trade in your SUVs, town cars and limousines for the tiny little hybrid that the rest of us are urged to drive. Third, stop flying around on jets, using up jet fuel and expelling contaminants into the air. Instead, use the Internet, which you claim to have invented, to conduct virtual conferences.
If you do need to be somewhere in person, then drive your hybrid or ride your bicycle. But you might want to give yourself a few days or weeks to get to where you are going. Hybrids don’t fly as fast as planes do.
The whole global climate change craze doesn't just smell of hypocrisy to me; it stinks to high heavens. Frankly, if the left wants to become “carbon neutral,” maybe it should clean up its stench of hypocrisy first.
Nazism has a new face
Sixty years ago, fascism had a well-known face. Nazi Germany, its leader, Adolf Hitler, and the swastika symbol were much maligned at the time. Since then, groups have surfaced adopting the swastika and its association with Nazi ideology. We have come to know them as “Neo Nazis” and “Skinheads,” among other names.
But these groups are more or less fringe elements in the world today, and really don’t pose much of a threat. Most of them seem content to just keep to themselves and hole up in compounds located in isolated areas of the world.
Nazism today, though, has a new face. Instead of a swastika, the newest Nazis embrace the crescent moon. And rather than social fascism, these Nazis espouse militant Islam. Just as Hitler’s Nazi Party (a.k.a. National Socialist Party) set out to prove the dominance of the “master race,” Islamic Nazis have declared a holy war on the non-Muslim world in an effort to cleanse the earth of all infidels. And like the German Nazis, these new Nazis of Islam have aggressively taken their fight to all who stand in their way; simply leaving them alone will only hasten the spread of their extremist doctrine and fanatical agenda. What we do or don’t do in response to militant Islamic attacks has no bearing on their end goals. But how we respond can have a significant impact on whether or not this frightening movement achieves its objectives.
I’ve read blogs claiming that the Jews or George W. Bush and the republicans are responsible for 9/11; not Islamic terrorists. The movie “Fahrenheit 911” and its fat slob producer Michael Moore make this very assertion. I’ve also heard the leader of Iran state that the Holocaust was exaggerated. I’ve read other statements claiming that it didn’t happen at all.
Can you see what’s happening? There’s a movement afoot to undermine the efforts of the free world to combat and ultimately defeat militant Islam. There is also a movement intent on placing blame of 9/11 on the Jews.
Coincidentally, Adolf Hitler did the same thing when he took power in the early 1930s. Hitler assumed the helm of Germany on the heels of an economic depression the nation suffered following its debts from World War I. In order for the Nazis to take complete control of the government and its military, enough hysteria and hatred had to be created to convince the German public that a military takeover was necessary. Hitler’s efforts succeeded, and once in power, he proceeded to identify a scapegoat who would shoulder the blame for any problems that would come up during his dictatorship. That scapegoat was the Jews. They were blamed for everything from the 1920s depression to civil unrest in the streets.
History is well-documented with factual information pertaining to the concentration camps, death camps and the millions of people who were murdered by Hitler’s Nazis.
I have no doubt that if militant Islam ever had access to the same means Hitler had, millions of “infidels” would either be gassed or burned to death. There is an ethnic cleansing being planned by this regime; make no mistake about it.
Noted European philosopher George Santayana once expressed, “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
If we do not wake up to the anti-Semitic and, quite frankly, pro-Islamic propaganda being generated these days over the Internet, in the newspaper, magazines, and on television, then we are doomed to witness a repeat of the Holocaust.
Perhaps most frightening about efforts to undermine the War on Terror is its appeal right here at home. To know that there are people like Michael Moore who buy into the convoluted theory that 9/11 was a conspiracy masterminded by President Bush is scary. That is about as absurd as suggesting FDR, not the Japanese, had his own navy bombed at Pearl Harbor in order to justify going to war against Hitler’s Germany. But those who believe this conspiracy theory are apt to believe even the Jews were responsible.
If you are one of these people who are gullible enough to believe that simply leaving Afghanistan and Iraq will end terrorism against the United States, or that “Fahrenheit 911” is fact and not propaganda, then I know of a bridge you can buy.
