A Young American Blog

Revolution: From Cairo to Wisconsin

2011-02-26T22:13:00.002-05:00

I was told by a man dressed like Patrick Henry at CPAC 2011 that violent revolution is only acceptable when the people can't vote to overthrow their government. While I can't vouch for the source of this sentiment, the words of this Tea Partying, ponytailed reincarnation of our nation's arguably most aggressive founder have been driving my thoughts this week in light of recent uprisings from the streets of Cairo to Wisconsin. In the Middle East, we seem to hear echoes of "give me liberty, or give me death" as the people there resort to violence, hopefully in search of a vote. Meanwhile, public sector employees in Wisconsin are striking essentially against the results of this past November's general election. And so, I guess my musings this week amount to this: we would be remiss if we summarily congratulated all popular revolutions, whether violent or democratic, and embraced each one as a reflection of our founding.

Remember what a bloody mess the French Revolution turned out to be just a few years after our Revolution? How about the ones in Communist Russia, China, and Cuba? More pertinent still to our discussion about the Middle East is the Iranian Revolution of 1979, which replaced an enlightened Western Shah with the totalitarian Islamic regime we see today, still ruled by Ayatollah Khomeini. It is indeed possible for the people, in whom we as Americans have so much faith, to bring about change that is evil. Hamas, for example, is a democratically elected governing entity in Gaza that both the US and EU classify as a terrorist organization. When Radical Islam has already claimed the governments of two separate Middle-Eastern countries through either violent or democratic revolutions, one can't be too cautious about the new, post-revolutionary governments that will soon sprout in Egypt, Bahrain, Libya, and Tunisia.

Having written thus far with the utmost cynicism on a level of naked practicality, I can tell you on an emotional level that I would love for the revolutions in the Middle East to succeed. Ideally, we as Americans should aid other sprouting Democracies if we really believe that God-given rights (which we unfortunately take for granted) may not be taken from man without his or His consent. But once we fight for another people's right to chose their own government, we retain the right to hold them responsible for their choices and consequent actions. In the end I would have no problem with Egypt electing Hamas, so long as I was certain we would bomb them if that happened.

Insofar as the Obama administration won't call the sky blue, and certainly won't harm a hair on Hamas' head until we've "absorbed another attack," I don't think we have the luxury of letting this play out without jeopardizing some of our interests in the region (namely, Israel). Besides, it seems like most of these revolutions are just culminating in a change of hands, not regimes, with the former Second-In-Command graciously accepting the title, responsibilities, and power of whatever dictator has just flown the coop. And for some reason, the people that fought in the Egyptian town squares for a "change in government" are OK with another military dictator. The way things are going right now, Egypt will probably just be a new weapon in my arsenal of examples when I try to explain the difference between a "one time democratic process," and a lasting democracy. The former doesn't always lead to the latter. In fact, America is practically the only country in all of history that's managed to transition from a democratic revolution to a functioning democracy rather smoothly.

Perhaps that's why the Libyans are practically begging the Obama administration to step in, and take a strong stance for "peace-loving democracy" in the Middle East via the UN Security Council. Of course, when we invaded Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein we were called monsters, and our interest in Iran's oppressive regime and nuclear weapons is summarily dismissed as "materialistic." But when the people of Libya are in trouble, we're told by the Libyans that our silence makes us practically complicit in Qaddafi's carpet bombings.

Those liberals that joined in calling Bush a war criminal for trying to foster freedom overseas are now also holding up a crucial vote in Wisconsin. 14 Democratic State Senators are proving harder to find than Qaddafi; they are actually hiding out somewhere to block the passage of a bill they don't like. Their cowardly refusal to submit to the will of the Wisconsin people, who voted for a Governor and Senate Majority that promised to pass a bill curbing union power (the bill in question right now), is no different than Qaddafi's hiding out in a fort while shooting at his own people. How dare they chose to shirk the power and duty of the vote granted to them? Why do they think that a mob consisting of out-of-state union thugs is more representative of the will of the people than an election? Remember, protest and violence is only necessary when you don't have the vote. Patrick Henry is certainly rolling in his grave. Or at the very least, the guy dressed like him is very, very peeved.

Please, touch my junk?

2010-11-22T10:20:00.007-05:00

Alright, I have to come clean here. Perhaps I don't see what the big deal is because I haven't yet been inconvenienced at an airport by a stranger patting me down, but I'm not getting red in the face over the TSA searching for suspicious packages (badum bum). After all, one of the legitimate functions of Government is to protect its citizens. If security requires certain people to get pat down to make sure another 3,000 or so people don't die, then so be it. If the government were simply neutralizing a threat to its citizens in the most efficient way possible, then my response to those who say that "If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy" (Madison) is that "even the devil can cite scripture for his purpose" (The Merchant of Venice I:3).

Unfortunately, the Madison-quoting fear-mongerers are right this time around. Firstly, the new, invasive, mandatory security measures can hardly be viewed as incidental emergency steps taken to defend us when considered in light of the federal government's unbridled lust for our personal rights over the last century. Secondly, the TSA is trying very hard to be anything but efficient throughout this whole process in the name of political correctness. It's like they're trying to scratch their right ear with their left foot when a much easier way has clearly been demonstrated.

