36 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(11/10/04 12:00pm)
This year's election has provided for quite a bumpy ride. Swing states turned from red to blue and back again on online maps of the Electoral College, fears regarding Election Day terrorism surfaced with the emergence of Osama bin Laden's video and exit polls were woefully inaccurate yet again.
Americans like you and I went to the polls and voted and our process worked another glorious time.
This phenomenon, whose outcome many on this campus may be still celebrating or smarting from, is unheard of in other countries.
There are not free elections in many regions of the world and we as Americans are truly blessed to live in a country where people accept the outcome of an election without turning to violence or planning assassinations.
Although I am elated about this country's decision to give President Bush four more years, I want to extend my consolation to the supporters of Sen. Kerry.
Please, don't do anything silly and move to Canada. We need you here to participate in the political process. We need you to keep us conservatives honest and challenge us in the realm of ideas.
Some of my closest friends are supporters of Kerry and I want nothing more than to continue examining the political world with their unique insight and companionship.
Regardless of who won the election, these next weeks should be a time for healing wounds left by a tough emotional campaign and not spouting ridiculous and hurtful comments about either the winner or the loser.
Unfortunately, not many people took this election well, and there is much anger directed toward this president and the American people who elected him.
The anti-conservative hate speech promulgated by many opponents of the president in the media needs to stop for the sake of decency, solidarity for a country at war and basic journalistic integrity.
To provide an example of what I mean one needs only to look at the headline from the British tabloid The Mirror. How can this paper claim objectivity and write headlines stating "How can 59,054,087 people be so dumb?"
Even worse than an international insult of the intelligence of more than half of the voting population of the United States is the persistent, scathing and intolerant attacks on the president and his supporters for their religious beliefs.
Far too often have I seen Christians and our beliefs smeared by writers in this paper, professors and other hateful people. The writers last week must have thought it clever to juxtapose Christianity and fascism because this is not the first time it has been done.
I would like to remind everyone that outspoken Christians were some of the first to be executed under fascist dictators.
Furthermore, we currently continue to be persecuted and killed in Sudan, China, the Middle East and elsewhere for our belief that God sent his only Son, Jesus Christ, to die on a cross so that all who believe would not die but live forever.
I find these attacks on the Christian community's faith and First Amendment rights extremely troubling.
Where is the religious tolerance from these "open-minded" people? Where is the acceptance for our "lifestyle"?
As we have seen over and over again from the extreme left when it comes to tolerance, Christians need not apply.
I think the writers last week hit the nail on the head. People hate the president and his supporters not because of a tax policy or a healthcare plan but because of their deep-seeded beliefs. I have heard some bemoan this fact and cite the tired separation of church and state argument.
Unfortunately for them, on matters of religion, the Constitution states quite clearly that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
This means the president, congressmen have the right to freely exercise their religion and vote, pass legislation, or deliver speeches in accordance with their religious beliefs.
For example, if sometime in the future, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued a congressman for expressing religious beliefs in public and or voting according to those beliefs, the ACLU would be violating his First Amendment right to free exercise.
By the way, the suppression of such beliefs is an example of fascism at work. Go on, belittle us as much as you want. Our beliefs are legal.
Reading some of these editorials, hearing leftist supporters on TV and seeing protesters on the streets of New York fills me with pity for these people. They let a seething hatred of conservatism and George W. Bush's ideals and beliefs drive them to lunacy.
In a rage, not understanding or even attempting to comprehend the other side's position, they lash out with curses and hateful language. They hardly ever mention Kerry's good points or his policies.
Instead, they denigrate the president's policies and usually smear him and other conservatives with personal attacks.
Although I do not personally like Kerry, he would never stoop to such tactics and his supporters should follow his heartfelt concession speech of reconciliation.
If you're still upset about the outcome of the election, there is a Congressional election in two years. Campaign for as many liberal candidates as you want and do your best to get them elected.
In four years, there will be another presidential election when you can cast your ballot.
In the meantime, the American people and the democratic process have spoken, and we all need to accept the outcome.
(11/04/04 12:00pm)
The forcible removal of an elected official from office always attracts attention no matter what the level. From the impeachment of President Clinton to the successful recall of California Gov. Gray Davis to the recent threats of impeachment and votes of no confidence in the matter of Student Government Association (SGA) President Pedro Khoury, such procedures often become quite heated and sometimes out of control.
Several weeks ago, a group in SGA presented a list of grievances regarding the president's character, dedication, experience and other points that are now moot anyway.
Initially supported by a significant number of SGA senators, the symbolic vote of no confidence in their chief executive was on the table for discussion this past Wednesday in Brower Student Center in front of a full house of boisterous yet concerned students.
As the testimonies and speeches from students and SGA members were presented, several claims became clear. Representatives complained that the formation of cliques had halted progress and students expressed sincere doubts about SGA's effectiveness and its racial tolerance and ethics.
In my mind, however, the real injustice was that this event was completely blown out of proportion by both Khoury's opponents and his supporters.
I am not involved with SGA, so unfortunately I am not privy to all of the inner workings of the organization. Still, it does not take a rocket scientist to tell that SGA has factionalized on this issue and perhaps now on others. Khoury's supporters in the senate stood and applauded those in the audience who praised the president while those who wished to stay out of the matter abstained from voting on preliminary measures and Khoury's opponents kept quiet under the largely hostile crowd.
It was also brought to my attention that still another group named the Student Reform Movement, calling for more direct student involvement with SGA, has formed.
The real problem here is not the president or reform; it is with communication. If SGA members talked to each other and worked out their differences, I do not think we would be seeing these drastic resolutions of no confidence and impeachment, let alone the formation of wide chasms between members of the organization.
I agree with several dissenting SGA associates citing the hastiness and childishness of the procedure. I believe that this matter could have been talked out and negotiated. The president had been in office for only two months and already the call to remove him was made.
Come on, that's a little premature folks! How much damage could Khoury have done in two months? He was not embezzling funds or abusing his office, so there was no need to remove him with such haste. Given that SGA was still accomplishing next to nothing regardless, how bad could he have been?
Nonetheless, I am not going to completely disregard his critics' comments either. Yes, there is a possibility that he was not experienced in SGA affairs or protocol. There is a possibility that he was not handling the office as well as expected.
Yet one rather damning question needs to be asked of Khoury opponents: why didn't you defend your own resolution? If you feel so strongly that the president needs to go why didn't you present your opinion despite the hostile atmosphere?
I fear that this hasty action with no defense by its proponents may have aggravated the clique situation to a status that will be difficult to repair.
To the president's credit, I believe he handled himself extremely well under these trying circumstances. Apologizing for losing his temper and calmly stepping aside for another member to preside over the procedures, he appeared calm and confident. I was also impressed by some of the words of support from his friends and allies.
What most impressed me was his decision to set aside his stipend and contribute it back into programs for students.
What I am not impressed with, however, is how this situation was completely blown out of proportion in regard to race.
