Slaying the Goliath

Slaying the Goliath Moved

2008-04-06T18:45:00.002-05:00

I have moved my blog to a new host. The new address and feed are listed below. All of the old articles have been copied there and all new articles will be there. Additionally, there is a section with an article about Slaying the Goliath and what I hope to accomplish. The article is called "A Difficult Task."

Address: http://slayingthegoliath.wordpress.com

RSS Feed: http://slayingthegoliath.wordpress.com/feed/

The American Dream

2008-04-03T20:28:00.006-05:00

This article has moved here.

Christianity Under Attack in Public Schools

2008-04-02T10:56:00.003-05:00

This article has moved here.

President Bush Highlights Democratic Hypocrisy

2008-03-27T14:47:00.003-05:00

This article has been moved here.

Death Toll Nears 50 Million Americans

2008-03-26T12:01:00.006-05:00

This article has moved here.

The Thought Police

2008-03-24T12:42:00.008-05:00

BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU.
- George Orwell, 1984

There has been a lot of talk in the various media outlets of the Left about Rush Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos.” As a participant in Operation Chaos, Republican Voters are asked to temporarily switch their party affiliation to Democrat and vote for Hilary Clinton in an effort to, above all, create chaos among the Democrats and keep them fighting amongst themselves. Then, in November, Republican voters will switch back and vote for Senator John McCain.

At first, the talking points consisted merely of how exit polls showed that Operation Chaos seemed to be working and how “unfair” and “undemocratic” it was to vote, insincerely, in the other party’s primary. (Conversely, the Left had no problem with Independents and Democrats selecting John McCain as the Republican nominee.)

Recently, however, the Leftist media has changed their talking points to accusations of mass criminal law violations of Republicans in Ohio and other states – states where voters are required to sign some sort of pledge of sincerity when the switch party affiliation. Many people are now “investigating” the possibility of brining criminal indictments against insincere Republicans who voted Democrat in Ohio. If convicted, such voters could serve jail time for violating state criminal law.

In reality, such indictments would be nearly impossible to convict, because it requires a trial court to get into the mind of a voter and determine what he or she was thinking. It is really just an effort by the media and others on the Left to scare Republican voters in upcoming primaries from doing the same, and to prevent them from helping Hilary Clinton as they did in Texas and Ohio earlier this month.

On its surface, however, attempting to criminally punish voters based on their sincerity – indeed, their very thoughts - is eerily reminiscent of George Orwell’s Thought Police in 1984. Of course, an authoritarian state with absolute control over the lives of its citizens is exactly what they Left desires in the end anyway.

The Beginnings of Socialist Healthcare

2008-03-23T13:29:00.004-05:00

In the first place God made idiots. This was for practice. Then he made school boards.
- Mark Twain

In 2003, the New Haven school system in Connecticut implemented a district-wide “wellness” program on all of its schools. Part of that program banned the buying or selling of candy on school grounds.

On February 26, 2008, eighth grade class Vice President, Michael Sheridan purchased a pack of Skittles from his friend. School officials suspended him from school for three days, removed him from his honors classes, and stripped him of his title as class Vice President - all of this for buying a pack of Skittles in violation of a school “wellness” program. Michael Sheridan has had no previous disciplinary problems.

Following the breaking of this story last week, the Mark Levin, on his nationally syndicated radio show, urged his listeners to call the New Haven school district and respectively voice their outrage. The next day, the school district reversed all disciplinary action against Michael Sheridan and his schoolmate.

The most important part of this story is that it gives us an early lesson on the things we can come to expect from Socialist Healthcare, also known as Universal Government Healthcare. In this instance, government schools decided on their own what should not be a part of a healthy student’s diet and implemented a policy to enforce it. Do Americans really want the government to decide what they can and cannot eat?

The Audacity of Barack Obama

2008-03-14T14:45:00.006-05:00

“A candidate for change.” That is how supporters describe Barack Obama on a daily basis. “Change.” How vague is that? Exactly what change can Obama bring to the United States? Perhaps we should attempt to answer this riddle by looking at Senator Obama’s legislative accomplishments. In his three years in the United States Senate, he has brought about so much change that it has left many of his supporters speechless. With so many to choose from, it is hard to name just one.

In reality, Barack Obama has no major accomplishments as a United States Senator. Does his vague promise of change actually promise no major accomplishments as presidents as well? Oh no, of course not! What Presidential candidate would fill his campaign with vacant buzzwords and clever rhetoric? Certainly not Barack Obama! He’s “a candidate for change.” Well, with no way to ascertain Obama’s vision of change in his 3 year career as a United States Senator, perhaps we should look at aspects of the man’s moral and personal life.

On the other hand, God forbid we talk about his personal life. This is a campaign about the issues. Let’s just stick to the issues. Okay, which issues? Change? Hope? Some other uniquely vague verb pulled from Webster’s dictionary at random? The truth is that we have no real way of judging Obama as a candidate besides looking into the judgments he has made during his personal life and estimating what kind of judgments he may make as President of the United States. Recently, such an investigation into Barack Obama’s personal life has been taking place, and several disturbing issues have come to light that question his legitimacy as a Presidential candidate.

The first thing that comes to my mind is his friendship with a domestic leftist terrorist. As I described previously, Barack Obama has a questionable relationship with William Ayers. William Ayers is formerly a member of the Weather Underground, a domestic terrorist organization that operated in the 1960s and 1970s. It officially declared war on the United States in 1972, and it was responsible for over 25 bombings and attempted bombings of government buildings, including the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol. It’s stated goal was the violent overthrow of the United States government in an effort to bring about the Socialist revolution; moreover, it a September 11, 2001 article in the New York Times, Ayers stated, “I don't regret setting bombs." Furthermore, I feel that we didn't do enough."

Unfortunately, Ayers was given a light prison sentence because of procedural wrongdoings, and he is now a Professor in Illinois. Obama has received campaign support of Ayers and has served on the nine member Woods Fund Board with him. According to an article in the Politico that I previously referred to, a prominent doctor in the area who knows both men referred to them as “friends.” William Ayers belongs in a prison cell for the rest of his life.

Another very questionable relationship of Barack Obama is his association with the Chicago area criminal slumlord Tony Rezko. While Obama was an up and coming politician in the Chicago area, he had a few controversial land deals with Rezko, some involving taxpayer money – including the purchase of two adjacent home lots in which Obama’s mansion and Rezko’s home now stand. Obama has since called the purchase “a mistake.”

It is hard to do worse than to associate with a domestic terrorist bent on the destruction of the United States; however, Barack Obama’s pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Write is at the top of the list with William Ayers. In a sermon given at Barack Obama’s church in 2003, Rev. Write had the following to say:

“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes three-strike laws and wants them to sing God Bless America.
No! No No! God damn America … for killing innocent people.
God damn America for threatening citizens as less than humans.
God damn America as long as she tries to act like she is God and supreme.”