You know, if a man with rubber gloves stuck his hands down a 4 year old's pants in a crowded airport on any given day, he'd go to jail. Unless, of course, he worked for the Government. The TSA touches every single person going onto a plane because touching only the ones that may look like they have bombs would fall under "criminal profiling." They even screen the pilots. Last I checked, a pilot doesn't need a box cutter to bring down a plane if he really wants to kill someone.

The Israelis had the secure solution to terrorist hijackings long before 9/11, which is perhaps why they never had a 9/11. My solution to this rift between sanity and sexual harassment is just as simple: privatize security. I'll fly the airlines that use the Israeli system of highly trained personnel screening a criminal by the way he sweats, breathes, and twitches, and everyone who finds such profiling offensive can wait in line to get his 3-for-1 flight, dinner, and prostate exam special. We'll see how long those lines last.

Oh, I almost forgot. The American Muslim Council has proposed that Muslim women only get screened from the neck up because touching them is a violation of their religious rights. Let me know what you think about that in the comments.

An Explanation of the "Isms"

2010-11-16T08:49:00.018-05:00

I confused Communism and Marxist theory a few days ago in a public conversation, and it was embarrassing. So after a few lessons in history I hope this breakdown of what exactly Karl Marx wrote, and what exactly became of it after his death, will spare at least one of my vocal readers a red face under the spotlight.

Marx based his socio-economic theory on Hegel's law of social Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis. There will always be a societal norm (thesis), against which will arise a culture that cannot coexist with that norm (Antithesis), and ultimately something will come out of it that resembles a synthesis of the two (which will then become the Thesis, and so on and so forth). Marx simply gave this pattern identifiable historical names, and insisted that each stage must be brought about violently to succeed. Marxist theory is the pattern of humanity as he sees it.

After Roman ideas of outright slavery died in name with the Empire, Feudalism became the Western World's thesis under the Catholic Church in the Middle ages. Feudalism limits progress only to a ruling aristocracy, where success is limited to primogeniture, not merit. The caste system of Feudalism will not hear of an innovative peasant or a serf with good business sense.

The antithesis which must arise to this, is Capitalism. The bourgeoisie, the upper class non-aristocracy which gained money and influence largely from international trade (because remember, it was "beneath" the aristocracy to get its hands dirty with making money), could not coexist with a monarchic or theocratic monopoly on taxation and business. If the time is not right, the bourgeoisie gets absorbed into the aristocracy, a la the Medicis of Italy. But by the time of the French Revolution, or perhaps even earlier around the British Civil War, the the capitalistic bourgeoisie killed its societal thesis.

The next disgruntled social class to rebel would be the proletarian working class which refuses to be exploited by capitalist bourgeoisie. After enough capital has been created under capitalism to support the entire world, Marx argues all must progress to socialism as the proletariat revolts. The final stage of human enlightenment--where there are no more classes against which to create an antithesis--is communism. At that stage, everyone will be happy to fulfill his purpose simply for the sake of fulfilling his purpose. Marx thought people, once fully enlightened communists, would all want to work to their greatest ability to help the next person. The ditch digger would get paid as the brain surgeon, and all would be happy.

To those who say that this communistic system could be wonderful if only it were implemented correctly, I say you're absolutely right. And maybe if we weren't all human we'd be able to fly like angels too, not just act like them. The fact of the matter is, people will not work unless they personally gain something from it. No potential brain surgeon will go through years of training seriously if he could be rewarded equally for grabbing a shovel and getting to work.

The reason Communism has failed in Russia is not because the Russian revolution "skipped a step" as classical Marxists say. Russia functioned under a modified communism called "Marxism-Leninism" which in effect merged the bourgeoisie and populist revolutions together when overthrowing feudalism. I must argue that communism quickly develops into dictatorship every time it's tried not because anyone skipped Capitalism and Socialism, but because we haven't yet found an angel capable of administering the society without corruption.

So today we have a semblance of "proper" progression toward communism. The Socialistic programs in Europe, and now in America, are steps along the way to "proper communism" according to Marx. We can get there anyway we want, but in the end my argument still stands. Communism in its purest form is impossible, and doomed to destroy entire civilizations, irrespective of the angle at which we approach it.

Compromise in Congress and Culture

2010-11-07T22:31:00.008-05:00

For professional athletes, the feeling of total accomplishment--really, of culmination and completion--after a major victory is almost immediately and apparently crippling. Professional politicians die in office very similarly when they forget their campaign promises once in Washington. For too many, the election is an end and not a mean in the grander scheme of leading a nation to excellence as per the vision of its citizens. Washington's greatest plight right now is that it can't seem to realize that it's a part of the United States.

That's why Conservatives won the house this year. We, the people, did not elect those who would "drive the country," at all--to use one of the President's favorite campaign metaphors--not forward, not into a ditch. We elected Representatives who would give their constituents and constitution a loud and uncompromising voice in Washington. Because when it's not your voice that's speaking in Congress, but that of the people you represent, you have no right to compromise what they say.

