On May 1, 2003, President George W. Bush announced the end of major combat operations in Iraq.
A portion of the speech he delivered that day aboard the U.S.S. Lincoln seems particularly relevant when considering the recent events in Iran.
You might remember that President Bush said, “Everywhere that freedom arrives, humanity rejoices; and everywhere that freedom stirs, let tyrants fear.”
Of course, President Bush was speaking directly about Iraqis, many of whom aided the American-led coalition in ousting Saddam Hussein. Additionally, he was speaking of other oppressed peoples who would clamor for freedom in the future.
This being the case, I cannot help but recall these words as I watch ongoing coverage of the Iranian people protesting the results of the presidential election held on June 12.
In reality, the election never had a chance to have a fair outcome.
The supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, chose the four candidates whose names were placed on ballots. Even before this, it was already a forgone conclusion that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would “win” re-election. This point is only made clearer by the fact that Ahmadinejad was declared the victor even before all ballots had been counted. After conducting a preliminary study of available election data, Walter Mebane, a professor of political science at the University of Michigan, concluded that the initially released polling station data show evidence of significant distortions in the vote counts.
In other words, vote tallies appear to have been manipulated in some fashion.
The point is that the Iranians have every reason to protest.
As Americans, we can certainly understand why the people are inundated over the election results. As our own Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these truths to be selfevident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
From this passage, we are reminded that the rights of mankind do not come from a king or government. Instead, our rights and freedoms are given to us by our Creator. Any power that government does have is given to it by its people.
Unfortunately, we realize that all men everywhere are not free today. This includes the people of Iran. These people have been forced to live under the dictatorial regime of Ayatollah Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
As Americans, we should stand for freedom, as well as for the people who are clamoring to reclaim it from those who have stolen it. I’m not saying we should march into Iran and forcibly create a democracy, but we should support the large movement for freedom which now exists.
President Obama should take a stronger stance in support of these brave individuals. To his credit, the president did make statements over the weekend calling on the government of Iran “to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.”
It is possible that the outcry of many Americans who support the Iranian protestors have reached the ears of the president.
Let us hope such is the case. These brave individuals have risked their very lives to stand for the freedoms which have been long absent from their lives.
As I said before, I am pleased President Obama has begun to make stronger statements about the Iranian situation. Sadly, however, his statements are still a far cry from those made by previous American presidents in support of freedom loving people.
President Obama should long remember and emulate the 1981 example of President Reagan. In that year, the Polish government stripped its citizens of their freedoms and liberties. In response, President Reagan said, “I want emphatically to state tonight that if the outrages in Poland do not cease, we cannot and will not conduct ‘business as usual’ with the perpetrators and those who aid and abet them. Make no mistake, their crime will cost them dearly in their future dealings with America and free peoples everywhere. I do not make this statement lightly or without serious reflection.”
Unquestionably, the United States of America stands with the people of Iran. Hopefully, our leaders will do everything in their power to aid them in their pursuit of freedom. By now, Khamenei and Ahmadinejad should have come to the realization that President Bush was correct when he said that “everywhere that freedom stirs, let tyrants fear.” Due to recent occurrences, both Khamenei and Ahmadinejad should be very afraid. Truly, freedom is on the march in Iran.
--As Appeared in The Daily Mississippian on Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Monday, July 20, 2009
Obama Doesn't Stand With Bankruptcy Law
Recently, representatives of Indiana pension funds made an appeal to the Supreme Court, hoping to stop the sale of Chrysler to Fiat, an Italian automaker.
These funds are used by the State of Indiana to provide for the retirement of, among others, teachers and police officers.
Despite the seeming reputable nature of those benefiting from the Indiana funds, President Obama has nothing but criticism for them. Yes, these funds are criticized by the president for not “sacrificing” as did the United Auto Workers and other lending institutions. In fact, he said that “while many stakeholders made sacrifices and worked constructively, I have to tell you, some did not.”
President Obama tells us that these investment firms were holding out for “the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout.”
According to the president, these funds “were hoping that everybody else would make sacrifices and they would have to make none.”
Finally, speaking of the investment firms, President Obama tells us that he doesn’t “stand with them.”
I guess since he doesn’t stand with the Indiana investment firms, he doesn’t stand with United States law either.
According to United States bankruptcy law, secured creditors must be paid before unsecured creditors.
After secured creditors are paid, unsecured creditors are then paid depending on their priority level.
This process should be applicable to both the cases of Chrysler and General Motors.
Both companies filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. This status allows the companies to settle with creditors and then to emerge from bankruptcy after creating approved restructuring plans.
Instead of actually following proper procedure, the Obama Administration found it necessary to strong-arm Chrysler’s creditors into accepting less money than they might have obtained from the ruling of a bankruptcy judge.
Why is it suddenly acceptable to shirk our responsibility to be a nation of laws and order?
These bankruptcy laws are on the books for very justifiable reasons.
These laws seek to protect both creditors and debtors.
As noted, filing for Chapter 11 allows a company to settle its outstanding debt, restructure and then to re-emerge into the marketplace.
All the while, creditors receive protection depending on their particular status. Secured creditors receive preference because they loaned the now-bankrupt company money at a low rate of interest. This is while unsecured creditors loaned the same company money at higher interest rates.
It stands to reason, therefore, that secured creditors deserve, and have been awarded, special protection.
Without this protection, companies would find it even more difficult to raise the funds required to remain afloat in difficult economic times.
Maybe you wanted both Chrysler and General Motors to be bailed out by the federal government; maybe you didn’t.
Regardless, we cannot stand for our own commonsense laws being so flippantly ignored.
Throughout the process of the car company bailouts, the American people have already had to witness the total disregard of constitutional law. This is the case because President Obama made the decision to bail out both Chrysler and General Motors with TARP money, which was actually slated to bailout financial institutions.
