Bush, Worst President in History? Not By A Long Shot.

At this point in almost any modern Presidency, detractors of the Commander In Chief, regardless of his approval rating, have their disdain of the individual who has spent the last seven years in the Oval Office at astronomical levels.

Disregarding any historical context or rational thought, they inevitably label the current President as history's worst. Fire breathing Republicans did it with Clinton and similarly ferocious Democrats did it to Reagan near the end of their terms, even though both left office with approval ratings above 60-percent.

George W. Bush is in a different situation with ratings only in the low 30’s and having to hold the line on the necessary task of finishing the job in Iraq, regardless of how unpopular the war becomes or how much political gain the Democrats decide to squeeze out of it.

Many in the press, predictably on the pages of lefty publications like Newsweek and the editorial page of The New York Times, liberals who never liked George W. Bush are chomping at the bit to proclaim his presidency a failure based on Iraq alone. However one wonders what these same authors would say if you offered up presidencies in which wars of choice cost us more in blood and treasure than Iraq has. Ten times more if you want to get specific about it.


Surely Liberals would not label Harry S. Truman as a failed president. Even with second term approval ratings in the 30’s, a war against a nation that didn’t attack us which cost the lives of more than 50,000 American soldiers and the atomic bombs being dropped on Japan, which ended World War II but still leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of many in the Dennis Kucinich crowd. But to call Truman a failure? To the contrary, he is regarded by most historians to be one of the best presidents we’ve ever had.

The godfather of modern liberalism Lyndon Johnson, who presided over another war in which nearly 60,000 Americans lost their lives, is not regarded as highly as Truman, but is still not considered a failure or one of the worst of all-time, even when you factor in the credit he deserves for giving us the behemoth bureaucracy that we have today.

Nor, is his predecessor John F. Kennedy considered a failure for bringing us into Vietnam in the first place.

The blemish of the Iraq war on the record of George W. Bush, the conclusion of which is not clear, regardless of what Harry Reid says, can be cleared by history, just as it seems that history has validated Truman and on other policy matters Johnson and Kennedy. The nearly 4,000 American lives which have been lost, sadden even the most ardent supporter of the war, yet do not even come close to the numbers sacrificed in Truman’s war in Korea or the Kennedy/Johnston led debacle in South East Asia.

The rest of George W. Bush’s record is quite positive.
We have experienced four straight years of strong economic growth, coupled with record unemployment and record setting runs on Wall Street.


He put into place the second most popular government program in history giving prescription drugs to senior citizens under Medicare.

The No Child Left Behind act, while not without its flaws, is the most promising piece of education reform in this nation since the creation of the public school system.

His administration has prevented numerous terrorist attacks both large and small since September 11th and despite the recent regrouping of Al-Queda in Pakistan and Iraq, the organization is nowhere near its pre 9/11-strength, it’s leadership having been sent to Gitmo or helplessly huddled in the mountain caves of the Middle East.(Even Hillary thinks we're safer.)

The progress made in Afghanistan to date is nothing short of miraculous.

These successes that I have listed are only those that can be agreed upon by all, simply by looking at the record books. It does not take into account the moves made by his administration, which at this point are only lauded by Conservatives, but which we believe will have overwhelmingly positive effects on our nation’s future, most notably the Bush appointments to the Supreme Court.


His administration’s failings are noteworthy as well, but will pale in comparison in the scope of history.

Bush failed to control spending while president, although my guess is that he will quickly be outspent by the next Democrat to move into the White House.

He failed to get a serious comprehensive immigration reform package passed, and has not done enough to secure our southern border, a failing that has angered more Republicans than Democrats.

His lack of communication skills and his often-slow reaction to verbally addressing problems has also been one of his biggest failings. While not a failure in itself, it has led to the President’s difficulty in defending himself against unfair attacks, which should have been directed towards others. Hurricane Katrina comes to mind here.

Finally, in Iraq he is yet to effectively train the Iraqi’s to fend for themselves and he has not been successful in getting all sides of the Iraqi political spectrum to come together and agree to put aside religious differences and work towards a stable democracy.

If we were to pull out prematurely as some in congress would have us do, and the elected government of Iraq collapses, as it appears, some in congress desire, then that failure will reside with Mr. Bush.


However to rank him among the Buchanan’s, Harding’s, Pierce’s, Hoover’s, Nixon’s and Carter’s is simply unfair and shows a lack of historical comprehension by those advocating such placement. Especially when he has 18 months to go, and is showing no signs of letting Congress steamroll him in to making the wrong decisions.

Caving to political pressure and not standing up for what you believe because you’re afraid of the next election, those are the true hallmarks of a failed presidency.

Pablo Picasso's "Massacre In Korea" depicting U.S soldiers killing Korean civilians.


Nut-roots Impeachment Loons. Get Ready America. We're Mobile!

Sphere: Related Content

NFL Should Suspend Vick Immediately

What kind of Neanderthal fights Dogs? The kind that plays quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons, makes millions upon millions of dollars, is a role model for children and is admired by adoring fans all over the world for his athletic prowess.

And yet, once again we see an individual who refuses to shake the "thug mentality" even though he has the means to do so a million times over.

Article from Fox News:

RICHMOND, Va. — When a Bad Newz Kennels dog was wounded in a losing fight, NFL star Michael Vick was consulted before the animal was doused with water and electrocuted.

That's just one of the gruesome details that emerged Tuesday when the Atlanta Falcons quarterback and three others were indicted by a federal grand jury.

The four were charged with competitive dogfighting, procuring and training pit bulls for fighting and conducting the enterprise across state lines.

They are scheduled to appear in federal court in Richmond on July 26, the same day the Falcons begin training camp. The four will have a bond hearing before a magistrate judge at 3:30 p.m., and an arraignment will follow at 4 p.m., the court said Wednesday.