Fact: The terrorists have been attacking us on our soil since 1993, when the World Trade Center was bombed the first time. They attacked us without provocation on 9/11/01 and succeeded in murdering more than 3,000 innocent people. Our embassies overseas were also bombed multiple times pre-9/11. And don’t forget the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, which also occurred prior to the attacks of 9/11/01. Interesting, isn’t it, that these attacks occurred following the Gulf War of 1991, when we booted Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait and back to Baghdad. Still don’t believe Hussein and his Baath Party in Iraq had anything to do with militant Islamic terrorism? Just stop hating George Bush for a moment and think about it. You might surprise yourself.
Fact: Militant Islam has stated its objectives of destroying all non-Muslim people in the name of its god.
Fact: Militant Islam has even killed fellow Muslims who do not share its fanatical view or support its goals.
Fact: Militant Islam attacks its enemies regardless of whether the response is forceful or peaceful. As I said before, the end goals of Islamic Nazis are not affected by the action or inaction of its targets. We are merely a means to an end: Paradise and 72 virgins. They clearly do not care if their targets are men, women or children; old or young; rich or poor; sick or healthy; guilty or innocent. In their convoluted minds, all who do not believe as they do are guilty and condemned to death.
Given these facts, if we are going to die, wouldn’t it be better to die fighting than begging for mercy at the hands of the merciless?
By the way, did you know that the German Nazi Party was originally called the National Socialist Party? I guess fascism and socialism have more in common than we were told.
But these groups are more or less fringe elements in the world today, and really don’t pose much of a threat. Most of them seem content to just keep to themselves and hole up in compounds located in isolated areas of the world.
Nazism today, though, has a new face. Instead of a swastika, the newest Nazis embrace the crescent moon. And rather than social fascism, these Nazis espouse militant Islam. Just as Hitler’s Nazi Party (a.k.a. National Socialist Party) set out to prove the dominance of the “master race,” Islamic Nazis have declared a holy war on the non-Muslim world in an effort to cleanse the earth of all infidels. And like the German Nazis, these new Nazis of Islam have aggressively taken their fight to all who stand in their way; simply leaving them alone will only hasten the spread of their extremist doctrine and fanatical agenda. What we do or don’t do in response to militant Islamic attacks has no bearing on their end goals. But how we respond can have a significant impact on whether or not this frightening movement achieves its objectives.
I’ve read blogs claiming that the Jews or George W. Bush and the republicans are responsible for 9/11; not Islamic terrorists. The movie “Fahrenheit 911” and its fat slob producer Michael Moore make this very assertion. I’ve also heard the leader of Iran state that the Holocaust was exaggerated. I’ve read other statements claiming that it didn’t happen at all.
Can you see what’s happening? There’s a movement afoot to undermine the efforts of the free world to combat and ultimately defeat militant Islam. There is also a movement intent on placing blame of 9/11 on the Jews.
Coincidentally, Adolf Hitler did the same thing when he took power in the early 1930s. Hitler assumed the helm of Germany on the heels of an economic depression the nation suffered following its debts from World War I. In order for the Nazis to take complete control of the government and its military, enough hysteria and hatred had to be created to convince the German public that a military takeover was necessary. Hitler’s efforts succeeded, and once in power, he proceeded to identify a scapegoat who would shoulder the blame for any problems that would come up during his dictatorship. That scapegoat was the Jews. They were blamed for everything from the 1920s depression to civil unrest in the streets.
History is well-documented with factual information pertaining to the concentration camps, death camps and the millions of people who were murdered by Hitler’s Nazis.
I have no doubt that if militant Islam ever had access to the same means Hitler had, millions of “infidels” would either be gassed or burned to death. There is an ethnic cleansing being planned by this regime; make no mistake about it.
Noted European philosopher George Santayana once expressed, “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
If we do not wake up to the anti-Semitic and, quite frankly, pro-Islamic propaganda being generated these days over the Internet, in the newspaper, magazines, and on television, then we are doomed to witness a repeat of the Holocaust.