The worst mistake Conservatives could make would be to compromise with Obama's agenda over the next two years. Doing so would override the will of the constituents who elected them with a clear Obama referendum in mind. The travesty here would not be so much in agreeing with a Liberal agenda, but in ignoring the common people who don't want it. More than anything, Liberal blowhards in Congress have angered Americans by alienating them, and Conservatives need to fulfill their promise of an open and responsible government or suffer the consequences of 60+ unlucky Democrats.

In the poignantly hilarious words of my friend Eric at Tygrrrr Express, "whenever a Liberal barks about compromise, he just means 'shut up and agree with me.'" An insufferably backward notion Liberals have, which translates into their foreign policy with alarming regularity, is that compromise from a position of weakness is not seen by everyone else as "giving up," and that a stronger enemy would willingly meet a weaker one halfway. That would never happen unless, of course, that "enemy" is Conservative. Reagan is the model of how we want our leaders in Washington to think; constantly personally torn over the paradox of gaining power to limit it. It is the Liberals who now need to compromise after 2 years of party line votes and majority bullying. What has come out of several years of unlimited Democrat power is a war between Washington and the rest of the nation. After all this time, the Conservatives were elected to compromise, to give power back to the people from a position of strength.

Conservatives can compromise with their constituents and return power to them by ardently standing against the Liberal legislation secretly written and then forcibly passed over the last two years. That the Liberals have been completely unwavering while in power is obvious, but I must argue somewhat surprising considering what I will explain as the culture of compromise and the myth of diversity.

Diverse opinions are the backbone of free political discourse, and support our nation's multifaceted interests on every level. However, to say that each person must be personally diverse makes no sense. A worldly man understands others' opinions, a diverse man believes them all; and so, how could he possibly have an opinion of his own? To ask a Congressman to compromise on his, or his constituents' values (though I've explained above you can't give away that which is isn't yours), is to ask him to be personally diverse. When everyone in Congress believes essentially nothing, you end up with opportunists, the only thing worse than ideologues.

A proper congress represents its constituents, who are inherently diverse. Hence multiple Congressmen for 435 US districts. And so a proper congressman must not compromise on the needs of his constituents, especially when that means seizing more power for himself. In the end, America is a representative government, by the people, for the people. Let's keep it that way.

Want Vs Need

2010-10-19T21:32:00.005-04:00

Most of us have grown up using the words interchangeably. Sometimes some supercilious adult would correct us by asking "do you really need this, or do you just want it?" I want to make a clear break between those two concepts---linguistically, and practically. Ultimately, we are a culture of want that has been coaxed into a culture of need. I want to posit that feelings of need bring out the worst in human beings, whereas want built this great country. I don't want anyone flippantly responding to this with the thought that I hate needy people, so let's explore the two concepts thoroughly to see why we need to return to more wanting, and less needing.

Need invokes the most animalistic instincts in us, and when survival is at stake no one cares about principle. In Freudian terms: if your Id senses a terrible lacking, your ego will tend to override your superego significantly. For this reason, a prerequisite to communism is always poverty. The masses, when distraught, cling to dictators that promise complete salvation, no matter how unrealistic. This progression from panic to dictatorial communism is so predictable, that every wannabe tyrant over the last 200 years has induced the panic with the promise of "people's communism." Stalin starved an entire country (Ukraine) by literally stealing its wheat over the course of several years, Che Guevera in Cuba and Mao in China both massacred millions of people to achieve a "People's Republic."

A satisfied mouse won't go for the cheese in the trap; it can wait a little until the situation doesn't look as dire. Communism feeds on need though, and always comes into power after dire situations. It uses the excuse of saving people in need to rob those people of their liberties only to ensure its own continuity at the expense of those impoverished people. Honestly, does a regime that can only survive if the people are miserable have any interest in making the people happy?

The fair world runs on want, or what Liberals and Communists call greed. When you want something, and no one (including the Government) promises to give it to you, you find a way to get it. In this way, wealth is literally generated out of thin air. The mouse that wants the cheese will learn to dance for it, and who wouldn't feed a dancing mouse? Both parties gain something from the transaction, so I beg you to tell me which was the greedy one.

Now, want is limited, as only God can limit something like this fairly, by the biblical concept of "thou shall not covet thy neighbor." Most Jewish theologians (I speak only on their behalf because of my educational background) argue that jealousy which spurs you to better yourself and work for what someone else has is a good jealousy. The only wrong to speak of in this context is a jealousy that makes you take forcibly that which belongs to your neighbor. In layman's terms, this fine line defined by human instinct and morality, is capitalism.

Society flourishes when everyone is jealous of the guy with money, and comes up with innovative products to trade for bits of it. If you're really good and come up with a successful corporation, he may invest all of it in you. Wanting is only bad when it makes you forcibly take what is not yours, namely, when it becomes need. And yet, the capitalistic system of "want" is far and away the "most productive supplier of human needs." (Sharon Statement)

See, you can have your cake and eat it too, but only if you've earned it. And because you wanted it, you've paid for and fulfilled the needs of the baker, the flour grinder, the oven manufacturer, the floor sweeper in the back of the pastry shop...you get the idea.