For full FOX News sports coverage, click here.

The 18-page indictment, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleged the 27-year-old Vick and his co-defendants began the dogfighting operation in early 2001, the former Virginia Tech star's rookie year as the No. 1 pick.

The operation was centered at a property Vick owned in Surry County, where a fence shielded prying eyes from the back, and the two-story brick home was surrounded by fencing in the front, with several black buildings further back.

Unlike previous documents, which did not name Vick, the indictment is littered with his name, including this tidbit — Vick was known as "Ookie" in the dogfighting world.

If convicted of all the charges, Vick and the others — Purnell A. Peace, 35, of Virginia Beach; Quanis L. Phillips, 28, of Atlanta; and Tony Taylor, 34, of Hampton — could face up to six years in prison, $350,000 in fines and restitution.

A woman who answered the phone at the home of Vick's mother, Brenda Boddie, said "no comment" and quickly hung up.

Telephone messages left at the offices and home of Vick's attorney, Larry Woodward, and an e-mail sent to his office were not returned.

While the Falcons and the NFL said little Tuesday, John Goodwin of the Humane Society of the United States said the details were especially troubling.

About eight young dogs were put to death at the Surry County home after they were found not ready to fight in April 2007, the indictment said. They were killed "by hanging, drowning and/or slamming at least one dog's body to the ground."

"Some of the grisly details in these filings shocked even me, and I'm a person who faces this stuff every day," Goodwin said. "I was surprised to see that they were killing dogs by hanging them, and one dog was killed by slamming it to the ground. Those are extremely violent methods of execution — they're unnecessary and just sick."


Purses for the fights ranged from hundreds of dollars to the thousands, and participants and spectators often placed side bets on the outcome, according to the indictment.

After two Bad Newz Kennels dogs lost fights in March 2003, the indictment alleged Vick gave a bag containing $23,000 to the owner of the winning dogs.

Started in early 2002, according to the indictment, Bad Newz Kennels began purchasing pit bulls to train as fighters. Eventually, the defendants bought shirts and headbands "representing and promoting their affiliation."

After an April police raid on the property, Vick said he was rarely at the house, however, and had no idea that it might have been used in a criminal enterprise. He blamed family members for taking advantage of his generosity and pledged to be more careful.

He has since said very little, citing the advice of his attorneys.

But Tuesday the NFL was quick to decry the alleged animal abuse.

"The activities alleged are cruel, degrading and illegal. Michael Vick's guilt has not yet been proven, and we believe that all concerned should allow the legal process to determine the facts," NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said.

Vick and the Falcons are due to report to training camp next week.

"Obviously, we are disturbed by today's news," the team said in a statement posted on its Web site, apologizing to fans for the negative publicity. "We will do the right thing for our club as the legal process plays out. We have a season to prepare for."

Vick and the others are accused of "knowingly sponsoring and exhibiting an animal fighting venture" and conducting a business enterprise involving gambling, as well as buying, transporting and receiving dogs for the purposes of an animal fighting venture.

The indictment said dogfights were held at the Virginia property and dog owners brought animals from six states, including New York and Texas.

Local authorities have been investigating since an April 25 drug raid at the property. On June 7, officials with the Department of Agriculture with help from state police executed their own search warrant and found the remains of seven dogs.

Surry County prosecutor Gerald G. Poindexter said he didn't know of the indictment before it was filed, and said he's not sure how the county will continue its separate case.

At the start, authorities seized 66 dogs, including 55 pit bulls, and equipment commonly used in dogfighting. About half the dogs were tethered to car axles with heavy chains that allowed the dogs to get close to each other, but not to have contact — an arrangement typical for fighting dogs, according to the search warrant affidavit.

Before fights, participating dogs of the same sex would be weighed and bathed, according to the filings. Opposing dogs would be washed to remove any poison or narcotic placed on the dog's coat that could affect the other dog's performance.

Sometimes, dogs weren't fed to "make it more hungry for the other dog."

Fights would end when one dog died or with the surrender of the losing dog, which was sometimes put to death by drowning, strangulation, hanging, gun shot, electrocution or some other method, according to the documents.

The Atlanta Falcons should suspend Vick immediately. If convicted, he should pay a hefty fine and possibly serve some time.

What the NFL decides to do with this guy remains to be seen.

His fellow players, many of whom come from the same poor background and share the same less than admirable values as Vick, will probably stand up for the young QB. Clinton Portis of the Washington Redskins came to Vick's defense the other day wondering what the big deal was. He sounded really, really dumb but sincere.

The Atlanta Falcon's organization and their fans will most likely want Vick to return at some point. He is an outstanding player and a potential hall of famer who in my opinion hasn't even reached the peak of his career.

The rest of the NFL's fans can not be expected to be as understanding.

Americans are a very forgiving bunch, but we love our dogs. We put our pets and canines in particular, above all other creatures which inhabit the planet and with good reason. They are loyal, have unique personalities and they love us as much as we love them.

Michael Vick obviously does not share this view, and if he wants to continue abusing dogs that badly he should move to Mexico, Korea or some other third world country in which barbaric behavior such as this is permitted.

If he decides to stay here and if he's lucky enough to get back on the football field, he should be booed mercilessly by any fan who loves dogs. Any time he has the ball he should be heckled and needled until he realizes that in America, we don't stand for that kind of thing.

There are approximately 73 million owned dogs in the United States.Thirty-nine percent of U.S. households own at least one dog. I have one dog myself and I love her. You picked the wrong special interest group to piss off Michael Vick.

I am of the opinion that there is no such thing as a bad dog, only bad people who train their dogs to do bad things. Bad people shouldn't get to play football.