Perhaps most frightening about efforts to undermine the War on Terror is its appeal right here at home. To know that there are people like Michael Moore who buy into the convoluted theory that 9/11 was a conspiracy masterminded by President Bush is scary. That is about as absurd as suggesting FDR, not the Japanese, had his own navy bombed at Pearl Harbor in order to justify going to war against Hitler’s Germany. But those who believe this conspiracy theory are apt to believe even the Jews were responsible.
If you are one of these people who are gullible enough to believe that simply leaving Afghanistan and Iraq will end terrorism against the United States, or that “Fahrenheit 911” is fact and not propaganda, then I know of a bridge you can buy.
Fact: The terrorists have been attacking us on our soil since 1993, when the World Trade Center was bombed the first time. They attacked us without provocation on 9/11/01 and succeeded in murdering more than 3,000 innocent people. Our embassies overseas were also bombed multiple times pre-9/11. And don’t forget the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, which also occurred prior to the attacks of 9/11/01. Interesting, isn’t it, that these attacks occurred following the Gulf War of 1991, when we booted Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait and back to Baghdad. Still don’t believe Hussein and his Baath Party in Iraq had anything to do with militant Islamic terrorism? Just stop hating George Bush for a moment and think about it. You might surprise yourself.
Fact: Militant Islam has stated its objectives of destroying all non-Muslim people in the name of its god.
Fact: Militant Islam has even killed fellow Muslims who do not share its fanatical view or support its goals.
Fact: Militant Islam attacks its enemies regardless of whether the response is forceful or peaceful. As I said before, the end goals of Islamic Nazis are not affected by the action or inaction of its targets. We are merely a means to an end: Paradise and 72 virgins. They clearly do not care if their targets are men, women or children; old or young; rich or poor; sick or healthy; guilty or innocent. In their convoluted minds, all who do not believe as they do are guilty and condemned to death.
Given these facts, if we are going to die, wouldn’t it be better to die fighting than begging for mercy at the hands of the merciless?
By the way, did you know that the German Nazi Party was originally called the National Socialist Party? I guess fascism and socialism have more in common than we were told.
Shallow brooks for Hillary
There’s an old proverb that goes, “shallow brooks are noisy,” meaning that those who often talk too much also think too little about which they are speaking. It is a warning against those who speak before they think.
No offense to Hillary-backers with a brain, but a lot of the people I have heard speak out in support of Hillary Clinton for President seem pretty shallow to me.
During the Sean Hannity Show’s “Man on the Street” segment, Tuesday, July 3, 2007, I heard multiple people being interviewed at random say that they support Hillary because she’s a woman. No one gave any other reason for their support other than because Hillary is a woman. When asked if they’d support Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, who is a woman, if she were running for President, those same people hem and hawed before finally saying they’d support Hillary; but they were unable to come up with a reason why. When asked to name one specific thing Hillary has done as a U.S. Senator from New York, nobody was able to cite an example.
Furthermore, the same people were asked to answer the following questions: “What do we celebrate on July 4, and why do we celebrate it?” “What war did we fight to win our independence?” “From whom did we win our independence?” and “Who wrote the Declaration of Independence?”
Answers varied from the Civil War to World War I, John Hancock, George Washington, France, “some place overseas,” and a lot of “I-don’t-knows.” To their credit, a few got some of the answers right; but this is basic elementary and junior high school history. Every one of these respondents said they support Hillary for President.
I feel bad for Hillary supporters who actually buy into her ideas, because these are not the people being heard in support of their candidate. Rather, it is the uninformed voter.
But perhaps that is how Hillary wants it. Maybe she would rather have a majority of uninformed voters elect her than be defeated at the polls with an informed electorate.
Who in their right mind would vote for a person solely because of physical appearance? Hillary’s gender may occupy the oval office, but it won’t govern. Would you rather have a White House occupant or somebody who actually governs from it? I put my money on the person, not their outer skin.
The same presumptions can be made about some of Barack Obama’s supporters, too. I wonder how many of them are voting for him simply because of his skin color?
I thought we were supposed to look beyond a person’s gender, skin color, ethnicity, religion and sexual preference, and instead measure his/her worth on the merits of his/her ideas?
Isn’t that what people like Hillary, Barack, the NAACP and the gals at NOW have been trying to hammer into our skulls since the 1960s? If so, then why are so many of Hillary and Barack supporters failing to do so? Why are they choosing to support a candidate on such trivial matters as gender and skin color?