The last time I checked, neither Chrysler nor General Motors fits the description of a financial institution. I also thought that only Congress could appropriate money. It seems the president must have “accidentally” overlooked that constitutional provision as well.
The real story here is not actually the bailing out or restructuring of either Chrysler or General Motors. It is actually about the president trying to ignore laws which stand in his way of doing as he desires.
The United States of America is a nation of laws.
We must not be so swift in taking action that we fail to consider our own laws. Our bankruptcy laws exist in order to protect, as much as possible, all parties involved in the situation.
How dare President Obama attempt to strong-arm, and then criticize, the Indiana pension funds for standing up for their statutory rights! These fund managers were doing nothing more than trying to protect the retirements of state employees, such as teachers and policemen.
In the end, I have nothing but praise and admiration for the Indiana pension fund managers for standing up for their rights as American citizens.
Let us always be mindful of the ability of our now large federal government to give and take as it desires.
Even if you want the car companies to be helped by the federal government, demand that it be done according to the laws of the United States.
Always remember the words of Thomas Jefferson, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take everything you have.”
--As Appeared in The Daily Mississippian on Monday, June 15, 2009
These funds are used by the State of Indiana to provide for the retirement of, among others, teachers and police officers.
Despite the seeming reputable nature of those benefiting from the Indiana funds, President Obama has nothing but criticism for them. Yes, these funds are criticized by the president for not “sacrificing” as did the United Auto Workers and other lending institutions. In fact, he said that “while many stakeholders made sacrifices and worked constructively, I have to tell you, some did not.”
President Obama tells us that these investment firms were holding out for “the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout.”
According to the president, these funds “were hoping that everybody else would make sacrifices and they would have to make none.”
Finally, speaking of the investment firms, President Obama tells us that he doesn’t “stand with them.”
I guess since he doesn’t stand with the Indiana investment firms, he doesn’t stand with United States law either.
According to United States bankruptcy law, secured creditors must be paid before unsecured creditors.
After secured creditors are paid, unsecured creditors are then paid depending on their priority level.
This process should be applicable to both the cases of Chrysler and General Motors.
Both companies filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. This status allows the companies to settle with creditors and then to emerge from bankruptcy after creating approved restructuring plans.
Instead of actually following proper procedure, the Obama Administration found it necessary to strong-arm Chrysler’s creditors into accepting less money than they might have obtained from the ruling of a bankruptcy judge.
Why is it suddenly acceptable to shirk our responsibility to be a nation of laws and order?
These bankruptcy laws are on the books for very justifiable reasons.
These laws seek to protect both creditors and debtors.
As noted, filing for Chapter 11 allows a company to settle its outstanding debt, restructure and then to re-emerge into the marketplace.
All the while, creditors receive protection depending on their particular status. Secured creditors receive preference because they loaned the now-bankrupt company money at a low rate of interest. This is while unsecured creditors loaned the same company money at higher interest rates.
It stands to reason, therefore, that secured creditors deserve, and have been awarded, special protection.
Without this protection, companies would find it even more difficult to raise the funds required to remain afloat in difficult economic times.
Maybe you wanted both Chrysler and General Motors to be bailed out by the federal government; maybe you didn’t.
Regardless, we cannot stand for our own commonsense laws being so flippantly ignored.
Throughout the process of the car company bailouts, the American people have already had to witness the total disregard of constitutional law. This is the case because President Obama made the decision to bail out both Chrysler and General Motors with TARP money, which was actually slated to bailout financial institutions.
The last time I checked, neither Chrysler nor General Motors fits the description of a financial institution. I also thought that only Congress could appropriate money. It seems the president must have “accidentally” overlooked that constitutional provision as well.
The real story here is not actually the bailing out or restructuring of either Chrysler or General Motors. It is actually about the president trying to ignore laws which stand in his way of doing as he desires.
The United States of America is a nation of laws.
We must not be so swift in taking action that we fail to consider our own laws. Our bankruptcy laws exist in order to protect, as much as possible, all parties involved in the situation.
How dare President Obama attempt to strong-arm, and then criticize, the Indiana pension funds for standing up for their statutory rights! These fund managers were doing nothing more than trying to protect the retirements of state employees, such as teachers and policemen.
In the end, I have nothing but praise and admiration for the Indiana pension fund managers for standing up for their rights as American citizens.
Let us always be mindful of the ability of our now large federal government to give and take as it desires.
Even if you want the car companies to be helped by the federal government, demand that it be done according to the laws of the United States.
Always remember the words of Thomas Jefferson, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take everything you have.”
--As Appeared in The Daily Mississippian on Monday, June 15, 2009
The Obama Administration and Gun Control
Mr. Andy Mullins, executive assistant to the chancellor, recently responded to a column of mine in a letter to the editor.
In this letter, Mr. Mullins asked, “What recent attempts to pass gun control legislation have there been?” Since I have been challenged to provide information on government attempts and desires to limit Second Amendment rights, I will do such in this setting.
If you have been paying attention at all to the new administration, you should be quite aware that gun control is a high priority.
Ok, so President Obama has said he doesn’t want to discuss the assault weapons ban at the moment.
This isn’t because Obama doesn’t want such legislation to pass. Instead, it is simply because he doubts the legislation could pass Congress at this time.
Essentially, President Obama and his administration favor vast gun control legislation. If given the opportunity, Obama will sign away our Second Amendment rights with the stroke of a pen. If you don’t believe me, examine the evidence for yourself.
President Obama has long been in favor of extremely restrictive gun ownership laws.
As a candidate for the Illinois Senate, Obama responded to a questionnaire which asked if he supported using state legislation to ban handguns and assault weapons and to institute waiting periods and background checks.
To each of these questions, Obama answered, “yes.”
While serving in the Illinois Senate, Obama opposed legislation which would allow citizens to defend themselves against home invaders, regardless of whether their city had ordinances against handgun possession.