Yes, these words come from Senator Barack Obama’s pastor. This is not some simple guilt-by-association. Barack Obama has been a member of this church for over 20 years. He and his family selected it. In 2006, after the above statements were made, Barack Obama donated $22,500 to his America hating pastor’s church. This pastor is very close to Barack Obama. Rev. Write did the wedding ceremony when Barack and Michelle Obama were wed. Rev. Write performed the baptism ceremony on Barack Obama’s two children. Barack Obama got the title of his book “The Audacity of Hope” from a sermon that Rev. Write gave at his church.

The outrageous nature of these remarks is not an isolated incident. In a sermon shortly after September 11, 2001, Reverend Write gave a sermon blaming America for the attacks and deaths of those 3,000 Americans, and accused our nation of committing terrorist acts across the globe. He also endorses Louis Farrakhan – an outspoken racist and Anti-Semite. He also called all black Republicans “sellouts.”

This pattern of associations undeniably puts Senator Barack Obama’s judgment in question. If he cannot see these people for the crooks, racists, terrorists, and American haters that they are, then how can he properly judge the thousands of relationships he will develop as President of the United States; furthermore, if he can see these people for what they are, then why does he keep them around. Why does he continue to associate with such outrageous characters? Either way, are these the types of people that Obama will appoint to various positions in government? Is this what Barack Obama means when he calls himself “a candidate for change?”

Eliot Spitzer Needs to Resign

2008-03-12T06:11:00.005-05:00

A couple of days ago, it was revealed to the public that Democratic Governor Eliot Spitzer was the number 9 customer in an organized international prostitution ring. It operated in cities such as New York, Washington, D.C., and London, and it charged as much as $5,500 an hour for time with some of the women. Eliot Spitzer, a man who made his career on punishing white-collar crime, gave a brief statement Monday.

He did not deny the allegations at all, nor did he resign as many pundits believed he would. In fact, his speech seemed to give every indication that he had no intention of resigning at all. He called the incident a "private matter," and further said that politics are about ideas not individuals. His wife, who stood by his side throughout the statement was clearly devastated by her husband's infidelity.

The fact that Eliot Spitzer has yet to resign shows very clearly that he is putting his love for power above his love for his family. Instead of making every effort to save his career first, he should resign and make every effort to save his marriage and regain his families trust. Several Democrats, however, have either defended or said nothing regarding the incident. Both are extremely hypocritical since Democrats were very vocal about the misdeeds of Larry Craig's foot tapping in a public bathroom and Mark Foley's e-mail's with several pages.This sort of corruption is unacceptable for any politicians on any side of the isle, especially the much worse conduct of Spitzer accompanied by more evidence than he can afford to deny.

It is interesting to note that Eliot Spitzer is a Super Delegate who has pledged his support for Democratic Presidential candidate Hilary Clinton. Hilary Clinton has not denounced Spitzer's conduct or commented on him since the story broke on Monday. The Democrats, and the Left will of course continue to do their best to deny that Spizer did anything wrong or to cover it up. When MSNBC originally announced the story on Monday, they made no mention of Spitzer's party affiliation. The New York Times originally mentioned his party affiliation in paragraph 3 of their story, but they later revised their story, making no mention of his affiliation until paragraph 15.

McCain Secures Republican Nomination

2008-03-05T18:39:00.006-06:00

Last night, Senator John McCain secured enough delegates in the Republican Presidential Primary to secure the nomination. After weeks of running past the point of no victory, Governor Mike Huckabee finally dropped out. As I have stated in previous articles, McCain should now begin the process of securing the Republican base - namely the Conservatives who have been highly critical. I won't, again, go into how he can go about doing that; however, I would like to make a few comments about his victory speech.

He certainly sounded like a conservative at odds with the Left. It was, in fact, one of his most eloquent speeches to date. His discussed victory in Iraq and Afghanistan, not retreat. He promised to lower taxes and regulations for business and attacked Democrats who believe they can keep business from going overseas in spite of higher regulation and taxes. Indeed, it was a very good Conservative speech.

The part that interested me the most, however, was his brilliant conclusion. He spoke about the greatness of America. In doing so he said this: "We make the future better than the past. We don't hide from history. We make history." I like this for several different reasons. For one, it just sounds good. America has been a positive force in the world since its founding and has undoubtedly effected the world in a positive manner. We have made history - Positive history.
The interesting part was it seemed to be one of McCain's best attacks on the Democrats and the Left. He stated, "We're not a country that prefers nostalgia to optimism." Throughout the speech he referred to the Democrats wanting to go back to the failed big government policies of the 60s and 70s. American has nothing to be ashamed of or hide from, but the Left does.

They look back with nostalgia to their glory days of the 60s and 70s - when the radical Left was in full swing and open about their want for a Socialist Revolution in America. To cover up their failures over the last several decades they have hidden behind different self-given titles: Marxists, Communists, Progressives, Socialists, Leftists, the New Left, and even Liberals (although there is nothing liberal about a Liberal in the classical sense).

This is the kind of speech McCain needs to keep giving if he wants to united the Conservative base. Attack the Left for what they really are: Socialists filled with nostalgia for their glory days. Continue to point out that those programs didn't work in the past - in our country or anywhere else in the world, and there is no reason to expect they will work this time.

Barack Obama Keeps Bad Company

2008-03-04T20:01:00.006-06:00

The Weather Underground was a domestic terrorist organization in the 1960s and 1970s. They have claimed reasonability for over 25 bombings - mostly of United States military buildings, including the Pentagon. They were also responsible for several riots and jail breaks. They even made an official public declaration of war against the United States. They considered themselves part of the radical New Left, and their ultimate goal was a Socialist revolution accomplished by the violent overthrow of the United States government.

Two of the Weather Underground's most prominent members, William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, avoided serious jail time because of "improper" FBI surveillance. Since then, however, they have been outspoken and unrepentant about their time with the Weather Underground. In fact, in a September 11, 2001 article in the New York Times, Ayers stated, "I don't regret setting bombs." Furthermore, I feel that we didn't do enough."

Ayers and Bernardine are now prominent leftists in the Chicago community. It has become a sort of rite-of-passage for politicians representing their district to meet with them and get their support for office. In 1995, Barack Obama did just that, and State Senator Alice Palmer accompanied her successor to their home in Hyde Park for the meeting. According to The Politico, prominent physician in the area who attended the meeting described the two as friends. One would think that Obama would wish to clear up any allegations of him associating with a terrorist; however, both Obama and Ayers have refused to discuss their relationship. Moreover, from 1999 through 2002, both Obama and Ayers served together on the Board of the Woods Fund of Chicago group, and Ayers has donated money to Obama in the past.

This association with members of the Weather Underground naturally invites questions about Barack’s involvement and asscoaition, and Americans have the right to ask those questions to a person running for President of the United States. Perhaps Obama shares the same goal of a Socialist state in America.