Once news of the upcoming vote became public, letters and e-mails were already circulating from the president to his allies in minority groups such as the Black Student Union and Union Latina. His request for support from his friends and allies, I feel, was completely justified.
On the other hand, the comments and counter-resolutions either outwardly or implicitly accusing the president's opponents of racism were not. I think that these accusations or thoughts stem from misunderstanding and passions were intentionally fanned creating an unnecessarily hostile atmosphere.
I feel that this was a clique issue and a communications failure, but not a racially motivated action. The president himself stated that the resolution was not a racial issue and that there was no valid evidence of a conspiracy. His responsible comments did not seem to get through as student and professorial speakers made remarks about supporting Khoury because of his Hispanic background.
This is when I became a bit puzzled. Isn't it enough to stand behind a person because he's competent, a friend, innocent of the charges against him and a good leader? Why, after Khoury said that this was not a racial issue, did it suddenly become one anyway?
My friends, racism is a very serious allegation and should not be portioned out lightly. Solid proof needs to be presented to validate such claims, not speculation, spin or coincidence. SGA is ineffective, broken into factions and perhaps in need of reform but there is absolutely no evidence of it being racist.
When groups or individuals begin pointing fingers and distancing themselves along racial and cultural lines our community does not become closer, but drifts further apart.
(10/20/04 12:00pm)
Well it has happened again. Some "heathen upstart" has dared to question my "divinely appointed authority to brainwash you all."
Joking aside, regular readers of The Signal know I don't believe this and would never dream of indoctrinating anyone.
Yet for some reason, there exists a group of people who don't believe in God the same general way Mr. McCaffery, Mr. Carter and I do and feel that that gives it the right to brand us as close-minded and offensive, not to mention just plain stupid.
Usually I don't respond to comments about my articles, but Mr. Susnick's comments last week were nonsensical, and insulting to Carter and those who share his views.
They do however, bring up some good points on morality and make my own case rather good.
The next time you want to make fun of theists, Susnick, I suggest choosing your words more carefully. I'm sorry but when you denigrate Socratic logic (questioning and answering to obtain information or make a point) to mere "banter" then why should we even listen to you?
So we should just throw out foundations of law and justice, philosophy, mathematical reasoning, and science because you say so? That's absurd!
Socratically speaking, Susnick is wrong on many points. First, his implication that McCaffery's suggested reading of C. S. Lewis was something akin to indoctrination is ridiculous.
McCaffery was simply pointing out a reference source for Christians or others interested in Christianity when dealing with spiritual debates, not trying to brainwash anyone.
Secondly, Carter was arguing that God was uncreated and therefore self-caused which is a major stumbling block in mortal understanding.
By some jump of logic beyond me Susnick then argues that Hitler's ideas came from "pure sources or is outside natural understanding."
This is simply not true. Hitler in fact based Nazism off other men's ideas. Marx provides the framework by legitimizing violent revolution and Nietzsche kills off God and creates the Superman giving Nazism a twisted soul. Add vicious nationalism and old-fashioned anti-Semitism and you have a good percentage of the Nazi movement. Gee, I guess we can understand it!
Turning then on yours truly, Susnick tries to catch me in a logical contradiction after having derided logic itself.
Flip-flopping aside, he makes the point that the Declaration of Independence was written by politicians cashing in on time-held traditions, two entities which I argued earlier could not have been sources of rights.
If one looks more closely at the Declaration however, it becomes clear that the statement is a belief not a tradition. The American colonists had the tradition of having a king not believing in God.
True belief is something more personal and deeper than manmade tradition. In the same way the Declaration did not delineate rights as the Constitution does, but is rather a philosophical statement about beliefs.
Having defeated Susnick's illogical/logical argument, I will now call for a written apology regarding his statements concerning Carter. Susnick states that Carter's belief "in a freedom of religion that allows people to a freedom of conscience that allows them to understand God in whichever way they wish" is narrow-minded, self-righteous, elitist and comparable to Nazism.
Just because you don't like the mention of the name of God doesn't mean that a person is narrow-minded or self-righteous.
Where did Carter say that his way is the only way? Where did he say that everyone needs to believe in God? Where did he say that only the smart people understand what he's talking about? Where is your tolerance Mr. Susnick?
That comment was unfounded, irresponsible, hypocritical and insulting and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Despite his best efforts to the contrary, Susnick actually brings up some good points for discussion. Almost everyone seems to agree that Hitler was wrong. However if you believe that morality is relative then there's no way you can say that.
Let me explain further. If you think that people can and should be able to decide what is right for them, you have condoned Nazism.
One can't logically tell a Nazi that he's wrong to hate everyone who is not like him when that person believes all views are equal.
With moral relativism, Christ and Hitler are equal. If you are being robbed or assaulted there's no reason to call the police because you'd be disrespecting the robber or the adulterer's world view. If you sue someone, don't expect the court to side with you unless your opponent shares your views.
How do we get out of this terrible situation? The alternative means adhering to a position of moral absolutes.
Yes, my friends, it is called saying that your moral views are right and anything contrary to them is wrong. I know this may be a new thing but it works.
Without an absolute morality of right and wrong there is no way to look at life sensibly.
Who then is to decide this absolute morality? I believe no imperfect man can be trusted with such a task. I believe we must again rely on a fully divine, benevolent higher power separate from man for moral guidance.
Without a God who sets the standards, justice, human rights and morality are all simply optimistic illusions.
My friends, we need tolerance for different kinds of people and political views but having tolerance for every moral view in the world is ridiculous and very dangerous.
(10/13/04 12:00pm)
The freedoms of speech and thought have been cherished in this country since its founding. The spirit of America is built on the bedrock of unalienable personal liberties guaranteed to all.
The universities and colleges should reflect those freedoms while also introducing many different topics and ideas for public consumption. The worst thing for an American school system to do is to inhibit the expression of ideas or create an environment hostile to different beliefs preferring one set of ideas to another whether they are political, social or religious.
Unfortunately the educational system has become a vehicle and willing participant in the forceful spread of leftist ideals, values and propaganda.
Across the nation conservative students and teachers are finding their beliefs and ideas unwelcome in many areas of academia. Regrettably this is no surprise seeing that the leftist, Democrat supporting National Education Association (NEA) controls many aspects of our children's education. Take the event last week in South Brunswick in which a teacher was criticized for erecting a social studies bulletin board. What was the offending material; pornography or other obscenities perhaps?
No, posted along with images of Ben Franklin, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution on the bulletin board was the damning evidence - pictures of President Bush and the first lady. This so enraged some parents during back-to-school night, they complained to the school administration.
California Polytechnical Institute dragged another conservative before an elitist tribunal with his academic record at risk. Steve Hinkle's crime was putting up a sign advertising Mason Weaver, a conservative black speaker and author who was coming to campus.
The sign read "It's OK to Leave the Plantation" (the title of the author's book) and had information about the open forum discussion.