In 2000, he co-sponsored a bill which would have limited Illinois residents to only one purchase of a handgun per month.
It is no secret that both President Obama and Vice President Biden want to overly restrict our right to bear arms.
Even the White House Web site asserts that both support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.
Obama’s appointment of Attorney General Eric Holder also serves as a guide to the true feelings of the new administration on the issue of gun ownership.
Attorney General Holder believes the right to bear arms is not individual in nature. Instead, the right applies only in the collective sense.
He said such in a brief supporting the District of Columbia in a Supreme Court case.
This does get us to the D.C. handgun ban doesn’t it?
During the debate over the constitutionality of such a ban, Obama’s campaign stated that Obama believes we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives.
Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.
Not surprisingly, public outrage led him to backtrack.
Even after backtracking, Obama still couldn’t say he opposed the D.C. handgun ban.
When asked about it at a debate in Philadelphia by moderator Charlie Gibson, Obama responded, “Well Charlie, I confess I obviously haven’t listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence.”
What evidence is there to examine, besides the fact that D.C. legislated away its residents’ rights to own handguns and to protect themselves from home invasion?
Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in to uphold the Second Amendment by overturning the outrageous handgun ban.
President Obama, Vice President Biden, Attorney General Holder and several prominent Democratic senators are in support of legislation which would excessively limit gun ownership rights. This issue has not been moved to the forefront because there is still enough opposition in Congress to pass such restrictive legislation.
The Republicans certainly aren’t the only ones in opposition to such legislation. Recently, 65 House Democrats announced their opposition in a letter to Holder.
We possess an individual right to keep and bear arms, they said.
This right should not be legislated away as some have already attempted. It is a fact that, in recent months, legislation has been introduced in Congress which would, among other things, allow the federal government to require all gun owners to obtain a federal license.
Another restrictive portion of the legislation would allow the attorney general to inspect any place, during business hours, where guns are manufactured or sold.
Perhaps, the most outrageous provision is the practical outlawing of gun ownership for individuals with children.
So Mr. Mullins, over the last few years there have been many different attempts to legislate away our right to own guns, or at least certain types of them.
The founders of these great United States of America understood that we, as citizens, need to maintain the right to “keep and bear arms.” We cannot allow our rights, or our guns, to be taken from us.
We must always stand against the attempts of government to legislate away our rights.
--As Appeared in The Daily Mississippian on Monday, April 27, 2009
In this letter, Mr. Mullins asked, “What recent attempts to pass gun control legislation have there been?” Since I have been challenged to provide information on government attempts and desires to limit Second Amendment rights, I will do such in this setting.
If you have been paying attention at all to the new administration, you should be quite aware that gun control is a high priority.
Ok, so President Obama has said he doesn’t want to discuss the assault weapons ban at the moment.
This isn’t because Obama doesn’t want such legislation to pass. Instead, it is simply because he doubts the legislation could pass Congress at this time.
Essentially, President Obama and his administration favor vast gun control legislation. If given the opportunity, Obama will sign away our Second Amendment rights with the stroke of a pen. If you don’t believe me, examine the evidence for yourself.
President Obama has long been in favor of extremely restrictive gun ownership laws.
As a candidate for the Illinois Senate, Obama responded to a questionnaire which asked if he supported using state legislation to ban handguns and assault weapons and to institute waiting periods and background checks.
To each of these questions, Obama answered, “yes.”
While serving in the Illinois Senate, Obama opposed legislation which would allow citizens to defend themselves against home invaders, regardless of whether their city had ordinances against handgun possession.
In 2000, he co-sponsored a bill which would have limited Illinois residents to only one purchase of a handgun per month.
It is no secret that both President Obama and Vice President Biden want to overly restrict our right to bear arms.
Even the White House Web site asserts that both support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.
Obama’s appointment of Attorney General Eric Holder also serves as a guide to the true feelings of the new administration on the issue of gun ownership.
Attorney General Holder believes the right to bear arms is not individual in nature. Instead, the right applies only in the collective sense.
He said such in a brief supporting the District of Columbia in a Supreme Court case.
This does get us to the D.C. handgun ban doesn’t it?
During the debate over the constitutionality of such a ban, Obama’s campaign stated that Obama believes we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives.
Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.
Not surprisingly, public outrage led him to backtrack.
Even after backtracking, Obama still couldn’t say he opposed the D.C. handgun ban.
When asked about it at a debate in Philadelphia by moderator Charlie Gibson, Obama responded, “Well Charlie, I confess I obviously haven’t listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence.”
What evidence is there to examine, besides the fact that D.C. legislated away its residents’ rights to own handguns and to protect themselves from home invasion?
Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in to uphold the Second Amendment by overturning the outrageous handgun ban.
President Obama, Vice President Biden, Attorney General Holder and several prominent Democratic senators are in support of legislation which would excessively limit gun ownership rights. This issue has not been moved to the forefront because there is still enough opposition in Congress to pass such restrictive legislation.
The Republicans certainly aren’t the only ones in opposition to such legislation. Recently, 65 House Democrats announced their opposition in a letter to Holder.
We possess an individual right to keep and bear arms, they said.
This right should not be legislated away as some have already attempted. It is a fact that, in recent months, legislation has been introduced in Congress which would, among other things, allow the federal government to require all gun owners to obtain a federal license.
Another restrictive portion of the legislation would allow the attorney general to inspect any place, during business hours, where guns are manufactured or sold.
Perhaps, the most outrageous provision is the practical outlawing of gun ownership for individuals with children.
So Mr. Mullins, over the last few years there have been many different attempts to legislate away our right to own guns, or at least certain types of them.
The founders of these great United States of America understood that we, as citizens, need to maintain the right to “keep and bear arms.” We cannot allow our rights, or our guns, to be taken from us.