Write the NFL and the Falcons organization and tell them to suspend Mr. Vick immediately.

NFL

Atlanta Falcons

This is my dog, Mindy. If she sees you Michael Vick, she's going to eat you.

Sphere: Related Content

SHOCKER!

SHOCK#1: The first Muslim ever elected to Congress is a liberal Democrat.

SHOCK#2: He doesn't like George W. Bush.

SHOCK#3: Nation Of Islam. Major surprise there.

SHOCK#4: Thinks Bush comparable to Hitler, and implies that he may have been behind 9/11.

Here we have newly elected Muslim Congressman Khalid Sheik....oh I'm sorry....Keith Ellison addressing a group of Atheists. That's right folks, Atheists.

American Politics. It just doesn't get any better than this people.


Bush like Hitler, says first Muslim in Congress
By Toby Harnden in Washington
Last Updated: 2:58am BST 17/07/2007


Keith Ellison, a convert to Islam, has cultivated a moderate image since being elected last November


America's first Muslim congressman has provoked outrage by apparently comparing President George W Bush to Adolf Hitler and hinting that he might have been responsible for the September 11 attacks.

Addressing a gathering of atheists in his home state of Minnesota, Keith Ellison, a Democrat, compared the 9/11 atrocities to the destruction of the Reichstag, the German parliament, in 1933. This was probably burned down by the Nazis in order to justify Hitler's later seizure of emergency powers.

"It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that," Mr Ellison said. "After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it, and it put the leader [Hitler] of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted."

To applause from his audience of 300 members of Atheists for Human Rights, Mr Ellison said he would not accuse the Bush administration of planning 9/11 because "you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box - dismiss you".

Vice-President Dick Cheney's stance of refusing to answer some questions from Congress was "the very definition of totalitarianism, authoritarianism and dictatorship", he added.

Mr Ellison also raised eyebrows by telling his audience: "You'll always find this Muslim standing up for your right to be atheists all you want."

BLOGGER COMMENTARY:Muslims For Atheists. That's like Jews for Jesus right? Seriously though if your friends in the rest of the Muslim world (whose opinion's of President Bush are eerily similar to your own) knew that you had said this, they would bury you in sand up to your neck and throw rocks at you. Louis Farakahn is probably rolling over in his grave right now. Huh? He's not dead? Oh. Well at least me and my friends still had a really good time at that party we threw. I'm just kidding. I love you Calypso Louie. Now back to the article.

A convert to Islam who was previously linked to the extremist Nation of Islam, Mr Ellison, 42, has cultivated a moderate image since being elected last November, concentrating on issues such as health and education.

He is an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq. But he angered his own anti-war supporters by voting for a budget bill that aims to end the war over the next 18 months. His followers want an immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

After his speech was reported, Mr Ellison said he accepted that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. But his demagogic comments threaten to plunge him in controversy.

Mark Drake, of the Republican party in Minnesota, said: "To compare the democratically elected leader of the United States of America to Hitler is an absolute moral outrage which trivialises the horrors of Nazi Germany.


So does Islam make you insane once you're a member or do you have to already be insane in order to join?

Sphere: Related Content

Photoshop Of The Day

Courtesy Michelle Malkin

Sphere: Related Content

A Naughty Politician's Guide to Love

With the recent discovery of Senator David Vitter's name on a D.C. madam's client list, we are once again faced with the realization that many of our politicians are simply incapable of setting a good example and keeping it in their pants.

Therefore, in order to help our elected officials discern between those aspects of their personal lives which are appropriate and those which are not, I have compiled a list of some of these personal behaviors, along with the name of a politician who has had experiences with the problem.

I have also included a number which measures damage done to a politician for committing the offense.

The scale goes from 0 to 10, with 0 being no damage and 10 meaning that the politician will most likely be forced out of office, have their political aspirations crushed or spend time in prison.



OFFENSE: Getting Divorced Before Running for Office
OFFENDER: Ronald Reagan
DAMAGE: 0







OFFENSE: Getting Divorced While In Office
OFFENDER: Rudy Giuliani
DAMAGE: 2







OFFENSE: Not Getting Divorced While In Office
OFFENDER: John Kerry
DAMAGE: 4







OFFENSE: Having Affair
OFFENDER:Gary Hart
DAMAGE: 6








OFFENSE: Sexual Harassment
OFFENDER: Bill Clinton
DAMAGE: 3








OFFENSE: Sexual Harassment Of House Pages
OFFENDER: Bob Packwood
DAMAGE:8






OFFENSE: Sending Inappropriate E-Mails to Underage House Pages of Same Sex
OFFENDER: Mark Foley
DAMAGE: 10







OFFENSE: Having Affair With Intern
OFFENDER: Bill Clinton
DAMAGE:7






OFFENSE:Killing Intern
OFFENDER:Gary Condit
DAMAGE:10






OFFENSE: Getting Caught With a Prostitute
OFFENDER: David Vitter
DAMAGE: 5







OFFENSE: Getting Caught Smoking Crack With a Prostitute
OFFENDER: Marion Barry
DAMAGE: 10 (Damage Only Temporary)





OFFENSE: Killing Prostitute
OFFENDER: Senator Pat Geary (The Godfather Part II)
DAMAGE:0





OFFENSE: Illegitimate Child
OFFENDER: Jesse Jackson
DAMAGE: 3








OFFENSE: Illegitimate child with black woman
OFFENDER: Strom Thurmond
DAMAGE:8 (But only if You're Alive When It's Discovered)






OFFENSE: Illegitimate Child With Slave Woman
OFFENDER: Thomas Jefferson
DAMAGE: 1800: Not so bad,Today: Much, Much Worse







OFFENSE: Having Attractive Wife
OFFENDER: Fred Thompson
DAMAGE: 3







OFFENSE: Having Ugly Wife
OFFENDER: FDR
DAMAGE: 0








OFFENSE: Having No Wife
OFFENDER: James Buchanan
DAMAGE: 1 (But everyone will think you're gay.)