Even though he acted very respectfully, some students who witnessed this dastardly deed called the police accusing him of everything from racism to having been threatened by his presence because he was a white male. The school prescribed for him a visit to the school psychologist for tolerance classes and the writing of letters of apology to all of the students he "offended." He refused and brought legal action on them and won.
This is just a taste of the extent of liberalism's hold on the academic world and sadly there are newspapers and Web sites full of academia's abuse of conservative thinkers.
You now might be saying to yourself, "No it can't happen here Matt." Not very surprisingly you would be wrong.
While I have not heard of any Republicans being dragged in front of judicial affairs committees for posting flyers, there is much evidence of liberalism's stronghold over this campus.
For instance, our last three "Community Indoctrination (Learning) Days" have featured liberal speakers and/or liberal discussion groups in almost every situation.
A conservative has not been in sight on these days. Instead we host authors like Tim O'Brien who last year bashed the president, we sanction mock gay weddings and we hold debates over how drug laws are violating people's rights.
To be fair, Rich Lowry, a conservative columnist did come for a debate my freshman year, but that has been the extent of the school-sponsored conservative speakers. Apparently, introducing students to the other side of the argument has been shown to be too dangerous.
Let's face it, the academic world (along with the mainstream media and the entertainment industry) is hostile toward anything that doesn't follow the liberal world view.
You don't believe that man evolved from an ape? You're a religious nutcase whose ideas are archaic and dangerously Christian. Of course man evolved from nothing and how dare you suggest otherwise! Keep your religion to yourself!
Do you support the president and you're a Republican?
You're a rich, white, gun-lover who hates minorities. Your president, by the way, is an idiot, a liar, a thief, a warmonger, a hypocrite, a draft dodger; he is in the pockets of big business and a baby killer!
I could go on and on and on about the common leftist responses to my positions, but I think you get the picture. The freedom of speech and tolerance for ideas oftentimes, unfortunately, only applies to liberals and their ideology. Conservatives need not apply.
To put this in perspective, however, I am going to reverse the roles for all of you liberals out there who enjoy this sheltered academic bubble of thought.
How would you feel if everyday in class the teacher derided Kerry, or said the right to choose is immoral, or called gay marriage an abomination?
This would be a taste of your own medicine I think you would find difficult to swallow.
This article is a part of a larger wake-up call for liberal academia. Your time of intellectual domination is coming to a close. We want real freedom of speech and open-mindedness on our campuses, not the status quo where only some beliefs are legitimate.
We don't want the teaching lecterns in our classrooms and forums turned into soapboxes for your political and moral opinions. We have had enough of being ostracized in our own schools. We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore.
(10/06/04 12:00pm)
In this country our discussions on political philosophy often come down to the subject of rights. Statements referring to rights of speech and expression dominate the periods of protest.
Abortion rights direct many feminist forums while marriage rights are debated in pro-gay circles. Outrages against animal rights are bemoaned by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and rights for trees are fervently defended by environmental terrorist groups like Earth Liberation Front.
History also draws our attention to the abolitionist, women's suffrage and civil rights movements and the legislation that was passed regarding them.
It seems that everywhere you turn everyone is claiming that they have rights and the people for whom they are speaking are entitled to these rights.
This is all well and good but I seriously doubt many people - even in the academic world - actually could define what rights are or from where they come.
I think most people could come to an understanding that rights are a good idea and we should have them. That, however, does not get us very far.
So please ponder for a moment why we as college students, as males and females, Caucasians and non-Caucasians, Americans and residents of other countries, and human beings truly have rights.
Two hundred and twenty-eight years ago our founding fathers signed their names to the Declaration of Independence, our nation's founding document, in which they laid down our liberties and rights as unalienable.
The modern Internet site dictionary.com, however defines a right as "Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition or nature." This definition, although grammatically acceptable, is woefully and thoroughly inadequate.
First, although it is true that our rights are delineated and protected by law, those laws can always be revoked. Someday the Bill of Rights could become "antiquated" or "not politically correct" and the president with both houses of Congress and the votes of three-fourths of the state legislatures could repeal them.
Sound outrageous? It happened not more than a century ago where Jews in Germany enjoyed voting and property rights until they were taken away by Hitler with more or less full support from the German people.
It is happening now in Canada.Legal action can be taken against anyone who speaks against homosexuality. Their rationale? Such speech violates national hate-crimes legislation!
These are the first steps in the absorption of rights for the sake of political correctness. What good are rights if they are only guaranteed by the goodwill of politicians?!
Second, tradition should never dictate a person's rights. If this portion of the definition were true then African-Americans, Asians, Hispanics, women and poor white men would not be able to vote or hold office.
Moreover, if tradition dictates rights then we would have never gotten beyond the hunter-gatherer method of government in which the strongest rules.
Thirdly, I have found that common origin or nature is often given to explain why humans have and should have rights. I have heard the explanation, "We're all equal, made from the same stuff."
Really? Are we all really equal in every way? I would say no. Some of us are faster, stronger, smarter, more ruthless and more conniving.
Evolutionary theories reveal that the types best suited for their environment survive while others are eliminated.
Nature itself cannot provide rights. Lions do not stop to ponder over the antelope's rights before killing it. It is kill or be killed! Why should weaker animals have rights or even exist?
Instead of creating a system in which all of the creatures live in harmony we see that human life influenced by nature becomes as Thomas Hobbs put it, "nasty, brutish and short."
It would seem that the idea of having rights is an illusion. Yet, our founding fathers have left us something more. "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 ..."
Yes that's right folks, our founding document speaks of God as the source of our rights. Like it or not this country is founded on the TRUTH that men are created equally and that rights come from He who created us.
Humans have no worth, no value and no rights aside from God. Human rights do not stem from politicians, customs or from nature itself. Instead they are birthed from a higher power who I believe looked down on his creation (us) and saw that it was good.
But, of course, you could say it's all a lie. In that case your rights are a lie too. You could say that the mention of God is merely a formality. Well then, your rights are a formality too.
Furthermore, if you are a person who is enraged by the words in this column please don't take it out on me; your quarrel is with the Declaration of Independence.
Get a group together to ban the Declaration in schools or remove it from public places. Make sure it is never read in classrooms or lecture halls. Burn every copy you can find. If you are especially enraged then the original copy is being held in Washington, D.C.
Bring an angry mob armed to the teeth if you wish and tell the authorities that you are going to tear up the Declaration and every thing for which it stands.
Then you will have completed your task to ban the mention of that hated document. Let's see how long your rights last.
Seriously friends, sarcasm aside, our country was founded on a belief in a higher power - whom you have the right to accept or deny. Still, always keep in mind from where that right comes.
(09/29/04 12:00pm)
Drinking seems to be a rite of passage for any person who enters his or her college years. Once a freshman arrives on campus, he or she is bombarded with fraternities or sororities offering a hand and a party afterwards.
Images of alcohol that appear on posters and bottles are stored away in refrigerators. Newfound friends come by asking you to come to a party with them and express a desire to get "messed up," "tanked" or "trashed."
Meanwhile, parents sit by and hope their son or daughter acts responsibly.