We must always stand against the attempts of government to legislate away our rights.
--As Appeared in The Daily Mississippian on Monday, April 27, 2009
You Might Be a Right Wing Extremist If...
If you haven’t read the Department of Homeland Security’s report, titled Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment, you should.
It shouldn’t take longer than a moment to realize what a joke this document is in actuality. I could never have imagined that, on April 6, I went to bed an average American and woke up a right-wing extremist. I proudly admit that I am extremely conservative. I didn’t know this caused me to pose a serious threat to my beloved country.
In all likelihood, I’m not the only person who has become subject to the government’s hatred of conservatism. I agree we should be concerned with preventing all terrorist attacks, regardless of the ideology of the terrorists. It is, however, purely ridiculous to put forth the outlandish accusations made by the DHS and Secretary Janet Napolitano.
In all fairness, the report does mention some white supremacist groups which have begun paramilitary training. That sounds like something which should be included in such a report. That said, this is where all things sensible end.
If you have recently purchased significant amounts of ammunition, the government probably considers you a rightwing extremist. The same is true if you have bought guns due to recent attempts to pass gun control legislation. It couldn’t be that you wanted to buy ammunition now before prices skyrocket further or buy guns before the government legislates away your right to bear arms. You could be a right-wing extremist even if you haven’t bought guns or ammunition. You could simply have made known your disapproval of your Second Amendment rights being taken away.
Are you against abortion? If you, like me, detest the murder of the most innocent among us, you are a right-wing extremist. That bumper sticker or car tag you display about “choosing life” is nothing more than a right-wing extremist identification card.
Even better is the idea that you are a right-wing extremist if you don’t favor either Communism or Socialism and feel that the United States is giving up much of its sovereignty to the world at large. I never knew that holding a political opinion about the proper functions of government would land me the label of dangerous rightwing extremist.
The most abhorrent section of the report concerns military veterans. These are the bravest individuals among our entire population. It is to veterans that we owe a great deal of admiration and gratitude. It is sickening that the DHS would release a report which insinuates that such individuals, if disgruntled, will possibly join terrorist groups and use their superior skills to bring harm to the country for which they served. This is so outrageous because disgruntled veterans are essentially labeled as being rightwing extremists with only the example of Timothy McVeigh cited. McVeigh was certainly a nutcase, but that is exactly the point. The fact that he was a veteran, and might have been disgruntled, likely has little to do with why he committed a heinous act of terror.
I was willing to give Secretary Napolitano the benefit of the doubt. I imagined that some left-wing Kool-Aid drinker released this report before Napolitano knew much about it. It has been reported that something similar occurred. In this situation, you would think Secretary Napolitano would quickly apologize for such horrible, unfounded accusations. All she has done is say she “owed” an apology to veterans and advocates of the pro-life position. A simple, “I am sorry for the outrageous, unfounded allegations leveled against our brave men and women of the armed forces” has yet to be uttered.
The DHS, Secretary Napolitano, and the rest of the federal government need to realize that conservatives are not dangerous right-wing extremists. This report identifies many of the people you and I know as potential terrorist threats. Think about your preacher who teaches against abortion. Think about the veteran who tells you stories. Think about all the hard-working Americans you know who have lost jobs. All of these people could be classified as threatening right-wing extremists if using this report as guide. These individuals are average Americans who are doing nothing more than exercising the freedoms they enjoy under the laws of this great country.
The real damage comes when we limit the ideas which can be voiced. You would never catch me at an anti-war rally. Instead, you would find me at a tax day tea party. Whatever the case, I support the right of all Americans to voice their opinions in a peaceful manner.
Don’t let the government label average Americans as right-wing extremists just because their ideology doesn’t match that of the majority party in Washington, D.C.
I urge you to read the report and let your voices be heard.
--As Appeared in The Daily Mississippian on Monday, April 20, 2009
It shouldn’t take longer than a moment to realize what a joke this document is in actuality. I could never have imagined that, on April 6, I went to bed an average American and woke up a right-wing extremist. I proudly admit that I am extremely conservative. I didn’t know this caused me to pose a serious threat to my beloved country.
In all likelihood, I’m not the only person who has become subject to the government’s hatred of conservatism. I agree we should be concerned with preventing all terrorist attacks, regardless of the ideology of the terrorists. It is, however, purely ridiculous to put forth the outlandish accusations made by the DHS and Secretary Janet Napolitano.
In all fairness, the report does mention some white supremacist groups which have begun paramilitary training. That sounds like something which should be included in such a report. That said, this is where all things sensible end.
If you have recently purchased significant amounts of ammunition, the government probably considers you a rightwing extremist. The same is true if you have bought guns due to recent attempts to pass gun control legislation. It couldn’t be that you wanted to buy ammunition now before prices skyrocket further or buy guns before the government legislates away your right to bear arms. You could be a right-wing extremist even if you haven’t bought guns or ammunition. You could simply have made known your disapproval of your Second Amendment rights being taken away.
Are you against abortion? If you, like me, detest the murder of the most innocent among us, you are a right-wing extremist. That bumper sticker or car tag you display about “choosing life” is nothing more than a right-wing extremist identification card.
Even better is the idea that you are a right-wing extremist if you don’t favor either Communism or Socialism and feel that the United States is giving up much of its sovereignty to the world at large. I never knew that holding a political opinion about the proper functions of government would land me the label of dangerous rightwing extremist.
The most abhorrent section of the report concerns military veterans. These are the bravest individuals among our entire population. It is to veterans that we owe a great deal of admiration and gratitude. It is sickening that the DHS would release a report which insinuates that such individuals, if disgruntled, will possibly join terrorist groups and use their superior skills to bring harm to the country for which they served. This is so outrageous because disgruntled veterans are essentially labeled as being rightwing extremists with only the example of Timothy McVeigh cited. McVeigh was certainly a nutcase, but that is exactly the point. The fact that he was a veteran, and might have been disgruntled, likely has little to do with why he committed a heinous act of terror.