The American Constitution

2008-03-02T19:40:00.006-06:00

Conservatives, first and foremost, believe in the Constitution. We believe in the principals established in it, namely the blessings of liberty endowed by our Creator and defended by a limited government with enumerated powers.

We believe in the exact words the founders chose to brilliantly establish our nation. If our Constitution was meant to be a living, breathing document whose meaning changes, then the founders would have adopted an unwritten Constitution similar to Great Britian. Instead, they created a different method, if necessary, for making changes to the Constitution - the amendment process.

The Constitutional amendment process was intentionally made difficult to serve as one of many safeguards that limit the power of the national government. We believe in that process and a strict reading of the text of the Constitution. Judges legislating from the bench and creating whole new constitutional rights is a subversion of the supremacy of the Constitution; moreover, it endangers the liberty of every American.

Additionally, Conservatives believe in the Bill of Rights. Unlike the Left, we believe in all of them. I am going to discuss just three of them here, and how they are abused by the Left in their attempt to make their Socialist nightmare a reality.

The First Amendment guarentees a number of rights; however, the only part of the amendment that seems to interest the Left is the Establishment Clause - stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This, of course, is designed to prevent a state established church such as the Church of England - a church that compells membership and tax payments. Unfortunately, the Left twists this clause to deny Americans their right to the free execise of religion. Providing students with an optional moment to pray does not establish a religion. It provides them with the oportunity to freely execise their religion. No one is compelled to pray.

Freedom of speech and of the press are two First Amendment rights that the Left also twist to meet their socialist agenda. When a person want to burn an American flag on the steps of the capital - the Left claims freedom of speech; however, when talk radio show hosts practice their freedom of speech, the Left attempts to silence them with policies such as the Fairness Doctrine. More recently, Harry Reid and over 40 other current Democratic United States Senators authored and sent a letter to Rush Limbaugh's broadcasting partner in an attempt to silence him.

The Second Amendment is one of America's most important rights. The Left constantly abuse it and attempt to undermine it. This right, however, keeps a certain element of power in the hands of the people - a right that our revolutionary founders made great use of. The right keep keep and bear arms ensures that we have the ability to assemble an armed militia in the case of a government that grows totalitarian. Had the founder's themselves not had this right, our country would not exisist, and it exists today as a further limit on the growth of the government. It is, in a manner of speaking, our final safeguard. It also has the bonus advantage of helping to defend against a possible invasion.

Every one of the Bill of Rights are designed to limit the power of the national government. The founders were incredibly understanind in the area of human nature. They knew that the more power that the government had the more likely it would be that even the best of men would abuse that power. Instead of giving the government broad authority over the nation, the Constitution established certain enumerated powers.

This leads us the the all important Tenth Amendement. Unfortunately, this incredible amendment has been almost wholly ignored by the Socialist Left. The Tenth Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." This means that the government can do what the Constitution explicitly says it can do and no more. If we wish to grant the government additional powers, we can amend the Constitution.

Unfortunatly, the federal government has grown substantially over the last century - largely due to the precedents set by FDR and his Leftist Supreme Court. His New Deal legislation attemptted time and time again to violate the Constitution, and the Supreme Court ruled as such time and time again - until he threatened to pack the Supreme Court by adding six more justices that agreed with his ideology. Under such political pressures and fear, the court completely shifted its rulings; furthermore, over his 4 terms in office FDR was able to appoint 8 Justices to the Court. Following the empire of FDR, the American people saw that there was a need to limit Presidents to just 2 terms, and correctly, the Constitution was amended.

The founding fathers set out to create a nation based on certain principles and values that they believed were of the greatest significance. We have all heard lists of such values: life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, et cetera. They saw such rights as unalienable and bestowed upon us from God. Furthermore, because the founders had such a seemingly unprecedented understanding of human nature and the world in general, they established a government designed, ultimately, to protect against infringement of those rights.

This understanding of human nature and acknowledgement of inalienable rights from God (meaning the government does not give the rights to us, therefore they cannot take them away) is what has made the United States so very unique – so revolutionary. What has made our country so blessed is not the fact that we established a democratic form of government. The Greeks did so centuries ago. America, however, took democratic government a step further by establishing limits on government power, even the instance of a majority opinion. We officially embraced the notion for the first time in human history that the government serves the people and not vice versa.

We must defend the Constitution and reverse the current growth of Government power. We are on track to become an authoritarian Socialist state, and although those on the Left would rewrite history to show otherwise, history has show us time and time again that Socialism leads to submission, death, and destruction.

Taxing the Big Bad Oil Companies

2008-02-27T18:13:00.002-06:00

Today, the House passed a new $18 Billion tax on large oil companies. It soon faces passage in a Senate threatened with the possibility of a Republican filibuster. Even if it did pass the Senate, however, the President has vowed to veto it. This is a good thing.

Many people would disagree. They are blinded by the skyrocketing price of gasoline over the past few years and press stories about Exxon recording a record $40.6 Billion in profits in 2007. Seriously though, how is this supposed to help either of those two points?

Increasing taxes certainly can't lower the cost of gasoline at the pump. The oil compaines aren't going to take a hit in profits through an increase in taxes and then just suddenly decide to lower the prices the consumer pays at the pump. Quite the opposite. They will raise the price the consumer pays at the pump to cover the new cost of those taxes - having the complete opposite effect of one of the supposed intentions of the measure.

Since the oil companies will just be passing their tax bill onto the consumer, it certainly won't effect their profits. A lot of press covered the fact that Exxon recorded $40.6 Billion in profits in 2007, but it is a much smaller known fact that they also paid $30 Billion in taxes to the government. Much of what the consumer pays at the pump is already taxes directly from the local or national government and taxes passed on by the oil companies.

The real intent of this legislation is mass wealth redistribution (to more environmentally friendly forms of energy) and an effort to earn public policial points by appearing to punish those nasty oil companies. Unfortunatley, the public is largely unaware that the high gas prices are as much the fault of the government as the oil companies, and this measure certainly would not help the situation. Taxes are not the answer.

Bush 43: September 11, 2001

2008-02-25T14:05:00.002-06:00

(The second article in a series about the legacy of President George W. Bush.)

On September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush was visiting Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Florida. Just before entering a classroom to read with a group of second graders, President Bush was informed that an airplane had just hit the World Trade Center. At first, the attack was believed to be some sort of mistake or malfunction, so the President proceeded to enter the classroom full of second graders and listen to students read "The Pet Goat."

Unfortunately, the crash was no accident. At 9:05AM, Chief of Staff Andy Card crossed the classroom and whispered two sentences to President Bush: "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack." This would become the defining day of his Presidency.