The infatuation with the college party lifestyle has permeated almost every niche of our society. I can remember a time a few years ago when I was sitting in on an eighth grade classroom to see if I wanted to consider teaching as a profession. The teacher allowed some time after the lesson for the students to ask me questions about college.
One student asked me if I went to parties where there was alcohol and asked me about girls who went to them.
Isn't it sad that the only thing that was interesting about college to that boy was the drinking and the partying?
He could have asked about the opportunities or the organizations or the classes. You may think that I am taking this one boy's opinion out of perspective, but how many of your first thoughts when you got here were not "where's the library" but "where can I go and get drunk?"
This unfortunate view of life, which puts drinking to extremes, has been propagated in our society by our incredibly "moral" mass media and sadly accepted as the norm and silently reinforced (kids will be kids after all) by our own families.
To set the record straight, I am not against adults of legal age having a drink with friends. What I am shocked and saddened about is how more and more young people are turning to drugs and alcohol and paying for it with their lives.
Take the tragic story of Samantha Spady, a 19-year-old Colorado State University student who died of alcohol poisoning last week. She was found dead in (surprise) a fraternity house with a .436 blood alcohol content. Most states view .10 as being legally intoxicated.
The autopsy revealed that she had consumed 30 to 40 beers or shots of alcohol. Again, you may say dismissively, "It'll never happen to me."
Sadly, the case of Spady is not an anomaly. According to the Center for Disease Control, approximately 40,000 people die each year from accidents associated with alcohol. If you add the number who die of alcohol-related causes like cirrhosis it climbs to 75,000 yearly.
Seventy five thousand people dead!
Strangely, this is not a fact put out in our Lollanobooza celebrations where the College again puts on the fa?ade of pretending to care about real problems facing our nation.
There is no talk of these 70,000 victims at this one-night carnival that fraternities and sororities actively advertise. Lollanobooza is and always will be a well-intentioned yet half-hearted failure for one major reason: because it is a flashy Band-Aid that is supposed to stop a gushing arterial wound of society.
Like Pontius Pilate, the enlightened academic community washes its hands of destructive drinking prevention, figuring that Lollanobooza, some posters suggesting people make good choices and an occasional Community Advisor-led program, will suffice for its moral obligation for the year.
Instead of pretending that there are lots of things to do on campus without drinking, let us at least try being honest and addressing the reasons why college students are drinking themselves into unconsciousness on a regular basis.
I understand that I am in the minority in my decision never to drink alcohol, but as a logical person I have never seen the appeal of drinking yourself senseless. All attempts to explain this joy of intoxication to me have failed abysmally.
The root of the problem in my humble opinion is that we, like the rest of the human race, are all seeking meaning and don't know where to find it.
We are among the brightest, most creative and athletic people in New Jersey and elsewhere, yet we do not know who we are, why we are here and what our purpose is.
These struggles are difficult and may take lifetimes to figure out.
I have a newsflash for all of you: whatever deep-seeded problem you may be trying to drink away tonight will still be there tomorrow morning. Only you will have a hangover and you will not remember what you did last night.
Instead of drinking away our stresses, loneliness and problems, why don't we - with full assistance from the College - confront them and search for our true meaning in life?
(09/15/04 12:00pm)
Every American is guaranteed the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately the guarantee of intelligence and moral clarity is not one of them.
No, I am not echoing the demeaning comments that Michael Moore courageously makes in foreign countries about how all Americans are stupid.
Instead I am referring to the great multitudes of "useful idiots" who descended on New York City this past week to protest the Republican National Convention.
I have no problem with people protesting whatever they want, as it is their right. However the First Amendment right to freedom of speech also allows me to call them out to challenge their hypocrisy, willful blindness to the truth and utter stupidity.
The protests started out with a dilemma over Central Park. Radical left-wing groups like United for Peace and Justice demanded access to this very public place to hold their final demonstrations.
The city refused and instead granted them other locales. A simple "no" was not good enough for these people so they appealed and lost again. Then they had the gall to demand the city supply them with bottled water, free transportation and large speakers.
These whackos were going to turn the city upside down, disrupt people's lives, cause the NYPD to be on stand-by 24/7 requiring millions of dollars and hundreds of man-hours to insure safety, while the protesters were ultimately plotting to accuse officers of brutality. They have the nerve to demand restitution?
Despite their failures to extort protection money out of the city, the "show must go on" and the protests went on drawing thousands of people, an impressive showing to be honest. Yet, who were these people and what was their message?
First, let us take a look at the groups represented in these marches. Besides the average Joe protester, appearances were made by such esteemed groups as the Black Panthers, anarchists, naked people against AIDS, people in pig snouts, and my two favorite anti-American organizations, United for Peace and Justice and International A.N.S.W.E.R. A fine group indeed.
Now let's examine their message. There were many different liberal causes all fueled by an irrational, seething hatred for President George W. Bush.
All-in-all the main argument went along the lines of how the United States should pull out its troops from all over the world.
I agree.
Let's pull out and tell the South Koreans that they are now at the mercy of the madman Kim Jong Il and his million man army. Let's leave the people of Iraq at the mercy of thugs like al-Sadr and his militia and ruin any chance of a democracy in Iraq. Let's pull out of Afghanistan and watch the country devolve into warlordism and once again become a bastion of terror.
Let's withdraw entirely from Colombia and freely allow cocaine, heroin and marijuana which kill or incapacitate thousands of our citizens each year to enter this country.
How can you people be so blind?
There's been a lot of talk of questioning patriotism and I won't go there but I think it's legitimate to question a person's conception of reality. The United States has done some immoral things in our history, but all-in-all I believe America is a force for good in this world.
This is the land of opportunity and freedom where millions fled tyrannical regimes, like those A.N.S.W.E.R. and its ilk now seem to support, to seek a better life.
These "blame America first" leftists, I believe, are downright wrong.
No country in the history of the world has freed more people from oppression than the United States of America and we should be proud.
Every moral person will tell you that he or she supports peace.
(03/31/04 12:00pm)
There has been much made of this gay marriage dispute recently and I feel that people need to get a grip on how truly serious this problem is.
Edmund Burke once said, "The way for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." This is precisely what is happening in our country today.
Slowly but surely, the positive institutions that have been maintained in this country's culture are being eroded while we sit back, glued to our television screens watching the college basketball tournament or "American Idol."
Now under the sights of the left is the institution of marriage itself. Marriage is defined in the English language as the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
This has been the tradition for thousands of years and now of course the gay rights movement, in all of their infinite wisdom, seeks to change it to fit their needs.
This dispute is mainly about recognition. The Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered (GLBT) community wants the rest of society to accept their "lifestyles" as normal and positive in nature.
However, this has not happened and their tactics of holding gay pride parades, accusing people who oppose them of homophobia, trying to brainwash our elementary students with readings like "Heather has Two Mommies," comparing themselves to the civil rights movement and allying themselves with radical feminist organizations have failed miserably on all fronts.