I was willing to give Secretary Napolitano the benefit of the doubt. I imagined that some left-wing Kool-Aid drinker released this report before Napolitano knew much about it. It has been reported that something similar occurred. In this situation, you would think Secretary Napolitano would quickly apologize for such horrible, unfounded accusations. All she has done is say she “owed” an apology to veterans and advocates of the pro-life position. A simple, “I am sorry for the outrageous, unfounded allegations leveled against our brave men and women of the armed forces” has yet to be uttered.
The DHS, Secretary Napolitano, and the rest of the federal government need to realize that conservatives are not dangerous right-wing extremists. This report identifies many of the people you and I know as potential terrorist threats. Think about your preacher who teaches against abortion. Think about the veteran who tells you stories. Think about all the hard-working Americans you know who have lost jobs. All of these people could be classified as threatening right-wing extremists if using this report as guide. These individuals are average Americans who are doing nothing more than exercising the freedoms they enjoy under the laws of this great country.
The real damage comes when we limit the ideas which can be voiced. You would never catch me at an anti-war rally. Instead, you would find me at a tax day tea party. Whatever the case, I support the right of all Americans to voice their opinions in a peaceful manner.
Don’t let the government label average Americans as right-wing extremists just because their ideology doesn’t match that of the majority party in Washington, D.C.
I urge you to read the report and let your voices be heard.
--As Appeared in The Daily Mississippian on Monday, April 20, 2009
The Damaging of a Strong Relationship
In a July 2007 article in Foreign Affairs, Barack Obama wrote, “To renew American leadership in the world, I intend to rebuild the alliances, partnerships and institutions necessary to confront common threats and enhance common security. Needed reform of these alliances and institutions will not come by bullying other countries to ratify changes we hatch in isolation.
It will come when we convince other governments and peoples that they, too, have a stake in effective partnerships.”
President Obama has promised to repair damaged relationships which he claims President Bush created through use of “cowboy diplomacy.”
For better or worse, President Obama has, indeed, been reaching out to those countries with which we have had less than positive relationships.
Of course, I actually believe reaching out to countries such as Iran is a bad idea. However, that is not of concern at the moment.
Instead, I am concerned about how Obama is actually damaging at least one strong relationship which President Bush did strengthen.
It seems that Obama is moving our relationship with Great Britain in exactly the opposite direction.
I guess President Obama intends to strengthen damaged relationships and weaken those which are strong.
Over the summer, I had the privilege of visiting the West Wing and the Oval Office. Practically the first thing I noticed was the bust of Winston Churchill, which was displayed in a very prominent place.
When I inquired about it, we were told that Prime Minister Tony Blair had loaned it to President Bush after Sept. 11 in order to symbolize the solidarity between the U.S. and Great Britain.
Do you know what was done with the Churchill bust in the first weeks of the Obama presidency?
As you might have guessed, Obama quickly sent it back to the British Embassy. There was no ceremony or any other sign of appreciation given. What would Franklin Roosevelt think about Obama’s actions? This hero of President Obama is the very president who had such a strong relationship with Prime Minister Churchill.
Of course this story is only just beginning. As if President Obama hadn’t snubbed the British enough, Prime Minister Gordon Brown was given a horrendous welcome to the U.S. by the Obama administration.
Earlier this month, Prime Minister Brown came to Washington for a two day visit. During this visit, he and Obama planned to have a joint press conference as is normal when foreign dignitaries visit.
However, Obama kept scaling down and delaying the press conference. Eventually the joint press conference was canceled all together.
British newspapers have reported the joint press conference was canceled due to snow. I guess there was snow in all 132 rooms of the White House.
It seems odd that weather did not prevent President Obama from keeping other events on his schedule, but it did make him unable to have a press conference with another powerful world leader.
On the same visit, Prime Minister Brown brought with him many expensive and, more importantly, highly symbolic gifts.
Among these gifts given to Obama’s family were clothing for Sasha and Malia, the HMS Resolute’s commissioning paper and a pen holder which was made from the timber of an anti-slavery vessel, the HMS Gannet.
Maybe those gifts don’t sound all that symbolic to you. You should consider that the HMS Resolute has long been a symbol of the strong Anglo-American relationship.
This is due to the fact that the ship was rescued from icebergs by the U.S. and given to Queen Victoria.
Also, the pen holder is a symbol of overcoming slavery and racism, which correlates with President Obama’s electoral success.What did Obama give Prime Minister Brown in return? Surely he gave him something at least as symbolic and meaningful.If you think that was the case, you should probably reconsider.
Instead of a giving a gift which would symbolize our continuing solidarity with the British, President Obama thought it was a great idea to give the prime minister a stack of 25 DVDs.
I like movies as much as anyone else, but what was he thinking? I will say that they were a set of American-produced, collector’s edition DVDs.
Even so, is this really an appropriate gift to give another world leader?
At the very least, the gift seems much less thoughtful than those given by Prime Minister Brown. At worst, they seem downright disrespectful.
Prime Minister Brown’s visit to Washington was a wonderful opportunity for President Obama to form a lasting relationship reminiscent of those between Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher and George W. Bush and Tony Blair. Instead, President Obama chose to do nothing more than damage a strong relationship.
--As Appeared in The Daily Mississippian on Thursday, March 26, 2009
It will come when we convince other governments and peoples that they, too, have a stake in effective partnerships.”
President Obama has promised to repair damaged relationships which he claims President Bush created through use of “cowboy diplomacy.”
For better or worse, President Obama has, indeed, been reaching out to those countries with which we have had less than positive relationships.
Of course, I actually believe reaching out to countries such as Iran is a bad idea. However, that is not of concern at the moment.