If I, as a white guy, were to say that I am casting my vote for a white male candidate because he is white and male, then I am automatically branded a racist, sexist bigot.
But apparently it is okay for women to say they are voting for Hillary just because of her gender; or for a black American to say he/she is voting for Barack because he is black.
I don’t get the shallowness or the double standard. Do you?
No offense to Hillary-backers with a brain, but a lot of the people I have heard speak out in support of Hillary Clinton for President seem pretty shallow to me.
During the Sean Hannity Show’s “Man on the Street” segment, Tuesday, July 3, 2007, I heard multiple people being interviewed at random say that they support Hillary because she’s a woman. No one gave any other reason for their support other than because Hillary is a woman. When asked if they’d support Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, who is a woman, if she were running for President, those same people hem and hawed before finally saying they’d support Hillary; but they were unable to come up with a reason why. When asked to name one specific thing Hillary has done as a U.S. Senator from New York, nobody was able to cite an example.
Furthermore, the same people were asked to answer the following questions: “What do we celebrate on July 4, and why do we celebrate it?” “What war did we fight to win our independence?” “From whom did we win our independence?” and “Who wrote the Declaration of Independence?”
Answers varied from the Civil War to World War I, John Hancock, George Washington, France, “some place overseas,” and a lot of “I-don’t-knows.” To their credit, a few got some of the answers right; but this is basic elementary and junior high school history. Every one of these respondents said they support Hillary for President.
I feel bad for Hillary supporters who actually buy into her ideas, because these are not the people being heard in support of their candidate. Rather, it is the uninformed voter.
But perhaps that is how Hillary wants it. Maybe she would rather have a majority of uninformed voters elect her than be defeated at the polls with an informed electorate.
Who in their right mind would vote for a person solely because of physical appearance? Hillary’s gender may occupy the oval office, but it won’t govern. Would you rather have a White House occupant or somebody who actually governs from it? I put my money on the person, not their outer skin.
The same presumptions can be made about some of Barack Obama’s supporters, too. I wonder how many of them are voting for him simply because of his skin color?
I thought we were supposed to look beyond a person’s gender, skin color, ethnicity, religion and sexual preference, and instead measure his/her worth on the merits of his/her ideas?
Isn’t that what people like Hillary, Barack, the NAACP and the gals at NOW have been trying to hammer into our skulls since the 1960s? If so, then why are so many of Hillary and Barack supporters failing to do so? Why are they choosing to support a candidate on such trivial matters as gender and skin color?
If I, as a white guy, were to say that I am casting my vote for a white male candidate because he is white and male, then I am automatically branded a racist, sexist bigot.
But apparently it is okay for women to say they are voting for Hillary just because of her gender; or for a black American to say he/she is voting for Barack because he is black.
I don’t get the shallowness or the double standard. Do you?
Fairness Doctrine for sore losers
The people have spoken...this time. But make no mistake: the Fairness Doctrine is not dead. It is not going away. Those who have been trying to push this legislation through will try again; and again and again, if necessary.
Supporters of the legislation claim that the Fairness Doctrine does not prevent free speech, but rather allows for the expansion of speech by requiring that opposing views be heard on the air waves.
However, Article I of the U.S. Constitution, otherwise known as the First Amendment, forbids Congress from making any law “abridging” the freedom of speech. To abridge, according to Merriam-Webster online, is to “reduce in scope,” “diminish” and “condense,” or shorten by omission. So, according to the U.S. Constitution, Congress is not allowed to make any law editing the freedom of speech.
Whether the Fairness Doctrine limits or expands the freedom of speech is up for debate. But the legislation proposed to change, edit or manipulate this right is unconstitutional, per the very language within the U.S. Constitution.
Unfortunately, the Fairness Doctrine is not really about fairness at all. Rather, it’s little more than a temper tantrum thrown by the political left, which has not been able to compete very well with conservative talk radio. Proponents of the doctrine claim that it levels the playing field in an arena dominated by right-wing talk shows and their big business partner radio stations. What that really means in layman’s terms is that the left is trying to force its views on the public through government coercion.