Now feeling desperate for a lack of recognition they storm into the courts where three to five unelected judges legislate from the bench making laws for the rest of us.
The corrupt city of San Francisco is another active hotspot of controversy as the mayor willingly ignores the state law for homosexuals seeking their "right" to marry.
To support its position, the GLBT group espouses propaganda that I have seen printed on the very pages of The Signal.
"Why can't two people who love each other get married, why does it have to be a man and a woman?" they say.
Here is the answer. The state has marriage laws for one purpose: strengthening marriage which produces families. The heterosexual family of husband, wife and children has been the foundation of human civilization from the very beginning and the state knows this. Man and woman together raise children who become wives and husbands later in life.
Gay marriages simply cannot produce children without another person of the opposite sex and therefore are sterile and do not continue the line of families.
In contrast, a popular pro-gay marriage response is to bring up heterosexual couples who cannot have children and equate themselves to them.
This comparison holds no water because men and women have the tendency to produce children and only fail if something is wrong. Homosexuals cannot have children at all.
Next, marriage law has nothing to do with love, if that were the case people could legally marry their sister, their brother, themselves, multiple people or their horse.
Love or what passes for love does not constitute eligibility. Thus, if you look at the situation logically gay marriage makes no sense.
Therefore, it is also important that we all speak out and condemn this trend of attack upon our values, beliefs and even our own civilization.
On a political note, I think the leaders of the Democratic Party should be ashamed of themselves for not supporting the president in his stand against gay marriage when a majority of their constituents support him.
Once again they have turned their backs on morality, reason and the American people in favor of their liberal agenda.
This being said as a Christian I would like to speak out against those who carry signs that say hateful things against homosexuals like, "God Hates Fags."
Not only are these signs offensive and counterproductive, they are simply downright wrong. God loves all people regardless of all their sins.
At the same time, God is as displeased with homosexuality as much with heterosexual sex outside of marriage, adultery, stealing, lying or any other sin we of which are all guilty.
I agree with the president when he said "We should also conduct this difficult debate in a matter worthy of our country; without bitterness or anger, in all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and good will and decency."
(02/04/04 12:00pm)
There has been much said about the president's new amnesty program for illegal immigrants.
Some have praised it, stating that it is a step in the right direction. Others have lambasted it, saying that it's the first step in making America a Third-World nation.
As a political and social conservative, I have defended many of the president's policies in print and in voice.
However, on the issue of giving millions of illegal immigrants "temporary" amnesty, I dissent. I think this is the worst idea ever to come from the Bush Administration.
This plan does nothing to solve the security risks associated with our open borders and dangerously lax immigration policy, nor does it appropriately address the drain on American society.
Illegal immigration is caused by a large number of complex social and political problems.
Thousands of people desiring a better life desert other countries and come to America. Some wait for the proper paperwork and red tape, enter this country legally and become citizens.
Others come on worker or guest visas and end up staying, while some simply sneak across the Mexican or Canadian border.
This country now has anywhere between seven and 12 million illegal, undocumented aliens.
Bush proposes to give many of these people what he calls "temporary" amnesty, meaning they can stay here or travel abroad without fear of deportation for a certain amount of time.
However, there is an even bigger issue here. These people, who either overstayed their visas or snuck into this country, broke the law.
They are criminals and should not be rewarded with American citizenship or other privileges. The laws of this country must be respected if they are to have any meaning.
The chief law enforcement officer of the country, the president, should know this plan to pander to illegals is an insult to all legal immigrants, American citizens and the laws of this country.
The plan will do nothing to stop the tide of illegal immigration.
Thousands of people enter this country illegally every year through our pathetically defended borders and live here undeterred by the undermanned and underfunded Immigration Naturalization Service.
Our borders with Canada and Mexico and our airports must be secured. The Mexican border in particular must be regulated and temporarily closed, if necessary, until we settle this mess.
The Border Police need to be strengthened and assisted by the National Guard if necessary. People cannot be allowed to venture across the border at will.
All persons coming and going from the United States must have paperwork. Every country in the world demands passports or some type of identification in order to cross borders - so should we.
Furthermore, all potential alien workers, upon entering the country, must be given a medical checkup, be fingerprinted and documented.
We need to know who is in this country and what they are doing.
For those of you who think I am going too far, may I remind you that several of the September 11th hijackers were here illegally with expired visas and the government had lost track of them?
I acknowledge that there are many people here illegally already and deportation is definitely not the answer.
Illegal immigrants who are working and law abiding must be documented and made legal.
Unfortunately there are some illegals sponging off the benefits of this country such as welfare or Social Security.
They should be required to find employment within a certain amount of
(11/11/03 12:00pm)
A common idea among many think tanks today is that America should leave the world alone and stay out of world affairs.
Isolationist thinking has come to the surface especially after U.S. forces invaded Iraq. I heard people utter this sentiment many times with expressions such as, "Why is America such a bully?" or "Everybody hates us now after we have gone into Iraq!" and finally, "bring the troops home!"
First of all, the United States is the most powerful, influential and wealthy superpower on earth. This gives us considerable clout to pursue our interests and our greatest concern is the safety of our country and its citizens. America has many vicious enemies that would like nothing more than to see our great experiment with freedom fail.
Thus, we must protect our country against those enemies.We do this with our armed forces. The armed forces do much more than sit around at bases in the United States and look at a radar screen all day. Many troops are strategically stationed overseas near potential hotspots so that if and when hostilities arise, the soldiers are close at hand.
South Korea is an excellent example. In this country we have stationed thousands of troops behind a demilitarized zone of barbed wire and land mines to protect the people of East Asia against a hostile North Korean threat.
Behind the demilitarized zone, the threat of Kim Jong Il's million man army is contained and its nuclear arsenal, which Bill Clinton provided funding for, is closely monitored.
If Kim attacks our ally South Korea or tries to launch an attack on the United States our troops would be ready to defend over there, not here. America becomes involved in global affairs not to bully people but to protect the safety and interests of its citizens and to allies around the world.
The same can be said about Iraq. We now see all types of terrorists coming out of the woodwork from neighboring countries to attack the United States and coalition troops. This is the war on terror. Our troops are fighting the terrorists overseas and not on the streets of Chicago, Philadelphia or New York. Troops are being lost and that is dreadful, but their mission must not be forgotten. Our brave men and women are defeating the terrorists and bringing democracy and human dignity to a region of the world that has none.
The United States is facing opposition on many fronts. France, Germany, Russia, and China have supported very few U.S. foreign policies although they pretend to be open minded.
The idea that everyone hates America more in 2003 is ridiculous and irrelevant. France, for example, has been anti-American for half of a century. Even so, we should be worrying about the consequences of our actions rather than what other countries and the United Nations bureaucrats will think of us.
Furthermore, the United States has its own interests but so does every country in the world. If it were in France's or the United Nations' best interest to support the United States they would do so. It's not that they are more "progressive" or care more about human rights.