Instead, I am concerned about how Obama is actually damaging at least one strong relationship which President Bush did strengthen.
It seems that Obama is moving our relationship with Great Britain in exactly the opposite direction.
I guess President Obama intends to strengthen damaged relationships and weaken those which are strong.
Over the summer, I had the privilege of visiting the West Wing and the Oval Office. Practically the first thing I noticed was the bust of Winston Churchill, which was displayed in a very prominent place.
When I inquired about it, we were told that Prime Minister Tony Blair had loaned it to President Bush after Sept. 11 in order to symbolize the solidarity between the U.S. and Great Britain.
Do you know what was done with the Churchill bust in the first weeks of the Obama presidency?
As you might have guessed, Obama quickly sent it back to the British Embassy. There was no ceremony or any other sign of appreciation given. What would Franklin Roosevelt think about Obama’s actions? This hero of President Obama is the very president who had such a strong relationship with Prime Minister Churchill.
Of course this story is only just beginning. As if President Obama hadn’t snubbed the British enough, Prime Minister Gordon Brown was given a horrendous welcome to the U.S. by the Obama administration.
Earlier this month, Prime Minister Brown came to Washington for a two day visit. During this visit, he and Obama planned to have a joint press conference as is normal when foreign dignitaries visit.
However, Obama kept scaling down and delaying the press conference. Eventually the joint press conference was canceled all together.
British newspapers have reported the joint press conference was canceled due to snow. I guess there was snow in all 132 rooms of the White House.
It seems odd that weather did not prevent President Obama from keeping other events on his schedule, but it did make him unable to have a press conference with another powerful world leader.
On the same visit, Prime Minister Brown brought with him many expensive and, more importantly, highly symbolic gifts.
Among these gifts given to Obama’s family were clothing for Sasha and Malia, the HMS Resolute’s commissioning paper and a pen holder which was made from the timber of an anti-slavery vessel, the HMS Gannet.
Maybe those gifts don’t sound all that symbolic to you. You should consider that the HMS Resolute has long been a symbol of the strong Anglo-American relationship.
This is due to the fact that the ship was rescued from icebergs by the U.S. and given to Queen Victoria.
Also, the pen holder is a symbol of overcoming slavery and racism, which correlates with President Obama’s electoral success.What did Obama give Prime Minister Brown in return? Surely he gave him something at least as symbolic and meaningful.If you think that was the case, you should probably reconsider.
Instead of a giving a gift which would symbolize our continuing solidarity with the British, President Obama thought it was a great idea to give the prime minister a stack of 25 DVDs.
I like movies as much as anyone else, but what was he thinking? I will say that they were a set of American-produced, collector’s edition DVDs.
Even so, is this really an appropriate gift to give another world leader?
At the very least, the gift seems much less thoughtful than those given by Prime Minister Brown. At worst, they seem downright disrespectful.
Prime Minister Brown’s visit to Washington was a wonderful opportunity for President Obama to form a lasting relationship reminiscent of those between Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher and George W. Bush and Tony Blair. Instead, President Obama chose to do nothing more than damage a strong relationship.
--As Appeared in The Daily Mississippian on Thursday, March 26, 2009
The Slippery Slope to Nationalized Health Care
Do you remember when Joe the Plumber said Obama’s plan to “spread the wealth around” sounded like socialism?
Some doubted the validity of his assessment at the time, but we are now forced to accept such as reality. The so-called stimulus package is nothing more than spreading the wealth to a laundry list of Democratic pet projects. In a sense, the stimulus bill contains everything except provisions, which will stimulate the economy.
I’m sure you’ve heard some of the more ridiculous provisions contained in the supposed stimulus package. Surely, allocating millions of dollars for golf course renovation, office space and vehicles for bureaucrats and STD prevention is a wonderful way to stimulate the economy. This is the case according to three lousy Republicans and all but 11 Democrats.
This astronomical spending will harm us for years to come. Even so, the outrageous spending is not even the most dangerous provision in this “stimulus package.”
Unfortunately, many in the media have failed to report the truth concerning the provision called “Comparative Effectiveness Research.” This dangerous and little-known part of the bill will help liberals in Washington wrest from our hands the freedom to make our own medical decisions.
Apparently, Washington liberals believe themselves to be in a better position than we to determine what medical treatments are most beneficial and cost-effective. Personally, I think both decisions are better left to my doctor and me. I trust my doctor, not the government, to consult me on medical issues.
If you don’t believe anything so outlandish and harmful could be included in a bill that is supposed to stimulate the economy, just look at the evidence. The report given by the House Appropriations Committee states: “Those items, procedures, and interventions … that are found to be less effective and in some cases, more expensive, will no longer be prescribed.”
If you still don’t believe this is a harmful provision, please consider that 63 groups, advocating for patients, have written a letter to Congress concerning the dangers of such legislation. In their letter, it is made clear that “comparative effectiveness research” could bring about “restrictions on patients’ access to treatments and physicians’ and other providers’ ability to deliver care that best meets the needs of the individual patients.”
Countries, such as the United Kingdom, already possess government-run health care systems, which make use of boards conducting “comparative effectiveness research.” It makes sense, then, to assess how well patients in such countries are receiving medical care.
In such countries, patients are continually being denied treatment and medication, which could save, or greatly extend, their lives. This is all because such treatments and medications are deemed “less effective” and “more expensive.”
The patients being denied treatment and medications have names. They are not simply faces in the crowd. Consider, for example, George Robinson, who made his home in the UK. He had lung cancer and needed a drug called Tarceva in order to extend his life. However, the benevolent government-run system deemed Tarceva to be less than effective when compared to its cost. What do you think George Robinson and his doctor thought?
By their very nature, government-run health care systems must do whatever possible to keep costs down. Except for the insane idea that nationalized health care works, I am unable to understand why anyone would stand in support of such a system. At its very core, nationalized health care systems present dangers to free people everywhere.