The Ultimate Measure of Man

2010-10-16T14:29:00.014-04:00

On so many levels, Barrack Obama is not the man Martin Luther King Jr. envisioned. If the "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands in times of challenges and controversy," as Dr. King said, then Obama has failed as a leader, and a man. During the rare times of challenge and controversy that he did not himself create, he has acted selfishly and foolishly. I can't believe I'm saying this, but the Gulf Oil Rig disaster would have been mitigated by a Chilean president in a far more efficient and reassuring manner as far as Dr. King is concerned.

Sebastian Pinera is a name that will go down in history for a few good reasons. After the avalanche that caved in a Chilean mine in August, all were thought to be dead or beyond rescue. The President alone ignored his political advisors and took responsibility for the incident. For the first time in 20 years, a Chilean President mentioned Godly hope and prayer in some official context when he reassured the people that God would be with them in the search for potential survivors. He took aid from 12 different countries, and a private corporation in Pennsylvania supplied Chile with the necessary drill bit that got the miners out in the end.

I can not think of a more American thing to do than rally and rebuild after a disaster, and I must admit that watching the mine rescues chokes me up as much as videos of September 12th, 2001. Since last week, there are hundreds of thousands of Gulf Coast Americans who wish they had President Sebastian Pinera to handle the oil spill.

I don't know if Obama's refusal to accept any foreign aid when not suspending the Jones act was selfishness or foolishness, but he was certainly a Democrat when placing his union friends over the lives and livelihood of thousands. And when this extended the crisis to months beyond what it should have been, he had to look "for someone's ass to kick." The private corporation was his scapegoat rather than his crutch, which is wholly indicative of his attitude toward our future.

If our traditions of God, capitalism, and hope are being overshadowed by a south-of the-equator-country, we have problems. Surprisingly, this fits with Obama's vision for this country's "secondary status," and I want to thank President Pinera for making the world painfully aware of our impotence. America has something to contribute to the world. The Government may not, but at least private corporations in Pennsylvania have drills to contribute to mine rescues. In a time of dire tragedy, Obama would rather disregard our greatness and let people suffer than act contrary to his vision of a crippled country.

Martin Luther King Jr. sacrificed everything for American values, and his dream was of personal and national success through God and justice. Pray tell, which part of how Obama handled the Gulf Coast oil spill fits into this vision? President Pinera has been a model leader "for God and Country," and deserves our every respect because, unlike Obama, he can invoke the name of Dr. King without shame.

YAF in a Nutshell

2010-10-12T16:50:00.003-04:00

I apologize for the seizure-inducing zoom and shaking. I really appreciate my grandfather for taking this video, and I do hope you enjoy since it was one of my favorite speaking opportunities.

National ______ Awareness Month

2010-10-06T22:37:00.011-04:00

America's insistence on demoting important causes and issues to one month a year is as insulting as it is futile. What one hopes to achieve by "raising awareness" during said month short of overproducing silly slogans, I'm not sure. In today's high speed communication age, any bloke who has to go out of his way to hide under a rock without disease or discrimination of some kind is not really worth enlightening anyway. What is needed is more action from dedicated people, more of a filter on what we need to be "aware" of, and a greater sensitivity to "awareness months'" greater implications.

Of course, when people say they are raising awareness, they really hope that your awareness is raised to a point where you want to do something about the problem. Cancer isn't going away just because you've acknowledged it like some twisted game of peekaboo. Now since awareness here implies action, there are certain awareness programs that to me seem completely ludicrous. For example, what does global awareness mean to you? On a simple and sane level, it is the idea that every educated person should want to understand the societies around him. Their troubles and victories should become his troubles and victories to the extent that we're all human.

But all too often liberals degrade something to a month that should be daily on ones mind, and twist it into a platform for their agendas for which they want money and energy; in this case, trans-nationalism. Another perfect example is Earth day, or quite frankly the entire "Green" movement. Pollution is a problem to the extent that we need a clean world to live in, where planes don't emit long black trails of smoke like in the 70's and garbage dumps don't stink up every corner like in Europe. But since we've fixed the noticeable and evident problems, those liberal fear-mongers (to use one of their favorite names for me) have us up-in-arms against a figment of Al Gore's imagination.

Global and Earth awareness may be silly, but they are not nearly as insulting as Black History Month. As Morgan Freeman famously said in his 60 Minutes interview, "can you fit white history into one month?" And quite frankly, "why is White history any different than Black history? Why can't it all just be American history?" Liberals have done a tremendous disservice to the black community for political gain by continually promising them salvation from woefully exaggerated and often simply lied about race based victimization. Black History Month is just another way of making everyone aware of how different blacks are from the rest of America, and as a fellow American I take personal offense to that.

I guess I wouldn't take such offense to all these months with all these causes if some of them weren't as childish as People Skills Month (June), or as inane as Self-Discovery Month (May). As my proposed solution to it all (you never want to be the whiner with no answers), I think we need to let people choose their own level of consciousness, and encourage those heavily aware ones around us to chase down their causes until they don't have to anymore. Let's end cancer through research, not T-shirt slogans. Let's stop aids by discouraging promiscuity and drug use, instead of passing out contraceptives and needles in school. Let's get rid of Black History Month and promote our shared American History all year round.