Most liberals love crazy conspiracy stories about Bush and Cheney, but here is one that is actually true.
France wanted to stop the war to protect its own oil interests in Iraq and the United Nations wished to cover up the billions of dollars it skimmed off the corrupt "Oil for Food" program. These countries oppose our every action now, but who will they run crying to for support at the first sign of trouble? The United States.
It is apparent that our troops cannot return home now even if a couple of outraged liberal mothers want them back. If we pull out now, Iraq would lose all sense of law and order and probably revert to the former Baathist controlled state.
All of the lives lost and the resources spent would be in vain. Iraqi children will never have a future, Iraqi women will once again live in terror of Saddam's rape rooms and men will fear speaking up in public or running for office.
Americans have to get their heads out of the sand and realize that no war lasts a week. This will be a long drawn out struggle, but we will win.
(10/28/03 12:00pm)
This week the government finally passed a bill banning partial birth abortion, a great victory for the pro-life camp and the entire country.
Because of the bill, babies will no longer be pulled from their mothers' wombs, scissors stuck in their skulls and their brains vacuumed out. I am elated that this repulsive inhumane legalized infanticide has ended.
The whole deplorable practice of abortion needs to be wiped out in this country and the rest of the world. Roe v. Wade should be ripped from the pages of our legislative and judicial codes and burned.
Unfortunately for millions of unborn children, the abortion rights groups are ready to fight this ban. Many of these organizations have already threatened to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Because the majority of Americans do not support their radical views, these liberals cannot get any of their own bills passed in Congress.
Thus, they will run to their beloved liberal courts hoping that some sympathetic federal judge will ignore the duty of his or her post to interpret the constitution and dictate law from the bench.
Abortion has been allowed to continue in this nation because of these hypocritical ungodly liberal activist groups.
This country has been demoralized and confused by the likes of National Organization of Women (NOW) and the National Abortion Federation and other radical groups over the issue of a woman's "right to choose." The demorilization has gone so far that we have forgotten about the human rights of the infant.
Yet abortion groups continue fighting tooth and nail for Roe v. Wade and their "right" to kill their own babies.
Not only do groups feel the need to ignore morality and divine command (thou shalt not kill) they also willfully turn a blind eye to science.
From the moment of conception the developing child has 46 chromosomes, making it fully human.
Abortion-rights organizations dehumanize a baby by calling it a fetus but their euphemisms cannot hide the truth.
To abort a "fetus" at any stage is killing human life. If human life is to be valued in our world, then abortion must be wrong.
These hypocritical liberal organizations claim to stand for human rights and then try to condone abortion. For instance, you may have seen posters all over campus from VOX trying to justify abortion.
Posters around campus last year said that if women lost their reproductive rights, that they would all go to unsanitary "back door alley" abortion clinics.
Abortion, however, no matter where or how "professionally" it is done, is still murder.
I understand that abstinence doesn't usually work, but our society should reach out to troubled pregnant mothers whether their problems are emotional or material.
Our society and the religious community have been too quick to scoff at pregnant teens. Christians should take the example of Christ and help those who are hurting instead of condemning them. We will then save lives spiritually and physically.
Adoption is also an option. There are many families that want to adopt and are left on long waiting lists.
Abortion rights advocates give examples in which mothers' lives are risked if abortion were not legal.
I do think this is the only condition where abortion is allowed, but the number of people who face this dilemma is very small and is not a reason to keep the whole institution intact.
Some groups feel that activism is the path to achieve what they want. Yet, as long as we slaughter our own children, we haven't made progress.
The Senate's decision this week was at last a step in the right direction.
(10/14/03 12:00pm)
The College regularly opens my mind to new ideas because we have a diverse student body that holds differing points of view. However, there are always those few people who follow really off the wall philosophies or ideas that shock me. One of those philosophies is socialism.
I thought when President Ronald Reagan said "Mr. Gorbachev, take down this wall" in Berlin in 1989, the insane infatuation with full-blown socialism had ended, but apparently I was wrong. There are many in the academic world who still subscribe to socialism as some form of saving grace. Why? Socialism has never worked in the past, it does not work now and it does not work in theory.
First, let us make this clear: socialism is watered down communism. If you examine the two doctrines they are very similar. Both push for a huge all-encompassing government, universal health care, anti-capitalism measures, an end to self-reliance and independence from government and many other seemingly harmless ideas the Democratic Party often loves to try to implement.
Every socialist/communist country has either failed, is currently failing or switched to capitalism. The USSR, the largest socialist state, sputtered and failed after only 80 years of existence. China has rejected socialist economics as has Vietnam.
North Korea's people are starving to death, Canada's seniors flee their country to obtain prescription drugs as the government subsidizes marijuana and France's pension system is running out of money as its retirees are forced to the streets in protest.
Socialism is a failure wherever you look. Why do liberals in this country insist on dragging us down with all of the other Marxist failures?
Liberal socialists often try to find a scapegoat for the reason their views do not work. The latest socio-progressive liberal tactics are to target large corporations and to blame them and anyone who supports them, as enemies to humanity.
They use class warfare rhetoric right out of the pages of "The Communist Manifesto" and they apply it to all of their leftist agenda from nuclear disarmament to government subsidized sex changes. Conveniently, they leave out many parts of the picture.
First, many of these "socialist crusaders" shoving their elitist thinking down our children's throats often live off of "Daddy's money," or public tax dollars, and have never had to work a day in their lives.
They also seem to be ignorant to millions of people who are employed by corporations. If the socialists had their way these multi-national corporations would be dissolved and those people would lose their jobs that support their families. Meanwhile the socialist would wet himself with glee thinking he provided a great service to humanity.
Next, no one is forcing people to buy sandwiches from McDonald's, watch NBC, go to see Disney movies or buy clothes from The Gap. People choose to.
If you are so opposed to globalization or capitalism, no one is stopping you from completely boycotting these companies.
I encourage socialists to put their money where their mouth is. Let others exercise their right to select goods and services and you socialists can do the same.
I will concede that I am not a big fan of total globalization and I do not want money interests in our places of power. I know the present world could be a better place.
However, I see no feasible alternatives presented by the socialists to solve those problems. They often just accuse big bad corporations of ruining the earth and scream stupid slogans, like "No Blood for Oil!"
Can they present a practical alternative to corporate control of business or any issue for that matter? No. Can their socialist governments succeed? We have already seen that they are a dismal failure around the world.
We need to have a government with fewer taxes and power, not more. Our government must be fiscally responsible, spending only what it takes in and not a penny more. Our Republic must be restored and strengthened by citizens who want to make representative democracy work in this country.
The experiment with communism has left 100 million people dead. Russian people can still attest to the horror stories under Stalin who was following in the footsteps of Marx and Lenin. Yet, in 2003 we have young Americans shouting for the ascension of its little brother, socialism.
This is a disgrace to all of those who have suffered under those regimes and a sign that we have forgotten the past. This great country was built on liberty, limited government, self reliance, hard work, and free enterprise, not socialism.