Tom “The Tax Dodger” Daschle may not be our next Secretary of Health and Human Services, but he has made his impact known. It is he, in a book, who suggested nationalized health care is so important that it should be placed in a budget bill if necessary. It looks like his Democratic colleagues read his book.
What a shame it is that our leaders would even pass a “stimulus bill” that does nothing to stimulate the economy. It is even worse that they would pass a provision that leads us down the road to nationalized health care without so much as debating the issue.
Friends, we are in for a fight – a fight against tyranny and a fight for liberty. Our government is attempting to take away our freedom to make our own medical decisions with the consultation of the doctor of our choice.
Stand up for your liberty. Remember the words of President Reagan: “Man is not free unless government is limited … As government expands, liberty contracts.”
We cannot afford to allow the government to make our health care decisions for us. Our very lives are at stake. What will you do? Make your choice. As for me, I have chosen to stand for life and liberty over oppression and death.
--As Appeared in The Daily Mississippian on Friday, February 20, 2009
Some doubted the validity of his assessment at the time, but we are now forced to accept such as reality. The so-called stimulus package is nothing more than spreading the wealth to a laundry list of Democratic pet projects. In a sense, the stimulus bill contains everything except provisions, which will stimulate the economy.
I’m sure you’ve heard some of the more ridiculous provisions contained in the supposed stimulus package. Surely, allocating millions of dollars for golf course renovation, office space and vehicles for bureaucrats and STD prevention is a wonderful way to stimulate the economy. This is the case according to three lousy Republicans and all but 11 Democrats.
This astronomical spending will harm us for years to come. Even so, the outrageous spending is not even the most dangerous provision in this “stimulus package.”
Unfortunately, many in the media have failed to report the truth concerning the provision called “Comparative Effectiveness Research.” This dangerous and little-known part of the bill will help liberals in Washington wrest from our hands the freedom to make our own medical decisions.
Apparently, Washington liberals believe themselves to be in a better position than we to determine what medical treatments are most beneficial and cost-effective. Personally, I think both decisions are better left to my doctor and me. I trust my doctor, not the government, to consult me on medical issues.
If you don’t believe anything so outlandish and harmful could be included in a bill that is supposed to stimulate the economy, just look at the evidence. The report given by the House Appropriations Committee states: “Those items, procedures, and interventions … that are found to be less effective and in some cases, more expensive, will no longer be prescribed.”
If you still don’t believe this is a harmful provision, please consider that 63 groups, advocating for patients, have written a letter to Congress concerning the dangers of such legislation. In their letter, it is made clear that “comparative effectiveness research” could bring about “restrictions on patients’ access to treatments and physicians’ and other providers’ ability to deliver care that best meets the needs of the individual patients.”
Countries, such as the United Kingdom, already possess government-run health care systems, which make use of boards conducting “comparative effectiveness research.” It makes sense, then, to assess how well patients in such countries are receiving medical care.
In such countries, patients are continually being denied treatment and medication, which could save, or greatly extend, their lives. This is all because such treatments and medications are deemed “less effective” and “more expensive.”
The patients being denied treatment and medications have names. They are not simply faces in the crowd. Consider, for example, George Robinson, who made his home in the UK. He had lung cancer and needed a drug called Tarceva in order to extend his life. However, the benevolent government-run system deemed Tarceva to be less than effective when compared to its cost. What do you think George Robinson and his doctor thought?
By their very nature, government-run health care systems must do whatever possible to keep costs down. Except for the insane idea that nationalized health care works, I am unable to understand why anyone would stand in support of such a system. At its very core, nationalized health care systems present dangers to free people everywhere.
Tom “The Tax Dodger” Daschle may not be our next Secretary of Health and Human Services, but he has made his impact known. It is he, in a book, who suggested nationalized health care is so important that it should be placed in a budget bill if necessary. It looks like his Democratic colleagues read his book.
What a shame it is that our leaders would even pass a “stimulus bill” that does nothing to stimulate the economy. It is even worse that they would pass a provision that leads us down the road to nationalized health care without so much as debating the issue.
Friends, we are in for a fight – a fight against tyranny and a fight for liberty. Our government is attempting to take away our freedom to make our own medical decisions with the consultation of the doctor of our choice.
Stand up for your liberty. Remember the words of President Reagan: “Man is not free unless government is limited … As government expands, liberty contracts.”
We cannot afford to allow the government to make our health care decisions for us. Our very lives are at stake. What will you do? Make your choice. As for me, I have chosen to stand for life and liberty over oppression and death.
--As Appeared in The Daily Mississippian on Friday, February 20, 2009
Several Reasons to be Nostalgic for Reagan
In case you have not heard , the Princeton Review recently released the 2008 "Best 366 Colleges" rankings. Of course, at Ole Miss, everyone has focused on our listing of second in the best "Party Schools" category.
However, it would be wise for all Ole Miss students to consider another of our rankings. Our university is listed a being the 18th "Most Nostalgic" for Ronald Reagan."
While there are those who would not agree with this distinction, it is apparent that the majority of students on campus have fond memories of the "Reagan Years," whether through personal experiences or those all-too-familiar stories told us by our parents. Whatever the case, most of us trust the principles and lessons which Pres. Reagan left for our learning.
Why should we at this point in our country's history forget those things Reagan taught us? Should we not at least consider what Reagan had to say about situations which were similar to those we face today? With this course of actions, perhaps we would see things in a different, more enlightened manner.
Obviously, the situation I am referring to is Iraq. Ronald Reagan once said, "A leader, once convinced a particular course of action is the right one, must have the determination to stick with it and be undaunted when the going gets rough."
Currently, we are confronting an enemy similar to those faced by other great leaders. The question before us should be, do we have such a leader today? I believe we do. Although he rarely gets credit, this leader is our president, George W. Bush.