OFFENSE: Having Many Wives
OFFENDER: Possibly Mitt Romney
DAMAGE: + 10 for each additional wife





Above: Mitt Romney shows a supporter just how many wives he has.




OFFENSE: Coming Out of the Closet
OFFENDER: Jim McGreevy
DAMAGE:9




OFFENSE: Staying In the Closet
OFFENDER: John Edwards
DAMAGE: 0







OFFENSE:Running a Gay Brothel Out of Your Basement
OFFENDER: Barney Frank
DAMAGE: 0 (Apparently)


I hope this has helped.

Sphere: Related Content

Kristol Clear # 3

Moment of Truth
for the President
Will he reject disastrous advice to compromise with opponents of the war?
by William Kristol
07/09/2007 12:20:00 PM


The New York Times leads today with David Sanger's story, "In White House, Debate Is Rising On Iraq Pullback; Political Considerations; Not Waiting For Sept. 15, Aides Seek to Forestall G.O.P. Defections." The piece is tendentious, as one would expect--but THE WEEKLY STANDARD has confirmed that there are real discussions going on at the White House, with advocates of what is being called "The Grand Bargain" pushing hard for the president to move soon to announce plans to pull back in Iraq. So this week will not only be a week of (mostly silly) debate on the Hill; it will also be an important moment of truth for the president, who will have to decide whether to give Gen. Petraeus and the soldiers a chance, or to accept the counsel of some of his advisers and begin to throw in the towel on Iraq.

Let me be clear: The president ordered the "surge," which only recently came to full strength and whose major operation has been going on for less than a month. If he were not to give it a chance to work, he would properly be viewed as a feckless, irresolute president, incapable of seeing his own strategy through a couple of months of controversy before abandoning it. He will have asked our soldiers to go on the offensive, assuming greater risk of casualties--and then, even though the offensive is working better than expected, will have pulled the plug on their efforts.

Indeed, the White House is
living in a fool's paradise if they imagine that "compromising" now and in this way buys them anything. Even the New York Times editorial page has abandoned the pretence that its preferred strategy will lead to anything other than catastrophe in Iraq, and in the very near term. If the president gives in now, he will not be credited with a statesmanlike compromise. He will be lambasted by the left for fighting a bad war, and by the right for fighting it badly, recommitting us to the fight, and then losing it. The remainder of his term will be mired in congressional investigations as the waters fill with blood and the sharks go in for the kill. The Democrats will be emboldened to press him on every front, especially since Iraq is virtually the only position he's actually been defending. Lame duck does not even begin to describe where President Bush will be if he does this.

What's more, the president will lose any ability to mitigate the effects of the withdrawal or control it. The pullout will become a wild hell-for-leather race for the exit, and the result will be a triumph for al Qaeda and Iran, and a moral and geopolitical disaster for the United States.

The best strategy for the president is to hold firm. There is every reason to believe that he can survive the current calamity-Janes of the Republican party (does anyone really imagine that a veto-proof majority will form in the Senate this week or next?). This nonsense will pass, Congress will go on recess, and Petraeus will have a chance to continue to produce results--and the president and his allies will have a chance to gain political ground here at home. Why on earth pull the plug now? Why give in to an insane, irrational panic that will destroy the Bush administration and most likely sweep the Republican party to ruin? The president still has a chance to emerge from this as a visionary who could see what the left could not--but not if he gives in to them. There is no safety in the position some in the Bush administration are running towards.

Here's what I gather is a basic lesson of tactics: When you find yourself in an ambush, attack into the ambush. Don't twist and turn in the kill zone, looking for a way to retreat. Especially when the ambush is not a powerful one, and the Democrats' position (to mix military metaphors) is way overextended. The Democrats are hoping the president will break and run. They will not allow him a dignified retreat or welcome him with compromise. They will spring to finish him off completely. It doesn't matter what the president's motives are. Some of his advisers are trying to persuade him that he needs to go for a grand bargain now so as to build bipartisan support for his policies when he's gone. But the only way to do that is to hold firm now--and to counterattack. Those who try to convince him otherwise offer nothing but defeat, for the troops, for the mission, and for the president.

--William Kristol

Sphere: Related Content

Hi Kettle? This Is The Pot. You're Black!

I find it absolutely mind-boggling that after 15 years of dealing with this slippery character and his transparently opportunistic wife, that ANYONE other than the most partisan or the most gullible among us can take ANYTHING that either of them have to say seriously.

DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) -- Former President Bill Clinton blasted his successor's decision to spare former White House aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby from prison, telling Iowa radio listeners that Libby's case differed from his own administration's pardon controversy.


The Clintons campaign at the Iowa State Fairgrounds in Des Moines on Monday.

"You've got to understand, this is consistent with their philosophy," Clinton said during an interview on Des Moines news-talk station WHO.

Bush administration officials, he said, "believe that they should be able to do what they want to do, and that the law is a minor obstacle."

President Bush on Monday commuted Libby's 30-month sentence for perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to federal agents investigating the 2003 exposure of former CIA operative Valerie Plame.

Bush's order keeps Libby's conviction on his record, but he called Libby's prison sentence "excessive" and suggested that Libby will pay a big enough price for his conviction.

Clinton was impeached in 1998 over perjury allegations stemming from his sexual relationship with a White House intern, but the Senate acquitted him.

And a flurry of last-minute pardons issued as he left office in 2001 -- particularly his absolution of fugitive financier Marc Rich -- sparked largely partisan outrage. Critics alleged that the pardon of Rich was linked to contributions raised for Clinton's presidential library by Rich's ex-wife.

