Yes, the title of this blog post is taken from that old song by The Clash, and it's a song that Congressman Anthony Weiner of New York might be singing to himself over the next several days, or several weeks, or however long he is able to hold on to his congressional seat after yesterday's blockbuster revelation. A U.S. Congressman, an outspoken defender of liberal orthodoxy, a rising star aspiring to be Mayor of New York City, found to be sending sexually explicit photos of himself over the internet to women he had never met and barely knew. He had phone sex with some of these women as well, quite possibly from his congressional office. He had been lying for days about it, blaming the incident on a "hacker" or "prankster." And arguably worst of all, he was married just last year and continued to engage in this activity even after his marriage.
I was honestly pretty amazed at how much coverage the story received, but it seems as if Congressman Weiner had the misfortune of scheduling his apologetic news conference on a day when little else was going on in the world. As a result, it became the headline story for most media outlets, and sound bytes and images from that news conference were played over and over again on the evening and late night news.
As someone who has seen Weiner many, many times on television, it was surreal to see him at the podium yesterday. The brash, bold, Brooklyn attitude was nowhere to be found. His voice cracked; his eyes teared. The man who always makes it a point to look his interviewers right in the eye hung his head several times throughout the press conference. You can see that he was humiliated, and that inside he really was hurting. I actually almost felt sorry for him.
I say "almost" for two reasons. First of all, he made his bed and now has to lie in it. He has no one to blame for his actions but himself, so there is nothing unjust in that. But I also held back my sympathy because somehow, some way, in that dark pit of deep despair, via the slightest sparkle of light...his arrogance managed to shine through. For several times throughout the press conference, he made it a point to say that he would refuse to resign his congressional seat.
Weiner has lofty aspirations, always has and probably always will. I suppose he wasn't going to let them all slip away as the result of a few improper communications over the internet with strange women. And who could blame him? Several other politicians, including President Bill Clinton, survived worse. Did they not? I would even argue that his actions, though revile and reprehensible, are not as egregious as those of Charles Rangel. Yet Rangel was allowed to remain in his seat, though he was censured by the House Ethics Committee. So it comes as no surprise that Weiner plans to roll the dice with an ethics investigation.
It was interesting to see the array of viewpoints on whether Weiner should resign or whether he would be able to weather this storm. Pretty much every Democratic strategist or liberal pundit I saw on the news yesterday stated that Weiner should stay and that he would survive. The conservative commentators said that he should resign, and a number of them said he'd be lucky to last another week or two.
As for me, I say that every public servant who disgraces himself should resign out of respect for the office, the country, and the people he serves. But the reality is that most of them won't, because they're fighters by their very nature. You have to be a fighter to make it in politics, so very few of them are willing to give up that easy, even when the odds are against them.
Those who do resign usually do so only after being pressured by their colleagues. If their fellow congressmen can convince them that they are hurting the party by staying in office, then they will almost always give up their seat. The Republicans in the House have shown little tolerance for improper conduct, most recently with Congressman Chris Lee. But what will the Democrats do with Weiner?
Lee was a totally different animal because he was a virtual nobody. Few people ever even heard of him when news of his scandal broke. But Weiner has been an attack dog for the liberals, unleashed by the Democratic leadership to face off with the media and defend their big government, tax-and-spend agenda. Now that attack dog will have to be collared, leashed, and caged. You can be assured that this has already been done. Nancy Pelosi did call for an ethics investigation as well, but then again, what choice did she have?
I am not so sure that Weiner can survive this scandal for one major reason. Even as he is walled off by liberal brass and insulated from the media, his very presence in Congress remains a distraction. Yesterday's press conference wasn't the end of this story. It was just the beginning. One of the women involved has already come forward to tell her side, and you can bet that others will too. Pictures are still surfacing, and more juicy details are sure to be released at some point. It's just the nature of society in this day and age of digital technology and 24-hour press coverage.
The timing is particularly bad because the Democrats were starting to gain some momentum with their "Medi-scare" tactics. After Chris Lee resigned his seat, Democrats used the Ryan budget as a campaign tool in the special election. They even depicted Congressman Ryan wheeling an elderly woman off a cliff, implying that the Republicans' budget would ravage Medicare to the point that seniors would not be able to get the treatment they need. The sad part about it is that it worked. In a very Republican district, the Democrats scored a landslide victory.
But now, their momentum has been slowed, arguably even stopped dead, by the Weiner scandal. The story is not going away unless Weiner goes away, and Pelosi, Hoyer, Schumer, et al. all know it. They may be initiating an ethics investigation, but those can take several months, even more than a year, to complete. And the longer this drags on, the worse it is for Democrats.
In my honest opinion, I think Pelosi and company are doing the right thing for now. They're going to take a wait-and-see approach to dealing with this situation before demanding Weiner's resignation. If the story dies a quick death and they can get things back on track, they'll let the investigation play out and allow Weiner to keep his seat, albeit with a diminished role in Congress. But if more and more sordid details emerge each day and the story lingers, they may have to cut their losses. Campaign season has already started, and 2012 is shaping up to be one of the most important elections in U.S. history. They can't afford to have something like this get in the way.
It will be interesting to see what happens, but regardless of the outcome, I have absolutely no compassion or respect for Weiner. He was ready to destroy Andrew Breitbart's reputation to save his own career, and only backed off when there were no other options. Once the story broke that women were coming forward, he had no choice but to confess. So it's not as if he did a noble thing by finally coming forward. I hope he is forced to resign, but I won't be shocked if he holds on.
I will say one thing: I'll miss his verbal spars on the air with Hannity, O'Reilly, and Kelly. Those were pretty fun to watch. Now, the Democrats will have to nominate someone else for that role. Whoever that person is, I doubt they'll be as colorful and combative as the Congressman from New York. Good luck with this one, Dems. You're going to need it.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Friday, June 3, 2011
Obama's Policy on Private For-Profit Colleges is Misguided and Unfair
Just yesterday, President Obama unveiled a plan to regulate private, for-profit colleges, saying the new rules were needed to protect students who were running up huge tuition bills but getting few practical job skills. According to the president, for-profits are taking advantage of students who fund their education with federal student loans, accepting them into programs that are highly unlikely to enable them to land gainful employment. As a result, the students are straddled with debt while the institutions make out like bandits.
On the surface, this may seem like it is a noble gesture. But in reality, it's just another example of President Obama forcing his big government philosophy on the private sector, disguised as an attempt to protect the poor students who are getting the short end of the stick.
One thing that has been really interesting about this new policy is the diversity of groups that are opposed to it. It should come as no surprise that the plan has been decried by several congressional Republicans, who are pushing for smaller government and less regulation of the private sector. Obviously, the for-profit colleges themselves have been very outspoken in expressing their opposition as well.
But one might be surprised to find out that several minority groups have joined forces with the for-profits and Republicans in criticizing this move. Why? If for-profit colleges fail the new litmus test, then they are at risk of no longer being able to accept students paying with federal money. This is a restriction that could force some institutions to close their doors, and several of these institutions enroll a high percentage of minority students. Translation: it would mean less educational opportunities and less career options for minority students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.
I understand all of these arguments, and I obviously oppose the new regulation imposed on the for-profits. Being a diehard conservative, it is no secret that I believe in smaller government and less regulation of the private sector. But quite honestly, there are other reasons, far more pressing ones in fact, that cause me to label these new regulations as misguided and unfair.
As a seasoned college administrator with over a decade of experience working at non-profit colleges, I can attest to the fact that their practices are no different. I have blogged about this topic before, but allow me to go over it again so that you can see the hypocrisy in President Obama's approach to this problem.
In all institutions of higher education, enrollment projections are set for the following academic year in order to prepare the budget. Once the projections are set, the task is clear: administrators are pressured to do what needs to be done in order to meet those projections. Failure to meet your enrollment projections is equivalent to a sales rep at a corporate institution failing to meet his sales quota. The results too are often the same. Fail to meet the goals that have been set for you, and it's grounds for being terminated. In this way, higher education, even non-profit, is no different than Wall Street.
As crunch time approaches, college administrators monitor their enrollments closely to see if they're "on target." At some point leading up to the deadline, a competent administrator will be able to project whether or not he is going to meet his enrollment goal. If he does, then he can breathe a sigh of relief. But if it becomes crystal clear that the enrollment projections will not be met, then a difficult choice comes into play.
That choice is this: do you lower your admissions standards to boost enrollment and meet your projections, or stand firm and risk not meeting them? Almost every college administrator, at least those in charge of academic programs, have faced this situation at one time or another. Unfortunately, sometimes this choice could be the determining factor in saving your job. If you've already been warned by your dean or vice president that enrollment projections MUST be met, then what would you do?
It should therefore come as no surprise that many programs lower their admissions standards to meet enrollment requirements. I've seen this happen at a private, non-profit college. I've seen it happen at a public, non-profit university. I know for a fact that it goes on at several other non-profits as well. That being the case, the president can't pull the wool over my eyes. I see what he's doing, and it's anything but noble.
Obama had his Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, explain the plan to the media. Essentially, they're going to force for-profit colleges to be "at least 35 percent effective" in getting their students to start repaying their student loans within three years. Also, the estimated loan payment of a typical graduate cannot exceed 30 percent of discretionary income. Nor can it exceed 12 percent of total earnings. If an institution fails in all three of these categories, then it will no longer be permitted to receive federal student loan money.
So the measure of success is 35 percent, hey? Well, let's take a look at what has been going on at the non-profit colleges and universities in the great state of New Jersey. According to the most recent statistics, only 4 out of 27 graduate more than 50 percent of their students in 4 years. Twelve of these institutions have graduation rates less than 35 percent. Even if you extend the length of time to six years, there are still 9 colleges that graduate less than 50 percent of their students. So you tell me: do you think that many of these institutions would pass the litmus test being applied to the for-profits? I highly doubt it.
Why is this happening? Granted, there are several reasons. But no one can tell me that one of the biggest reasons has to do with institutions lowering admissions standards to meet enrollment goals. Are these non-profits thus not taking advantage of low-income, minority students by admitting them and taking their student loan money even when their chances of succeeding in college are very slim? It's all done in the name of "universal access to higher education." But in reality, this practice is no different than that for which the for-profits are being indicted by President Obama.
Mr. President, if you really do believe in this policy, then hold the non-profits accountable as well. Picking on the for-profits is, as I've already said, misguided, hypocritical, and unfair. Hold everyone to the same standard, and then you'll see where the incompetence and unscrupulous practices really do reside. The results may surprise you.
On the surface, this may seem like it is a noble gesture. But in reality, it's just another example of President Obama forcing his big government philosophy on the private sector, disguised as an attempt to protect the poor students who are getting the short end of the stick.
One thing that has been really interesting about this new policy is the diversity of groups that are opposed to it. It should come as no surprise that the plan has been decried by several congressional Republicans, who are pushing for smaller government and less regulation of the private sector. Obviously, the for-profit colleges themselves have been very outspoken in expressing their opposition as well.
But one might be surprised to find out that several minority groups have joined forces with the for-profits and Republicans in criticizing this move. Why? If for-profit colleges fail the new litmus test, then they are at risk of no longer being able to accept students paying with federal money. This is a restriction that could force some institutions to close their doors, and several of these institutions enroll a high percentage of minority students. Translation: it would mean less educational opportunities and less career options for minority students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.
I understand all of these arguments, and I obviously oppose the new regulation imposed on the for-profits. Being a diehard conservative, it is no secret that I believe in smaller government and less regulation of the private sector. But quite honestly, there are other reasons, far more pressing ones in fact, that cause me to label these new regulations as misguided and unfair.
As a seasoned college administrator with over a decade of experience working at non-profit colleges, I can attest to the fact that their practices are no different. I have blogged about this topic before, but allow me to go over it again so that you can see the hypocrisy in President Obama's approach to this problem.
In all institutions of higher education, enrollment projections are set for the following academic year in order to prepare the budget. Once the projections are set, the task is clear: administrators are pressured to do what needs to be done in order to meet those projections. Failure to meet your enrollment projections is equivalent to a sales rep at a corporate institution failing to meet his sales quota. The results too are often the same. Fail to meet the goals that have been set for you, and it's grounds for being terminated. In this way, higher education, even non-profit, is no different than Wall Street.
As crunch time approaches, college administrators monitor their enrollments closely to see if they're "on target." At some point leading up to the deadline, a competent administrator will be able to project whether or not he is going to meet his enrollment goal. If he does, then he can breathe a sigh of relief. But if it becomes crystal clear that the enrollment projections will not be met, then a difficult choice comes into play.
That choice is this: do you lower your admissions standards to boost enrollment and meet your projections, or stand firm and risk not meeting them? Almost every college administrator, at least those in charge of academic programs, have faced this situation at one time or another. Unfortunately, sometimes this choice could be the determining factor in saving your job. If you've already been warned by your dean or vice president that enrollment projections MUST be met, then what would you do?
It should therefore come as no surprise that many programs lower their admissions standards to meet enrollment requirements. I've seen this happen at a private, non-profit college. I've seen it happen at a public, non-profit university. I know for a fact that it goes on at several other non-profits as well. That being the case, the president can't pull the wool over my eyes. I see what he's doing, and it's anything but noble.
Obama had his Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, explain the plan to the media. Essentially, they're going to force for-profit colleges to be "at least 35 percent effective" in getting their students to start repaying their student loans within three years. Also, the estimated loan payment of a typical graduate cannot exceed 30 percent of discretionary income. Nor can it exceed 12 percent of total earnings. If an institution fails in all three of these categories, then it will no longer be permitted to receive federal student loan money.
So the measure of success is 35 percent, hey? Well, let's take a look at what has been going on at the non-profit colleges and universities in the great state of New Jersey. According to the most recent statistics, only 4 out of 27 graduate more than 50 percent of their students in 4 years. Twelve of these institutions have graduation rates less than 35 percent. Even if you extend the length of time to six years, there are still 9 colleges that graduate less than 50 percent of their students. So you tell me: do you think that many of these institutions would pass the litmus test being applied to the for-profits? I highly doubt it.
Why is this happening? Granted, there are several reasons. But no one can tell me that one of the biggest reasons has to do with institutions lowering admissions standards to meet enrollment goals. Are these non-profits thus not taking advantage of low-income, minority students by admitting them and taking their student loan money even when their chances of succeeding in college are very slim? It's all done in the name of "universal access to higher education." But in reality, this practice is no different than that for which the for-profits are being indicted by President Obama.
Mr. President, if you really do believe in this policy, then hold the non-profits accountable as well. Picking on the for-profits is, as I've already said, misguided, hypocritical, and unfair. Hold everyone to the same standard, and then you'll see where the incompetence and unscrupulous practices really do reside. The results may surprise you.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Foreign Aid: To Give or Not to Give, That Is the Question
In the wake of another disaster here at home, Americans are again asking themselves the question of whether we ought to be sending our tax money overseas when it could be used to help Americans in need. As far as I'm concerned, the question is becoming more pertinent every day.
The latest catastrophe occurred in Joplin, Missouri, where a huge tornado devastated an entire town. It destroyed vehicles, razed homes to the ground, and most tragically, claimed dozens of lives. The storm came on the heels of arguably the worst flooding in the history of our nation, with the Mississippi River cresting to near-record levels. Even worse, it was only mere weeks ago that the southern United States was hit by a series of tornadoes almost as severe as the one that hit Joplin.
President Obama visited the areas that were hardest hit by the storms, and promised residents that federal aid was on the way. I'm sure most Americans would agree that this is an effective way to use our tax dollars, and I know of no one who opposes the action. But in this difficult economy, with our people struggling, our nation's debt increasing exponentially, and our budget shortfall growing by the day, it's not as if we have a ton of disposable income to throw around. While we want to help out our fellow Americans, we have to ask ourselves whether we are going to reach the point where we will no longer be able to. And that, my friends, is a scary thought.
One fair question to ask in the wake of these natural disasters is whether we should be sending billions of dollars overseas when that money could be used to help our own. Before I go any further, allow me to state that I am in no way an isolationist. I have long believed in the saying, "No man is an island," and I believe that the saying applies to nations as well. America simply must look out for its interests abroad. If we wall ourselves in, then the rest of the world could go to pot and eventually it will all catch up to us. We need to stay engaged, foster friendships with other countries, and protect our friends when they need our help.
That said, we have to choose our friends wisely. We need to support those who support us. Are we doing that? When you look at the current situation, one would have to say that we're not.
Consider that of all the proposed U.S. assistance for 2012, almost two-thirds is earmarked for Muslim nations and one-third goes to Arab countries.Yet, despite those billions in aid, opinion polls show most Arab citizens still have an unfavorable view of America and most Muslim nations routinely vote against U.S. interests in the United Nations. Are these really the countries we should be supporting?
Congressman Steve Chabot (R-OH) is answering that question with a definitive "no." He is calling for our government to show some backbone and stop giving money to those countries that consistently vote against our interests. But will his colleagues respond to the call? That remains to be seen, though I firmly believe it won't happen. At least not with this Senate and with this president.
The idea is actually nothing new. Years ago, John Bolton, former U.N. Ambassador, called for cutting off aid to at least 30 countries that always voted against U.S. interests. To this day, he laments that America is making a terrible mistake in supplying these nations with billions and billions of dollars.
Let's take a look at some of the numbers. Over the past 5 years, the United States has provided $74 million in aid to Turkey, a country where only 10% of citizens have a favorable view of America. Turkey voted against U.S. interests in the U.N. approximately 60% of the time. From here, it only gets worse. Look at the aid we've provided to the following countries during this same span: Indonesia ($1.3 billion), Lebanon ($1.4 billion), Jordan ($4.5 billion), and Egypt ($9.5 billion).
How often do they vote against U.S. interests, you ask? Take a look: Indonesia (73%), Lebanon (70%), Jordan (60%), and Egypt (75%). Interesting how the country that received far and away the most aid voted against our interests more often than any other, isn't it?