President Bush's decisions over the next few moments were very wise. If he had immediately gotten up and left the classroom, it would have undoubtedly caused a great deal of confusion and fear for the children in the room. The whisperings of the press behind them certainly would not have helped keep things calm. Instead, Bush remained calm. Although he seemed a little tense at first, he quickly gathered his thoughts and let the children finish reading their story. Afterward, he even complemented their reading skills saying, "Really good. These must be sixth graders."

After leaving the classroom, President Bush quickly and effectively assumed his role as Commander-in-Chief. He ordered the grounding of all commercial aircraft, and if necessary military shoot downs of non-responsive aircraft. He also began his successful effort of lifting morale throughout the country. In the days ahead he met with victims and visited the rescue efforts at ground zero where he gave an incredible speech through a megaphone to some of our bravest men and women. September 11, 2001 clearly displayed the incredible leadership of President George W. Bush. He helped rally the nation together.

Without a doubt, September 11, 2001 will be the most remembered part of President Bush's legacy. He has clearly shown himself to be one of the greatest leaders in American history - a fact that the Left will forever deny; moreover, in an effort to further deny his overwhelmingly successful handing of the tragedy of 9/11 some of the Left have rallied behind propagandists such as Michael Moore who smear the excellent job President Bush did. Even worse, some have claimed outrageous conspiracy theories about Bush planning or being complacent in 9/11.

It is truly sad that the Left's hatred of President Bush can be so severe that the would take such extremes to deny his areas of undeniable success. This is an area of the Bush 43 legacy that all Americans should be proud of. We were attacked by extremists who hate our very way of life. We rallied together as a nation. Above all, after 8 years of inaction, we finally had a President who was willing to take action in response to terrorist attacks and fight back.

Nader v. Democratic National Committee (2008)

2008-02-24T11:01:00.009-06:00

Once again, Ralph Nader has announced his candidacy for President of the United States on meet the Press. I'm not going to go into any details about Nader and his Socialist policies. It's really not important. The other two parties are much too dominant for Nader to have any real chance at winning the Presidency.

The important thing about Nader declaring his candidacy is its inherent benefit to the Republicans. Nader is a leftist, and just like in 2000 and 2004, a few leftists from the Democratic will once again break ranks and vote for Nader - effectively taking votes away from the Democratic candidate. Of course, Nader's impact will be so small that it will only help in a close election.

Once again, however, this incident has once again illuminated the Anti-Democratic and Elitist policies of the Democratic Party. According to the Politico, "Democrats say they will work behind the scenes — and use court challenges, if necessary — to try to thwart his access to ballots." Moreover, in 2004, the Democrats were responsible for tactics that resulted in Nader's denial from ballots in several states, and Nader currently has an impending lawsuit against the Democratic Party. I foresee future lawsuits as well.

In a true Democratic society, isn't it a necessity that any citizen be allowed to run for office without obstruction? This election season, above all, has shown quite clearly that there is nothing democratic about the Democratic Party.

Bush 43: A Beginning

2008-02-23T18:03:00.009-06:00

(The first article in a series about the legacy of President George W. Bush.)

With the Presidency of George W. Bush nearing its conclusion, a co-worker of mine provided me with the idea of reflection upon the many trials, accomplishments, and even failures of our 43rd President and his administration - a study of the legacy of President George W. Bush. This will be the first of several such articles, and where better to start then the beginning?

George W. Bush's first campaign and subsequent election as President of the United States will forever be a part of his legacy in a way unlike any President before him. His election is abundant with criticism from the Left, who to this day cannot let go of their loss of the Presidency in 2000. The academic Left has already written the story of how Bush "stole the election" into public and higher education textbooks - to them it is a matter of historical fact; moreover, I would argue that the Left's relentless assault on President Bush over the past seven years stems largely from their inability to let go of such a close loss - not to mention their disdain of President Bush's Pro-American and Anti-Socialist policies.

In 2000, George W. Bush overwhelmingly won the Republican Party's nomination at the Republican National Convention, and the stage was set for a hard fought campaign against the incumbent Vice President, Al Gore. Many political pundits predicted a close election as the November 7th election night grew closer. No one, however, predicted the infamous turn of events that would take place. We all know how they traditionally divide up. The blue states voted for Gore and the red states voted for Bush.

Nearing the conclusion of the evening, Gore had 266 electoral votes. Bush had 246. 270 electoral votes are needed to win the Presidency, and Florida's 25 votes were still undetermined. Eventually, Bush was awarded the win and Florida's 25 votes, giving him 271 - just enough to win the Presidency. At around 3AM, Al Gore called and conceded the election to Bush; however, the final returns showed that Bush had won the state by less than 2,000 votes. This small a margin of victory triggered an automatic recount under Florida law, and Gore withdrew his concession pending the results of the recount.

After the first recount, Bush's margin of victory had dwindled to less than 500 votes. In response, Gore then asked for further recounts, by hand, of four heavily Democratic counties in Florida, and so began the controversy of the "hanging chad" and numerous lawsuits. The lawsuits resulted in what will surely be remembered as one of the most famous Supreme Court cases of all time: Bush v. Gore.

In summation of the case, the Court put an end to Gore's endless recounts. The Court relied on two arguments. First, the process of recounting all the votes violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Since there was no systematic way of deciding which ballots were an actual vote for a candidate and which candidate they were a vote for, the Court said that some people's vote would be handled differently in some counties than in others. Some counties might consider a hanging chad a vote for Gore, while another county may not consider such a hanging chad a vote for Bush.

The second argument was that continued recounts violated Article II of the United States Constitution, which dictates that each state shall appoint electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct." The Florida Supreme Court had extended the recount deadline set by the legislature prior to this controversy. Hence, the state judiciary was changing the guidelines set forth by the state legislature.

Of course, the Left will continue to argue that the Supreme Court picked who they wanted to be President. The truth is, in the case of Bush v. Gore, the Left itself has again shown complete disregard for the letter of the United States Constitution to further their own agenda. The Supreme Court did nothing more than uphold the law. Gore would have continued to recount those ballots forever and ever until he was awarded those 25 electoral votes, and the decision about what did or did not constitute a vote was based solely upon the interpretation of the workers of those heavily Democratic counties. Perhaps, if we had hand recounted heavily Republican counties, then they could have counted all of the Bush hanging chads as well.

Nonetheless, Bush v. Gore remains a bold piece of the election process of President George W. Bush. It will, therefore, always remain a part of his legacy.