(10/07/03 12:00pm)
For many, the United Nations is something to be revered. Some see it as a precursor to a successful world-wide government. Others view it as a benevolent organization that strives for peace and equality. Unfortunately, these idealistic dreams about the U.N. are just that - dreams. The grim reality is the United Nations has clear political aspirations, cannot, or will not, intervene in many world affairs, is controlled by liberal demagogues and representatives of dictators, and lacks the guts necessary to tackle real problems.
Many people regard the United Nations as some magical elixir for world dilemmas. For example, Benjamin Barber, the author of the book "McWorld vs. Jihad," spoke on this campus last year. In his speech, Barber expressed his sorrow that the United States is ignoring the United Nations, particularly in regard to the war in Iraq. He said we should work through the "saintly" United Nations and not unilaterally.
Liberals like Barber are easy to spot. They all follow the same format: 1. Use some leftist clich? like United States unilateral action. 2. Conveniently ignore that the U.S. spent months trying to obtain United Nations approval. 3. Bask in the applause of gleeful members of the Progressive Student Alliance and other ignorant liberal student organizations. The only thing that Barber proved is that just because you have a Ph.D. does not necessarily mean you possess any common sense.
The truth that many liberals love to ignore is that the United Nations is morally corrupt. It is an organization that has countries like Libya and Syria heading its Human Rights Commission. For those of you that do not know, Libya and Syria are run by a combination of ruthless dictators and Islamic terrorists. For instance, the terrorist group Hezbollah practically runs the country of Syria. From this safe haven, these terrorists shell Israeli cities, killing civilians. Also, the fact that law and order, democracy and civil rights are nearly unheard of in these two countries apparently does not disqualify them from this privileged position in the progressive United Nations.
The United Nation is not only a place where evil oppressive dictators receive praise, but also one in which other nations can bash the United States at will. For example, before the United States invaded Iraq, France tried to court key votes in the Security Council to oppose United States action. This effectively turned the floor of the United Nations into a giant festival of anti-American sentiment. What was France's motivation besides jealousy and hatred? They also had deals with Husein for oil and feared a U.S. led invasion would end their illegal monopoly.
Thus, France used the United Nations to oppose the liberation of 25 million people for oil, a very humane democratic stance indeed. You would think the French would be more sympathetic to liberation. If it had not been for the bravery of the United States in World War II, it's possible they would be goose-stepping and speaking German today.
The United Nations has not contributed to the solving of several world crises to the extent that it should have. Millions of people died in the violence in Rwanda, yet the United Nations sent little help.
People were, and still are, being oppressed and starving to death in Somalia while the United Nations only sent food that was stolen by warlords. The United States had to send soldiers to deliver the food after the United Nations neglected to send peacekeepers to keep the warlords away. The suffering of these American soldiers depicted in the movie "Black Hawk Down," was a direct result of U.N. incompetence.
Sometimes the U.N. is so incompetent it cannot even reinforce its own resolutions. It has passed 12 years worth of resolutions that banned weapons of mass destruction in Iraq but never followed up on them.
Instead of supporting the U.S. in ridding the world of an oppressive dictator, freeing millions of people, ending horrendous crimes against humanity, fighting terror, ensuring world security and actually supporting its own resolutions the "United" Nations followed a different approach.
The United Nations allowed itself to be hijacked by anti-American French and Germans, and then accused the U.S. of unilateral action after we bent over backwards to appease them.
Now the United Nations wants us to hand over control of Iraq to them. This organization should have no say regarding the matters of a country it refused to help liberate.
I would even go so far as to say that we should boycott the United Nations until it finds the integrity and resolve to be the world leader it should be.
(09/23/03 12:00pm)
Just when you thought America's socialist neighbor, Canada, could not go any further into the deep intellectual abyss of liberalism, they distribute marijuana. But here's a shocker: some marijuana advocates have turned down legal marijuana.
According to the Drudge Report, which obtained the story from the Canadian Press, the Canadian government provided marijuana to its citizens to treat sometimes-dubious medical symptoms.
However, even this ridiculously generous concession is not good enough for some people.
The "patients" complained about everything from low THC level to bad taste. Some even plan to send their government issued reefer back and demand a refund.
When people push for the legalization of marijuana, I wonder what is wrong with them.
Marijuana is harmful to your health and prescribing it to treat a health-related problem is dangerous.
Marijuana is too harmful for widespread medical use. The illegal substance impairs memory, learning, perception, thought, problem solving and coordination, among other important skills.
Personally, I would only support its use for terminally ill patients when it would be beneficial.
However, there is an even bigger issue at hand than some people wanting to get high with Canada's help.
It's the attitude that these people are entitled to marijuana that is scary.
In fact, they want the government not only to provide them with legal affordable marijuana, but the pot also has to get them really high and taste good too.
This kind of thinking that the government should provide everything under the sun is more harmful to the health of the world than all the marijuana in Colombia.
The Big Government disease has doped up some first world democracies to a point beyond recovery. France is a great example, as thousands of seniors died from this summer's heat wave because of apathy and government mandated vacations.
A good work ethic and self-reliance are being replaced by the collective welfare state.
The concept of a self-reliant work ethic, which built the United States, is being undermined. Instead of working to obtain the legal goods and services desired, people demand the government to provide them.
Good illustrations of this are the looming disasters of national healthcare and national prescription drug plans. These plans have already been initiated in Europe and Canada with disastrous results as some Canadian seniors cross the border to buy our drugs.
Furthermore, people pay more and more taxes for services that they may never utilize.
People have been losing liberty and freedom and ceding control to government by becoming dependent upon it for their welfare.
Frankly, the prospect of being dependent upon the government for medicine or health care is frightening. Everyone knows about the idiotic chaos that exists with some HMOs.
It is hard enough for patients to get the right care and for doctors to do their jobs with HMOs, but magnify that situation a thousand times and you will see the wisdom in avoiding national health care.
Can you imagine the amount of paperwork needed to get a Tylenol prescription if health care was nationalized? With this immense amount of red tape and bureaucracy there would be waste and corruption galore.
Thomas Jefferson said, "The government that governs least, governs best." Jefferson and other founding fathers recognized that limited government maximized freedom and independence and espoused that idea into our early republic.
Unfortunately, today in Washington there are very few who support limited government.
As governments across the world get bigger and bigger under tax-and-spend socialist liberals and emasculated pseudo-conservatives, the people of the world lose their independence from government.
This dependency could result in tyranny as power becomes increasingly centralized or the collapse of the society as resources to fund a multitude of programs dry up.
The politicians are not the only ones responsible for this power grab. The American people are allowing special interests and power groups to hijack the government.
Therefore, I give a challenge to all of you. College Republicans will come to your door this year with information about voting registration. When they come, sign up and vote.
It doesn't matter what party or affiliation you are. Get involved in the government and politics because they do matter.
Our future rests in the citizens of our republic getting involved and making decisions, not a set group of government bureaucrats making decisions for us.