When will this madness end? Let's look at this from a personal standpoint. If you consistently gave (not lent, GAVE) money to a "friend," but they openly went against your interests anywhere from 60% to 75% of the time, would you continue to give them money? If you did, would you not be considered a doormat?
In my book, this is exactly what our great nation has become: a doormat. We let foreign countries continue to walk all over us. We provide the Saudis with troops whenever they call for them, only to have them gouge us on oil prices. We maintain an open trade agreement with China, only to have them screw us by manipulating their currency. We provide billions in aid to Pakistan, only to find out they're helping our most wanted terrorist to escape our clutches. Why???
Again, I am not an isolationist and I believe firmly in securing our national interests around the globe. But our leaders in Washington need to wake up and stop supporting the countries that don't support us. We are still the world's one dominant superpower, but we don't use that status to our advantage. We hold all the cards, but don't play them. Instead, we allow the snakes of the Arab world to play us.
This is the platform Donald Trump was going to run on, and in my opinion it was the reason he was at the top or near the top of the polls in the race for the GOP Presidential Nomination. Americans are tired of watching other countries rob us while our leaders idly stand by. The time has come for action, and I believe that now more than ever, the American people realize that.
So where do we go from here? Do you think President Obama will ever cut off aid to Muslim countries? If so, then I've got a bridge to sell you. Unless a Republican wins the White House in 2012, we will continue to ship billions of dollars overseas to nations whose people hate us and who openly go against our interests. All in the face of a terrible economy where millions of Americans remain unemployed, many others who are working struggle to get by, and still others lose everything they have to the capricious cruelty of Mother Nature.
I can only hope and pray that the candidate who secures the GOP nomination will see the light on these issues and defeat Barack Obama in 2012. Should that happen, I'd have a solid piece of advice for the new president: appoint John Bolton as Secretary of State. He would be the right man at the right time. Given his past experience at the U.N., Bolton would know who to go after and how to hit them. Then the message would be sent loud and clear: namely that the United States is fed up and we're not going to take it any more.
That, in my view, is the only way we're going to win the war on oil prices in the short term. It's the only way we're going to get China to stop manipulating their currency and playing us for fools. It's the only way we're going to get more cooperation from Muslims throughout the world. And it's the only way to get our foreign policy headed back in the right direction.
So who would you rather help? The blue-blooded Americans struggling to get by, find work, or rebuild their lives after losing everything to a flood or devastating storm...or the Muslims who hate our country and consistently advocate against us at the United Nations? If that isn't a no-brainer, then I don't know what is.
The latest catastrophe occurred in Joplin, Missouri, where a huge tornado devastated an entire town. It destroyed vehicles, razed homes to the ground, and most tragically, claimed dozens of lives. The storm came on the heels of arguably the worst flooding in the history of our nation, with the Mississippi River cresting to near-record levels. Even worse, it was only mere weeks ago that the southern United States was hit by a series of tornadoes almost as severe as the one that hit Joplin.
President Obama visited the areas that were hardest hit by the storms, and promised residents that federal aid was on the way. I'm sure most Americans would agree that this is an effective way to use our tax dollars, and I know of no one who opposes the action. But in this difficult economy, with our people struggling, our nation's debt increasing exponentially, and our budget shortfall growing by the day, it's not as if we have a ton of disposable income to throw around. While we want to help out our fellow Americans, we have to ask ourselves whether we are going to reach the point where we will no longer be able to. And that, my friends, is a scary thought.
One fair question to ask in the wake of these natural disasters is whether we should be sending billions of dollars overseas when that money could be used to help our own. Before I go any further, allow me to state that I am in no way an isolationist. I have long believed in the saying, "No man is an island," and I believe that the saying applies to nations as well. America simply must look out for its interests abroad. If we wall ourselves in, then the rest of the world could go to pot and eventually it will all catch up to us. We need to stay engaged, foster friendships with other countries, and protect our friends when they need our help.
That said, we have to choose our friends wisely. We need to support those who support us. Are we doing that? When you look at the current situation, one would have to say that we're not.
Consider that of all the proposed U.S. assistance for 2012, almost two-thirds is earmarked for Muslim nations and one-third goes to Arab countries.Yet, despite those billions in aid, opinion polls show most Arab citizens still have an unfavorable view of America and most Muslim nations routinely vote against U.S. interests in the United Nations. Are these really the countries we should be supporting?
Congressman Steve Chabot (R-OH) is answering that question with a definitive "no." He is calling for our government to show some backbone and stop giving money to those countries that consistently vote against our interests. But will his colleagues respond to the call? That remains to be seen, though I firmly believe it won't happen. At least not with this Senate and with this president.
The idea is actually nothing new. Years ago, John Bolton, former U.N. Ambassador, called for cutting off aid to at least 30 countries that always voted against U.S. interests. To this day, he laments that America is making a terrible mistake in supplying these nations with billions and billions of dollars.
Let's take a look at some of the numbers. Over the past 5 years, the United States has provided $74 million in aid to Turkey, a country where only 10% of citizens have a favorable view of America. Turkey voted against U.S. interests in the U.N. approximately 60% of the time. From here, it only gets worse. Look at the aid we've provided to the following countries during this same span: Indonesia ($1.3 billion), Lebanon ($1.4 billion), Jordan ($4.5 billion), and Egypt ($9.5 billion).
How often do they vote against U.S. interests, you ask? Take a look: Indonesia (73%), Lebanon (70%), Jordan (60%), and Egypt (75%). Interesting how the country that received far and away the most aid voted against our interests more often than any other, isn't it?
When will this madness end? Let's look at this from a personal standpoint. If you consistently gave (not lent, GAVE) money to a "friend," but they openly went against your interests anywhere from 60% to 75% of the time, would you continue to give them money? If you did, would you not be considered a doormat?
In my book, this is exactly what our great nation has become: a doormat. We let foreign countries continue to walk all over us. We provide the Saudis with troops whenever they call for them, only to have them gouge us on oil prices. We maintain an open trade agreement with China, only to have them screw us by manipulating their currency. We provide billions in aid to Pakistan, only to find out they're helping our most wanted terrorist to escape our clutches. Why???
Again, I am not an isolationist and I believe firmly in securing our national interests around the globe. But our leaders in Washington need to wake up and stop supporting the countries that don't support us. We are still the world's one dominant superpower, but we don't use that status to our advantage. We hold all the cards, but don't play them. Instead, we allow the snakes of the Arab world to play us.
This is the platform Donald Trump was going to run on, and in my opinion it was the reason he was at the top or near the top of the polls in the race for the GOP Presidential Nomination. Americans are tired of watching other countries rob us while our leaders idly stand by. The time has come for action, and I believe that now more than ever, the American people realize that.
So where do we go from here? Do you think President Obama will ever cut off aid to Muslim countries? If so, then I've got a bridge to sell you. Unless a Republican wins the White House in 2012, we will continue to ship billions of dollars overseas to nations whose people hate us and who openly go against our interests. All in the face of a terrible economy where millions of Americans remain unemployed, many others who are working struggle to get by, and still others lose everything they have to the capricious cruelty of Mother Nature.
I can only hope and pray that the candidate who secures the GOP nomination will see the light on these issues and defeat Barack Obama in 2012. Should that happen, I'd have a solid piece of advice for the new president: appoint John Bolton as Secretary of State. He would be the right man at the right time. Given his past experience at the U.N., Bolton would know who to go after and how to hit them. Then the message would be sent loud and clear: namely that the United States is fed up and we're not going to take it any more.
That, in my view, is the only way we're going to win the war on oil prices in the short term. It's the only way we're going to get China to stop manipulating their currency and playing us for fools. It's the only way we're going to get more cooperation from Muslims throughout the world. And it's the only way to get our foreign policy headed back in the right direction.
So who would you rather help? The blue-blooded Americans struggling to get by, find work, or rebuild their lives after losing everything to a flood or devastating storm...or the Muslims who hate our country and consistently advocate against us at the United Nations? If that isn't a no-brainer, then I don't know what is.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Newt Cuts His Own Throat By Breaking the Eleventh Commandment
In my last blog post, I predicted that Newt Gingrich would get a big bump in the polls as a result of Mike Huckabee withdrawing from the race for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. Regrettably, I now have to retract that statement entirely. For the former Speaker of the House committed the equivalent of political suicide by breaking a strict code of honor that Ronald Reagan once referred to as "The Eleventh Commandment:" Thou shalt not attack thy fellow Republicans.
In an interview on "Meet the Press," Gingrich actually went so far as to criticize Paul Ryan's budget plan and refer to his suggestions for Medicare reform as "right-wing social engineering." It was an unbelievable political blunder, and to think that someone so intelligent could commit such a grave error is almost unfathomable to me.
Needless to say, Ryan was not happy about it. In an interview on Laura Ingraham's radio show, Ryan said, "With friends like that, who needs liberals?" He was clearly as dumbfounded and caught off guard as everybody else who was still scratching their heads over Gingrich's attack.
The backlash against Newt has already started. As he arrived in Iowa to hit the campaign trail, a Republican voter went over to greet him and extended his hand. Gingrich smiled and accepted the friendly gesture, but during the handshake he received a tongue lashing from the constituent. Basically, this man told Gingrich that he was a disgrace to the Republican party for attacking Ryan's plan and suggested that he withdraw from the race. Ouch.
Conservative pundits sounded off on Gingrich's comments, though surprisingly there was a range of opinions on the issue. Charles Krauthammer said of Gingrich, "He's done." Krauthammer blasted Gingrich for giving the Democrats fodder to campaign against Ryan's budget and the Republicans' plan for reforming Medicare. He said that he could see the negative advertisements now: "Even Newt Gingrich lambasted this extreme plan as right-wing social engineering."
Brit Hume didn't go quite as far as Krauthammer, but he called the statements "inexplicable" and clearly stated that this controversy was not going to disappear any time soon. The only one who remained firmly in Gingrich's corner was Dick Morris, who actually said that he agreed with Gingrich's comments. Morris dismissed the notion that this would hurt his campaign and believes that the former House Speaker will start picking up steam when the debates begin next month.
When I heard about his comments on Meet the Press, I immediately posted on my Facebook page that Gingrich was done. Thus it is evident that I agree with Krauthammer on his prospects of winning the nomination. I think Newt will take a beating in Iowa as a result of this massive mistake, and that his campaign will be very short-lived. So much for having an intelligent, experienced, and supposedly conservative Catholic in the hunt for the Republican nomination. Why, Newt? Why?
The hot news topic being discussed all day yesterday was how two high-profile Republicans withdrew from pursuing the 2012 presidential nomination. But in reality, it was three. It's just that the third one did so involuntarily. Good-bye, Mr. Speaker, from a diehard conservative who once considered supporting you.
In an interview on "Meet the Press," Gingrich actually went so far as to criticize Paul Ryan's budget plan and refer to his suggestions for Medicare reform as "right-wing social engineering." It was an unbelievable political blunder, and to think that someone so intelligent could commit such a grave error is almost unfathomable to me.
Needless to say, Ryan was not happy about it. In an interview on Laura Ingraham's radio show, Ryan said, "With friends like that, who needs liberals?" He was clearly as dumbfounded and caught off guard as everybody else who was still scratching their heads over Gingrich's attack.
The backlash against Newt has already started. As he arrived in Iowa to hit the campaign trail, a Republican voter went over to greet him and extended his hand. Gingrich smiled and accepted the friendly gesture, but during the handshake he received a tongue lashing from the constituent. Basically, this man told Gingrich that he was a disgrace to the Republican party for attacking Ryan's plan and suggested that he withdraw from the race. Ouch.
Conservative pundits sounded off on Gingrich's comments, though surprisingly there was a range of opinions on the issue. Charles Krauthammer said of Gingrich, "He's done." Krauthammer blasted Gingrich for giving the Democrats fodder to campaign against Ryan's budget and the Republicans' plan for reforming Medicare. He said that he could see the negative advertisements now: "Even Newt Gingrich lambasted this extreme plan as right-wing social engineering."
Brit Hume didn't go quite as far as Krauthammer, but he called the statements "inexplicable" and clearly stated that this controversy was not going to disappear any time soon. The only one who remained firmly in Gingrich's corner was Dick Morris, who actually said that he agreed with Gingrich's comments. Morris dismissed the notion that this would hurt his campaign and believes that the former House Speaker will start picking up steam when the debates begin next month.
When I heard about his comments on Meet the Press, I immediately posted on my Facebook page that Gingrich was done. Thus it is evident that I agree with Krauthammer on his prospects of winning the nomination. I think Newt will take a beating in Iowa as a result of this massive mistake, and that his campaign will be very short-lived. So much for having an intelligent, experienced, and supposedly conservative Catholic in the hunt for the Republican nomination. Why, Newt? Why?
The hot news topic being discussed all day yesterday was how two high-profile Republicans withdrew from pursuing the 2012 presidential nomination. But in reality, it was three. It's just that the third one did so involuntarily. Good-bye, Mr. Speaker, from a diehard conservative who once considered supporting you.
Monday, May 16, 2011
With Huckabee Out, Who Gets the Biggest Bump?
I have to give credit to Charles Krauthammer. A while back I wrote a blog post criticizing his handicap of the race for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination. But he was spot on regarding Mike Huckabee. Krauthammer noted that the former Arkansas governor had a successful television show, was making lots of money, and was in the process of building a dream home in Florida. Thus the conservative columnist predicted that Huckabee would not run in 2012, and that prediction came true over the weekend. For Huckabee announced live on his Saturday night TV show that he had decided not to pursue the Republican nomination.
We found out after the fact that he was keeping everyone in suspense, including Fox News brass and even his closest personal advisers. And though he was still considering a run as late as last week, in the end he came to realize that the fire in the belly just wasn't there.
Now, another race begins. You can bet that even as I'm writing this, the campaign teams for all of the candidates who are pursuing the nomination are devising strategies to draw Huckabee's supporters to their camps.
So who has the best chance of getting a big bump in the polls with Huckabee out of the equation? I'd have to think that Huckabee's devout Christian values and his reputation as a hardcore social conservative would go a long way in determining that. Once they get over their disappointment, Huckabee supporters will be looking to those candidates who have the strongest platform on social conservative values.
One who immediately comes to mind is Rick Santorum. Anyone who is bold enough to draw up a connection between abortion and Social Security has to be considered a darling in the eyes of the religious right. I think it's fair to say that Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, and Michele Bachmann could also receive additional support. If she decides to run, it also might be a golden opportunity for Sarah Palin, who has always been very outspoken on abortion and other social moral issues.
I think most analysts would agree that the two biggest losers in this could be Mitt Romney and Donald Trump. Huckabee is no friend of Romney, and he even said as much publicly after making his announcement. As always, he was a gentleman in merely stating that they don't socialize together. "We're not close, you know, in personal ways," Huckabee said. A sharp contrast was drawn between his relationship with Romney and his close friendships with many others who are in the race. Still, Huckabee wanted everyone to know that he would support Romney if he were chosen as the candidate.
But in my eyes, his comments could be translated in this way. "Those of you who would have supported me should transfer that support to one of my friends, not to Romney. But in the end, if you do choose Romney, I'll support him over Obama because he's the lesser of two evils." That's how I see it.
Trump too could be a big loser in this because he is hardly a champion of social causes. The Donald is running on his expertise in finance and the hardline foreign policy he would adopt as Commander in Chief. No doubt his views are resonating with voters as they eat up his rhetoric on China, Pakistan, Libya, and the Middle East. In many ways, he seems to be the right candidate at the right time.
But his odds of drawing support from those who would have voted for Huckabee are slim to none. Unless of course, he can somehow sell the notion that he has had a major conversion and now sees the light when it comes to religion and family values. Probably not going to happen.
I can't wait until the next poll numbers come out and we begin to see how things are going to take shape with one less horse in the race, and a heavy favorite at that. My humble prediction is that Gingrich will get the biggest bump, and that Romney will suffer the most from Huckabee's decision. Hold on to your hats, my fellow conservatives. Things are about to get very interesting.
We found out after the fact that he was keeping everyone in suspense, including Fox News brass and even his closest personal advisers. And though he was still considering a run as late as last week, in the end he came to realize that the fire in the belly just wasn't there.
Now, another race begins. You can bet that even as I'm writing this, the campaign teams for all of the candidates who are pursuing the nomination are devising strategies to draw Huckabee's supporters to their camps.
So who has the best chance of getting a big bump in the polls with Huckabee out of the equation? I'd have to think that Huckabee's devout Christian values and his reputation as a hardcore social conservative would go a long way in determining that. Once they get over their disappointment, Huckabee supporters will be looking to those candidates who have the strongest platform on social conservative values.
One who immediately comes to mind is Rick Santorum. Anyone who is bold enough to draw up a connection between abortion and Social Security has to be considered a darling in the eyes of the religious right. I think it's fair to say that Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, and Michele Bachmann could also receive additional support. If she decides to run, it also might be a golden opportunity for Sarah Palin, who has always been very outspoken on abortion and other social moral issues.
I think most analysts would agree that the two biggest losers in this could be Mitt Romney and Donald Trump. Huckabee is no friend of Romney, and he even said as much publicly after making his announcement. As always, he was a gentleman in merely stating that they don't socialize together. "We're not close, you know, in personal ways," Huckabee said. A sharp contrast was drawn between his relationship with Romney and his close friendships with many others who are in the race. Still, Huckabee wanted everyone to know that he would support Romney if he were chosen as the candidate.
But in my eyes, his comments could be translated in this way. "Those of you who would have supported me should transfer that support to one of my friends, not to Romney. But in the end, if you do choose Romney, I'll support him over Obama because he's the lesser of two evils." That's how I see it.