Human Rights: UN vs US

2010-10-03T22:59:00.025-04:00

Considering how often I write about and for Israel, many of you must have already guessed how I feel about the United Nations. I explained in my last post that borders are there for a reason. Trying to unite nations like the United States and Iran should be like trying to fit a round peg in a very inhospitable, slightly radioactive hole. And yet, while America is slowly but surely singlehandedly liberating people in the middle east, and clearing the world of oppressive and dangerous dictators, Iran sits high and mighty on the UN's Commission on Womens' Rights; figure that one out. To say America could do more good by joining this circus any more than is necessary to keep the clowns in check, is absolutely ludicrous. Our military has done more for the people of the world than all the other nations united, and yet we're vilified to no end.

(watching this video here would fit in nicely with the flow of the piece. If you are short on time, continue below).

To illustrate, I want to tell you a story which stands on its own merits regardless of its validity. There was a conference in France where a number of international engineers were taking part, including French and American. During a break, one of the French engineers came back into the room saying 'Have you heard the latest dumb stunt Bush has pulled? He has sent an aircraft carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims. What does he intended to do, bomb them?'

A Boeing engineer stood up and replied quietly: 'Our carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people; they are nuclear powered and can supply emergency electrical power to shore facilities; they have three cafeterias with the capacity to feed 3,000 people three meals a day, they can produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day, and they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and from their flight deck. We have eleven such ships; how many does France have?'

The French are nice, capable people too though; they send care packages and UN ambulances to Gaza for eventual use in terrorist operations. So to justify their condemnation of American military humanitarianism, liberals and Europeans have rallied behind the falsehood of the UN Human Rights Council and its woefully exaggerated abilities and desire to do good around the planet. With countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Libya and Cuba presiding, it baffles the mind how much time the Council devotes to condemning Israel while blatantly ignoring Saudi Arabian Shaaria Law, Pakistani nuclear threat, Libyan piracy, and Cuban communism.

With the US now to join the mix on a far grander scale, guided by Barrack Obama's deserved Nobel Peace Prize, perhaps the United States can muster a movement in condemnation of China for what it did in Tibet, or Serbia for what it did in Kosovo. In the end, however, I fear this new allegiance to and dependence on the power of international humanitarianism will limit what the US believes its personal contribution should be. And since the UN has proven its uselessness time and again, the world will be a lot worse for it.

Dual Citizenship

2010-09-29T15:46:00.004-04:00

I always found it fascinating that we allowed someone to claim citizenship in two or more countries, and was always curious how that dual status would manifested itself in daily practice. For example, provided one feels strongly allied to both nations, does he pledge allegiance to two flags? Can he serve in two armies if war between the two nations suddenly broke out? If that were to happen, the eternally juvenile but pressing question is, which side would he choose?

I justified in one of my earliest posts the inherent duality of Jews living in the United States. Judaism is in and of itself more than a ritualistic religion; it is a way of life that dictates day to day conduct as well as a nationalistic entity that transcends borders in times when Jews don't have their own home. Living as a Jew, or now, as an Israeli and an American, is not so ridiculous. Since both nations uphold almost identical ideologies, you can support "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and in so doing support Israel for supporting that too.

In other words, critically thinking human beings are faithful to their countries because of what their countries stand for. If one doesn't agree with the direction his country is going, he should try to reverse the damage or leave. My grandparents had to flee Communist Russia because it was as hostile to them as 1933 Germany was to Jews. Many people move out of bad neighborhoods when new neighbors make living there unbearable. However, to preempt getting chased out of your own home, I think it's OK for a community to say "we don't like your kind here."

If "your kind" refers to superficial things like skin color or ancestry, then you get communities that resemble communist Russia or Nazi Germany. But if "your kind" refers to litterbugs or pedophiles, some people start sounding a little less politically correct when their lawns or children are at stake. The same concept works on a broader scale as well; I don't want anyone getting the idea from this post that I want to eliminate borders.

Borders are necessary to keep out the kind we don't like: people who threaten humanity's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." But amongst allies, there is a case for unification to varying degrees. During World War II, several countries from all over the world united based on a common principle opposing Naziism. Those countries are still allied today, but only in a strategic sense. England, France, the US, and Russia are about as culturally diverse and unsuited to total unification today as ever, and I don't think anyone is suggesting that. However, the United States proves the case in history for autonomous units of people coming together and forming one great nation out of many smaller sovereign states.

A nation is just a broad collection of people like you, in one way or another. If you feel as much a Frenchman as an American as an Israeli, then God bless. However, you need to ask yourself honestly from time to time why do you live in the country that you're in right now? You can't be everywhere at once, so whether by sheer happenstance, convenience, or conscious choice, most people can only reside in one country at a time. In the end, you can pledge allegiance to two different flags under the same God and ideology, but don't forget to note which one you live under.

Mazal Tov! (They're married...I think)

2010-09-27T22:31:00.010-04:00

I think New York has just figured out why there are so many registered single parent families with children born out of wedlock. That's right; Jewish Hasidim in Williamsburg who have never registered their marriage with the state. You see, in their tightly-knit traditional Jewish communities, the Jews of Williamsburg only recognize a Jewish wedding as binding. As far as they're concerned, the city can take it's civil union contract and unify a horse and buggy. That "match made in heaven" is in fact nothing more than a match made by a nut in the City Clerk's office, so no one is about to start giving horses and buggies marital tax benefits (attached though they may be).