The Ten Planks of the Left

2008-02-22T11:56:00.006-06:00

Yesterday was the 160th anniversary of one of the Left's most holy texts - the Communist Manifesto. This is their playbook on how to bring about Communism in a democratic nation. Specifically, it details how they can bring about Communism in the United States of America. At the end of chapter 2, Karl Marx outlines 10 steps, some more relevant than others, that the proletariat must implement in order to bring about the Communist state. A closer look at many of the policies of the Left will show that they have already begun to implement these policies in full force:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
Eminent Domain. This has been heavily abused and has been taken way past the original scope intended by the Constitution. Currently, the government has the authority to take any person private property for any reason it sees fit, provided it gives the owner "just compensation." Your property is yours only as long as the government doesn't want it.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
The IRS hit this nail on the head. The more money you make, the higher the percentage of your income is taxed. The top 5% of wage earners in the United States pay a little more than 50% of the total tax bill for the entire nation. The top 10% pay nearly 65%. The top 50% of wage earners pay 96%. The better you do, the more it costs you. How does that encourage success?

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
This is known to Americans as the Death Tax or the Estate Tax. After being taxed all your life on everything you make and again on everything you buy, your inheritance is taxed again after your death.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. Government seizures, tax liens, and forfeitures allows certain government agencies such as the IRS to seize the property of others. Often without due process.

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capotal and an exclusive monopoly.
Say hello to the Federal Reserve System, also known as "the Fed." All banks are a member of the Federal Reserve System, which manipulates interest rates as it sees fit,has the absolute power to print money, and regulates banks through the FDIC. You don't have to follow politics to know the major influence that the Fed has over Wall Street and the economics of the nation.

6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. This list can get rather large: The Federal Communications Commission, Department Of Transportation, the fairness doctrine as an attempt to control talk radio, attempted regulations of the internet, and attacks on the Fox News Network for not pandering to the Left.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. All over the country you can't begin your own business without the government's permission, via a business license. There is also extensive regulation through agencies like O.S.H.A. and other government programs. Once you have paid the government for the ability to start your business, your business has to pay them taxes every year after that. The second part of this step is accomplished through practices such as telling farmers what to plant and paying them not to plant in certain areas of their land.

8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c. The tax-funded public school system controlled by the Academic Left. In many areas, all children are required to attend publics school until the 8th grade. There has been a massive assault on an American's right to have their children home schooled. It's purpose: indoctrination of America's youth.

Col. Rod Coffey Honors the Fallen

2008-02-21T20:13:00.007-06:00

This is a eulogy sent to the Mark Levin Show honoring several soldiers who died in Iraq on January 9, 2008. From MarkLevinShow.com:

A friend has sent us the eulogy given by Lt. Col Rod Coffey, Commander 3rd Squadron, 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment (Wolfpack), Diyala Province, Iraq, at the January 22, 2008 memorial ceremony for his six soldiers and one Iraqi interpreter killed in a booby-trapped house in Sinsil, Iraq on January 9, 2008 during Operation Raider Harvest. Col. Coffey spoke to honor the soldiers that died in the operation:

Specialist Todd E. Davis, 22, of Raymore, Mo.;
Staff Sgt. Jonathan K. Dozier, 30, of Rutherford, Tenn.;
Staff Sgt. Sean M. Gaul, 29, of Reno, Nev.;
Sgt. Zachary W. McBride, 20, of Bend, Ore.;
First Sgt. Matthew I. Pionk, 30, of Superior, Wis.; and
Sgt. Christopher A. Sanders, 22, of Roswell, N.M.

Col. Coffey spoke as follows:

Gen Petraus, LTG Odierno, Major General Hertling, BG Boozer, BG Thomas, COL Riscassi, fellow squadron and battalion commanders and command sergeants major;

On behalf of all the soldiers of 3rd Squadron, 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment we thank you for coming to pay tribute to our fallen brothers in arms.

We are here to honor the memory and service of seven men, seven of our brothers in arms.

There is a story about loss in war where one character comments to another, “We are ready for the occasional empty chair, the fond farewell for comrades lost. But we are never, never ready for so many.”

I cannot, as your commander, in anything I say today diminish the impact of losing these men all at once. In fact because we lost them so quickly, it all seems like a bad dream -- that we will wake up tomorrow and they will all be back again.

Each of us, whether present at the scene that day or not, will remember when we first found out. We will remember our inner anguish when we got up the nerve to ask, “Who was it?”

Others will recall the steeled strength it took to calmly and professionally report and verify the battle roster numbers, knowing full well we owed them this calmness and professionalism, so their families would be taken care of.

Others of us will never forget rescuing the four wounded that day and getting them to a helicopter as fast as we could. All these things are true. All these things will be seared in our memories. It was a terrible day and we cannot change that.

We are not alone in mere personal grief, or our desire to honor the fallen. The presence of the general officers here is their effort to acknowledge the sacrifice of this unit and the bravery of these men. Although I have not been able to access every news report, the ones I have read indicate the nation supports us, mourns with us and honors the men we have lost in the recon platoon.

The governors of the states of Virginia and Nevada and Wisconsin and Oregon and New Mexico have ordered the flag of the United States of America and the flags of their respective state flags be flown at half-mast on the day of our men’s funerals. We are not alone in honoring them. Again, I don’t have news stories for all of our men yet but those I have read indicate hundreds have attended their funerals.

And why this reaction? Why hundreds of people at funerals? Why governors issuing decrees for flags to be flown at half mast?

Because we are all in awe of their great sacrifice, courage and devotion to duty and each other. These men, our men, are fallen on the field of battle. Forever more that is their legacy. Their names are now enshrined on the scroll of America’s hallowed dead. And where they died, where they shed their blood, is sacred ground to us.

We still cannot help think why. Why do we have to lose such good men?

Part of the answer is only good men like these volunteer to serve and defend their country. Here’s two brief examples of their motivations:

SPC Davis had his car packed and had been admitted to the University of Oklahoma when he changed his mind and decided to enlist in the army. His family believes he did so out of pride for his father who had served in the military and had passed away in 2003. There he was -- the excitement and opportunities of college life and getting a degree ahead of him -- and he heard that call, the call to defend and serve his country. At the last moment he could not go through with the easy choice. He chose the harder life of a soldier in a time of war.

Of SSG Gaul his stepmother noted, “Being a soldier was his life. It was what he truly wanted to do.”

I could mention every one of them and tell a similar story. I wish I knew more about Roy’s story, for the courage and guts displayed by our interpreters on a daily basis is an inspiration for us all.

It is still a natural human instinct to ask….But what did they die for? Wasn’t it a waste?

There are several answers to that question but the most basic and simple is they died for us. They entered that house so you and I wouldn’t have to. At that moment they saw it as their duty to clear that house and they acted with discipline courage and bravery. The character of our fallen heroes in the recon platoon is revealed by the actions of the living that day.

As many of you know they were essentially lured to the house by someone that we later discovered had ties to Al Qaida. One of the members of the platoon, on the roof when the blast occurred and the building collapsed -- and wounded himself -- ran down the local who had had lured them to the house ……And then when he found him, did nothing more than detain him.

That professionalism, that discipline, that honor and self-sacrifice speaks of extraordinary nobility of character in the entire platoon. Another soldier, the senior squad leader at the scene with calmness and strength took over the role of platoon sergeant as if he had been doing the job for months.