Trump too could be a big loser in this because he is hardly a champion of social causes. The Donald is running on his expertise in finance and the hardline foreign policy he would adopt as Commander in Chief. No doubt his views are resonating with voters as they eat up his rhetoric on China, Pakistan, Libya, and the Middle East. In many ways, he seems to be the right candidate at the right time.
But his odds of drawing support from those who would have voted for Huckabee are slim to none. Unless of course, he can somehow sell the notion that he has had a major conversion and now sees the light when it comes to religion and family values. Probably not going to happen.
I can't wait until the next poll numbers come out and we begin to see how things are going to take shape with one less horse in the race, and a heavy favorite at that. My humble prediction is that Gingrich will get the biggest bump, and that Romney will suffer the most from Huckabee's decision. Hold on to your hats, my fellow conservatives. Things are about to get very interesting.
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Welcome to the Party, Dr. Gingrich
It's now official. Newt Gingrich announced yesterday that he is running for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. In what will be the ultimate game of Texas Hold 'Em, Dr. Gingrich is all in.
You may already be wondering why I'm referring to the former Speaker of the House as "Dr. Gingrich." No, he's not a medical doctor, but Newt does have a Ph.D. in history from Tulane University. In fact, he worked as a college professor for eight years before making the transition into politics. His immense knowledge of history and his ability to articulate it will no doubt come in very handy as he campaigns around the country.
I welcome his candidacy because I do believe very strongly that Gingrich would be a formidable opponent for Barack Obama. Gingrich is far more experienced, far more seasoned, and I would go so far as to say he is more intelligent and articulate than the president. I have no doubts that he'd wipe the floor with Obama in a debate, and as polished as Obama may be as an orator, he has not mastered the art of brevity to the degree that Gingrich has. To me, this is what separates Newt from all the rest. I haven't heard anyone who can convey such a strong, clear message in as few words as he is able to, and that goes a long way when you're communicating your platform to the American people.
But ultimately, that is not what would enable him to win the election. Everyone knows that elections always come down to two things: peace and prosperity. Nothing is more dear to Americans than feeling safe and doing well. Given today's world climate, one where wars are raging and economies are tanking, the effects of peace and prosperity upon the 2012 election can only become greater. Trust me: they will.
Obama himself has already admitted that next year's election will be a crossroads for America. We are now at a point where Americans need to decide which path we are going to take to get our house back in order. Will it be the entitlement culture that is consistently advocated by the Democrats, one where wealth is re-distributed by taxing the rich and giving more in the way of handouts to the poor? One of big government and big spending? Or will it be the Republican vision of free markets, smaller government, lower taxes, and less spending and entitlements?
These are two very different philosophies of governance, and Gingrich predicted that throughout the course of the campaign, the voters will come to learn the specific details of just how different they are. By November of 2012, they will have the information they need to make their preferred choice when they head to the polls.
Last night on "Hannity," Gingrich drew up an interesting analogy to demonstrate the discrepancies between the two approaches. He commented that the economy of Texas has grown more than that of any other U.S. state over the past decade. Then he mentioned that no U.S. city has fallen farther than Detroit. Texas is a very conservative state, governed by Republicans and run according to conservative principles. Detroit has long been a haven for Democrats who were in bed with the unions (specifically the United Auto Workers and the teachers' union) and promised all sorts of entitlements in order to stay in power. Well, when you look at the blocks and blocks of abandoned, run-down houses throughout Detroit today, one need not be a rocket scientist to realize that this method of governing did not turn out too well.
Thus the question will be, "Do we want our country to look more like Detroit or more like Texas?" History has shown us that the socialist doctrine of re-distribution of wealth does not work. The fall of the Soviet Union and European socialism proves that point beyond any reasonable doubt. And so, I don't know about you, but the answer to this question is pretty evident to me.
So as Gingrich prepares to run, it is clear that he has many assets that will work in his favor. But he does have one major liability: his sordid past. Gingrich has been married several times and was even guilty of infidelity, making him an easy target for the liberal media and a pariah to hard-line social conservatives.
But he already knows this going in, and he's prepared to take his lumps. Speaking last night, Gingrich conceded that his past would be magnified a thousand times by the liberal press. But he reframed it in a positive way. What he said was, "Doesn't any conservative candidate already know that they're not going to get an even break from the mass media?" In other words, regardless of what your past may be, you're already at a disadvantage when you're running on the Republican ticket.
There is no question that Obama will be difficult to beat in 2012. As mentioned above, he'll have the full support of the mass media (aside from Fox News). He'll have liberal billionaires like George Soros in his corner, along with the vast majority of Hollywood celebrities. He'll have the unions backing him, and tech giants like Google, Microsoft, and Facebook will provide far more financial support for him than for anyone who might oppose him. All in all, the goal is to raise one billion dollars for Obama's re-election campaign. Personally, I don't doubt that he'll be able to achieve it.
And so the Republican candidate, whoever it may be, will clearly be at a disadvantage. But again, Gingrich is well aware of this going in and he's prepared to deal with it. The former Speaker of the House is solely focused on beating Obama, and at no point was this more evident than when Hannity asked him about his competition in the Republican field. Gingrich smartly responded that he had a number of friends running against him and that he was looking forward to a very positive campaign. "The only opponent I have my sights on is President Obama," Gingrich said.
So what are his chances of winning? I actually think he can go far throughout the primaries. I know that he hasn't exactly been at or near the top of the polls, but he's much higher than candidates like Tim Pawlenty or Mitch Daniels, who have been singled out as possible spoilers. It's still very early, and several possible candidates (like Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee) haven't made their formal announcements yet. But as he travels around the country and speaks to the throngs of Republican voters, I believe that Newt's message will resonate. I'd be shocked if he didn't turn out to be a force to be reckoned with throughout the campaign.
Good luck, Dr. Gingrich, from a fiscal and social conservative who believes in you, forgives you for your past mistakes, and only wants what's best for our country. It's time to turn things around and get America back on track, and there's no doubt in my mind that if you turn out to be the candidate, you can get the job done.
You may already be wondering why I'm referring to the former Speaker of the House as "Dr. Gingrich." No, he's not a medical doctor, but Newt does have a Ph.D. in history from Tulane University. In fact, he worked as a college professor for eight years before making the transition into politics. His immense knowledge of history and his ability to articulate it will no doubt come in very handy as he campaigns around the country.
I welcome his candidacy because I do believe very strongly that Gingrich would be a formidable opponent for Barack Obama. Gingrich is far more experienced, far more seasoned, and I would go so far as to say he is more intelligent and articulate than the president. I have no doubts that he'd wipe the floor with Obama in a debate, and as polished as Obama may be as an orator, he has not mastered the art of brevity to the degree that Gingrich has. To me, this is what separates Newt from all the rest. I haven't heard anyone who can convey such a strong, clear message in as few words as he is able to, and that goes a long way when you're communicating your platform to the American people.
But ultimately, that is not what would enable him to win the election. Everyone knows that elections always come down to two things: peace and prosperity. Nothing is more dear to Americans than feeling safe and doing well. Given today's world climate, one where wars are raging and economies are tanking, the effects of peace and prosperity upon the 2012 election can only become greater. Trust me: they will.
Obama himself has already admitted that next year's election will be a crossroads for America. We are now at a point where Americans need to decide which path we are going to take to get our house back in order. Will it be the entitlement culture that is consistently advocated by the Democrats, one where wealth is re-distributed by taxing the rich and giving more in the way of handouts to the poor? One of big government and big spending? Or will it be the Republican vision of free markets, smaller government, lower taxes, and less spending and entitlements?
These are two very different philosophies of governance, and Gingrich predicted that throughout the course of the campaign, the voters will come to learn the specific details of just how different they are. By November of 2012, they will have the information they need to make their preferred choice when they head to the polls.
Last night on "Hannity," Gingrich drew up an interesting analogy to demonstrate the discrepancies between the two approaches. He commented that the economy of Texas has grown more than that of any other U.S. state over the past decade. Then he mentioned that no U.S. city has fallen farther than Detroit. Texas is a very conservative state, governed by Republicans and run according to conservative principles. Detroit has long been a haven for Democrats who were in bed with the unions (specifically the United Auto Workers and the teachers' union) and promised all sorts of entitlements in order to stay in power. Well, when you look at the blocks and blocks of abandoned, run-down houses throughout Detroit today, one need not be a rocket scientist to realize that this method of governing did not turn out too well.
Thus the question will be, "Do we want our country to look more like Detroit or more like Texas?" History has shown us that the socialist doctrine of re-distribution of wealth does not work. The fall of the Soviet Union and European socialism proves that point beyond any reasonable doubt. And so, I don't know about you, but the answer to this question is pretty evident to me.
So as Gingrich prepares to run, it is clear that he has many assets that will work in his favor. But he does have one major liability: his sordid past. Gingrich has been married several times and was even guilty of infidelity, making him an easy target for the liberal media and a pariah to hard-line social conservatives.
But he already knows this going in, and he's prepared to take his lumps. Speaking last night, Gingrich conceded that his past would be magnified a thousand times by the liberal press. But he reframed it in a positive way. What he said was, "Doesn't any conservative candidate already know that they're not going to get an even break from the mass media?" In other words, regardless of what your past may be, you're already at a disadvantage when you're running on the Republican ticket.
There is no question that Obama will be difficult to beat in 2012. As mentioned above, he'll have the full support of the mass media (aside from Fox News). He'll have liberal billionaires like George Soros in his corner, along with the vast majority of Hollywood celebrities. He'll have the unions backing him, and tech giants like Google, Microsoft, and Facebook will provide far more financial support for him than for anyone who might oppose him. All in all, the goal is to raise one billion dollars for Obama's re-election campaign. Personally, I don't doubt that he'll be able to achieve it.
And so the Republican candidate, whoever it may be, will clearly be at a disadvantage. But again, Gingrich is well aware of this going in and he's prepared to deal with it. The former Speaker of the House is solely focused on beating Obama, and at no point was this more evident than when Hannity asked him about his competition in the Republican field. Gingrich smartly responded that he had a number of friends running against him and that he was looking forward to a very positive campaign. "The only opponent I have my sights on is President Obama," Gingrich said.
So what are his chances of winning? I actually think he can go far throughout the primaries. I know that he hasn't exactly been at or near the top of the polls, but he's much higher than candidates like Tim Pawlenty or Mitch Daniels, who have been singled out as possible spoilers. It's still very early, and several possible candidates (like Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee) haven't made their formal announcements yet. But as he travels around the country and speaks to the throngs of Republican voters, I believe that Newt's message will resonate. I'd be shocked if he didn't turn out to be a force to be reckoned with throughout the campaign.
Good luck, Dr. Gingrich, from a fiscal and social conservative who believes in you, forgives you for your past mistakes, and only wants what's best for our country. It's time to turn things around and get America back on track, and there's no doubt in my mind that if you turn out to be the candidate, you can get the job done.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Stop the Insanity! Allow Enhanced Interrogation!
Last week, after President Obama laid a wreath in honor of the 9/11 victims at Ground Zero, he met with several family members of those who died on that dark day. One of those family members confronted the president and asked him whether he would now change his stance on enhanced interrogation of suspected terrorists. It was clear at that point that the information we gleaned from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed during waterboarding helped lead us to bin Laden's courier, which in turn led us to bin Laden himself. Specifically, she wanted to know if the president would ask Eric Holder to stop investigating CIA agents who had carried out enhanced interrogation in compliance with the orders that were given to them. Obama responded with a curt "I won't" before turning his back on her and walking away.
Clearly, the president was not at all interested in having this discussion. And one could hardly blame him, since his position has now been shown to be indefensible. Moreover, he appears more hypocritical now than at any other time during his presidency. Considering how he has changed positions on everything from Gitmo to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to trying suspected terrorists in military tribunals, that is saying an awful lot.
Here is why he's hypocritical. He sent our most elite special forces unit into a sovereign country and gave the order that if any of them got a clear shot at bin Laden, they were to take it. There was no consideration of bin Laden's rights to due process, or whether he was unable to defend himself during the raid. Just do what you have to do to take him out, our president clearly stated.
On this, he was right. I applaud the president for finally showing some guts in battling radical Muslim terrorists. I actually gave him the benefit of the doubt and figured that he was finally coming to his senses. I thought he would set aside once and for all the insane views of the liberal moral elitists. You know, the ones who actually believe that this scum of the earth was entitled to due process. The ones who still insist that we as Americans are above carrying out these sorts of operations. The Michael Moores and Rosie O'Donnell's of the world. Those people.
But of course, I was wrong. For despite the fact that we have now seen firsthand what enhanced interrogation can do for us in the war on terror, Obama has made it clear that he will not change his stance on the issue. On this, he's decided to fall right back in line with the liberal moral elitists who say that it was wrong to place Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on a board and pour water over his face. This is a horrible practice that tramples on the rights of the terrorists and makes us look like barbarians, so they say.
Instead, they'd rather we sit down with bad guys like KSM and try to have a nice, civil conversation. Maybe we should serve cake and sing "kumbaya" while we're at it. Perhaps we can bribe them. Sure, why not give the terrorists millions of taxpayer dollars in this time of economic crisis so they can re-use that money to support terrorist acts against us. That makes sense. Or we can even follow Joy Behar's suggestion and offer them a book deal. Are you kidding me? If this isn't insanity, then I don't know what is.
The fact is that enhanced interrogation works. In this case it led us right to bin Laden, despite how the liberal politicians and pundits want to spin it. It is not the same as torture, though again that is what the liberals want us all to believe. I applaud Bill O'Reilly for calling out his own colleague, Juan Williams, on this issue. Williams continually made references to things like pulling out fingernails and poking eyes out when discussing enhanced interrogation. O'Reilly was quick to distinguish between these extreme tactics and the practice of waterboarding, and promptly put Williams in his place.
The CIA agents who Holder is currently investigating were merely carrying out their orders. President Bush, in collaboration with his security advisers, made the decision to waterboard the terrorists. The men who carried it out were only guilty of one thing: doing their jobs. If that's a crime, then there is something seriously wrong with our justice system.
I don't get myself too worked up over the ongoing investigation because I am quite certain that nothing will come of it. It will be nothing short of political suicide if Obama gives the go-ahead to prosecute these men. Skilled politician that he is, the president will never make that mistake. But what I do get worked up over is the fact that we are not currently using enhanced interrogation tactics, because it is putting the lives of Americans at risk.
I will never understand how anyone could place the welfare of suspected terrorists ahead of the safety of innocent Americans. But I suppose it's easy to do that when you didn't lose a loved one on 9/11. It's easy to think this way if one of your family members was not killed or maimed in Iraq or Afghanistan. It's all well and good as long as someone close to you isn't being held as a prisoner by Al Qaeda or the Taliban.
Well, it's time for all of these people, especially our president, to wake up. There is no way that President Obama can look anyone in the eye and say that he wouldn't order enhanced interrogation on a suspect who had information on where one of his family members was being held. God forbid this should happen, but if the terrorists ever succeeded in kidnapping one of his daughters, he would order waterboarding in a heartbeat on a prisoner who we believed might have key information. But sad as it is, this may be the only way that he'll ever change his mind on enhanced interrogation. Until then, we'll have to live with whatever comes and dream of what could have been if we had only used waterboarding on the bad guys.
Clearly, the president was not at all interested in having this discussion. And one could hardly blame him, since his position has now been shown to be indefensible. Moreover, he appears more hypocritical now than at any other time during his presidency. Considering how he has changed positions on everything from Gitmo to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to trying suspected terrorists in military tribunals, that is saying an awful lot.
Here is why he's hypocritical. He sent our most elite special forces unit into a sovereign country and gave the order that if any of them got a clear shot at bin Laden, they were to take it. There was no consideration of bin Laden's rights to due process, or whether he was unable to defend himself during the raid. Just do what you have to do to take him out, our president clearly stated.
On this, he was right. I applaud the president for finally showing some guts in battling radical Muslim terrorists. I actually gave him the benefit of the doubt and figured that he was finally coming to his senses. I thought he would set aside once and for all the insane views of the liberal moral elitists. You know, the ones who actually believe that this scum of the earth was entitled to due process. The ones who still insist that we as Americans are above carrying out these sorts of operations. The Michael Moores and Rosie O'Donnell's of the world. Those people.
But of course, I was wrong. For despite the fact that we have now seen firsthand what enhanced interrogation can do for us in the war on terror, Obama has made it clear that he will not change his stance on the issue. On this, he's decided to fall right back in line with the liberal moral elitists who say that it was wrong to place Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on a board and pour water over his face. This is a horrible practice that tramples on the rights of the terrorists and makes us look like barbarians, so they say.
Instead, they'd rather we sit down with bad guys like KSM and try to have a nice, civil conversation. Maybe we should serve cake and sing "kumbaya" while we're at it. Perhaps we can bribe them. Sure, why not give the terrorists millions of taxpayer dollars in this time of economic crisis so they can re-use that money to support terrorist acts against us. That makes sense. Or we can even follow Joy Behar's suggestion and offer them a book deal. Are you kidding me? If this isn't insanity, then I don't know what is.
The fact is that enhanced interrogation works. In this case it led us right to bin Laden, despite how the liberal politicians and pundits want to spin it. It is not the same as torture, though again that is what the liberals want us all to believe. I applaud Bill O'Reilly for calling out his own colleague, Juan Williams, on this issue. Williams continually made references to things like pulling out fingernails and poking eyes out when discussing enhanced interrogation. O'Reilly was quick to distinguish between these extreme tactics and the practice of waterboarding, and promptly put Williams in his place.
The CIA agents who Holder is currently investigating were merely carrying out their orders. President Bush, in collaboration with his security advisers, made the decision to waterboard the terrorists. The men who carried it out were only guilty of one thing: doing their jobs. If that's a crime, then there is something seriously wrong with our justice system.