Supporters of the Fairness Doctrine also claim that airwaves are public, and therefore, should be controlled by the government. Well, the air waves may indeed feature public access, but what travels through them is not. Much of what the air waves contain is private, copyrighted and ultimately protected by the Constitutional amendment that guarantees the right to privacy and the right to feel secure in our persons and property. The content of the Rush Limbaugh Show is private property; it is copyrighted. So are MTV, HBO, Howard Stern and even the now-defunct liberal Air America programs.
It is illegal to record these programs and re-broadcast without permission. That would be like dubbing a DVD and trying to re-sell it.
You might liken the air waves with air space. Although this is a public domain, the airlines that fly the friendly skies are private. If you aren’t happy with one airline, then you don’t fly with them anymore and you choose another airline. The government does not step in and require that all airlines be the same and please every customer. Each may offer something unique to attract and satisfy customers.
The same applies to our roads and highways. The surfaces are public, but the vehicles that use them are private. So it is with radio shows and programs using the air waves.
All private property is deeded from municipal, county, state and federal government as well. You wouldn’t want the government telling you what you can and cannot do on your own property, would you?
Lest we forget, the United States of America is a free-enterprise democracy, whose decisions are ultimately made by the people; either through petitions to the government (another Constitutional right), at the voting booth, or in the marketplace. If the people did not want conservative talk radio, then they would not tune in.
However, Rush Limbaugh consistently has 20 million or so listeners to his radio program. Michael Savage, Sean Hannity and other nationally syndicated conservative radio talk show hosts have impressive numbers that reach into the millions as well.
If the market weren’t strong for these shows, then they would not be carried by the radio stations, which are first and foremost, for-profit businesses that provide a product to the consumer in much the same way a retail store does. If a product is not selling, then the store will pull it from its shelves. But if a product is selling, then the store will continue to stock and sell it.
Conservative talk radio sells, so radio stations are stocking their shelves with it. Liberal talk radio does not sell very well, so radio stations are not stocking their shelves with it. If circumstances were reversed, then radio stations would be broadcasting liberal talk shows instead of conservative ones.
The marketplace is as much open to left-wing products as it is for the right-wing. Air America is an example of liberal efforts to try to sell its ideas. Unfortunately, much fewer people are buying this product as conservative ideas. That is why Air America sunk and conservative radio programs continue to float and thrive. It is really just as simple as that.
Besides, I really don’t see what the left has to complain about: You don’t see conservative talk shows on the major alphabet networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) or on NPR/PBS. In fact, there has been plenty of effort made by these networks over the last three or four decades to appeal to liberal, left-wing viewers and listeners. And NPR/PBS is PUBLIC broadcasting; meaning you and I pay for it whether we agree with its content or not. How fair is that?
In addition, the liberal left also has an iron grip in Hollywood, and a virtual monopoly on political expression in academia. The ranks of the entertainment industry and a vast majority of public universities and colleges are dominated with left-wing liberals, who are given free, tenured reign to express and advance their ideas/agendas on an impressionable crowd of fans, consumers and students. If this is not power, then I don’t know what is.
The bottom line here is that the liberal left does not want any competition whatsoever in the arena of ideas. It feels threatened by conservative points of view and the medium of talk radio as a forum for people to express themselves in opposition to left-wing concepts.
This sounds frighteningly reminiscent of current and past totalitarian-authoritarian efforts to suppress opposing political views through government intervention.
What the Fairness Doctrine would do is force a product on the marketplace that retailers are reluctant to sell, because they know that most consumers will not buy it. It is nothing more than left-wing propaganda being forced onto the people.
After all, why should the left compete when it can simply change the rules so it does not have to?
Supporters of the legislation claim that the Fairness Doctrine does not prevent free speech, but rather allows for the expansion of speech by requiring that opposing views be heard on the air waves.
However, Article I of the U.S. Constitution, otherwise known as the First Amendment, forbids Congress from making any law “abridging” the freedom of speech. To abridge, according to Merriam-Webster online, is to “reduce in scope,” “diminish” and “condense,” or shorten by omission. So, according to the U.S. Constitution, Congress is not allowed to make any law editing the freedom of speech.