I could go on and on about the enormous character demonstrated by that entire platoon and entire company that day – a strength and determination that continues to today.

And then there is the unfeigned determination of the recon platoon. It’s not put–on. It’s not fake. They are not trying to be something they are not and failing to express their emotions about this. But the speed with which they have rebounded and insisted to me that they go out on missions again is awe-inspiring.

I do not know where such men come from, except to say they are the kind of men who have made America great and will continue to preserve it.

The act of going in first, the act of willingly doing your duty in a dangerous environment, is by its very nature an act of heroic self-sacrifice for the sake of others. These men we honor today had that spirit of self-sacrifice and devotion to duty to an awe-inspiring degree.

And so I need to speak of what else they died for, and what I believe our honored dead would now expect of us.

I’ll begin by saying what they would not want. They would not wish to be seen as victims of a misguided war, victims of stop loss – or victims of anything else for that matter.

We know we are fighting extremism here in a thousand ways. And as the hometown news articles are getting written several of these fallen heroes are on record stating they believed the war in Iraq is a noble cause.

For those who want to support us by getting us out of Iraq as soon as possible, without a victory, I have but one comment. You’re too late. We have sacrificed too much and all we ask of you is the necessary time to finish the job.

Our children and yours, our grandchildren and yours will be safer for it.

This squadron and the formations on its left and right have in the balance sheet of history, already achieved far more than extremist reckless hatred will ever accomplish.

SSG Dozier once asked his father Carl, “Is it weird to really want to do this?”

His father Carl, filled with pride at what his son had become said "No," "This is what you're trained to do."

On another occasion this brave man, SSG Jonathan Dozier told his father he was prepared to die, “But,” he said, “I don’t want to die for nothing.”

So I ask you Wolfpack to make this promise with me: SSG Dozier, will not have died for nothing. We owe him a victory. We owe him a win. We owe him our own lives if necessary.

If the enemy comes out to fight he will be met with a disciplined lethal ferocity he has never before endured. If he plays the sly game of intimidating, beheading and torturing the innocent people of Iraq when he thinks we’re not looking he will be met with a cunning, a sophistication and a relentlessness that will lead to his utter defeat.

This is my promise to you as your commander and from all of us to our honored dead.

Invasion at the Southern Border

2008-02-20T09:31:00.025-06:00

There are a number of reasons why the United States needs to control the exodus of illegal immigrants into this country. As severe as some of the consequences can be, all of them are overlooked by politicians on both sides for various political and personal reasons.

The modern Democratic Party, run by the Left, overlooks, in fact encourages, illegal immigration because it wishes to create another class of workers dependent on the state - dependent on them. This class of people can be used in their class warfare rhetoric and hopefully as a voting base to increase their own power and extend their Socialist agenda. They offer illegal immigrants free health care, free public education at all levels, and more recently rebate checks in the economic stimulus package.

Some members of the Republican Party, in an effort to please their corporate constituents, turn a blind eye to immigration, which provides labor much cheaper than the average American is willing to work for. A dollar goes further when sent back to Mexico then it does in the United States. Other members of the Republican Party (*cough, John McCain, cough*), offer amnesty to illegals against the will of 80% of the American people. Perhaps this is an effort to seem compassionate, and perhaps it is just an effort to appear to be actively confronting the problem. Either way, its illogical to award American citizenship people whose first act on American soil was complete disregard for our laws.

Regardless of the many bad reasons politicians use to support illegal immigration, there are many intelligent reasons to to put an end to it:

National Security. In a post-9/11 world, this reason is more important than any given on either side of the debate. Some people find it hard to equate illegal immigration with National Security. This is largely thanks to politicians who support it, and signs like the one above warning drivers to watch out for immigrants and their poor families crossing the highway. After all, what's so dangerous about a Mexican citizen coming to America to find job opportunities?

As far as national security is concerned, most illegals don't pose any real threat; however, if Mexican citizens looking for work can cross illegally into America, then what's preventing a member of a terrorist network from crossing look border looking to blow something up? No one wants another terrorist attack on American soil. This should be an area of concern for all Americans. Even the bi-partisan 9/11 Commission has underscored the real need to secure our borders.

Infrastructure. The vast amount of illegal immigrants currently in our country are a huge strain on our public schools, our hospitals, and our general infrastructure. They make full use of these American tax funded institutions, but most illegal immigrants do not contribute through taxes of their own. We pay their bills while education and hospitals complain they need more funding.

Furthermore, we are expanding that infrastructure to accommodate the language barrier. Many illegal immigrants come here and make no efforts to integrate. Because many make no effort to learn English, we have begun to accommodate them by learning Spanish. We teach it in our public schools now, right alongside English class - not as an elective. Even preschools have begun to teach bilingual classes. In effect, they came to our country, and instead of learning our language, they made us learn theirs. If I moved to Mexico, I certainly would not expect the schools there to teach my children English. Even outside of schools, many companies are now requiring their employees to learn Spanish.

Jobs. The most popular fallacy among advocates of illegal immigration is that immigrants do the jobs that Americans aren't willing to do themselves, like fast food cooks or janitors. In reality many Americans will gladly do those jobs. My first job was working at a Taco Bell for a year, and I was a Janitor for 4 years. Sure, I didn't make a lot of money, but I adjusted my lifestyle accordingly. I didn't spend my money on a multi-story home or a flat screen TV. If the government wouldn't had out welfare checks like candy, then people would learn to support themselves and accept the jobs available to them.

Economy. It is a huge mistake to think that illegal immigrants are actually good for the American economy. The truth is quite the opposite. A great majority of the wages earned illegally are sent back to Mexico to support family members there, which benefits the Mexican economy. Instead, we could give such jobs to unemployed Americans who will spend the money here; Moreover, we have to have a tax bill high enough to pay for the infrastructure benefits that non-tax paying illegals receive. That limits the discretionary spending of everyday hardworking, tax-paying Americans.

Amid all of the apparent problems posed by illegal immigration, a huge defense of it is that we can't do anything now. It's too late. Millions of them are already here, and we can't just deport them all. Well, in Arizona, they have proven that there is indeed a realistic solution: enforce the laws we already have.

Arizona has cracked down on companies hiring illegal immigrants. According to a new law they passed, business that are found employing illegal immigrants will be given a warning on the first offense and have their business license taken away permanently on the second offense. This has caused a mass exodus of illegal immigrants out of Arizona - some to neighboring states, but many back to Mexico. In fact, the Mexican state bordering Arizona has begun to complain that their infrastructure can't handle the mass amount of their own citizens coming back!

Again, aside from enforcing our laws to control the illegals already here, we need to begin securing our border - especially for national security reason. Contrary to popular opinion, the immigration problem is not beyond our control. It is, however, an important problem that needs to be addressed immediately in a bi-partisan fashion.