I don't get myself too worked up over the ongoing investigation because I am quite certain that nothing will come of it. It will be nothing short of political suicide if Obama gives the go-ahead to prosecute these men. Skilled politician that he is, the president will never make that mistake. But what I do get worked up over is the fact that we are not currently using enhanced interrogation tactics, because it is putting the lives of Americans at risk.
I will never understand how anyone could place the welfare of suspected terrorists ahead of the safety of innocent Americans. But I suppose it's easy to do that when you didn't lose a loved one on 9/11. It's easy to think this way if one of your family members was not killed or maimed in Iraq or Afghanistan. It's all well and good as long as someone close to you isn't being held as a prisoner by Al Qaeda or the Taliban.
Well, it's time for all of these people, especially our president, to wake up. There is no way that President Obama can look anyone in the eye and say that he wouldn't order enhanced interrogation on a suspect who had information on where one of his family members was being held. God forbid this should happen, but if the terrorists ever succeeded in kidnapping one of his daughters, he would order waterboarding in a heartbeat on a prisoner who we believed might have key information. But sad as it is, this may be the only way that he'll ever change his mind on enhanced interrogation. Until then, we'll have to live with whatever comes and dream of what could have been if we had only used waterboarding on the bad guys.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Release the Photos, Mr. President!
Yesterday, President Obama was interviewed for a segment on the death of Osama bin Laden that will appear on 60 Minutes this Sunday. Portions of that interview have already been released, and one thing has been made clear: the president has no intention of releasing the photos of bin Laden's corpse to the American public. To that I only have one thing to say: wrong decision, Mr. President.
I'm sure that Obama will outline the reasons for his decision when the entire interview is aired Sunday evening. But in the meantime, allow me to outline my reasons why the photos should be released.
First of all, America needs to make a statement to the rest of the world that you can't attack us on our soil, claim thousands of innocent lives, and get away with it. The fact that we've been unable to get bin Laden all these years has always been perceived by our enemies as a sign of weakness. Behind our backs, if not to our faces, they've laughed at us for failing in our attempts to bring him to justice.
Now that we've managed to accomplish the task, it's imperative that we let the world know that you can't outrun us, you can't hide from us, and you can't escape justice for the transgressions you carry out against our people. Sooner or later, we're going to get you. Our enemies need to be reminded of that, and what better way to remind them than with a picture of our most wanted terrorist lying in a pool of his own blood with a bullethole in his head.
It is well-known that in the Muslim world, conspiracy theories run amok. Most Muslims will refuse to believe that bin Laden is dead until they see the proof. Yesterday on Hannity, Anne Coulter made an excellent point on how Obama's strategy for dealing with the Muslim problem is completely backwards. Muslims don't respond to hyper-sensitivity; they respond to strength. If we want to win their respect, then we need to show them that we got our man, not hide the photos for fear that we might offend them.
Aside from sending a clear message to the rest of the world, there are other reasons, rooted in both logic and emotion, for publicizing the pictures. First, the whole rationale of sending in the Navy SEALS to carry out the mission was rooted in proof of death. We could have bombed the compound where bin Laden was hiding. We could have sent a drone to finish the job. But Obama chose to go with the SEALS. Why? Very simply, because he wanted to know for sure that we got him.
For the record, I agree with that. I think the president made the right decision here, and I would have done exactly the same thing. But here's where things begin to become incomprehensible. We sent in our elite forces, they got the job done, and they obtained proof of bin Laden's death. And now, we're not showing it to the public? Can someone please explain this to me? If you're not going to use the proof you so badly wanted in the first place, then why put the lives of those forty Navy SEALS at risk? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Finally, the photos should be released because we as Americans are ENTITLED to see them. It's not very often that I use the word "entitled," but in this case it is both appropriate and necessary. As taxpayers, we have been funding the war on terror for a decade. We paid for our government to carry out this operation. If our money was spent to carry out this task, how then can anyone justify not showing us the results?
If that is not enough, then know that we have paid an even heftier price in the war on terror. The events of 9/11/01 and the way they have forever changed our way of life have taken an emotional and psychological toll on us that can never be adequately measured. We didn't just pay the price financially. We paid the price in many other ways that were far more expensive. For that, we are more than justified in demanding that we get to see the final product.
I hope the president changes his mind, but I'm certainly not going to hold my breath. I've come to accept that the only way we're going to have the opportunity to see the photos is if he is defeated in the 2012 election. As far as I'm concerned, that just gives me another reason to vote Republican.
I'm sure that Obama will outline the reasons for his decision when the entire interview is aired Sunday evening. But in the meantime, allow me to outline my reasons why the photos should be released.
First of all, America needs to make a statement to the rest of the world that you can't attack us on our soil, claim thousands of innocent lives, and get away with it. The fact that we've been unable to get bin Laden all these years has always been perceived by our enemies as a sign of weakness. Behind our backs, if not to our faces, they've laughed at us for failing in our attempts to bring him to justice.
Now that we've managed to accomplish the task, it's imperative that we let the world know that you can't outrun us, you can't hide from us, and you can't escape justice for the transgressions you carry out against our people. Sooner or later, we're going to get you. Our enemies need to be reminded of that, and what better way to remind them than with a picture of our most wanted terrorist lying in a pool of his own blood with a bullethole in his head.
It is well-known that in the Muslim world, conspiracy theories run amok. Most Muslims will refuse to believe that bin Laden is dead until they see the proof. Yesterday on Hannity, Anne Coulter made an excellent point on how Obama's strategy for dealing with the Muslim problem is completely backwards. Muslims don't respond to hyper-sensitivity; they respond to strength. If we want to win their respect, then we need to show them that we got our man, not hide the photos for fear that we might offend them.
Aside from sending a clear message to the rest of the world, there are other reasons, rooted in both logic and emotion, for publicizing the pictures. First, the whole rationale of sending in the Navy SEALS to carry out the mission was rooted in proof of death. We could have bombed the compound where bin Laden was hiding. We could have sent a drone to finish the job. But Obama chose to go with the SEALS. Why? Very simply, because he wanted to know for sure that we got him.
For the record, I agree with that. I think the president made the right decision here, and I would have done exactly the same thing. But here's where things begin to become incomprehensible. We sent in our elite forces, they got the job done, and they obtained proof of bin Laden's death. And now, we're not showing it to the public? Can someone please explain this to me? If you're not going to use the proof you so badly wanted in the first place, then why put the lives of those forty Navy SEALS at risk? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Finally, the photos should be released because we as Americans are ENTITLED to see them. It's not very often that I use the word "entitled," but in this case it is both appropriate and necessary. As taxpayers, we have been funding the war on terror for a decade. We paid for our government to carry out this operation. If our money was spent to carry out this task, how then can anyone justify not showing us the results?
If that is not enough, then know that we have paid an even heftier price in the war on terror. The events of 9/11/01 and the way they have forever changed our way of life have taken an emotional and psychological toll on us that can never be adequately measured. We didn't just pay the price financially. We paid the price in many other ways that were far more expensive. For that, we are more than justified in demanding that we get to see the final product.
I hope the president changes his mind, but I'm certainly not going to hold my breath. I've come to accept that the only way we're going to have the opportunity to see the photos is if he is defeated in the 2012 election. As far as I'm concerned, that just gives me another reason to vote Republican.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Time for America to Stop Playing the Fool
The killing of Osama bin Laden has brought new information to light, and I'm not talking about the many files we confiscated from the compound where he was hiding. I'm talking about our relationship with Pakistan and how it coincides with everything else that has been happening to our great country as of late.
If there is one thing we have learned from this historic incident, it is that we can no longer afford to trust Pakistan. In short, it's time for America to stop playing the fool.
In my opinion, this is the issue that has helped Donald Trump garner unprecedented media attention over the last month and rise to the top of the polls for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination. Trump is capitalizing on the anger so many Americans are feeling toward the rest of the world at the moment. China manipulates their currency and takes our jobs, while millions of Americans are out of work. OPEC raises oil prices and makes a fortune, while Americans continue to get crushed by exorbitant fuel prices. And now, it's crystal clear that Pakistan has been accepting billions of dollars in aid from the United States to fight the war on terror, only to be hiding bin Laden in a compound near one of their military bases for the last several years.
If you believe they didn't know he was there, then I've got a bridge to sell you. If you believe Hilary Clinton when she says that Pakistan helped us in locating him, then you're a sad fool. The Pakistani government is full of liars from top to bottom, and their intelligence service (the ISI) is laced with corruption. We cannot trust them going forward, and it's time we sever our ties and fight our own battles with the terrorists on their terrain. It may be an affront to their sovereignty, but the safety of our citizens is far more important.
I can't wait to hear what Trump has to say when the dust settles. My guess is that he'll let the world know that if he were president, he'd demand that Pakistan pay back the billions of dollars in aid we gave to them, plus interest. He'll say that he'd call them out on what they did, refuse to have any future dealings with their government, and give India the green light to do whatever they need to do in their perpetual conflict with their archenemy. And you know what? He'd be right.
Our country holds all the cards as the world's dominant superpower. Yes, we're deep in debt and still suffering the effects of the worst economic crisis since The Great Depression. Yes, our military is maybe a bit overstretched as the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya continue. But we are still number one, and we need to capitalize on our status for the sake of the well-being of our nation.
There is absolutely no question that President Obama will get a big bump in the polls as a result of bringing bin Laden to justice. The same thing happened to President George H.W. Bush in 1991, after the United States made quick work of Saddam Hussein's elite forces in the first Gulf War. But we all remember what happened in 1992. The economy went south, and soon people forgot about Bush's victory in Iraq. Winning the Gulf War was not enough to carry him, as Bill Clinton claimed victory in the presidential election.
The same could happen to Obama next year. I really don't think that getting bin Laden will be enough to put him over the top in 2012. The polls show that Americans are increasingly disapproving of his economic policies, so unless the economy turns around, he will remain a vulnerable target.
It will be interesting to see if he implements any changes in our relations with Pakistan. Do you think Americans will be angry that Pakistan has been taking billions of dollars from us and laughing at us behind our backs? You know, the same Americans who are out of work, paying four dollars a gallon for gas, and struggling just to get by? Hmm...maybe just a little.
I will admit that the unity our country is experiencing during this joyous time is a welcome change from the bitter bipartisanship that has ruled Washington over the past several months. But let's face it: the love we're all feeling for each other will be short-lived. It's only a matter of time before our government gets back to work on the debt ceiling debate and the 2012 budget battle.
And that, my friends, is where we need to start getting serious and stop playing the fool. Enough is enough. We can't continue going down the road to financial ruin and allow the rest of the world to get rich off of us. There's little doubt that this will be the key to the 2012 presidential election. In the end, the winner will be the one who convinces the American people that he will no longer allow other countries to take advantage of us. He'll be the one who the people believe will take care of our own. He'll be the one who they believe will lead us back to prosperity, and once again make us the envy of all nations. I don't know who that person will be. But I am quite certain of one thing: he will not be Barack Hussein Obama.
If there is one thing we have learned from this historic incident, it is that we can no longer afford to trust Pakistan. In short, it's time for America to stop playing the fool.
In my opinion, this is the issue that has helped Donald Trump garner unprecedented media attention over the last month and rise to the top of the polls for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination. Trump is capitalizing on the anger so many Americans are feeling toward the rest of the world at the moment. China manipulates their currency and takes our jobs, while millions of Americans are out of work. OPEC raises oil prices and makes a fortune, while Americans continue to get crushed by exorbitant fuel prices. And now, it's crystal clear that Pakistan has been accepting billions of dollars in aid from the United States to fight the war on terror, only to be hiding bin Laden in a compound near one of their military bases for the last several years.
If you believe they didn't know he was there, then I've got a bridge to sell you. If you believe Hilary Clinton when she says that Pakistan helped us in locating him, then you're a sad fool. The Pakistani government is full of liars from top to bottom, and their intelligence service (the ISI) is laced with corruption. We cannot trust them going forward, and it's time we sever our ties and fight our own battles with the terrorists on their terrain. It may be an affront to their sovereignty, but the safety of our citizens is far more important.
I can't wait to hear what Trump has to say when the dust settles. My guess is that he'll let the world know that if he were president, he'd demand that Pakistan pay back the billions of dollars in aid we gave to them, plus interest. He'll say that he'd call them out on what they did, refuse to have any future dealings with their government, and give India the green light to do whatever they need to do in their perpetual conflict with their archenemy. And you know what? He'd be right.
Our country holds all the cards as the world's dominant superpower. Yes, we're deep in debt and still suffering the effects of the worst economic crisis since The Great Depression. Yes, our military is maybe a bit overstretched as the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya continue. But we are still number one, and we need to capitalize on our status for the sake of the well-being of our nation.
There is absolutely no question that President Obama will get a big bump in the polls as a result of bringing bin Laden to justice. The same thing happened to President George H.W. Bush in 1991, after the United States made quick work of Saddam Hussein's elite forces in the first Gulf War. But we all remember what happened in 1992. The economy went south, and soon people forgot about Bush's victory in Iraq. Winning the Gulf War was not enough to carry him, as Bill Clinton claimed victory in the presidential election.
The same could happen to Obama next year. I really don't think that getting bin Laden will be enough to put him over the top in 2012. The polls show that Americans are increasingly disapproving of his economic policies, so unless the economy turns around, he will remain a vulnerable target.
It will be interesting to see if he implements any changes in our relations with Pakistan. Do you think Americans will be angry that Pakistan has been taking billions of dollars from us and laughing at us behind our backs? You know, the same Americans who are out of work, paying four dollars a gallon for gas, and struggling just to get by? Hmm...maybe just a little.
I will admit that the unity our country is experiencing during this joyous time is a welcome change from the bitter bipartisanship that has ruled Washington over the past several months. But let's face it: the love we're all feeling for each other will be short-lived. It's only a matter of time before our government gets back to work on the debt ceiling debate and the 2012 budget battle.
And that, my friends, is where we need to start getting serious and stop playing the fool. Enough is enough. We can't continue going down the road to financial ruin and allow the rest of the world to get rich off of us. There's little doubt that this will be the key to the 2012 presidential election. In the end, the winner will be the one who convinces the American people that he will no longer allow other countries to take advantage of us. He'll be the one who the people believe will take care of our own. He'll be the one who they believe will lead us back to prosperity, and once again make us the envy of all nations. I don't know who that person will be. But I am quite certain of one thing: he will not be Barack Hussein Obama.
Monday, May 2, 2011
And Justice For All
I take one week off from my blog to prepare for some intense job interviews and all hell breaks loose! There's a royal wedding, more theatrics from The Donald, a strike on Gadhafi's compound that kills his son and grandchildren, all followed by two once-in-a-lifetime events that occurred on the same day. Mr. Trump will have to wait, for there are far more important things to talk about now.
Yesterday in Rome, over one million Catholics gathered to celebrate the beatification of Pope John Paul II. Blessed Pope John Paul II is now but one step away from sainthood. If the Vatican is able to confirm one more miracle attributed to him, then he will be canonized. Several claims have already been made, and I would wager that at least one will be confirmed. It's only a matter of time, most likely five or six years, before we start referring to our great pontiff as Pope Saint John Paul II.
I had the incredible honor of meeting him at Sacred Heart Cathedral in Newark during his visit to America in October of 1995. It was without question the most memorable day of my life, as I can still recall being screened by Secret Service agents as I walked into the cathedral at noon for a 5:30 evening prayer service. Several celebrities were there, including Bob Hope and Joe Piscopo, and eventually President Bill Clinton and the first lady arrived as well.
I can't even begin to describe the aura of the cathedral as the pope made his entrance. You knew something special was happening. You felt it in the air. One simply can't put it into words; it has to be experienced firsthand. I can tell you this much. That same feeling did not surface when the president strolled into his pew. It was as if the most powerful man on the planet was any other citizen on that day. His presence paled in comparison to that of the Holy Father, and by a wide margin at that.
I will always remember meeting the man to face to face, shaking his hand, and looking into his eyes. Those eyes were full of life, and they served to divert attention away from his failing health, which was already becoming somewhat apparent. He gave me a rosary which he blessed, and thankfully a photographer from the Vatican was there to snap a picture of my encounter with him. To this day, it remains the greatest moment of my life. Perhaps one day I can say that I held the hand of a saint.
But just as one thought this momentous occasion would dominate the news coverage throughout the day and well into the next, the unthinkable happened. President Obama announced late last night that U.S. special forces killed Osama bin Laden in a raid on his compound. Celebrations broke out throughout the country, from Washington to New York to the Mets-Phillies game in Philadelphia. All of a sudden, one of the rarest and most monumental of events in history was forced to take a backseat to the story of how America finally brought justice to the most reviled terrorist in the world.
Today, I can't stop thinking about how the most evil of men was killed on the same day that the most holy of men was elevated. Is it a coincidence? Note that when I pose this question, I do not mean to infer that Blessed Pope John Paul II had anything to do with the killing of bin Laden. What I am saying is that maybe there is a message hidden in there somewhere.
Perhaps it's God's way of telling us that in the end, there will be justice for all. How many times has it been said in the Scriptures that the wicked shall perish, while the just will prosper? When I first realized the magnitude of what occurred yesterday, it sent a shiver down my spine. I firmly do believe that God meant to send us all a message, and we'd be wise to heed it.
Today, we thank God for the gift of the legacy of Blessed Pope John Paul II, and for the justice administered to Osama bin Laden. Both are reasons to be grateful, and both are lessons we can learn from. For those of us who lived it, we'll never forget the date of May 1, 2011. Hopefully we'll always remember the message behind it as well.
Yesterday in Rome, over one million Catholics gathered to celebrate the beatification of Pope John Paul II. Blessed Pope John Paul II is now but one step away from sainthood. If the Vatican is able to confirm one more miracle attributed to him, then he will be canonized. Several claims have already been made, and I would wager that at least one will be confirmed. It's only a matter of time, most likely five or six years, before we start referring to our great pontiff as Pope Saint John Paul II.