Libby's defenders have pointed to Democratic support for Clinton during that period to accuse critics of Bush's clemency order of hypocrisy.

"Wasn't it Bill Clinton that was handing out pardons like lollipops at the end of his administration?" former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, now seeking the Republican presidential nomination, told supporters in Iowa on Tuesday.

"And isn't there some recognition that perhaps you might look a little silly if you didn't have anything to say when he was handing out pardon after pardon after pardon for political purposes only?"

But the former president said, "I think the facts were different."

"It's wrong to out that CIA agent, and wrong to try to cover it up -- and wrong that no one was ever fired from the White House for doing it," he said.

Clinton's wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, is now seeking the presidency and has been campaigning in Iowa during the Independence Day holiday. She put him on the phone during a Tuesday interview with Iowa political columnist David Yepsen. Watch Hillary Clinton address a crowd in Iowa »

Libby was Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff before his October 2005 indictment. He was not accused of leaking Plame's identity, but prosecutors argued his false statements hindered their investigation of the disclosure and left a "cloud" over the White House.

The leak occurred shortly after Plame's husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had gone public with allegations that the Bush administration "twisted" intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq.


Rich fled to Switzerland in the 1980s to avoid racketeering, tax evasion and fraud charges stemming from oil trades with Iran.

Sphere: Related Content

THE RIGHT THING TO DO

Kudos to President Bush for commuting the sentence of "Scooter" Libby.

It's probably too much to hope that this puts the phony-baloney Valarie Plame matter to rest, but it's nice to know that taxpayer money won't be wasted on the incarceration of a good American.

Sphere: Related Content

THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE: THE PLAN TO KILL THE MESSENGERS

Political scientists know that while Americans are sick and tired of the political climate in Washington , our often derided, two-party system is nothing new.

Our current viable, political parties, the Democrats and the GOP, are descendants of the fathers of American politics, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton.

Since the country was conceived, these two factions have taken different names and have had different positions make their way in and out of their party’s platforms.

However, the core beliefs, which have been passed down from the Hamiltonians and the Jeffersonians to the Democrats and the Republicans of today are still very much intact.


Hamilton, whose political lineage can be connected to the Republican Party of today, believed that government’s primary function should be to facilitate freedom among the people.

Jefferson’s belief was that the government needed to make equality among the people its first priority. This mindset is still prominent among today’s Democrats.


As history shows, the two political dogmas have been used over the years to create the world's most just and most free society.

Fom time to time, we have seen one side take priority over the other in order to solve problems which threaten the very fabric of society itself such as the problems of war or slavery.

Once these problems are solved however, the two tend to hover back to their well-balanced positions which have kept America free and prosperous for the last two centuries.

The modern Democrats used Jefferson’s principles of equality to acquire for blacks the rights and tools that they deserved and required, so that they could share in America’s prosperity. The civil rights movement ensured that African-Americans were no longer second-class citizens.


The problem arises from the fact that since the end of segregation and the successes of FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society, the modern Democrats still haven’t put the brakes on the equalization train.


Damaging policies intended to convince those who were once left out of society that they are still at a disadvantage have become the norm and have produced little more than political benefit for those proposing them.

Programs to redistribute wealth and to keep the antiquated policy of Affirmative Action alive are perfect examples of these Jeffersonian ideals gone mad.

The most telling example of this trend however, is the recent talk of the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine.

What makes the proposed resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine particularly grotesque is that rather than being intended to equalize things among the citizens of the nation, it is instead intended to benefit one particular political party which controls the legislative process.

This incredibly bad idea, which was rightfully put to sleep by Ronald Reagan in the 80’s, has been dug up and is being repeatedly shocked, Dr. Frankenstein style, by liberals everywhere.

The Center for American Progress, a far left think tank, in a 40-page study released last week reached the shocking conclusion that--are you ready for this?--talk radio is overwhelmingly conservative.

Well, duh! You guys needed 40 pages to prove THAT?!!

Democrats picked up on this incredible revelation and began what appears to be a covert effort lead by Senators Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton to drain the power of conservative talk radio through government mandate.


They intend to do this by requiring that any station which broadcasts a conservative talk radio show also dedicate an equal amount of time to “opposing viewpoints.” This, of course, would require that stations which broadcast conservative talk, also put an equal number of liberal talk shows on their programming schedule.

Liberals have long been irked at the power of conservative radio personalities who have been able to energize and mobilize the Republican Party base as well as convert disaffected Democrats.


What makes this relatively recent development more irksome to the Democrats is that every attempt they have made to develop a politically-oriented radio army of their own has been a complete and utter failure.

This despite the fact that privately-funded projects such as Air America were given tons of positive, free media exposure when they launched.

The theme is a recurring one among Democrats. Because the people don’t know what’s good for them, government must interfere and force us to consume what they feel we need. In their opinion, what we need is exposure to more left wing ideology.

Their arguments are weak to the point of absurdity.

One specious left wing argument is that the presence of conservative talk radio gives the GOP an unfair advantage during elections.

This argument does not take into account the left’s domination of most of the editorial pages of the nation’s major newspapers, NPR, the nightly network news, and the blogosphere.

If the GOP ever proposed legislation to force The New York Times to run a piece by Bill O’Reilly next to every column by Paul Krugman, the left wouldn’t hesitate to label the move a fascist power grab and an assault on freedom of the press.

If for every movie by Michael Moore that was released in theaters, a movie with an opposing viewpoint had to be released on the same number of screens, movie executives would be throwing themselves off the Hollywood sign in droves.