Bush 41 Endorses the Straight Talk Express

2008-02-19T15:58:00.006-06:00

Yesterday, newspapers were filled with titles to the effect of "Bush 41 Endorses McCain." While I have respect for the former President, the only thing that came to my mind again and again as I read story after story about 41 and McCain was: Who cares? Why does this matter? Endorsements do not make a person more or less qualified to be President, and a one term President who raised taxes certainly doesn't speak for the Conservative base that McCain so desperately needs to win the general election.

Thus far in the campaign, we have been bombarded with endorsement after endorsement for McCain, and McCain wears each endorsement on his chest like a war medal. However, none of those endorsements, including Romney's, are going to motivate the Conservative base to go out and vote for him.

His strategy for winning over Conservatives seems to be a two part approach: One, gather as many Conservative votes as you can through endorsements of high ranking members of the Republican establishment. Two, hope that the remainder of the Conservative base will be motived by their opposition to the much more Socialist policies of Barak Obama and Hilary Clinton. Whoever advised him to take this course of action should be fired.

Regarding the first approach: As I said earlier, endorsements do not mean a thing. They obviously do not make a candidate more or less qualified to be President, and they certainly do not represent the Conservative base. McCain, the media, and Left fail to realize that the Conservative movement is united by principals and ideas - not by people. There is, of course, no denying that this may gain a few measly votes, but none to be of any real consequence. The entire base certainly can't be gained simply by a series of endorsements.

In regards to the second approach: Opposition to the Socialist principals of the Democratic Party didn't drive Conservatives to the polls. Instead, conservatives were disenfranchised with the liberal policies of both parties and stayed home - similar to this situation and John McCain's liberal policies.

Instead of this ineffective approach, McCain should be more proactive. He needs to go on conservative talk radio instead of shunning them and earn his self proclaimed title: the Straight Talk Express. He should go on talk radio and either defend or denounce his liberal positions. More importantly, he should underscore the major areas of conservative difference between himself and the two Democrat candidates - especially their willingness to retreat from Al Qaeda. Defending his positions in liberal news outlets like the New York Times has no effect on Conservatives. In fact, his willingness to cooperate with the liberal media, the endorsements of liberal papers, and his refusal to appear on talk radio can only have the opposite effect of winning over Conservatives.

I would obviously much rather see a McCain presidency than a Clinton or Obama presidency, but McCain is going to have to start working pro-actively to earn Conservative support. If not, he will lose the election no matter which candidate he faces in the general election.

The Elitist Democratic Party

2008-02-17T14:45:00.010-06:00

The liberal news media and the Left in general have been mostly successful in painting the Republican Party as a group of elitists concerned wholly with their own well being and that of the Republican Establishment. While it is to some degree true that the Republican Party is elitist, such attitudes pale in comparison to the similar mentality of the Democrats. For example, let's compare the Presidential primary process for each:

The Republicans have a very clear-cut, easy to follow method of selecting their candidate. Members of the party go out and vote for whom they wish. The candidate who receives the most votes in a state is awarded delegates. Sometimes the delegates are awarded proportionally to the votes received. Sometimes the delegates are winner-take-all. Either way it is mathematically concrete, and the candidate who receives the required number of delegates wins the nomination.

The Democratic Primary process begins in a very similar fashion. People vote. Delegates are awarded, and the candidate who receives the most delegates wins - maybe. You see, in the 1980s, the Democrats became fearful of voters picking a candidate that their establishment felt did not fully represent the platform of the Democratic Party. Thus, Super Delegates were born.

The nearly 800 Super Delegates are composed entirely of the party's elites: former Presidents, Vice Presidents, certain Congressmen, large financial contributers, and others of similar breed. In the event that the Party feels the voters have selected an unworthy candidate, the Super Delegates can swoop in and save the day by awarding their nearly 800 votes to the more "deserving" candidate. In effect, they have a veto power on the selection that Democratic voters make during the primary process.

This blatant elitism by the Democratic Party may not surprise some who have not been blinded by Leftist propaganda against Republicans and the Right, but imagine how surprised all those Barak Obama supporters would be if the Super Delegates decided Hillary Clinton was more fit for the nomination, regardless of the fact that Obama will most likely receive a majority of the delegates. The Super Delegates may or may not choose to exercise such an option to overturn the popular vote. Regardless, the fact that such an option is established within the party, if necessary, displays textbook elitism. They feel, that above all else, they are more capable of selecing a nominee than their base.

Don't worry America, the Democrats won't let us hold ourselves back. They know better than we do. They can select our government officials, tell us what religions are acceptable to practice and when they are acceptable, take care of our health for us, pay our salaries with massive redistribution of wealth and welfare, force amnesty down our throats, and so much more. If only we were intelligent enough to see everything the way they do.

Roger Clemens and The House

2008-02-16T10:02:00.010-06:00

This Roger Clemens business in the House is ridiculous. Doesn't our government have better things to do then investigate steroid use in Major League Baseball. The House won't renew the FISA bill to allow international wiretapping of suspected terrorists because of "scheduling conflicts," and it is filled with Major League baseball hearings based on no real evidence. I can't recall a greater waste of U.S. tax dollars.

Some are arguing that since the Congress gave the MLB a pass on anti-trust laws that gives them a say in the affairs of drug use in the MLB. What a load of crap. Anti-trust laws, like them or not, were put in place to prevent necessary infrastructure companies, like oil and railroad companies, from acquiring so great a share of their market that they could dictate outrageous prices without fear of competition undercutting them. These types of companies are essential to the American way of life and business. Major League Baseball is not.

Controlling a private entertainment organization is beyond the original intent of those types of laws. This type of thing was a major concern with enacting anti-trust laws to begin with - that the laws would be unnecessarily extended into areas of private business. These anti-trust laws have now become a sickening way for the government to stick its nose in free enterprise. Most Americans don't even realize that our Democratically controlled Congress has once again taken another step toward Socialism.

Even if Roger Clemens did use steroids, it is an issue between him, the New York Yankees, and the league. They can take whatever steps that they feel are necessary and face the consequences at the ticket box if the fans don't like it. If its an issue of Roger Clemens being a national role model for youth across America, the league and the fans will take action as they did during the desegregation of baseball. It was they, not Congress, who desegregated baseball - 18 years before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which ended employment discrimination). The league was forced to respond to its fans or face the consequences at the ticket box. Moreover, the possibility of his drug use wouldn't be widely known if it weren't for government involvement and incriminating press coverage anyway.

This whole "controversy" is a media play for several House members to get airtime on TV. It's a way for this pathetic, inept, and unaccomplished Democratic Congress to appear to be accomplishing something: the cleaning up of Major League Baseball - America's favorite pastime. If American's can just see this Socialist media show for what it really is, then it will only lower the Congress's 20% approval rating even further.