I had the incredible honor of meeting him at Sacred Heart Cathedral in Newark during his visit to America in October of 1995. It was without question the most memorable day of my life, as I can still recall being screened by Secret Service agents as I walked into the cathedral at noon for a 5:30 evening prayer service. Several celebrities were there, including Bob Hope and Joe Piscopo, and eventually President Bill Clinton and the first lady arrived as well.
I can't even begin to describe the aura of the cathedral as the pope made his entrance. You knew something special was happening. You felt it in the air. One simply can't put it into words; it has to be experienced firsthand. I can tell you this much. That same feeling did not surface when the president strolled into his pew. It was as if the most powerful man on the planet was any other citizen on that day. His presence paled in comparison to that of the Holy Father, and by a wide margin at that.
I will always remember meeting the man to face to face, shaking his hand, and looking into his eyes. Those eyes were full of life, and they served to divert attention away from his failing health, which was already becoming somewhat apparent. He gave me a rosary which he blessed, and thankfully a photographer from the Vatican was there to snap a picture of my encounter with him. To this day, it remains the greatest moment of my life. Perhaps one day I can say that I held the hand of a saint.
But just as one thought this momentous occasion would dominate the news coverage throughout the day and well into the next, the unthinkable happened. President Obama announced late last night that U.S. special forces killed Osama bin Laden in a raid on his compound. Celebrations broke out throughout the country, from Washington to New York to the Mets-Phillies game in Philadelphia. All of a sudden, one of the rarest and most monumental of events in history was forced to take a backseat to the story of how America finally brought justice to the most reviled terrorist in the world.
Today, I can't stop thinking about how the most evil of men was killed on the same day that the most holy of men was elevated. Is it a coincidence? Note that when I pose this question, I do not mean to infer that Blessed Pope John Paul II had anything to do with the killing of bin Laden. What I am saying is that maybe there is a message hidden in there somewhere.
Perhaps it's God's way of telling us that in the end, there will be justice for all. How many times has it been said in the Scriptures that the wicked shall perish, while the just will prosper? When I first realized the magnitude of what occurred yesterday, it sent a shiver down my spine. I firmly do believe that God meant to send us all a message, and we'd be wise to heed it.
Today, we thank God for the gift of the legacy of Blessed Pope John Paul II, and for the justice administered to Osama bin Laden. Both are reasons to be grateful, and both are lessons we can learn from. For those of us who lived it, we'll never forget the date of May 1, 2011. Hopefully we'll always remember the message behind it as well.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Oddsmakers' Jobs Are Safe From Krauthammer
Last week, Pulitzer award-winning journalist and conservative columnist, Dr. Charles Krauthammer, laid out his early lines for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. As you can tell from the title of this post, I did not agree with them at all.
Where do I even begin? For starters, he lists Tea Party darling Michele Bachmann at 20-1. Granted, I am a big fan of hers and her views are completely in line with everything I hold dear. But the fact is that Ms. Bachmann, much like President Obama, has absolutely no executive experience on her resume. To borrow the phrase from U.S. Congressman Colonel Allen West (R-Florida), she has never even run a lemonade stand.
She served as a state senator for six years and has been a member of the U.S. House of Representives for four years. How can anyone argue that she is ready for the presidency? Given the way Republicans have bashed Obama for his lack of executive experience and leadership skills, they'd be foolish to even consider nominating her in 2012. She may be raising a lot of money and will certainly get a lot of support from the Tea Party, but I'm putting her odds of winning the nomination at 100-1 at best. Yes, that's just a tad longer than those laid out by Krauthammer.
Dr. Krauthammer lists two former U.S. governors, Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty, as his favorites at 5-1. He rightly points out that Romney has tons of public and private sector executive experience, and uses a brilliant analogy to describe the major liability of Romneycare. Krauthammer calls Romney "Secretariat at Belmont, but ridden by Minnesota Fats."
As for Pawlenty, he is described as the "mouse that roars" who "could be the last man standing." But it is my view that neither Romney nor Pawlenty have the charisma necessary to win the nomination. Whether you like Obama or not, disagree with his views or not, you have to admit that he is a charismatic politician. The GOP can't afford to nominate someone who pales in comparison in this category, and that is why I see Romney and Pawlenty as having much longer odds, say 20-1.
What really shocked me though about Krauthammer's column is the way in which he lambasted Donald Trump. He said that he was more of a spectacle than a serious candidate. He even went so far as to call him "a provocateur and a clown, the Republicans’ Al Sharpton." Krauthammer finished his thought by saying that the Lions have a better chance of winning the Super Bowl than Trump does of winning the GOP nomination.
I really don't get the comparison to Al Sharpton. First of all, Sharpton, to use the phrase yet again, never even ran a lemonade stand. His executive experience is infinitesimal compared to that of Trump, making the Donald a far superior candidate for the presidency. Moreover, when did Sharpton ever finish atop the polls when he ran for president? Never. Meanwhile, Trump's views and candid comments are resonating with voters, enabling him to finish tied in the top spot with Mike Huckabee in a recent poll. Krauthammer doesn't even give a line on Trump, but I'll list him as one of the favorites at 10-1.
The rest of the field was handicapped as such: Mitch Daniels at 6-1, Haley Barbour at 7-1, and Newt Gingrich at 12-1. Krauthammer does not believe that either Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee will run, so he did not list odds for either one. Although I agree with Gingrich at 12-1, I think Daniels and Barbour should be listed down there with Romney and Pawlenty at 20-1. If Huckabee decides to run, I'd have him as the overall favorite in this race at 5-1, and I'd list Governor Palin at 15-1.
Only time will tell which one of us is more accurate, and come August of next year, I'll be sure to take a look back and see whose odds were more on target. In the meantime, anyone care to place a bet?
Where do I even begin? For starters, he lists Tea Party darling Michele Bachmann at 20-1. Granted, I am a big fan of hers and her views are completely in line with everything I hold dear. But the fact is that Ms. Bachmann, much like President Obama, has absolutely no executive experience on her resume. To borrow the phrase from U.S. Congressman Colonel Allen West (R-Florida), she has never even run a lemonade stand.
She served as a state senator for six years and has been a member of the U.S. House of Representives for four years. How can anyone argue that she is ready for the presidency? Given the way Republicans have bashed Obama for his lack of executive experience and leadership skills, they'd be foolish to even consider nominating her in 2012. She may be raising a lot of money and will certainly get a lot of support from the Tea Party, but I'm putting her odds of winning the nomination at 100-1 at best. Yes, that's just a tad longer than those laid out by Krauthammer.
Dr. Krauthammer lists two former U.S. governors, Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty, as his favorites at 5-1. He rightly points out that Romney has tons of public and private sector executive experience, and uses a brilliant analogy to describe the major liability of Romneycare. Krauthammer calls Romney "Secretariat at Belmont, but ridden by Minnesota Fats."
As for Pawlenty, he is described as the "mouse that roars" who "could be the last man standing." But it is my view that neither Romney nor Pawlenty have the charisma necessary to win the nomination. Whether you like Obama or not, disagree with his views or not, you have to admit that he is a charismatic politician. The GOP can't afford to nominate someone who pales in comparison in this category, and that is why I see Romney and Pawlenty as having much longer odds, say 20-1.
What really shocked me though about Krauthammer's column is the way in which he lambasted Donald Trump. He said that he was more of a spectacle than a serious candidate. He even went so far as to call him "a provocateur and a clown, the Republicans’ Al Sharpton." Krauthammer finished his thought by saying that the Lions have a better chance of winning the Super Bowl than Trump does of winning the GOP nomination.
I really don't get the comparison to Al Sharpton. First of all, Sharpton, to use the phrase yet again, never even ran a lemonade stand. His executive experience is infinitesimal compared to that of Trump, making the Donald a far superior candidate for the presidency. Moreover, when did Sharpton ever finish atop the polls when he ran for president? Never. Meanwhile, Trump's views and candid comments are resonating with voters, enabling him to finish tied in the top spot with Mike Huckabee in a recent poll. Krauthammer doesn't even give a line on Trump, but I'll list him as one of the favorites at 10-1.
The rest of the field was handicapped as such: Mitch Daniels at 6-1, Haley Barbour at 7-1, and Newt Gingrich at 12-1. Krauthammer does not believe that either Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee will run, so he did not list odds for either one. Although I agree with Gingrich at 12-1, I think Daniels and Barbour should be listed down there with Romney and Pawlenty at 20-1. If Huckabee decides to run, I'd have him as the overall favorite in this race at 5-1, and I'd list Governor Palin at 15-1.
Only time will tell which one of us is more accurate, and come August of next year, I'll be sure to take a look back and see whose odds were more on target. In the meantime, anyone care to place a bet?
Friday, April 22, 2011
Christ Continues to Be Crucified
Today is Good Friday, a day when we as Christians recall the crucifixion and death of our Savior and honor the sacrifice he made for our sins. And though it occurred over 2,000 years ago, the fact remains that Christ continues to be crucified to this very day.
He is crucified by the liberal media, who are quick to jump all over stories that have an anti-Christian aura to them. They take advantage of every opportunity they have to demonize the Catholic Church, and they're only too happy to devote press coverage to individuals or institutions that say things or do things to offend Christians. While Islam remains a sacred cow that the media goes out of its way to protect, Christians, especially Catholics, are viewed as targets with massive bullseyes on their backs.
He is crucified by the entertainment industry, in movies, on television, and in music. Sometimes these entities glorify views that are antithetical to Christian beliefs. Sometimes they'll cleverly disguise their agenda with veiled references. Sometimes they'll even unleash direct, overt attacks on Christianity. What I find most disturbing about it is that the entertainment industry exerts a great deal of influence on our youth, and thus on the future of our society. This can only serve to prolong the vicious cycle of secular assaults on Christian values.
He is crucified by our government, who do everything they can to push Him further and further away. Whether it's a judge who rules that nativity scenes or displays of crosses are unconstitutional, a legislator who votes in favor of a woman's right to murder her unborn child, or a public school that confiscates bibles and rosaries, it is quite evident what direction our leaders have been moving in over the past several decades.
He is crucified throughout the world by Muslims who are intolerant of other religious views. Of course, you'll never see the liberal media devote significant coverage to the many Christians who have been harassed, assaulted, tortured, and even murdered in countries like Indonesia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, and Nigeria. And to think that our armed forces have come to the rescue in an effort to liberate some of these countries, that so many of our brave men and women have given their lives to these missions...and for what? So that Muslims can persecute Christians?
Finally, Christ continues to be crucified by each and every one of us through our sins. And so, on this Good Friday, I urge all of my Christian friends to reflect on their lives and the ways in which they have crucified Christ through their own actions. By being truly sorry and making reparations for our sinful acts, we can alleviate His suffering. While we may not be able to change the situations I described above, we can help counter the evil all throughout the world by confessing our sins, doing our penance, and putting forth our best effort to emulate Christ in every way possible. Remember to bow your heads and take a moment of silence at noon today, and never forget that every crucifixion is followed by a resurrection.
He is crucified by the liberal media, who are quick to jump all over stories that have an anti-Christian aura to them. They take advantage of every opportunity they have to demonize the Catholic Church, and they're only too happy to devote press coverage to individuals or institutions that say things or do things to offend Christians. While Islam remains a sacred cow that the media goes out of its way to protect, Christians, especially Catholics, are viewed as targets with massive bullseyes on their backs.
He is crucified by the entertainment industry, in movies, on television, and in music. Sometimes these entities glorify views that are antithetical to Christian beliefs. Sometimes they'll cleverly disguise their agenda with veiled references. Sometimes they'll even unleash direct, overt attacks on Christianity. What I find most disturbing about it is that the entertainment industry exerts a great deal of influence on our youth, and thus on the future of our society. This can only serve to prolong the vicious cycle of secular assaults on Christian values.
He is crucified by our government, who do everything they can to push Him further and further away. Whether it's a judge who rules that nativity scenes or displays of crosses are unconstitutional, a legislator who votes in favor of a woman's right to murder her unborn child, or a public school that confiscates bibles and rosaries, it is quite evident what direction our leaders have been moving in over the past several decades.
He is crucified throughout the world by Muslims who are intolerant of other religious views. Of course, you'll never see the liberal media devote significant coverage to the many Christians who have been harassed, assaulted, tortured, and even murdered in countries like Indonesia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, and Nigeria. And to think that our armed forces have come to the rescue in an effort to liberate some of these countries, that so many of our brave men and women have given their lives to these missions...and for what? So that Muslims can persecute Christians?
Finally, Christ continues to be crucified by each and every one of us through our sins. And so, on this Good Friday, I urge all of my Christian friends to reflect on their lives and the ways in which they have crucified Christ through their own actions. By being truly sorry and making reparations for our sinful acts, we can alleviate His suffering. While we may not be able to change the situations I described above, we can help counter the evil all throughout the world by confessing our sins, doing our penance, and putting forth our best effort to emulate Christ in every way possible. Remember to bow your heads and take a moment of silence at noon today, and never forget that every crucifixion is followed by a resurrection.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Reflection on Holy Week
For Catholics, and perhaps for all Christians, this coming week is the most solemn time of the year. We'll be celebrating the Easter Triduum beginning this Thursday, which is Holy Thursday. On that evening we will commemorate the Last Supper, and participate in a procession with the Blessed Sacrament following Mass. The following day, of course, is Good Friday, to be followed by Holy Saturday and Easter Sunday.
This is a time of year for all of us to reflect on our lives, especially the disappointments, troubles, and sorrows we've endured over the past year. It provides us with a unique opportunity to view our pain and suffering in the context of Christ's own passion and death.
All of us, no matter how hard we try to live a good life, endure pain and suffering. It's part of the human condition, and something none of us can avoid. I know I've had my fair share over the past year, losing my job, having three surgeries, mourning the loss of my grandmother, and watching helplessly as my 6 year-old nephew was diagnosed with a horrible disease. I think all of us have a year like that at some point during our lives.
But no matter how difficult the struggle may be, we can take comfort in the fact that we are not alone. God Himself knows our suffering. He put Himself in our position by taking the form of a man, and then accepting and even embracing a tragic, brutal death. The agony in the garden, the scourging at the pillar, the crowning with thorns, the carrying of the cross, and the crucifixion form the five sorrowful mysteries of the Holy Rosary, and they paint for us the picture of the extreme affliction Christ suffered during his last hours.
For me, it is a comfort to know that God understands our pain. He has been there before, and He knows exactly what we are going through. In fact, He knows a lot more about it than us, because His fate was far more painful and cruel than anything we will ever endure throughout the course of our lives.
But the greatest part about it all has to do with what followed this historic atrocity. Though a righteous man who lived his life for others was unjustly accused, convicted, tortured, and executed, the final result was greater than anyone could have ever imagined. For it is the Resurrection of Christ that gives us hope and strengthens our faith in times of trial.
As human beings, we experience suffering and death in many forms. Whether the loss of a loved one or a friend, the end of a marriage or long-term relationship, the loss of employment, or the loss of our homes and other possessions we hold dear, death manifests itself in many ways. But no matter what shape it takes, death can and will ultimately be succeeded by a resurrection.
I can sense that my resurrection is coming. Signs are popping up that this difficult, arduous time in my life is coming to an end, and that a transition to a new stage is already in process. I anticipate that this will be accompanied by a renewed sense of joy, one which will be greatly welcome! How amazing it is that this is all happening during this time of year, when Easter is fast approaching and the Resurrection of Christ will be celebrated around the world.
I hope that all of you who have suffered over the past year can also take solace in this, and that you too realize that no matter how great the pain, a resurrection will come. It may already be on its way. Hang in there, and to all of my Christian friends, Happy Holy Week!
This is a time of year for all of us to reflect on our lives, especially the disappointments, troubles, and sorrows we've endured over the past year. It provides us with a unique opportunity to view our pain and suffering in the context of Christ's own passion and death.
All of us, no matter how hard we try to live a good life, endure pain and suffering. It's part of the human condition, and something none of us can avoid. I know I've had my fair share over the past year, losing my job, having three surgeries, mourning the loss of my grandmother, and watching helplessly as my 6 year-old nephew was diagnosed with a horrible disease. I think all of us have a year like that at some point during our lives.
But no matter how difficult the struggle may be, we can take comfort in the fact that we are not alone. God Himself knows our suffering. He put Himself in our position by taking the form of a man, and then accepting and even embracing a tragic, brutal death. The agony in the garden, the scourging at the pillar, the crowning with thorns, the carrying of the cross, and the crucifixion form the five sorrowful mysteries of the Holy Rosary, and they paint for us the picture of the extreme affliction Christ suffered during his last hours.
For me, it is a comfort to know that God understands our pain. He has been there before, and He knows exactly what we are going through. In fact, He knows a lot more about it than us, because His fate was far more painful and cruel than anything we will ever endure throughout the course of our lives.
But the greatest part about it all has to do with what followed this historic atrocity. Though a righteous man who lived his life for others was unjustly accused, convicted, tortured, and executed, the final result was greater than anyone could have ever imagined. For it is the Resurrection of Christ that gives us hope and strengthens our faith in times of trial.
As human beings, we experience suffering and death in many forms. Whether the loss of a loved one or a friend, the end of a marriage or long-term relationship, the loss of employment, or the loss of our homes and other possessions we hold dear, death manifests itself in many ways. But no matter what shape it takes, death can and will ultimately be succeeded by a resurrection.
I can sense that my resurrection is coming. Signs are popping up that this difficult, arduous time in my life is coming to an end, and that a transition to a new stage is already in process. I anticipate that this will be accompanied by a renewed sense of joy, one which will be greatly welcome! How amazing it is that this is all happening during this time of year, when Easter is fast approaching and the Resurrection of Christ will be celebrated around the world.