Pres. Bush is bombarded daily with criticism for his handling of the war in Iraq and the larger war on terror.
There are those who argue we should pull out of Iraq immediately. Clearly, these critics have no foresight. They care nothing for the generations that will come after them. Thankfully, President Bush does look to the future.
Terrorism is not an issue exclusively for law enforcement. Previous presidents have treated it this way. This approach has been somewhat successful in solving the problem for the present, but not for the future.
The problem, as Bush sees it, can only be solved by taking the fight to the enemy. Thus, he said, "The best defense against terrorism is a strong offensive against terrorists." There is little doubt that this is the only way by which the world can ever hope to be rid of "thugs and assassins," as Bush likes to call them.
We must remember the difficulty of the task ahead. Helping to bring freedom, democracy, and stability to others is not easy.
Iraqis are joining the Iraqi National Guard and defending their country. Our troops are fighting bravely to free people from the bonds of tyranny and oppression. Saddam Hussein has received his reward, and others have followed. All sponsors of terrorism, such as Iran, should be on notice that the same fate awaits them.
The next time you hear someone criticize President Bush on this topic, remember that he has our best interests at heart. The men and women of our armed forces are the best on Earth. The president knows they can win in Iraq. They can make the world safe for freedom and democracy.
Remember that Bush is leading our world in the right direction, just as did those unwavering patriots before him. He was correct when he said, American leaders - from Roosevelt to Truman to Kennedy to Reagan - rejected isolation and retreat because they knew that America is always more secure when freedom is on the march."
Recall that Iraq is a fight for ideals. One will be victorious and the other vanquished. As Pres. Bush said, "The challenge in Iraq comes down to this: Either the forces of extremism succeed, or the forces of freedom succeed. Either our enemies advance their interests in Iraq, or we advance our interests."
Most of all, remember Bush and our troops need our support. America has proven that when she stands behind a cause, it is successful. What more just cause is there than the liberty of all people? Have we forgotten the words of our own Declaration of Independence?
Do we really mean it when we recite, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"?
Ask yourself what Reagan would do. Would he not fight to protect future generations of Americans from horrible attacks similar to 9/11? Would he not also say this is a fight which will be won in the end by determination and ideals?
Let his answer stand for itself. "The ultimate determinate in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas - a trial of spiritual resolve; the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideas to which we are dedicated."
--As Appeared in The Daily Mississippian on Tuesday, September 4, 2007
However, it would be wise for all Ole Miss students to consider another of our rankings. Our university is listed a being the 18th "Most Nostalgic" for Ronald Reagan."
While there are those who would not agree with this distinction, it is apparent that the majority of students on campus have fond memories of the "Reagan Years," whether through personal experiences or those all-too-familiar stories told us by our parents. Whatever the case, most of us trust the principles and lessons which Pres. Reagan left for our learning.
Why should we at this point in our country's history forget those things Reagan taught us? Should we not at least consider what Reagan had to say about situations which were similar to those we face today? With this course of actions, perhaps we would see things in a different, more enlightened manner.
Obviously, the situation I am referring to is Iraq. Ronald Reagan once said, "A leader, once convinced a particular course of action is the right one, must have the determination to stick with it and be undaunted when the going gets rough."
Currently, we are confronting an enemy similar to those faced by other great leaders. The question before us should be, do we have such a leader today? I believe we do. Although he rarely gets credit, this leader is our president, George W. Bush.
Pres. Bush is bombarded daily with criticism for his handling of the war in Iraq and the larger war on terror.
There are those who argue we should pull out of Iraq immediately. Clearly, these critics have no foresight. They care nothing for the generations that will come after them. Thankfully, President Bush does look to the future.
Terrorism is not an issue exclusively for law enforcement. Previous presidents have treated it this way. This approach has been somewhat successful in solving the problem for the present, but not for the future.
The problem, as Bush sees it, can only be solved by taking the fight to the enemy. Thus, he said, "The best defense against terrorism is a strong offensive against terrorists." There is little doubt that this is the only way by which the world can ever hope to be rid of "thugs and assassins," as Bush likes to call them.
We must remember the difficulty of the task ahead. Helping to bring freedom, democracy, and stability to others is not easy.
Iraqis are joining the Iraqi National Guard and defending their country. Our troops are fighting bravely to free people from the bonds of tyranny and oppression. Saddam Hussein has received his reward, and others have followed. All sponsors of terrorism, such as Iran, should be on notice that the same fate awaits them.
The next time you hear someone criticize President Bush on this topic, remember that he has our best interests at heart. The men and women of our armed forces are the best on Earth. The president knows they can win in Iraq. They can make the world safe for freedom and democracy.
Remember that Bush is leading our world in the right direction, just as did those unwavering patriots before him. He was correct when he said, American leaders - from Roosevelt to Truman to Kennedy to Reagan - rejected isolation and retreat because they knew that America is always more secure when freedom is on the march."
Recall that Iraq is a fight for ideals. One will be victorious and the other vanquished. As Pres. Bush said, "The challenge in Iraq comes down to this: Either the forces of extremism succeed, or the forces of freedom succeed. Either our enemies advance their interests in Iraq, or we advance our interests."
Most of all, remember Bush and our troops need our support. America has proven that when she stands behind a cause, it is successful. What more just cause is there than the liberty of all people? Have we forgotten the words of our own Declaration of Independence?
Do we really mean it when we recite, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"?
Ask yourself what Reagan would do. Would he not fight to protect future generations of Americans from horrible attacks similar to 9/11? Would he not also say this is a fight which will be won in the end by determination and ideals?
Let his answer stand for itself. "The ultimate determinate in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas - a trial of spiritual resolve; the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideas to which we are dedicated."
--As Appeared in The Daily Mississippian on Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)