Conversely, I don't think anyone is about to start prosecuting this particular sect of Jewish Hasidim in Williamsburg for reaping single-parent tax benefits, because even top lawyers--well versed in the separations of church and state--will have a difficult time explaining in court why a religious marriage "doesn't count." After all, without religion, why would anyone want to get married? The whole concept of sexual responsibility to your God and your conscience originated long before governments were around to hand out petty contracts.

Without this religious knitting, I'm afraid, society seems to fall apart specifically at the marriage seam. Take a look at Europe for example, whose secular population has almost ceased to reproduce and so cannot counterbalance the tremendous influx of Muslim immigrants. European culture without sexual shame has degenerated to housing and defending the likes of Roman Polanski, who would be torn apart anywhere in this country except for Hollywood. I must posit that the only reason we find what Roman Polanski did to be abhorrent, is because we have a national conscience that is dictated by religious values. Those values are then transcribed into Holy Matrimony--yes, the word "holy" is found in Government documents as well as common vernacular--as a manifestation of what it means to be married man and wife.

Piggy-Bank 101

2010-09-20T19:26:00.005-04:00

Money should make sense: don't let any government official tell you he could spend it better than you can. Enjoy.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
An early draft of the constitution enumerated property as one of our unalienable rights. It was ultimately replaced by "pursuit of happiness" in the final copy because of the way "property" could be misconstrued. You see, you have a right to pursue happiness and property, not the right to have happiness and property. It doesn't mean our founding fathers were anti-happiness. All they wanted to know was "who is going to pay for it?"

If we lived on an island in the South Pacific, where there was one rock that represented the only tradable currency, we would be pretty miserable I think. Simple systems like this, where one person at a time owns a rock and trades it to the next person for goods and services, may work for banana republics that don't have any goods but coconuts or trades but coconut harvesting. In an economy that's flooded by an innumerable amount of goods relative to an immeasurable demand, you need more than one rock.

So in a complex economy, where everyone is buying and selling everything from all corners of the earth, how do you know that the rock you're getting in return for your service would work the same way on the other side of the country? Furthermore, who's to say that rock will be worth anything in a year's time? (rock trends are harder to keep up with than women's fashion) For this, our founding fathers enumerated government's duty to preserve our right to pursue happiness, and print a standard currency to keep us from going nuts.

In exchange for the services we ask the government to perform for our benefit--namely raising an army, paving roads, delivering mail, etc--we pay our cumulative expenses in the form of taxes. In a perfectly fair world, you and I would only pay for the goods and services we want and need through an even consumption tax. In addition, kind hearted people with reasonable means would help those who can't afford to pay for that which they need to consume.

The problem arises when someone starts forcing you to pay for things you don't want at a time when you can't afford it. Whether you like it or not, you need to pay the salaries of 14,000 new IRS employees who are there to invent ways for you to pay them more. You are trusting that 535 people in Washington whom you've never met before are going to distribute your charitable donations through Social Security and Welfare more morally and efficiently than you could do through your church or synagogue.

I guess that's the cost of doing business...in you're own company. There will always be people out there who can't help but "look at a fat man standing next to a skinny man, and believe that the fat man could only have gotten that way by stealing from the skinny one(R. Reagan)." Those same obese people take pictures of themselves standing next to some skinny ones to make anyone in between seem like the bad guy. From that moral high horse, lawmakers in Washington can raise the price of their services into the trillions because they don't have to compete with another government for our patronage.

In November, however, you could choose a less pricey government the way you shop for bargains on ebay. Government can't buy happiness any better than money can. But the founding fathers obviously saw some merit in earning your happiness and your money, whereas the demagogues in Washington think they can just poof both into existence as a viable mean to solving any economic crisis. This egotism is of course subsidized by working people, the only people who actually have money to spend.

And so, we end our lesson with November on the horizon, piggy-banks cracked but not depleted, and a couple bullies who want our lunch money to give part to charity (where the other part goes is not something we need to concern ourselves with, of course). The only logical conclusion in my mind is to beat up the bullies and then put some of our own money toward charity because we would do that anyway. Perhaps we can call this my kindergarten logic, but I don't think your right to happiness is much more complicated than that.

The Right to be Wrong

2010-09-17T00:17:00.013-04:00

See if you can follow my developing thoughts here. In this country we have the freedom of religion, meaning the freedom to practice and strengthen one's relationship with a higher authority. There exists as well a parallel concept in US law called "the separation of church and state," which, narrowly defined (and I must argue at another time that this is the only way to define it) means that the Government will not establish and fund a state religion. When taken together, you begin to paint this image of a Government that does not infringe on its citizens rights to religious self-determination.

I then always run into this massive wall of a question, graffitied by every nation throughout history, asking or answering "what is religion, and who determines the definition or criteria?" The Federal Government certainly cannot; to have a "Religion" czar on Obama's panel of experts would be asking for laws akin to Germany's in 1933, or even Quaker-executing puritan Massachusetts' in the 1600's. So if we defer to the states and the people on all issues where the Federal Government is, and should always remain, impotent, then I present my new religion to the people.