I hope that all of you who have suffered over the past year can also take solace in this, and that you too realize that no matter how great the pain, a resurrection will come. It may already be on its way. Hang in there, and to all of my Christian friends, Happy Holy Week!
Friday, April 15, 2011
Time for the Church to Get Tough With "Catholic" Politicians
Those who know me are well aware that I am a blue-blood Catholic to the heart. Always have been and always will be. I embrace the teaching of the Church, from Her doctrines on abortion to euthanasia to the Immaculate Conception of Mary to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
But just because I pray every day, go to Mass every Sunday, and do my best to live out my Catholic faith on a daily basis doesn't mean that I have to defend my bishops in each and every thing they do. Lord knows they've made several mistakes, and as human beings they will continue to do so.
One thing I've been saying for years is that the Church needs to involve itself more in the ongoing debates that have shaped and will continue to shape our society. Too many of our bishops are content to hide in their cathedrals, and though they often give the impression that they're taking an active role in policy-making, in reality they aren't doing all they can do.
There are many leaders in our government who call themselves Catholics. They go to Church on Sunday with their families, put their money in the collection basket, and give everyone the impression that they're devout followers of Christ. Yet when they go into the chamber of the statehouse or the Capitol to cast a vote on a hot-button social issue, whether abortion, euthanasia, or gay marriage, they go against the teaching of the Church. How do they justify this?
What they have said is this. While they may personally be opposed to abortion or gay marriage, they have to represent the majority of their constituents and need to set their personal beliefs aside. Do you buy that? If so, then I have a bridge to sell you.
The logic in that statement is flawed for several reasons. First of all, if you are really the devout Catholic you proclaim yourself to be, how can you go against your conscience? In reality, what you're doing is selling out. Second, if your constituents elected you and they're aware of your faith, why would you go against the teachings of that faith? Weren't they aware that they were getting a Catholic in office? Unless of course you ran on the platform of, "I won't let my beliefs interfere with the job." In which case you're selling out again.
Third, engaging in this practice means you believe that morality is subjective. Abortion may be wrong for you, but it doesn't have to be wrong for anyone else. Well, that's just totally bogus. Any evil act, whether murder, robbery, rape, or adultery is wrong regardless of who commits it. It can't be right for one and wrong for another. Morality is objective, not subjective. Unless of course you think that the Muslim terrorists who truly believe they're right in killing infidels through suicide bombings and beheadings are justified in their actions.
The bottom line is that politicians who play this game are the biggest phonies of them all. They want society to perceive them as loyal Catholics who go to Church with their families. They want to be viewed as good stewards who donate their time, talent, and treasure. But they also want to remain popular enough to hold public office so they can remain in a position of power, authority, and high social status. Does this sound like a sellout to you? Sure seems that way to me.
You can't have it both ways. But the Church is letting them do it. Why? You got me.
Here's a recent example that illustrates my point perfectly. Last month, the Maryland House of Delegates killed a bill that sought to legalize gay marriage. That's the good news. The bad news is that several "Catholic" politicians in Maryland's state government stood on the wrong side of the issue. I find that extremely distressing.
Governor Martin O'Malley, a graduate of the Catholic University of America and a parishioner at St. Mary's in Annapolis, promised to sign the bill if it got to his desk. Speaker Mike Busch, a graduate of St. Mary's High School who actually returned to his alma mater to teach before seeking public office, was very outspoken in endorsing the bill. And who was the bill's original sponsor? None other than State Senator Richard Madaleno, a graduate of Georgetown Preparatory School.
Supposedly all of these men met with Church leaders to discuss the bill before it was introduced. But it's clear that this was nothing more than a formality. They did what they felt they had to do to give the Church the impression that they're listening. They did what they needed to do to justify their own actions as "Catholics." But they knew all along what they were going to do, and they went ahead and did it. That is, they tried, but in the end they failed.
In response to this travesty, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, lamented the apparent lack of clarity and conviction in the Archdiocese's catechesis on marriage. Alright, that's a start. I agree wholeheartedly with him that the Church needs to be more firm and more clear in articulating Her doctrine on faith and morals. But how does that remedy the current situation?
U.S. Bishops need to take a stand, once and for all. They need to form a united front against the assault on the Church and on Her teachings, and they need to start hitting back. They allow themselves to be played for fools, standing back and watching while politicians like O'Malley, Busch, and Madaleno leave their Catholic faith at the statehouse entrance. Why do they continue to do this?
I suppose it could be that they would argue that Jesus would never publicly condemn or excommunicate these men. After all, he was loving, kind, gentle, merciful, and compassionate.
While Christ was all of those things, he was also quick to stand up for the truth, even when it meant scolding those who were in power. He didn't hesitate to overturn the tables of the moneychangers and vendors in the temple and throw them out. Sorry, but to me this doesn't sound like a guy who would let these politicians get away with what they're doing. Did he not say that with great power comes great responsibility? He'd call them out on it, at the very least. Our bishops won't even do that.
I've heard it said that the bishops are also afraid of the negative publicity that would come with such a move. No doubt there would be a backlash from the liberal media, but they already bash the Church whenever the opportunity presents itself. So how could taking a stand against hypocritical politicians possibly make things worse?
Another possibility, and one I try not to think about for fear that it may be the correct answer to my question, is that they don't want to alienate these leaders from their parishes. Chances are they donate a great deal of money to the Church, and there is a certain status that is associated with having the governor or speaker sitting in your pews every Sunday. But does this really mean we should kowtow to them? If so, then our bishops are selling out every bit as much as the politicians.
One point no one can argue is that religion does not have nearly as prominent a place in our society as it did in the first half of the 20th century. Granted, there are many, many reasons for that. But unless our bishops stop subscribing to the doctrine of wimpism, we're never going to regain that prominence.
Allow me to conclude with this. To me, the most misunderstood passage in the gospels is the one where Jesus utters, "Turn the other cheek." It has become a hallmark for Christians over the years, but its meaning has been completely twisted by the faulty translation.
Jesus never said, "Turn the other cheek." What he said was, "If someone slaps you on your right cheek, then give him your left cheek." How is that different, you ask? Well, just as it is today, back then the vast majority of people were right-handed. In order to slap someone on the right cheek, you'd have to give them a backhand slap.
Striking someone with the back of your hand is demeaning. It's as if you're dismissing the person completely, implying that they're somehow beneath you. So what Jesus meant is this. Don't let anyone belittle you. Don't let anyone make you out to be less than who you are. Stand up for yourself. And though he may not have actually said it, I believe he'd like for us to hit back if the onslaught continued.
And that is what our bishops need to do. Start hitting back. Speak out against these politicians. Condemn their actions. You don't have to issue a proclamation that they're going to hell. Just tell the world how hypocritical they are. Tell them that they have no business receiving Communion when they show up in Church on Sunday. These are the things we need to start doing if we're ever going to be relevant again. Otherwise, the entire world will go to hell: literally and figuratively.
But just because I pray every day, go to Mass every Sunday, and do my best to live out my Catholic faith on a daily basis doesn't mean that I have to defend my bishops in each and every thing they do. Lord knows they've made several mistakes, and as human beings they will continue to do so.
One thing I've been saying for years is that the Church needs to involve itself more in the ongoing debates that have shaped and will continue to shape our society. Too many of our bishops are content to hide in their cathedrals, and though they often give the impression that they're taking an active role in policy-making, in reality they aren't doing all they can do.
There are many leaders in our government who call themselves Catholics. They go to Church on Sunday with their families, put their money in the collection basket, and give everyone the impression that they're devout followers of Christ. Yet when they go into the chamber of the statehouse or the Capitol to cast a vote on a hot-button social issue, whether abortion, euthanasia, or gay marriage, they go against the teaching of the Church. How do they justify this?
What they have said is this. While they may personally be opposed to abortion or gay marriage, they have to represent the majority of their constituents and need to set their personal beliefs aside. Do you buy that? If so, then I have a bridge to sell you.
The logic in that statement is flawed for several reasons. First of all, if you are really the devout Catholic you proclaim yourself to be, how can you go against your conscience? In reality, what you're doing is selling out. Second, if your constituents elected you and they're aware of your faith, why would you go against the teachings of that faith? Weren't they aware that they were getting a Catholic in office? Unless of course you ran on the platform of, "I won't let my beliefs interfere with the job." In which case you're selling out again.
Third, engaging in this practice means you believe that morality is subjective. Abortion may be wrong for you, but it doesn't have to be wrong for anyone else. Well, that's just totally bogus. Any evil act, whether murder, robbery, rape, or adultery is wrong regardless of who commits it. It can't be right for one and wrong for another. Morality is objective, not subjective. Unless of course you think that the Muslim terrorists who truly believe they're right in killing infidels through suicide bombings and beheadings are justified in their actions.
The bottom line is that politicians who play this game are the biggest phonies of them all. They want society to perceive them as loyal Catholics who go to Church with their families. They want to be viewed as good stewards who donate their time, talent, and treasure. But they also want to remain popular enough to hold public office so they can remain in a position of power, authority, and high social status. Does this sound like a sellout to you? Sure seems that way to me.
You can't have it both ways. But the Church is letting them do it. Why? You got me.
Here's a recent example that illustrates my point perfectly. Last month, the Maryland House of Delegates killed a bill that sought to legalize gay marriage. That's the good news. The bad news is that several "Catholic" politicians in Maryland's state government stood on the wrong side of the issue. I find that extremely distressing.
Governor Martin O'Malley, a graduate of the Catholic University of America and a parishioner at St. Mary's in Annapolis, promised to sign the bill if it got to his desk. Speaker Mike Busch, a graduate of St. Mary's High School who actually returned to his alma mater to teach before seeking public office, was very outspoken in endorsing the bill. And who was the bill's original sponsor? None other than State Senator Richard Madaleno, a graduate of Georgetown Preparatory School.
Supposedly all of these men met with Church leaders to discuss the bill before it was introduced. But it's clear that this was nothing more than a formality. They did what they felt they had to do to give the Church the impression that they're listening. They did what they needed to do to justify their own actions as "Catholics." But they knew all along what they were going to do, and they went ahead and did it. That is, they tried, but in the end they failed.
In response to this travesty, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, lamented the apparent lack of clarity and conviction in the Archdiocese's catechesis on marriage. Alright, that's a start. I agree wholeheartedly with him that the Church needs to be more firm and more clear in articulating Her doctrine on faith and morals. But how does that remedy the current situation?
U.S. Bishops need to take a stand, once and for all. They need to form a united front against the assault on the Church and on Her teachings, and they need to start hitting back. They allow themselves to be played for fools, standing back and watching while politicians like O'Malley, Busch, and Madaleno leave their Catholic faith at the statehouse entrance. Why do they continue to do this?
I suppose it could be that they would argue that Jesus would never publicly condemn or excommunicate these men. After all, he was loving, kind, gentle, merciful, and compassionate.
While Christ was all of those things, he was also quick to stand up for the truth, even when it meant scolding those who were in power. He didn't hesitate to overturn the tables of the moneychangers and vendors in the temple and throw them out. Sorry, but to me this doesn't sound like a guy who would let these politicians get away with what they're doing. Did he not say that with great power comes great responsibility? He'd call them out on it, at the very least. Our bishops won't even do that.
I've heard it said that the bishops are also afraid of the negative publicity that would come with such a move. No doubt there would be a backlash from the liberal media, but they already bash the Church whenever the opportunity presents itself. So how could taking a stand against hypocritical politicians possibly make things worse?
Another possibility, and one I try not to think about for fear that it may be the correct answer to my question, is that they don't want to alienate these leaders from their parishes. Chances are they donate a great deal of money to the Church, and there is a certain status that is associated with having the governor or speaker sitting in your pews every Sunday. But does this really mean we should kowtow to them? If so, then our bishops are selling out every bit as much as the politicians.
One point no one can argue is that religion does not have nearly as prominent a place in our society as it did in the first half of the 20th century. Granted, there are many, many reasons for that. But unless our bishops stop subscribing to the doctrine of wimpism, we're never going to regain that prominence.
Allow me to conclude with this. To me, the most misunderstood passage in the gospels is the one where Jesus utters, "Turn the other cheek." It has become a hallmark for Christians over the years, but its meaning has been completely twisted by the faulty translation.
Jesus never said, "Turn the other cheek." What he said was, "If someone slaps you on your right cheek, then give him your left cheek." How is that different, you ask? Well, just as it is today, back then the vast majority of people were right-handed. In order to slap someone on the right cheek, you'd have to give them a backhand slap.
Striking someone with the back of your hand is demeaning. It's as if you're dismissing the person completely, implying that they're somehow beneath you. So what Jesus meant is this. Don't let anyone belittle you. Don't let anyone make you out to be less than who you are. Stand up for yourself. And though he may not have actually said it, I believe he'd like for us to hit back if the onslaught continued.
And that is what our bishops need to do. Start hitting back. Speak out against these politicians. Condemn their actions. You don't have to issue a proclamation that they're going to hell. Just tell the world how hypocritical they are. Tell them that they have no business receiving Communion when they show up in Church on Sunday. These are the things we need to start doing if we're ever going to be relevant again. Otherwise, the entire world will go to hell: literally and figuratively.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Edge's Retirement from WWE Proves One Thing: Pro Wrestling Is Not All That Fake
A bomb was dropped on WWE Monday Night Raw last night as Adam "Edge" Copeland announced his retirement from the WWE. It left most of the WWE Universe stunned.
Granted, he's been talking about retiring for some time now. In my blog post last week on Wrestlemania, I even mentioned that. I was surprised that they didn't use him to put Del Rio over at their biggest event of the year, considering Del Rio is one of their up and coming stars.
But no one expected this. Not even Edge. Apparently he'd been having some instances where he lost feeling in his arms. When the WWE sent him for testing, the doctors concluded that he would have to retire from wrestling immediately.
About eight years ago, Copeland suffered a serious neck injury that required his cervical vertebrae to be fused. Ultimately, it was this injury that caused him to be diagnosed with spinal stenosis, and ended a decorated 15-year career that included 14 tag team championships and 11 World Championships.
In his retirement speech last night, he started by saying, "There are a lot of people out there who don't think that the WWE hurts." He couldn't have been more right.
I've been a fan of pro wrestling for 30 years, since I was a boy. My brother and I would watch it religiously every Saturday morning, during the days when Bob Backlund was champion and the stars who graced the ring were all-time greats like Andre the Giant, Sgt. Slaughter, and Jimmy "Superfly" Snuka.
But there have been plenty of people over the years who have mocked me for being a WWE fan. "It's so fake," they'd say. "How can you watch that crap?"
Well the people who decry wrestling for being fake should try getting into the ring for a five-minute match. Then they'd see just how real it is.
Sure, when the combatants swing their fists at one another they're very careful not to knock each other's teeth out. Yes, when they stomp with their boots they're careful not to flatten their opponent's face.
But sometimes, they've been known to miss. Plenty of guys get "busted open the hard way," as they call it in the wrestling business. Broken noses, broken orbital bones, eye injuries...they're all far more common than you might think.
And if you believe that falling all over the ring and outside of it doesn't hurt, then think again. These guys take a lot of bumps in even a match that only lasts a few minutes. Learning how to fall without breaking your neck is an art in and of itself.
But once again, they sometimes miss. They may not time it perfectly enough. They may slip up, or get pushed harder by their opponent than they anticipated. So much can go wrong. And this is usually where the more serious injuries occur.
One must also keep in mind that WWE superstars log several thousand miles a week, traveling to many different locations for live events. There may only be two shows televised per week (Raw and Smackdown), but they're also doing plenty of house shows every week in addition to the TV tapings. For those who may not know, a house show is a live event that is not televised.
Those who don't understand the business also don't understand how so many pro wrestlers have died at such a young age over the past few decades. The answer is simple. For all its glory and glamour, the wrestling business is one of the most demanding careers an athlete can have. The traveling, the number of events they do that force them to take bumps night in and night out...it all takes its toll. And still they have to find time to work out, keep themselves in shape, and practice polishing their in-ring skills while they're maintaining a grueling schedule.
This is what has caused so many wrestlers to turn to painkillers. Wrestling is fake, you say? Tell that to the guys who can barely get out of bed the morning after a 10-minute match. But it gets worse. The painkillers cause you to feel extremely lethargic, making it almost impossible to perform in the ring. So they take uppers along with them in order to compensate.
And that is where the trouble begins. Once you start mixing drugs, things can get ugly. If you're taking steroids or other performance-enhancing drugs to stay huge and ripped, then it's even worse. The combination of it all makes for a lethal concoction that has cost many a young wrestler his very life.
To those who have no respect for WWE or its superstars, I say you should reconsider. These people deserve respect and admiration for putting their bodies on the line night in and night out to entertain the masses. The bumps are real, the injuries are real, and I highly doubt that 99.9% of the WWE haters could last even one week in the business.
I'll be sad to see Edge go, because I've always been a big fan of his. I love his style in the ring, and his mic skills were fantastic. He didn't take steroids to try and get ahead, though he admitted trying them once and seeing after one cycle that they weren't for him. He set out to fulfill a dream he had since he was 10 years old, and he achieved it through passion, dedication, and hard work. How can you not admire someone like that?
But I am happy for one reason. I'm happy that they diagnosed this condition before the guy ended up in a wheelchair. He's still young, only 37, and he has his whole life ahead of him. It would have been a shame to see him live that life incapacitated, so at least now he can go on and do other things to be productive.
I have teased my family and friends over the years about becoming a WWE superstar myself. I'd be lying if I said that I didn't at least think about it from time to time. But when I look back, I have to say that I'm glad I never pursued that dream. I'm not sure the hectic travel schedule and the physical toll it takes on one's body would have been something I'd been enthusiastic about.
That's why I respect the men and women of WWE who get into that ring and put their bodies on the line. Those who don't should have just one conversation with Adam Copeland, and I think they'd quickly change their mind. Good luck, Edge, in whatever you decide to do. You'll be missed.