That’s where the left’s next argument comes in. They argue that because the radio airwaves are a “limited national resource,” ownership of which can be controlled by government in trust for the public, the content generated by such stations can also be regulated. Remember, the Democrats translate “the public” to mean the government first and the people second.

The truth is that whether or not access to broadcast licenses are controlled by the government, the content which is broadcast over the airwaves is controlled by market forces, just as the content of the rest of the media is.

Regulation of political analysis on a radio station is no different from the regulation of a newspaper editorial page. Both should be unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The government can regulate how the trees which are used to make the paper are cut down, but not what is printed on the paper itself.

What’s really at play here is politics. The Democrats say they want to even the playing field, but the truth is that the “playing field” is already even. In fact, in terms of reaching people through different media outlets, the “playing field” is currently still slanted overwhelmingly to the left.

As if any further evidence of this was required, one need only look at the list released last week showing where political contributions made by those in the media end up. The answer, by a ratio of 9 to 1, was, of course, in the pockets of Democratic candidates.

What the Democrats are aiming to do in this situation is to gain an advantage by taking away one of the Republicans' most effective tools. That’s all there is to it.

When Liberals are put on the radio and begin touting their views, listeners generally tune out. This drains money from the station’s advertises. Under the Fairness Doctrine, stations would only be able to broadcast profitable programs for half the day. Station owners would inevitably be forced to change their format.

Lawmakers know this, a fact which leads us to the most ironic part of the situation.

Recognizing that it is market forces that have lead to the rise and success of conservative talk radio, Clinton, Boxer and others are hoping to implant a virus within the system. This poison pill would turn the market forces against the industry, eventually leading to its demise.

Since Rush Limbaugh became a political force in the early 90’s, those on the left have reviled conservative talk radio and have attempted to label it as misleading and hate-filled.

The awful truth, however, is that conservative talk radio was born out of a dereliction of duty by the mainstream media, much of which to this day seems incapable of covering politics in a fair and balanced fashion. In other words, conservative talk radio polices the police.

In addition, conservative talk radio has led thousands to become interested in politics and to become more politically informed. It is true that there is a fair amount of political cheerleading, unchecked sources and embellishment that comes from the mouths of the enormous egos which have access to those afternoon microphones. But such programs are still far more educational and informative than any “rock block” or “shock jock” on the dial.

Indeed, Hamilton and Jefferson would be ashamed. While they disagreed passionately, even to the point of hating each other personally, they would never have attempted to stifle speech simply because an opponent’s speech was unpopular.

Moreover, the fact that only two major parties exist in this country does not entitle (Oh, there's that word again. Funny that it should show up here.) one party to benefit from a special government regulation while excluding all of the others parties from that privilege.

If you give liberals and Democrats equal time, does not fairness require that you give Communists, Socialist, Libertarians, Anarchists, Scientologists, The Black Panther Party and The Wi
ccan Brotherhood for the Legalization of Cannabis, equal time on the AM soapbox.

Surely, the Democrats are not saying that their views are more deserving of radio time than those of these minority parties. The Republicans certainly aren’t saying that. All we’re saying is that in a democracy, the people are supposed to decide and those people have consistently decided that they want to listen to conservative thinkers on the radio and not liberal ones.

When radio first came on the scene it was determined that those who were permitted to use the radio airwaves were expected to serve the “public interest.” I encourage them to continue to do so, keeping in mind that the public has shown that they have no “interest” whatsoever in liberal talk radio or the Fairness Doctrine.

Sphere: Related Content

JUST ANOTHER LIBERAL DEMOCRAT

So NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg has gone from being a Democrat to being a Republican and is now uncommitted as he positions himself for an "Independent" run for the Presidency. While Ralph Nader's 2000 role as spoiler was a gift from God, a Bloomberg candidacy would be more reminiscent of Ross Perot's 1992 presidential bid. A bid which trimmed GOP voters from George H.W. Bush and handed Bill Clinton the keys to the Oval Office.

A lot of voters fall hard for that word "Independent" when they make their decisions regarding a candidate, mistakenly thinking that the "I" next to the candidates name, means that the candidate subscribes to a "middle of the road" ideology.
Fortunately, in this cycle voters should have had enough time between now and Election Day to see that Bloomberg’s even further to the left than most of those running on the Democratic side.

Bloomberg is only an” Independent” in the sense that he can spend a billion dollars of his own money in trying to get elected without the aide of an organized political party and that neither of the two major parties would ever nominate him for the Presidency. Otherwise, he’s an old-school New York liberal.

Not that I’m complaining. A Bloomberg candidacy should bode very well for the GOP, which faces an uphill battle in the upcoming cycle. Just look at New York State, where John Kerry beat George W Bush by 17% in 2004.

Bloomberg has a 70% approval rating in NYC right now and will almost certainly take votes away from Hillary in ’08, leaving the GOP vote intact (especially if the candidate is Rudy Giuliani)and putting one of the most left-leaning states in the nation back in play.

Because of all of his money, Bloomberg is very capable of getting at least 15% of the nationwide vote in ’08 and I’m guessing that those votes will overwhelmingly come from disaffected Democrats who don’tlike Hillary.

Therefore Bloomberg’s potential run could be the best thing to happen to Republicans…well…ever.

Sphere: Related Content

George Wallace Would Be Proud

John Leo
Let the Segregation Commence
Separatist graduations proliferate at UCLA.
13 June 2007

Commencement weekend is hard to plan at the University of California, Los Angeles. The university now has so many separate identity-group graduations that scheduling them not to conflict with one another is a challenge. The women’s studies graduation and the Chicana/Chicano studies graduation are both set for 10 AM Saturday. The broader Hispanic graduation, “Raza,” is in near-conflict with the black graduation, which starts just an hour later.