What if I came to you today and said that as a child I was told by a rock that it was God. Now I have millions of followers around the world and I want my institutions to be tax-exempt non-for-profit religious cites. My followers and I believe this rock is God, and we demand our freedom of religion. Any member of an Abrahamic religion, really any critically thinking human being, would think I was nuts. Bill Clinton though, would sell out for a movie.

You see, a similar situation occurred with the cult (as far as I'm concerned) of Scientology. It wasn't a recognized religion until Bill Clinton pushed for it to be in the 90's. Some say he traded that for a favorable portrayal in a John Travolta movie right before elections; those are only rumors, so who cares? Insofar as Scientology is harmless (as far as we know), it has a right to be wrong. Regardless of whether or not I believe them, Scientologists and Tom Cruise have the freedom to worship their volcanic rock overlords.

But what if my rock/God wasn't so peaceful? What if he demanded human sacrifice, or suicide? Well then we generally condemn the nut job who came up with the idea to criminally insane status, just as history did to Jim Jones and his People's Temple. After all, freedoms can be taken away when you abridge other people's freedoms. If your religion breaches the moral social contract of what it means to be an American citizen then you have no right to practice your religion here.

France recently banned the Burka, because their people (through representation) deemed the Burka to be restrictive of Women, and not in the spirit of French Law. Well to most of us in America that seems silly, as most Frenchman usually seem. But we banned rape of women in the US, and that is an encouraged part of Shaariah Muslim law if a woman is improperly clothed. We also decided as a society that the execution of Gays a la the Quran is wrong and cannot be practiced here in the United States. And when the basic fulfillment of Muslim faith is to convert people by the sword, then we come full circle to respond with our first principles of freedom of religion. No one here forces anything on anyone with a sword or suicide bombings.

Freedom of religion means the freedom to be right and wrong, not the freedom to be evil. Until we are reasonably certain that basic tenets of Islam have been reformed, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that it has no place on American soil. You have a right to believe in Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, or volcanic rock overlords, but not if you don't allow me my right to think you're wrong.

My Take on Arizon

2010-08-10T20:36:00.002-04:00

Not that you haven't heard me say it before...(well, the people at the Virginia Tea party hadn't)

Enjoy, Comment, repost, retweet (buttons down below)

An Exploration of Foreign Intervention from a Strictly Ideological Perspective

2010-08-09T10:59:00.006-04:00

Without inserting myself into any particular sect of Conservatives, I want to explain my position on foreign intervention on any level from moral support to full military invasion. The moral justification for interfering in another country’s affairs should be as self-evident as the truths codified for us in the Constitution—truths not made available to very many other people. If we honestly believe that every person is entitled to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” then our obligation as the most powerful nation in the world is to oppressed people, not to political alliances.

There is still something to be said for American chivalry; that part of our culture is not yet dead. If a woman is getting mugged on the other side of the street, no matter who she is, most anyone would help without thinking twice. I doubt, however, the primary reaction would be to throw money at the perpetrator until he runs away, or to try negotiating “terms of cease-mugging.” You lay the sucker down, and then ask questions once you know the situation is safe. Despite what Liberals say, anyone with conscience enough to stop the mugging is a good enough arbiter of right and wrong to use force.

Since countries governed by Shaariah law see women quite literally raped every day, deprived of their right to live and often breathe, I guess we become the de facto world police according to the metaphor above. I doubt anyone else would step up in our absence. Once you’ve made the decision to act, though, there should be no amount of force too gratuitous for freedom. Since my position here rests strictly on principle, without political nuance or hints of moral relativism, I can’t honestly label any action "too costly" for freedom. We once even cried for Liberty at the cost of death—at least, Patrick Henry did, so I know I’m in good company.

Let’s now extend the mugging metaphor a few seconds into the future, for argument’s sake. You have just knocked the mugger flat; perhaps you are even wearing a police uniform to justify it. You bend down to help the lady up, and she spits in your eye. Not everyone is grateful for safety and freedom. In fact, much of Europe prefers to get bossed around by its government rather than live in fear of the inherent risk that comes with personal responsibility. So you walk away just having risked your life for an ingrate who will probably pursue the culprit and apologize for your thoughtless intervention. No one says you need to lecture her on the error of her ways, but no one says you did the wrong thing.

Your duty as someone with the power to affect positive change is to give people a choice to live the free life that made you a leader. To put it another way; the United States has the power, and therefore the duty, to allow people the choice of freedom. That may manifest itself in foreign intervention, like in Japan or Germany. We razed hostile and immoral governments and rebuilt flourishing free societies on the ashes of Nazism and Imperialism. We then withdrew; our responsibility is not to govern the world, after all. So Liberals, give us some time in Iraq. We have a good track record with these things.

I would like to, however, dispel the argument that open borders are another manifestation of spreading liberty. Nation states are still vital to maintaining true cultural diversity, and we are not trying to make everyone like us. We certainly are not trying to become like everyone else, and what’s the guarantee that they will draw from us in the exchange more than we will draw from them? No, America only opposes certain ideals in certain nations that are opposed to the basic truths of human life and dignity. If we believe government honestly stems from the people, then any Government which does not respect the people’s sovereignty is idealistically at war with America and its people.