Granted, he's been talking about retiring for some time now. In my blog post last week on Wrestlemania, I even mentioned that. I was surprised that they didn't use him to put Del Rio over at their biggest event of the year, considering Del Rio is one of their up and coming stars.
But no one expected this. Not even Edge. Apparently he'd been having some instances where he lost feeling in his arms. When the WWE sent him for testing, the doctors concluded that he would have to retire from wrestling immediately.
About eight years ago, Copeland suffered a serious neck injury that required his cervical vertebrae to be fused. Ultimately, it was this injury that caused him to be diagnosed with spinal stenosis, and ended a decorated 15-year career that included 14 tag team championships and 11 World Championships.
In his retirement speech last night, he started by saying, "There are a lot of people out there who don't think that the WWE hurts." He couldn't have been more right.
I've been a fan of pro wrestling for 30 years, since I was a boy. My brother and I would watch it religiously every Saturday morning, during the days when Bob Backlund was champion and the stars who graced the ring were all-time greats like Andre the Giant, Sgt. Slaughter, and Jimmy "Superfly" Snuka.
But there have been plenty of people over the years who have mocked me for being a WWE fan. "It's so fake," they'd say. "How can you watch that crap?"
Well the people who decry wrestling for being fake should try getting into the ring for a five-minute match. Then they'd see just how real it is.
Sure, when the combatants swing their fists at one another they're very careful not to knock each other's teeth out. Yes, when they stomp with their boots they're careful not to flatten their opponent's face.
But sometimes, they've been known to miss. Plenty of guys get "busted open the hard way," as they call it in the wrestling business. Broken noses, broken orbital bones, eye injuries...they're all far more common than you might think.
And if you believe that falling all over the ring and outside of it doesn't hurt, then think again. These guys take a lot of bumps in even a match that only lasts a few minutes. Learning how to fall without breaking your neck is an art in and of itself.
But once again, they sometimes miss. They may not time it perfectly enough. They may slip up, or get pushed harder by their opponent than they anticipated. So much can go wrong. And this is usually where the more serious injuries occur.
One must also keep in mind that WWE superstars log several thousand miles a week, traveling to many different locations for live events. There may only be two shows televised per week (Raw and Smackdown), but they're also doing plenty of house shows every week in addition to the TV tapings. For those who may not know, a house show is a live event that is not televised.
Those who don't understand the business also don't understand how so many pro wrestlers have died at such a young age over the past few decades. The answer is simple. For all its glory and glamour, the wrestling business is one of the most demanding careers an athlete can have. The traveling, the number of events they do that force them to take bumps night in and night out...it all takes its toll. And still they have to find time to work out, keep themselves in shape, and practice polishing their in-ring skills while they're maintaining a grueling schedule.
This is what has caused so many wrestlers to turn to painkillers. Wrestling is fake, you say? Tell that to the guys who can barely get out of bed the morning after a 10-minute match. But it gets worse. The painkillers cause you to feel extremely lethargic, making it almost impossible to perform in the ring. So they take uppers along with them in order to compensate.
And that is where the trouble begins. Once you start mixing drugs, things can get ugly. If you're taking steroids or other performance-enhancing drugs to stay huge and ripped, then it's even worse. The combination of it all makes for a lethal concoction that has cost many a young wrestler his very life.
To those who have no respect for WWE or its superstars, I say you should reconsider. These people deserve respect and admiration for putting their bodies on the line night in and night out to entertain the masses. The bumps are real, the injuries are real, and I highly doubt that 99.9% of the WWE haters could last even one week in the business.
I'll be sad to see Edge go, because I've always been a big fan of his. I love his style in the ring, and his mic skills were fantastic. He didn't take steroids to try and get ahead, though he admitted trying them once and seeing after one cycle that they weren't for him. He set out to fulfill a dream he had since he was 10 years old, and he achieved it through passion, dedication, and hard work. How can you not admire someone like that?
But I am happy for one reason. I'm happy that they diagnosed this condition before the guy ended up in a wheelchair. He's still young, only 37, and he has his whole life ahead of him. It would have been a shame to see him live that life incapacitated, so at least now he can go on and do other things to be productive.
I have teased my family and friends over the years about becoming a WWE superstar myself. I'd be lying if I said that I didn't at least think about it from time to time. But when I look back, I have to say that I'm glad I never pursued that dream. I'm not sure the hectic travel schedule and the physical toll it takes on one's body would have been something I'd been enthusiastic about.
That's why I respect the men and women of WWE who get into that ring and put their bodies on the line. Those who don't should have just one conversation with Adam Copeland, and I think they'd quickly change their mind. Good luck, Edge, in whatever you decide to do. You'll be missed.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Boehner Gets the Job Done
In my blog post last Friday, I said unequivocally that I would not want to be John Boehner. In my estimation, the House Speaker was caught in between a rock and a hard place, and I didn't see any way out of it. But kudos to him, for he not only found an escape, but he also scored a major victory for the Republican party.
I know that Tea Party members are crying and screaming that the budget cuts are a mere drop in the ocean of debt, and they're right. But what else could the Speaker have done? The fact is that the GOP only controls one half of one third of the federal government. You don't have to be a math major to figure out what this equation means. When it comes to the White House and Capitol Hill, Democrats > Republicans.
But despite that imbalance, Boehner somehow managed to tip the scales in favor of the GOP. Our starting point was $61 billion. The Democrats starting point was $0. The final amount of cuts made totals $38.5 billion. Again, simple arithmetic can tell you who got the better end of that deal.
Stll, reactions were mixed among many prominent Republicans. On his weekly Fox News show over the weekend, Mike Huckabee praised the deal and couldn't give John Boehner enough accolades. He said that it was the best we could have done under the circumstances, and that the Republicans should claim victory and move on. Newt Gingrich and Haley Barbour commented that it was a good starting point, though we still had a long way to go.
But others weren't as quick to hail the budget agreement. Rick Santorum didn't even mention it in a campaign speech, and both Rand Paul and Michele Bachmann decried the deal, even voting against the measure in the House.
And that, my friends, is where John Boehner will be a far more effective House Speaker than Nancy Pelosi ever was. Pelosi was known to crack the whip much more frequently and severely than she should have, forcing many of her Democratic colleagues to vote in favor of bills that were unpopular in their districts. There is no question that her tactics backfired, and her two-year reign of terror was definitely a factor in the Republicans' landslide victories last November.
Boehner, on the other hand, is playing it much cooler. He understands that the Tea Party caucus was elected to impose massive spending cuts in Washington. He knows that they have to stand their ground and stick to their guns. He also knew that he had enough votes to pass his budget deal, so rather than crack the whip, he essentially told the Tea Party reps, "Do what you have to do."
I agree with Mike Huckabee that the Republicans need to step up immediately and publicly proclaim this as a victory for them and the taxpayers. It may be only a small step in the right direction, but it's a step nonetheless.
Those who urged the Republicans not to compromise were misguided. Given the current state of Washington, nothing less than compromise was going to get a deal done. If we don't want to compromise and we want to see trillions cut from the budget instead of billions, then there are two things we need to do. Get Obama out of the White House, and oust the 23 Democratic Senators who are up for re-election. Neither of those can happen until next year, so for now we have to live with not getting everything that we want.
The 2011 budget battle was only round one in what promises to be a real slobberknocker. The more arduous tasks lie ahead, namely the debate on whether to raise the debt ceiling and the process of approving a budget for 2012.
We already know what to expect from the Democrats. We got a glimpse of their strategy last week, when they accused the GOP of putting women's lives at risk and seeing to it that seniors would starve. This is how they operate. They turn every ideological battle into an emotional one because their logic is totally flawed. All they could do is implement scare tactics and say ridiculous things on the Senate floor, like how a certain Senate Majority Leader's nine granddaughters might be deprived mammograms due to budget cuts by the big, bad Republicans. Give me a break.
Things like this will be magnified a thousand times when Paul Ryan's 2012 budget is presented in the House. It includes major reforms to entitlement programs, tax cuts, and is projected to yield $6 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade. That promises to be a lightning rod for more vicious, despicable attacks from Democrats, who will paint Ryan as the grim reaper and warn all Americans of impending doom and gloom.
And let's not forget that the Tea Party caucus is going to say that even Ryan's budget doesn't go far enough. There is talk of an alternative plan that was formed by some House Republicans, one that makes more cuts and balances the budget in far less time. Here we go again.
But the battle over the debt ceiling is the more pressing matter, as Tim Geithner has announced that America will reach its debt limit by mid-May at the latest. That's only one month away, so expect more rancor from Capitol Hill over the next few weeks.
Oh, and one last note. In my post "London Bridge is Falling Down," dated two weeks ago (that would be Monday, March 28th), I said the following in regard to the budget deal: "My best guess is that the final number will be between $30 billion and $40 billion, but most likely at the higher end of that range."
Remember, the doctor is always right. ;)
I know that Tea Party members are crying and screaming that the budget cuts are a mere drop in the ocean of debt, and they're right. But what else could the Speaker have done? The fact is that the GOP only controls one half of one third of the federal government. You don't have to be a math major to figure out what this equation means. When it comes to the White House and Capitol Hill, Democrats > Republicans.
But despite that imbalance, Boehner somehow managed to tip the scales in favor of the GOP. Our starting point was $61 billion. The Democrats starting point was $0. The final amount of cuts made totals $38.5 billion. Again, simple arithmetic can tell you who got the better end of that deal.
Stll, reactions were mixed among many prominent Republicans. On his weekly Fox News show over the weekend, Mike Huckabee praised the deal and couldn't give John Boehner enough accolades. He said that it was the best we could have done under the circumstances, and that the Republicans should claim victory and move on. Newt Gingrich and Haley Barbour commented that it was a good starting point, though we still had a long way to go.
But others weren't as quick to hail the budget agreement. Rick Santorum didn't even mention it in a campaign speech, and both Rand Paul and Michele Bachmann decried the deal, even voting against the measure in the House.
And that, my friends, is where John Boehner will be a far more effective House Speaker than Nancy Pelosi ever was. Pelosi was known to crack the whip much more frequently and severely than she should have, forcing many of her Democratic colleagues to vote in favor of bills that were unpopular in their districts. There is no question that her tactics backfired, and her two-year reign of terror was definitely a factor in the Republicans' landslide victories last November.
Boehner, on the other hand, is playing it much cooler. He understands that the Tea Party caucus was elected to impose massive spending cuts in Washington. He knows that they have to stand their ground and stick to their guns. He also knew that he had enough votes to pass his budget deal, so rather than crack the whip, he essentially told the Tea Party reps, "Do what you have to do."
I agree with Mike Huckabee that the Republicans need to step up immediately and publicly proclaim this as a victory for them and the taxpayers. It may be only a small step in the right direction, but it's a step nonetheless.
Those who urged the Republicans not to compromise were misguided. Given the current state of Washington, nothing less than compromise was going to get a deal done. If we don't want to compromise and we want to see trillions cut from the budget instead of billions, then there are two things we need to do. Get Obama out of the White House, and oust the 23 Democratic Senators who are up for re-election. Neither of those can happen until next year, so for now we have to live with not getting everything that we want.
The 2011 budget battle was only round one in what promises to be a real slobberknocker. The more arduous tasks lie ahead, namely the debate on whether to raise the debt ceiling and the process of approving a budget for 2012.
We already know what to expect from the Democrats. We got a glimpse of their strategy last week, when they accused the GOP of putting women's lives at risk and seeing to it that seniors would starve. This is how they operate. They turn every ideological battle into an emotional one because their logic is totally flawed. All they could do is implement scare tactics and say ridiculous things on the Senate floor, like how a certain Senate Majority Leader's nine granddaughters might be deprived mammograms due to budget cuts by the big, bad Republicans. Give me a break.
Things like this will be magnified a thousand times when Paul Ryan's 2012 budget is presented in the House. It includes major reforms to entitlement programs, tax cuts, and is projected to yield $6 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade. That promises to be a lightning rod for more vicious, despicable attacks from Democrats, who will paint Ryan as the grim reaper and warn all Americans of impending doom and gloom.
And let's not forget that the Tea Party caucus is going to say that even Ryan's budget doesn't go far enough. There is talk of an alternative plan that was formed by some House Republicans, one that makes more cuts and balances the budget in far less time. Here we go again.
But the battle over the debt ceiling is the more pressing matter, as Tim Geithner has announced that America will reach its debt limit by mid-May at the latest. That's only one month away, so expect more rancor from Capitol Hill over the next few weeks.
Oh, and one last note. In my post "London Bridge is Falling Down," dated two weeks ago (that would be Monday, March 28th), I said the following in regard to the budget deal: "My best guess is that the final number will be between $30 billion and $40 billion, but most likely at the higher end of that range."
Remember, the doctor is always right. ;)
Friday, April 8, 2011
When Will the Democrats Get It? We're Broke!!!
As I write this post, there are eleventh hour negotiations going on in Washington to avert the first government shutdown since 1995. I discussed the issue last week when it was announced that Republicans and Democrats were getting closer to a budget agreement. My prediction was that there would be a compromise that would result in anywhere from $30 billion to $40 billion in cuts, with the final number being closer to $40 billion. As it turns out, the Republicans are indeed holding firm at $40 billion, while the Democrats are refusing to budge from $34.5 billion.
On the surface, they're only $5.5 billion apart. Thus it would seem that an agreement can easily be worked out before midnight to keep the government running. But I'm afraid it's not that simple.
As the old adage goes, "It's quality, not quantity, that matters." The real issue has more to do with the type of cuts that are made rather than the overall amount of dollars. The GOP wants funding slashed for Planned Parenthood, National Public Radio, and Obamacare, while the Democrats are opposed to defunding any of those entities.
Democrats are attacking the GOP for infusing politics into the budget debate, stating that hot-button social issues like abortion and the healthcare bill should be set aside as we strive to pay our bills. But in reality, it is the Democrats who are playing politics.
While the Republicans have been straightforward and honest in their proposal, the Democrats have been secretive and nebulous. The GOP has not only put forth a specific number from day one, but also outlined the areas where the cuts are to be allocated. Senate Democrats never crafted a proposal with a specific number, nor have they named specific areas where cuts should be made.
And there is a very good reason for that. The left would rather let the GOP make the first move and assail them for the content of their proposal. It's impossible for the Republicans to fire back in the same manner, because the Democrats never unveiled a plan. How can you criticize the components of a proposal when you don't even know what they are?
On the exterior, Democrats are conceding that spending cuts are necessary. But they're only doing that because they have to. The voices of American voters last November reverberated throughout the halls of Congress, and even the most liberal lawmakers know that failing to agree to spending cuts would be the equivalent of political suicide.
But they're trying to have it both ways. They're saying they want cuts, but at the same time they're not showing that they're serious about it. They continue to protect liberal causes from having their budgets slashed, and they have continuously put up obstacles during the budget debate.
Meanwhile, the president has sat idly by on the sidelines, watching it all play out. He has shown throughout his term that he has no leadership ability, and would rather delegate even the most crucial of tasks rather than step up to the plate. It wasn't until this week that he actually invited congressional leaders to the White House to broker a deal. Thank you, Mr. President. It's a little late though, don't you think?
When are the Democrats going to get it through their heads that our country is over $14 trillion in debt, and that the more debt we incur, the weaker our country becomes? They continue to mortgage our children's future without giving it a second thought, as if we had an endless supply of money to keep throwing away.
This is precisely why America needs someone like Chris Christie in the White House. The governor of New Jersey has taken a novel approach to governing: be completely honest with your constituents. He has informed us all of our dire fiscal situation, when he could have just continued spending to make everyone happy and maintain the votes needed for re-election. He could have passed the buck down the line to his successors, like all the governors that came before him. But he didn't. He has taken a stand and done what is right, regardless of whether or not it's popular.
But he won't be running for the presidency in 2012. And so we need to find someone else who can take this same approach and apply it on the federal level. Someone who is honest enough and tough enough to take a stand and stop the insanity. It's easy to sell the house and get re-elected for it. Just keep spending. Give people what they want and make them happy. Leave the mess behind for someone else to clean up.
Unless we put an end to this, our country will go to hell in a hurry. In fact, as scary as it is to admit, we're almost there. Current economic forecasts have us going broke in my lifetime if we don't change the way we govern. If you had told me when I was younger that I would live to see the day when my country went bankrupt, I never would have believed you. Not in a million years.
This is no time for politics. Programs that are unnecessary need to go. There is absolutely no need to keep funding Planned Parenthood and National Public Radio. The country will manage to survive without the National Endowment for the Arts. Many of these programs are nice to have, but how can you have them if you can't afford them?
We have 14 hours to work something out, or the government will shut down and the blame game will begin. In fact, it already has. Democrats and Republicans have taken several shots at one another through the media, and that will only get worse if a deal does not get done. The key question though will be, "Who will the people ultimately blame if the government does shut down?" Will Republicans or Democrats get most of the blame? Will people hold the President accountable or make Congress the target of their anger?
I'll say this much. I really wouldn't want to be Speaker John Boehner. Not today. He is caught between Scylla and Charybdis, as whatever choice he makes will have far-reaching implications for his standing as Speaker of the House.
If he sides with the dozens of freshman lawmakers who were bolstered by the Tea Party, then it will be impossible to cut a deal with Democrats. If he compromises and agrees to less cuts and the elimination of political riders, then he will cause a split in his own party. If he decides to go ahead and pass a budget in the House with mostly Democratic votes, then he may even be ousted as Speaker.
It wasn't too long ago that we saw him shedding tears in public for his rise to prominence. It was a beautiful story of how a young boy, one of twelve children, helped out the family business by sweeping the floors of the bar that his father owned. He worked his way up the ranks to one day get elected to Congress, and then became Speaker of the House. But now, when the smoke clears from this impending debacle, he may be shedding tears for another reason.
