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.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)