Black History Month, Super Tuesday, & the GOP

2008-02-05T16:35:00.005-06:00

In 1976, Black History Week was expanded to Black History Month. As a part of American History, we recall the long struggle of Blacks from slaves to first-class citizens. Today, on "Super Tuesday", for the first time in American history, we have a black man running for President with an actual shot at winning - not only the nomination but the entire race. Whether one agrees with Barak Obama's politics or not (I certainly do not), it is his undeniable right to run for the White House. What is most amazing is that the first ever black man with a legitimate shot at winning comes just short of 40 years after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. on April 4, 1968 in Memphis, TN.

This truly is remarkable. It seems like ancient American History to some of us. Some believe, perhaps, that it is apart of some post-Civil War era. The truth is quite the contrary; however, relative to the earlier civil rights achievements we certainly have come far in a short amount of time.

Today, in over twenty states, Blacks will join all other American races to go to the polls together and excercise their right to vote. Perhaps they will vote for Barak Obama. Perhaps they won't. I am by no means saying that Americans of any race should vote for Obama. That is totally up to the individual voter, and no American, regardless of race should vote for someone because of their race - just as no one should be prevented from the office of President because of their race. Either way, it is truely a great time in American History.

Speaking of Blacks and voting today, I once again reflect on African American voting trends. The majority of African Americans typically vote Democrat. This is a widely known fact among those who study politics. African Americans have, to a large extent, become a base of the Democratic Party. The question I always ask myself and others is: why? What have Democrats done that is so overwhelming deserving of the Black vote? Lets go through a list of just a few of the major milestones in the civil rights of Black Americans:

In 1964, the United States passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which outlawed segregation in schools and in public places. 82% of Republican Senators voted for it, while only 68% of Democratic Senators supported it. In fact, Democratic Senator Robert Byrd voted against the act, and he remains a Senator in the Democratic Party today. In the House of Representative, 80% of Republicans supported the act, while only 63% of Democrats supported the Act.
Republican President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation granting freedom to all African Americans in the United States. Later the Republican majority in Congress voted unanimously in favor of the 13th Amendment, which officially abolished slavery.
In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that the doctrine of seperate-but-equal was Unconstitutional. Chief Justice Earl Warren was the author of the opinion of the court. Earl Warren was appointed by a Republican President and before being Chief Justice, he was a three-term Republican governor of California.
Republican President Ronald Reagan signed the bill into law making Martin Luther King day a national holiday.
Republican President George W. Bush appointted the first ever Black Secratary of State: Colin Powell. Giving Colin Powell the highest ranking office an black person has ever held. That position is now held by Condelizza Rice - a black woman.

The list can go on much longer, but the point is that the Republican Party has done a great deal to further the rights of Blacks, so why does the Black community in particular continue to vote almost straight Democrat? What does the Democratic Party do for this particular demographic? The Democratic Party seems to have convinced the American people that the Republican Party is the party of racism, which the Republican Party's record will show is clearly a fallacy. In fact, it is the Democratic Party, not the Republican Party, that has a current Senator who was once a member of the Ku Klux Klan. If a Republican Senator were once a member of such a horrid organization, I assure you that we would never hear the end of it from the Left.

Smoking in America

2007-10-18T16:42:00.004-05:00

About a week and half ago, my fiancé and I went to San Diego, California to visit my brother. One of the days we were there, we decided to drive up to Los Angeles and go to Venice Beach and Medieval Times. Upon arriving at Venice Beach, my brother, who is a cigarette smoker, made a comment about how California law forbids him or anyone else from smoking on a public beach or a public park.

This prompted me to reflect upon the many newly enacted laws all over the country regarding smoking. It seems like very soon every city and state will have laws preventing smoking in bars or restaurants; in fact, many cities and states already have such laws. I was not, however, aware of such laws such as the California one preventing smoking on beaches or in parks.

Let me state early on that I do not smoke. I have never once in my life even taken one small puff of even one single cigarette. I think the habit is disgusting, and frankly, most of the time I can't stand to be around the smoke.

All that being said, I find these laws to be utterly ridiculous. First of all, it's Anti-American. How can the government be allowed to decide what is and is not acceptable within a private establishment such as a bar or a restaurant? And how can the government get the nerve to try and direct the health of private individuals by trying to curb smoking. It's a free country! Our very constitution is based on ideas such as individual freedoms without interference from the government. If a person wants to smoke that is their decision, not the people in national, state, or local governments.

Additional Anti-American ideals can be found in the laws against smoking in restaurants and bars. This is a capitalistic economy. Our businesses are independent from the government. They are privately owned. It is up to the business whether or not it wants to allow smoking on its premises. If a bar allows smoking and a customer doesn't like it, the customer can always leave. Restaurants could even post signs on the doors to warn people that say something like: "This is a smoking establishment." Capitalism will create areas for such people who are repulsed by smoking, such as the old smoking and non-smoking areas that are a dying breed.

The fact that government is trying to exercise this kind of control, no matter how remote, over private individuals and private establishments is contrary to the concept of liberty embodied in our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The public beaches and parks are another story, while it does seem allowable to me because they are public beaches and therefore, government property, it still seems ridiculous that government is trying to regulate the decisions its citizens make. Like something about a congressman, governor, president, or mayor makes those individuals more capable of making decisions about our health and well-being than we are. That is not only ridiculous, but also extremely arrogant.

I expect, unfortunately, that the anti-smoking laws in America will continue to grow. In fact, maybe they'll just limit our availabilities to make our own decisions about smoking to a certain arbitrary schedule:

Sunday: Citizens are allowed to have one cigarette at 5:00 PM EST, but only if the wind is blowing slower than 5 miles per hour.
Monday: Citizens are allowed to have one cigarette at 9:00 PM EST, but only if it is the second Monday of the month.
Tuesday: Citizens are allowed to have one cigarette at 4:00 PM, but only if it isn't raining.
Wednesday: Citizens are not allowed to smoke. We request that each citizen allow his or her lungs to rest from the three cigarettes earlier this week.
...
etc.

Then, they'll try to make themselves seem considerate by giving us a "bonus" cigarette under certain circumstances. Like, "on Tuesdays citizens are permitted to smoke two cigarettes if there is a full moon." This is sort of similar to how they make themselves seem considerate by giving us a tax refund. They act like its some kind of gift even though they are just giving us back OUR money that they took. It would be like a friend borrowing $5 and giving it back to you on your birthday as a present.

Anyway, my whole point, which is probably obvious by now is how ridiculous and how Anti-American these laws are. A large portion of citizens support these laws because, obviously, good health of citizens is good for the nation; however, people overlook the infringement these types of laws are on our most basic and core rights of freedom and liberty. It may be just a small step in light of some of the much more unconstitutional things people can think of, but each step away from our American ideals will eventually make us more likely to accept even more outrageous trespasses on our liberty.