Planning was easier before a new crop of ethnic groups pushed for inclusion. Students of Asian heritage were once content with the Asian–Pacific Islanders ceremony. But now there are separate Filipino and Vietnamese commencements, and some talk of a Cambodian one in the future. Years ago, UCLA sponsored an Iranian graduation, but the school’s commencement office couldn’t tell me if the event was still around. The entire Middle East may yet be a fertile source for UCLA commencements.

Not all ethnic and racial graduations are well attended. The 2003 figures at UCLA showed that while 300 of 855 Hispanic students attended, only 170 out of 1,874 Asian-Americans did.

Some students are presumably eligible for four or five graduations. A gay student with a Native American father and a Filipino mother could attend the Asian, Filipino, and American Indian ceremonies, plus the mainstream graduation and the Lavender Graduation for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered students.

Graduates usually wear identity-group markers—a Filipino stole or a Vietnamese sash, for instance, or a rainbow tassel at the Lavender event. Promoters of ethnic and racial graduations often talk about the strong sense of community that they favor. But it is a sense of community based on blood, a dubious and historically dangerous organizing principle.

The organizers also sometimes argue that identity-group graduations make sense for practical reasons. They say that about 3,000 graduating seniors show up for UCLA’s “regular” graduation, making it a massive and impersonal event. At the more intimate identity-group events, foreign-born parents and relatives hear much of the ceremony in their native tongues. The Filipino event is so small—about 100 students— that each grad gets to speak for 30 seconds.

But the core reason for separatist graduations is the obvious one: on campus, assimilation is a hostile force, the domestic version of American imperialism. On many campuses, identity-group training begins with separate freshman orientation programs for nonwhites, who arrive earlier and are encouraged to bond before the first Caucasian freshmen arrive. Some schools have separate orientations for gays as well. Administrations tend to foster separatism by arguing that bias is everywhere, justifying double standards that favor identity groups.

Four years ago Ward Connerly, then a regent of the University of California, tried to pass a resolution to stop funding of ethnic graduations and gay freshman orientations. He changed his mind and asked to withdraw his proposal, but the regents wanted to vote on it and defeated it in committee 6–3.

No major objections to ethnic graduations have emerged since. As in so many areas of American life, the preposterous is now normal.

John Leo is the editor of the Manhattan Institute’s

Sphere: Related Content

The Deficit's Going Down...Time To Raise Taxes

Show this article to anyone you know who doesn't understand how the economy works. It's simple enough for even the most jaded of the class warfare set to understand.

WE HAVE TO GET THE TAXES RAISED ... AND FAST!
By Neal Boortz


Class warlords and those suffering from wealth envy might not want to hear this, but our federal budget deficit is shrinking. The deficit through May of 2007 is down 34.6 percent from the same period a year ago, now totaling about $148.5 billion.

Why? Prosperity, that's why. Incomes are up. Corporate profits are up. Unemployment is down. Much of this is driven by tax cuts. That's right ... tax cuts. It's all very simple, really. You allow people to keep more of what they earn, and they will do more to earn more. It's a lesson as old as civilization. You get more of the behavior you reward, and you get less of the behavior you punish. Most (but certainly not all) parents recognize this. The more you penalize hard word with high taxes, the less hard work you will get. The more you reward achievement and hard work the more work you'll get. More work = growing economy = more government revenue = lower deficits. If, that is, the government doesn't increase spending faster than the revenue increases.

In the midst of this good news, just what are our friends in the Democrat Party proposing? You guessed it; more taxes. They want to punish this hard work that's going on out there with higher taxes on the higher achievers. The goal here is not to increase government revenues. Even Democrats are smarter than that. They realize that these higher taxes they're talking about will likely slow down our economic growth. Their real goal is power, and power comes from the ballot box. They know that a huge segment of their voting base wallows in envy every single day of their lives; envy of the wealth accumulated by those who have worked harder and smarter than they. They want these people punished ... NOW! And they believe that the best way to punish these high-achievers is to take away more of that which they are working for; their wealth.

Wealth envy is nothing new. In fact, we can thank wealth envy for our current income tax system. When the 16th Amendment (income tax) was being sold to the American people the proponents of a new federal income tax needed a way to get people to ask their states for ratification. Wealth envy was the key. The people were told that only rich Americans would ever have to pay the income tax, and virtually all of these rich people lived in the Northeast; generally in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and New York. The voters in states like Michigan or Kentucky had nothing to worry about. They would reap the benefits of all of this new federal spending without having to pay a part of the tab. Only the evil rich would be hit. The 16th Amendment sailed through.

How far will people go to hurt someone that has more than they? They'll even go to the point of hurting themselves -- quite willingly -- in the process. Some years ago researchers gathered a cross section of Americans together to play a game. They were each given a set amount of play money. Some were given more than others. The subjects were then allowed to play an investing game. At the end of the game some had acquired more "wealth," while others had lost. Those with less wealth were then approached and asked if they would like to "burn" some of the dollars earned by the winners in this investing game. They were told that for each dollar they were willing to give away, four dollars would be taken from a rich person. They would get absolutely nothing for their dollar except the pleasure of knowing that one of the "winners" was having money taken from them. To nobody's surprise, most of those with the fewer dollars elected to throw away some of their money just for the joy of knowing that one of the "winners" was getting nailed.

And so it goes with our economy. You could tell your typical lower-income Democrat voter that if taxes are raised on the evil rich it might slow down our economy. You could tell them that a slowing economy and lower corporate profits might mean fewer pay raises. You could tell them that an economic slowdown brought on by higher taxes might mean fewer job opportunities. You can tell them all of the negative consequences of increasing taxes on the high-achievers, and it won't make a difference. They are perfectly willing to take a hit if they just know that those nasty rich people are taking it in the chin.