(09/16/03 12:00pm)
From the time when the future carpet-bagging Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton, coined the phrase to the current recall in California, some Democrats have (and still do) refer to the mythical "vast right-wing conspiracy" as the reason for their failures.
The liberal media often gave various Democrats more coverage to reiterate this lie than to the war in Iraq. Democrats like Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Gray Davis would rather blame someone else than take responsibility for their own blunders and incompetence.
The excuse, still being used by some Democrats today, is the equivalent of a child blaming the crayon drawing on the wall on the boogeyman. This "monster" came to full form during the Clinton impeachment when our chief law enforcement officer was found in contempt of court and guilty of perjury. Subsequently he lost his law license and was fined.
Most people do not know this and instead blame Republicans "vast right-wing conspiracy" for the impeachment process. Yet no Republican made Clinton lie in front of a grand jury. He could have told the truth that he was an adulterer and no one in Washington would have cared.
Al Gore tried a similar dishonest tactic in his own election campaign in 2000. After losing at the polls in Florida, Gore whined for vote recounts. Bush won all four. Yet Gore pushed the envelope further still, when he should have bowed out honorably for the good of the country tried to have the recounts overturned and to disenfranchise thousands of military votes from overseas.
Additionally he tried to dig together enough votes to win by pushing for recounts in the Democrat strongholds of the state.
As if disregarding a democratic election was not enough, Gore and his campaign advisor Donna Brasil vehemently and falsely threw in the race card by blaming the Republicans for scaring minorities away from voting areas.
Needless to say, this claim had no merit and neither did Al Gore's case. Every court, including the Supreme Court, let the original election stand. However, some Democrats today will still say that Bush stole the election and that he is not the rightful president. I guess all of the court's rulings and all of the electoral processes do not matter to Democrats. Perhaps they were all in on the "vast right-wing conspiracy," too.
After Gore, the vast right-wing boogeyman traveled to the Democrat California Governor Gray Davis' closet. Under Davis' administration, California went from having a huge budget surplus to a $35 billion deficit.
To give some comparison, California's budget deficit is larger than all other 49 states put together. Taxes on income and services continue to skyrocket putting more pressure on everyone.
Businesses are fleeing California in the thousands due to excessive taxes; one million have left already. The state's energy situation is chaotic and the people are subject to astronomical energy prices and rolling blackouts from shortages of power.
As a result of Davis' unwillingness or inability to solve these problems he is being recalled from office. Davis' main response is to defend his own incompetence by conjuring up the right wing-conspiracy once again.
He recently blamed the Republicans in his own state senate for blocking his budget "solution" from going through. He even blames Dick Cheney and Enron for the state's energy problems. Additionally, Davis accused Republicans for having a plan to steal elections like they did in Florida.
Unfortunately for Davis, the truth pierces his smokescreen of conspiracy theory like a ray of light. In many ways Davis failed as Governor. His administration is mainly responsible for the mess that is the state of California for one reason: overspending.
Davis is a spendthrift with tax money. His tax, spend and spemd some more policies, bankrupted California, not Republicans who stood up to his destructive policies. Additionally, Dick Cheney and Enron had nothing to do with California energy policy.
Davis monopolized energy production under one company, creating an energy system reminiscent of Soviet Russia. Now the market for energy is closed and the people have to pay whatever the government supported business says.
Regarding Davis' charge that the Republicans and others are "stealing elections," he should read his own states rules. The recall is 100% legal. In fact, approximately 30 recalls have been attempted in the past, but all failed.
Now all of a sudden a recall which has been legal for decades is suddenly classified as thievery and corruption of the electoral process because it is being used against a Democrat.
Now people are beginning to realize the lies. We don't believe in the boogeyman anymore!
(09/09/03 12:00pm)
Benjamin Franklin once said, "In the world, nothing can be said to be certain except death and taxes."
In America it happens to be death and a lot of taxes.
In the past three years much has been said about taxes, mostly in the context of the Bush administration. In case you have been under a rock for the past couple years, President George W. Bush pushed tax cuts as a means of economic stimulus and recovery.
As a result, the President and his tax cuts attracted from the entire liberal establishment. The media blasted them, Democrats whined and complained about them and college professors and students berated them.
Tax cuts are a great idea for several reasons. First, taxes collected by the government are really our money. Politicians often act like the tax money belongs to them and it has led to Americans thinking that indeed it does.
This is not true.
Hard-working Americans deserve every penny of their paychecks, not politicians. Secondly, Americans are overtaxed. I want to say that I support taxes, but hard working people should not be paying 40 percent of their incomes to the government. The Reagan administration cut taxes in the 1980s with great economic success. Since then, however, Americans have been forking over more and more.
The greatest liberal clich? in response to these tax cuts has been that they are only for the rich. This common Marxist class warfare argument is sickening, especially when considering who the IRS classifies as "rich".
If liberals would actually do some research they would learn that a family that makes collectively $100,000 a year is considered "rich." That could be a teacher and a policeman or a firefighter and a nurse living together, pooling their meager earnings. Rich? I think not. Additionally, according to the IRS, the top 50 percent wage earners pay 96.09 percent of the taxes in America.
Furthermore, the poorer classes of Americans pay little in income taxes to begin with (3.91percent) and they still benefit from Bush's indiscriminate tax cut.
Another wonderfully thought out argument against these tax cuts for all Americans is that they will not help the economy at all.
Again, this is simply not true.
In recent months we have seen the economy recover from its woes associated with Sept. 11.
Tax cuts have given American businesses and consumers more money in their pockets to invest, save or at least spend.
Businesses hire more workers, build facilities, pay off debts etc. As money flows back into the pockets of Americans our economy improves.
The only way that the economy could be hurt by tax cuts is if every American took their tax return, cashed it and stuffed the money in a mattress. This is, needless to say, a very unlikely scenario.
Even Democratic presidential hopefuls like Howard "I want more taxes" Dean are not above taking shots at tax cuts. He takes particular glee in falsely stating that the tax cuts will decimate America's most prized programs, such as Social Security or Medicare.
He argues that after Bush cuts taxes for his rich friends there will be nothing left for the needy and elderly. This is yet another downright lie from the Left.
If Dean or any of the other socialist Big Government supporters would open their eyes and take a look at the $2.3 trillion federal budget they would see that Medicare and Social Security are not only still there, they are funded well.
The sad fact is that the opponents of tax cuts have no defense for their positions.
The Democrats, Greens and other like-minded socialists have nothing to offer for their side in intelligent debate against tax cuts.
All they say is that tax cuts are "for the rich" or "ineffective."
Have they ever offered a feasible alternative? No.
The only solution proposed was a weak plan floated by the Democrats to give a miniscule handout that would solve no economic problems.
Other political pundits have decried tax cuts as something evil as if Americans getting back more of their own money was a crime.
We need to vote out these politicians who refuse to cut taxes and spending.
Government needs to be made more accountable to the people and these tax cuts are an excellent step in the right direction.
It is high time we Americans demand more fiscal responsibility from our government with our money.