I'm not sure which way he'll go, but it is my hope that he holds his ground and sides with the Tea Party. Despite what some may think, I don't see how a government shutdown will hurt the Republicans. After all, they put their proposal on the table. They passed their budget in the House. It is the Democratic-led Senate and our Democratic president who have done nothing but stand around with their hands in their pockets.
The American people sent a clear message last November: "Hey Washington, CUT SPENDING!" The Republicans have tried to do just that, and they can't possibly be reviled for it. At least not by the majority of American voters. Stand your ground, Mr. Boehner, and don't give in to the scare tactics. Someone has to follow Chris Christie's example, and at this point in time, it's not going to be Harry Reid or Barack Obama. It has to be you. The question is, "Are you tough enough to take the heat?" If not, then you may have to get out of the kitchen.
On the surface, they're only $5.5 billion apart. Thus it would seem that an agreement can easily be worked out before midnight to keep the government running. But I'm afraid it's not that simple.
As the old adage goes, "It's quality, not quantity, that matters." The real issue has more to do with the type of cuts that are made rather than the overall amount of dollars. The GOP wants funding slashed for Planned Parenthood, National Public Radio, and Obamacare, while the Democrats are opposed to defunding any of those entities.
Democrats are attacking the GOP for infusing politics into the budget debate, stating that hot-button social issues like abortion and the healthcare bill should be set aside as we strive to pay our bills. But in reality, it is the Democrats who are playing politics.
While the Republicans have been straightforward and honest in their proposal, the Democrats have been secretive and nebulous. The GOP has not only put forth a specific number from day one, but also outlined the areas where the cuts are to be allocated. Senate Democrats never crafted a proposal with a specific number, nor have they named specific areas where cuts should be made.
And there is a very good reason for that. The left would rather let the GOP make the first move and assail them for the content of their proposal. It's impossible for the Republicans to fire back in the same manner, because the Democrats never unveiled a plan. How can you criticize the components of a proposal when you don't even know what they are?
On the exterior, Democrats are conceding that spending cuts are necessary. But they're only doing that because they have to. The voices of American voters last November reverberated throughout the halls of Congress, and even the most liberal lawmakers know that failing to agree to spending cuts would be the equivalent of political suicide.
But they're trying to have it both ways. They're saying they want cuts, but at the same time they're not showing that they're serious about it. They continue to protect liberal causes from having their budgets slashed, and they have continuously put up obstacles during the budget debate.
Meanwhile, the president has sat idly by on the sidelines, watching it all play out. He has shown throughout his term that he has no leadership ability, and would rather delegate even the most crucial of tasks rather than step up to the plate. It wasn't until this week that he actually invited congressional leaders to the White House to broker a deal. Thank you, Mr. President. It's a little late though, don't you think?
When are the Democrats going to get it through their heads that our country is over $14 trillion in debt, and that the more debt we incur, the weaker our country becomes? They continue to mortgage our children's future without giving it a second thought, as if we had an endless supply of money to keep throwing away.
This is precisely why America needs someone like Chris Christie in the White House. The governor of New Jersey has taken a novel approach to governing: be completely honest with your constituents. He has informed us all of our dire fiscal situation, when he could have just continued spending to make everyone happy and maintain the votes needed for re-election. He could have passed the buck down the line to his successors, like all the governors that came before him. But he didn't. He has taken a stand and done what is right, regardless of whether or not it's popular.
But he won't be running for the presidency in 2012. And so we need to find someone else who can take this same approach and apply it on the federal level. Someone who is honest enough and tough enough to take a stand and stop the insanity. It's easy to sell the house and get re-elected for it. Just keep spending. Give people what they want and make them happy. Leave the mess behind for someone else to clean up.
Unless we put an end to this, our country will go to hell in a hurry. In fact, as scary as it is to admit, we're almost there. Current economic forecasts have us going broke in my lifetime if we don't change the way we govern. If you had told me when I was younger that I would live to see the day when my country went bankrupt, I never would have believed you. Not in a million years.
This is no time for politics. Programs that are unnecessary need to go. There is absolutely no need to keep funding Planned Parenthood and National Public Radio. The country will manage to survive without the National Endowment for the Arts. Many of these programs are nice to have, but how can you have them if you can't afford them?
We have 14 hours to work something out, or the government will shut down and the blame game will begin. In fact, it already has. Democrats and Republicans have taken several shots at one another through the media, and that will only get worse if a deal does not get done. The key question though will be, "Who will the people ultimately blame if the government does shut down?" Will Republicans or Democrats get most of the blame? Will people hold the President accountable or make Congress the target of their anger?
I'll say this much. I really wouldn't want to be Speaker John Boehner. Not today. He is caught between Scylla and Charybdis, as whatever choice he makes will have far-reaching implications for his standing as Speaker of the House.
If he sides with the dozens of freshman lawmakers who were bolstered by the Tea Party, then it will be impossible to cut a deal with Democrats. If he compromises and agrees to less cuts and the elimination of political riders, then he will cause a split in his own party. If he decides to go ahead and pass a budget in the House with mostly Democratic votes, then he may even be ousted as Speaker.
It wasn't too long ago that we saw him shedding tears in public for his rise to prominence. It was a beautiful story of how a young boy, one of twelve children, helped out the family business by sweeping the floors of the bar that his father owned. He worked his way up the ranks to one day get elected to Congress, and then became Speaker of the House. But now, when the smoke clears from this impending debacle, he may be shedding tears for another reason.
I'm not sure which way he'll go, but it is my hope that he holds his ground and sides with the Tea Party. Despite what some may think, I don't see how a government shutdown will hurt the Republicans. After all, they put their proposal on the table. They passed their budget in the House. It is the Democratic-led Senate and our Democratic president who have done nothing but stand around with their hands in their pockets.
The American people sent a clear message last November: "Hey Washington, CUT SPENDING!" The Republicans have tried to do just that, and they can't possibly be reviled for it. At least not by the majority of American voters. Stand your ground, Mr. Boehner, and don't give in to the scare tactics. Someone has to follow Chris Christie's example, and at this point in time, it's not going to be Harry Reid or Barack Obama. It has to be you. The question is, "Are you tough enough to take the heat?" If not, then you may have to get out of the kitchen.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
The Doctrine of Wimpism
It's hard to believe that the country is already gearing up for the 2012 presidential election. The Republican field is crowded with candidates who are jockeying for position by making frequent visits to Iowa and New Hampshire. Even President Obama announced his re-election bid earlier this week.
We already know what the hot-button issues are going to be this time around. First and foremost will be the economy. Republicans will unleash a relentless attack on Obama for his failed stimulus, out-of-control spending, and the fact that the national debt has increased significantly under his watch.
They'll also spend a lot of time and money exposing the evils of Obamacare. All the polls that indicate the majority of Americans oppose Obama's healthcare law are sure to come back to bite him, unless he conjures up some kind of miracle over the next year to win the people over.
But another major issue will be America's standing as a world superpower. Even this early in the game, potential GOP candidates are decrying Obama for bowing to other world leaders (literally and figuratively), apologizing for America's supposed past egregiousness, and his refusal to use phrases like "war on terror," even going so far as to attempt to charge the 9/11 terrorists as common criminals. Thankfully he just recently backed off from that position and will now try them in military courts.
Whether we want to admit or not, America is weaker in the eyes of the world today than arguably any other time over the past 150 years. Our military is over-extended, we are deeply in debt, and our country is sharply divided along ideological lines. They may not do so openly, but I firmly believe that countries like China and Saudi Arabia are laughing at us behind our backs.
There is no question that we are at a critical juncture in American history. If we keep going down the path we're headed, we will lose our standing as the world's dominant superpower and our children will be inheriting a very different country than the one you and I grew up in.
I don't know if you've seen the advertisement from Citizens Against Government Waste in which a Chinese professor addresses a lecture hall full of students in the year 2030. He talks about great empires that have fallen throughout history, including Rome and the British Empire. Then he brings up the United States, citing that we turned our backs on the principles that made us a great nation. We tried to tax and spend ourselves out of a recession, and failed miserably in our healthcare reform. The professor notes that China owned most of our debt and utters the line, "Of course, they work for us now." This incites rousing laughter from the dozens of Chinese students in the room.
It's enough to give you a chill down your spine for one major reason. This is something that could easily happen if we continue going the way we're going. It's rooted in reality, not fantasy.
So how do we change course and prevent this from occurring? There are many things we need to do, but one action that must take place immediately is ending once and for all what I call the "doctrine of wimpism." It's time for America to start getting tough.
We continue to allow both OPEC and China to push us around. OPEC does whatever it wants when it comes to pricing oil, even cutting production to keep prices where they want them. They have never looked out for our interests, only for their own. You might say that you can't blame them, but here's the problem. We're the first ones to come to Saudi Arabia's need when they request security for the Arabian peninsula, or when they ask us to help innocent civilians in Libya. They call, and immediately we answer.
Yet when we asked them to help us in the past as astronomical oil prices squeezed American consumers, they refused. Can someone please explain to me how this works?
Look at it this way. Say you owned a company that specialized in providing security. You have a vendor from whom you purchase all your materials: weapons, armor, technological gadgets, etc. The vendor starts having some problems with thugs who are threatening his business, and comes to you for help. You gladly provide him with the security ne needs, at no charge. Why do you do this? Because you consider him a friend in need, and you are only too glad to help.
Then the unthinkable occurs. While you're providing free security to protect his business, he suddenly doubles the prices of everything he sells you. You ask why, and you suggest ways that he might be able to keep prices down. But he basically responds by saying, "This is the way it is, and there's nothing I can do about it."
Now, tell me what you would do? Would you continue to provide free security, all the while paying the massive price increases he just slapped you with? If so, then you're a fool. I would hope that you would stand up for yourself and do one of two things. You could either charge him for the security you're providing to offset the price increase, or pull out your security people and leave him to fend for his own. On top of that, you'd do whatever you could to find another way to obtain the supplies you need for your business.
As sad as it is to say, America is the fool providing free security while our vendor (in this case, for oil) continues to jack up the prices. I cannot fathom why we allow the Arabs to take advantage of us in this way. We need a leader who will stand up to them, someone who will say, "Pay us for the security we provide, or find your own security." Believe me, that will get their attention. They'll come to the negotiating table very quickly if we gave such an ultimatum.
Then there's China. As much as President Obama wants to believe it, China is no friend of the United States. They manipulate their currency, and they take our jobs and our businesses. Since the Chinese government tramples all over the rights of its citizens, labor there is very cheap (almost slave labor, in fact), and there are virtually no environmental regulations to deal with. But instead of calling them out on it, our president would rather hold sumptuous feasts at the White House in honor of the Chinese Prime Minister.
In a recent interview with Bill O'Reilly, Donald Trump said that he would slap China with a 25% tariff. That may sound a bit harsh, but I agree with Trump that something needs to be done. We're serving as the whipping post for the world, and if we don't start standing up for ourselves, the lashes will only increase in both frequency and severity.
O'Reilly dismissed Trump's tough talk, citing that there would be repercussions for any bullish action we take against OPEC and China. But what could they possibly do to us? Will the Saudis stop selling us oil? I doubt it. We're one of their biggest customers, and they need us as much as we need them. Will China start selling U.S. bonds? Go right ahead, I say. That will hurt them as much as it would hurt us, if not more.
Get ready to watch the GOP field assail Obama for his perceived weakness as the leader of the free world. With candidates like Donald Trump in the mix, there's sure to be a lot of talk about re-establishing America's image and standing as the world's dominant superpower. Even if Trump doesn't earn the nomination, he can have a major impact if his views resonate with voters. For the winner may have to take a long, hard look at Trump's positions and consider incorporating them into his or her own platform.
It's time to stand up, America. This isn't about being a bully or even a "tough guy." It's about standing up for yourself and making sure that others don't take advantage of you. It has more to do with being smart than being aggressive or forceful. We need to once again show the world who's in charge. If we don't, then someone else will seize our crown, most likely China. There's still time to ensure that the commercial from Citizens Against Government Waste is not prophetic, but we need to act and we need to act now. It's clear that our current leader is not the one to do it, so we're going to have to find one who will in 2012. I hope and pray that we do so.
We already know what the hot-button issues are going to be this time around. First and foremost will be the economy. Republicans will unleash a relentless attack on Obama for his failed stimulus, out-of-control spending, and the fact that the national debt has increased significantly under his watch.
They'll also spend a lot of time and money exposing the evils of Obamacare. All the polls that indicate the majority of Americans oppose Obama's healthcare law are sure to come back to bite him, unless he conjures up some kind of miracle over the next year to win the people over.
But another major issue will be America's standing as a world superpower. Even this early in the game, potential GOP candidates are decrying Obama for bowing to other world leaders (literally and figuratively), apologizing for America's supposed past egregiousness, and his refusal to use phrases like "war on terror," even going so far as to attempt to charge the 9/11 terrorists as common criminals. Thankfully he just recently backed off from that position and will now try them in military courts.
Whether we want to admit or not, America is weaker in the eyes of the world today than arguably any other time over the past 150 years. Our military is over-extended, we are deeply in debt, and our country is sharply divided along ideological lines. They may not do so openly, but I firmly believe that countries like China and Saudi Arabia are laughing at us behind our backs.
There is no question that we are at a critical juncture in American history. If we keep going down the path we're headed, we will lose our standing as the world's dominant superpower and our children will be inheriting a very different country than the one you and I grew up in.
I don't know if you've seen the advertisement from Citizens Against Government Waste in which a Chinese professor addresses a lecture hall full of students in the year 2030. He talks about great empires that have fallen throughout history, including Rome and the British Empire. Then he brings up the United States, citing that we turned our backs on the principles that made us a great nation. We tried to tax and spend ourselves out of a recession, and failed miserably in our healthcare reform. The professor notes that China owned most of our debt and utters the line, "Of course, they work for us now." This incites rousing laughter from the dozens of Chinese students in the room.
It's enough to give you a chill down your spine for one major reason. This is something that could easily happen if we continue going the way we're going. It's rooted in reality, not fantasy.
So how do we change course and prevent this from occurring? There are many things we need to do, but one action that must take place immediately is ending once and for all what I call the "doctrine of wimpism." It's time for America to start getting tough.
We continue to allow both OPEC and China to push us around. OPEC does whatever it wants when it comes to pricing oil, even cutting production to keep prices where they want them. They have never looked out for our interests, only for their own. You might say that you can't blame them, but here's the problem. We're the first ones to come to Saudi Arabia's need when they request security for the Arabian peninsula, or when they ask us to help innocent civilians in Libya. They call, and immediately we answer.
Yet when we asked them to help us in the past as astronomical oil prices squeezed American consumers, they refused. Can someone please explain to me how this works?
Look at it this way. Say you owned a company that specialized in providing security. You have a vendor from whom you purchase all your materials: weapons, armor, technological gadgets, etc. The vendor starts having some problems with thugs who are threatening his business, and comes to you for help. You gladly provide him with the security ne needs, at no charge. Why do you do this? Because you consider him a friend in need, and you are only too glad to help.
Then the unthinkable occurs. While you're providing free security to protect his business, he suddenly doubles the prices of everything he sells you. You ask why, and you suggest ways that he might be able to keep prices down. But he basically responds by saying, "This is the way it is, and there's nothing I can do about it."
Now, tell me what you would do? Would you continue to provide free security, all the while paying the massive price increases he just slapped you with? If so, then you're a fool. I would hope that you would stand up for yourself and do one of two things. You could either charge him for the security you're providing to offset the price increase, or pull out your security people and leave him to fend for his own. On top of that, you'd do whatever you could to find another way to obtain the supplies you need for your business.
As sad as it is to say, America is the fool providing free security while our vendor (in this case, for oil) continues to jack up the prices. I cannot fathom why we allow the Arabs to take advantage of us in this way. We need a leader who will stand up to them, someone who will say, "Pay us for the security we provide, or find your own security." Believe me, that will get their attention. They'll come to the negotiating table very quickly if we gave such an ultimatum.
Then there's China. As much as President Obama wants to believe it, China is no friend of the United States. They manipulate their currency, and they take our jobs and our businesses. Since the Chinese government tramples all over the rights of its citizens, labor there is very cheap (almost slave labor, in fact), and there are virtually no environmental regulations to deal with. But instead of calling them out on it, our president would rather hold sumptuous feasts at the White House in honor of the Chinese Prime Minister.
In a recent interview with Bill O'Reilly, Donald Trump said that he would slap China with a 25% tariff. That may sound a bit harsh, but I agree with Trump that something needs to be done. We're serving as the whipping post for the world, and if we don't start standing up for ourselves, the lashes will only increase in both frequency and severity.
O'Reilly dismissed Trump's tough talk, citing that there would be repercussions for any bullish action we take against OPEC and China. But what could they possibly do to us? Will the Saudis stop selling us oil? I doubt it. We're one of their biggest customers, and they need us as much as we need them. Will China start selling U.S. bonds? Go right ahead, I say. That will hurt them as much as it would hurt us, if not more.
Get ready to watch the GOP field assail Obama for his perceived weakness as the leader of the free world. With candidates like Donald Trump in the mix, there's sure to be a lot of talk about re-establishing America's image and standing as the world's dominant superpower. Even if Trump doesn't earn the nomination, he can have a major impact if his views resonate with voters. For the winner may have to take a long, hard look at Trump's positions and consider incorporating them into his or her own platform.
It's time to stand up, America. This isn't about being a bully or even a "tough guy." It's about standing up for yourself and making sure that others don't take advantage of you. It has more to do with being smart than being aggressive or forceful. We need to once again show the world who's in charge. If we don't, then someone else will seize our crown, most likely China. There's still time to ensure that the commercial from Citizens Against Government Waste is not prophetic, but we need to act and we need to act now. It's clear that our current leader is not the one to do it, so we're going to have to find one who will in 2012. I hope and pray that we do so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)