Democrats are well aware of the dynamics of wealth envy and voting. They give the voters what they want -- punishment for the wealthy -- and the voters will respond with their votes, even if it hurts them to do so.

Ain't life grand?

Sphere: Related Content

I Don't Believe He Said That

I think most of the GOP faithful expected that Nancy Pelosi would be the first one in the new Democratic Congress to say something colossally stupid, however since the Dem's took the reins it's been Senator Reid who appears to have caught the foot-in-mouth bug.

First, he sent the message to our troops that the war was lost. That was a really, really dumb thing for the Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate to say.

Today a video was posted on Reid's website showing him speaking on immigration and referring to illegals as "undocumented Americans".

Huh? How do you defend that statement? Anyone?

Now, the Democrats have much to gain from a mass legalization of some sort as well as from increasing the flow of Mexicans coming here legally.

The now stalled immigration legislation would have helped Reid's party by bringing in the families of current illegals, many of whom would rely on entitlements and therefore be more likely to vote for Democrats.

This is pandering of the worst kind on Reid's part.

He really needs to go back and watch the results from election night 2002, when Tom Daschle, another Democratic Majority Leader from a conservative state lost his job, due to obstructionism and a cadre of dumb statements.


Reid has already made a lot of people angry, and not just on the right. He either needs to start choosing his words more carefully or suffer a Trent Lott-style beat down from his own party. One hopes that Democrats have enough sense to see how damaging this could be. Then again William Jefferson still has his job.

Sphere: Related Content

WILL THE DEMOCRATS EMBRACE ATHEISM?

At no point in our nation’s history has a fringe political movement been permitted to become more powerful than has the far left during the post 9/11 era.

The extreme left has essentially taken control of the Democratic party, forcing the top Presidential candidates to shape their rhetoric in increasingly liberal tones and use the Iraq war as a launching pad for an agenda which is not in sync with the values and priorities of most Americans.

In addition to the immediate abandonment of Iraq, these groups also advocate socialism in its purest form, a more Amsterdam-esque, hedonistic America with moral equivocation when it comes to America’s enemies and a “blame America first” attitude going well beyond patriotic questioning of American policy.
The most striking aspect of the far left’s surge in influence, however, is the renewed fashionability among liberal elites towards atheism. The mainstreaming of Bush hatred and other such practices has had a trickle-down effect which has led an increasing number of those on the far left, especially young people, to believe that there is no God.



A number of authors such as Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins have recently published books making arguments in favor of Godlessness as part and parcel of American political life. As might be expected, these authors are being given lots of face time in the media as of late.

To be clear, this trend does not include those who consider themselves agnostic. One of the ploys adopted by atheists attempting to spread their ideology has been to lump those who are unsure about the existence or nature of a deity in with those who are confident that no such higher being exists.

This is an intellectually dishonest tactic meant to make the numbers of the unbelievers seem greater, and it works.

As voices from the American left become more and more audible, thanks in large part to the comfortable home which they have found on the Internet, atheism has experienced a surge in popularity among the liberal elite not seen since the leftist glory days of the 1930’s. My guess is that this is, in some large measure, a reaction to President Bush’s deeply held religious beliefs and to the power of the evangelicals who helped him get elected.

But how long will the Democratic presidential candidates be able to maintain the political balancing act which, on one hand, requires them to publicly state their belief in God in order to prevail in a general election setting, while on the other hand, playing footsie with the beliefs of their radical base? A sizeable portion of that activist base considers believers to be naïve, unenlightened fools who pray to an invisible being, who sits on a cloud somewhere in the sky, controlling the universe.

When coupled with the possibility that some of the more “progressive” candidates themselves may actually be closet atheists (Dennis Kucinich, I’m looking in your direction.) how long until the more moderate candidates will be forced to adopt a hostility towards the concept of God and those voters who do believe, in order to win a primary election?

We know that the Hillary Clintons and John Edwards of the world will say just about anything to satisfy the folks who control the money over at MoveOn.org and Media Matters. Therefore, is it that much of a stretch to imagine a future election in which hostility to God and religion is taken to an extreme level by a serious contender in order to satisfy an important political faction?

Just as the Evangelicals have proven their power in electing GOP candidates to high office, is it possible that Atheists could begin to wield a similar power among Democrats?

What consequences if any would Atheistic candidacies or tenures in office have on our nation?



While liberals constantly warn us of the boogeyman of theocracy dwelling in the motives of the current Administration, the truth is that these very people know in their heart of hearts that their fear mongering is based on a ludicrous distortion of reality.

Surely even they understand that the American people would overwhelmingly reject a Mullah style Christian candidate, if one existed.

They also must understand that Atheism represents the other extreme, which would be overwhelmingly rejected as well if a candidate espoused its principles, which are openly hostile towards religion.

Remember Communism? Yeah, it didn’t work.



It's important to keep in mind that Atheists tend not to be neutral on the question of religion. They view religion as bad. They see it as having a negative effect on society.

For the time being, Hillary and her ilk will continue to make speeches in African-American churches and pay lip service to those religious individuals whom the Democratic party has pretended to understand in the years since the 2004 Bush victory.

But as its left wing radical elite continues to grow in power, the time will come for the Democratic Party when the believers will not be able to co-exist with the non-believers. Then a re-alignment surely will occur, similar to the one of the 1970s and 1980s when the Southern Democrats abandoned the party for the GOP.

The same questions regarding the far left’s proclivity towards atheism could also be raised when it comes to their belief in 9/11 conspiracy theories. Thus far, not even the most insane among the ’08 presidential candidates has given the slightest nod to the surprisingly high percentage of liberals who believe that the U.S. government was in some way behind the 9/11 attacks. Of course, there is still plenty of time and one of these guys (or gals) is bound to become desperate eventually.

Sphere: Related Content