Whether the Fairness Doctrine limits or expands the freedom of speech is up for debate. But the legislation proposed to change, edit or manipulate this right is unconstitutional, per the very language within the U.S. Constitution.
Unfortunately, the Fairness Doctrine is not really about fairness at all. Rather, it’s little more than a temper tantrum thrown by the political left, which has not been able to compete very well with conservative talk radio. Proponents of the doctrine claim that it levels the playing field in an arena dominated by right-wing talk shows and their big business partner radio stations. What that really means in layman’s terms is that the left is trying to force its views on the public through government coercion.
Supporters of the Fairness Doctrine also claim that airwaves are public, and therefore, should be controlled by the government. Well, the air waves may indeed feature public access, but what travels through them is not. Much of what the air waves contain is private, copyrighted and ultimately protected by the Constitutional amendment that guarantees the right to privacy and the right to feel secure in our persons and property. The content of the Rush Limbaugh Show is private property; it is copyrighted. So are MTV, HBO, Howard Stern and even the now-defunct liberal Air America programs.
It is illegal to record these programs and re-broadcast without permission. That would be like dubbing a DVD and trying to re-sell it.
You might liken the air waves with air space. Although this is a public domain, the airlines that fly the friendly skies are private. If you aren’t happy with one airline, then you don’t fly with them anymore and you choose another airline. The government does not step in and require that all airlines be the same and please every customer. Each may offer something unique to attract and satisfy customers.
The same applies to our roads and highways. The surfaces are public, but the vehicles that use them are private. So it is with radio shows and programs using the air waves.
All private property is deeded from municipal, county, state and federal government as well. You wouldn’t want the government telling you what you can and cannot do on your own property, would you?
Lest we forget, the United States of America is a free-enterprise democracy, whose decisions are ultimately made by the people; either through petitions to the government (another Constitutional right), at the voting booth, or in the marketplace. If the people did not want conservative talk radio, then they would not tune in.
However, Rush Limbaugh consistently has 20 million or so listeners to his radio program. Michael Savage, Sean Hannity and other nationally syndicated conservative radio talk show hosts have impressive numbers that reach into the millions as well.
If the market weren’t strong for these shows, then they would not be carried by the radio stations, which are first and foremost, for-profit businesses that provide a product to the consumer in much the same way a retail store does. If a product is not selling, then the store will pull it from its shelves. But if a product is selling, then the store will continue to stock and sell it.
Conservative talk radio sells, so radio stations are stocking their shelves with it. Liberal talk radio does not sell very well, so radio stations are not stocking their shelves with it. If circumstances were reversed, then radio stations would be broadcasting liberal talk shows instead of conservative ones.
The marketplace is as much open to left-wing products as it is for the right-wing. Air America is an example of liberal efforts to try to sell its ideas. Unfortunately, much fewer people are buying this product as conservative ideas. That is why Air America sunk and conservative radio programs continue to float and thrive. It is really just as simple as that.
Besides, I really don’t see what the left has to complain about: You don’t see conservative talk shows on the major alphabet networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) or on NPR/PBS. In fact, there has been plenty of effort made by these networks over the last three or four decades to appeal to liberal, left-wing viewers and listeners. And NPR/PBS is PUBLIC broadcasting; meaning you and I pay for it whether we agree with its content or not. How fair is that?
In addition, the liberal left also has an iron grip in Hollywood, and a virtual monopoly on political expression in academia. The ranks of the entertainment industry and a vast majority of public universities and colleges are dominated with left-wing liberals, who are given free, tenured reign to express and advance their ideas/agendas on an impressionable crowd of fans, consumers and students. If this is not power, then I don’t know what is.
The bottom line here is that the liberal left does not want any competition whatsoever in the arena of ideas. It feels threatened by conservative points of view and the medium of talk radio as a forum for people to express themselves in opposition to left-wing concepts.
This sounds frighteningly reminiscent of current and past totalitarian-authoritarian efforts to suppress opposing political views through government intervention.
What the Fairness Doctrine would do is force a product on the marketplace that retailers are reluctant to sell, because they know that most consumers will not buy it. It is nothing more than left-wing propaganda being forced onto the people.
After all, why should the left compete when it can simply change the rules so it does not have to?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