“Governments ARE instituted among men” though; freedom should not give way to anarchy the way it did after the French Revolution. Rather, governments are only there to the extent that they protect the liberties which God granted to us all upon creating us. So regardless of what happens after we’ve removed a tyrannical Government, any degree of uncertainty is better than certain oppression. Despite what that girl does after you save her from a mugging, you’ve still saved her, and she is better off for those few seconds that she wasn’t getting beaten. And come on, how thin is your skin that the spit penetrates deep enough to make you regret your noble actions?

Throwing Political Subtlety to the Wind: Dems are Desperate

2010-07-29T11:28:00.006-04:00

Living up to his purpose as a whip, Rep. Anthony Weiner has unleashed his political wrath on the wrong people. Just as jockeys are not supposed to use their riding crops on anything but horses, Weiner is not supposed to ride anything but dissenting Democrats in Congress (excuse the image). Since he has no legitimate legal claim against Goldline though, a private corporation practicing its right to free enterprise, or against Fox News, another private corporation practicing its right to free press, Weiner has decided to try and bully both like a child who is certain the world is "not fair."

His statement on the matter speaks volumes about either his ignorance of business, or his hostility to free enterprise. “Goldline is...a company that uses conservative rhetoric, high pressure sales tactics and tall tales about the future of gold to sell overpriced coins that can be bought somewhere else for cheaper.” In other words, Mr. Weiner thinks that advertising and profit-making is somehow immoral or even illegal. Goldline brings in 300 million a year because it has a targeted advertising campaign, appealing to Conservatives who are concerned about this country's economic future due to the Obama administration's unholy obsession with printing money. Every businessman knows--and most politicians don't know--that as the value of paper money decreases due to inflation of quantity, specie with intrinsic value (like gold) increases in value proportionally.

And that is all Glenn Beck has been saying. Sure, he's a paid sponsor of Goldline's. The only reason he and so many other conservatives took the job though is the same reason so many conservatives buy the service; they believe in it. Throw this in the pot with political activists like Kagan taking money from Islamo-Fascist nations, or the Democratic party taking 100 Million$ from Unions this year along with almost 70% of all large corporate campaign donations (Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, etc), and you begin to realize that action speaks louder than words.

Of course, Mr. Weiner can't take any legal action against Goldline because nothing illegitimate is being done. He instead resorts to the more common form of Democratic whipping: baseless accusation. There have been entire movements made on this ground to censor Conservative pundits. Since censoring free speech is still illegal, Democrats are now trying to undermine the funding for free political speech which almost inevitably harbors "crazy conservatives" opposed to Democratic financial plans. Now, i'm not going to tell you that Weiner is doing this because he's fundamentally opposed to the basis of Capitalism and free speech. I'm not even going to tell you that Weiner is bent on ruining this country financially, though that is what his opposition to capitalism is resulting in. But would you believe me if I said that the reason Democrats are wasting so much political capital on this completely inane campaign against Goldline and Fox News is because they are terrified about November?

The recent Democratic National Convention featured just about everything powerful Democrats could say to assure the public they probably wouldn't lose too bad in November. What else can they honestly say about the millions of Tea Partiers besides for calling them racist and elitist? How else can they explain the rising unemployment, and terrible mismanagement of the Gulf Coast Oil spill short of blaming it all on Bush? What else could people buying massive amounts of gold mean but a blatant mistrust of Government currency control? I'm not a paid sponsor, but if this makes Weiner so unhappy, I feel almost obligated to buy some gold coins.

Extending Prosperity

2010-07-26T10:40:00.008-04:00

Today, Congress is finally debating the rising unemployment issue and the falling economy. Up until now they haven't touched the stuff. But finally, after first making sure to secure their own political invulnerability through the Health Care bill and financial security through sweeping bank "reforms," Democrats now feel they have the political capital to attack job creation at its source. By allowing the Bush Tax cuts to expire, Democrats will destroy small businesses, the source of job creation.

The government doesn't create jobs, it can only facilitate them by empowering the private sector to do what the private sector does best; hire. But, "the power to tax, is the power to destroy" (Justice Marshall), and heavy taxes hurt the middle-class small-business owners worse than anyone else. When they close, the jobs they provide are lost too. Some Democrats understand how ruinous taxes are, that's why they don't pay them (Charlie Rangle). For the most part though, short of calling all Democrats stupid, I'll settle for the thought that they want to destroy the private sector.

It's no coincidence that as 2.5 million private sector jobs disappeared, 700,000 public sector jobs suddenly materialized out of the need to audit and kill companies like the ones that had provided those 2.5 million jobs in the first place. The only thing Democrats are facilitating is a subtle transition from self-reliance and prosperity to government-subsidized poverty. This is underscored by a distinct lack of incentive to succeed anymore, what with the 55% estate tax once you die. And God-forbid there should be a law requiring citizens to be responsible, to put 3.5% down on all mortgages. Because as Sen. Dodd worryingly put, that "would restrict home ownership to only those who can afford it."

Thanks to the taxes, there are fewer jobs, which leads to fewer people being able to afford housing. Since Frannie/Freddie May/Mac's time, this has meant that home ownership is still open to everyone, but just payed for by more productive citizens at penalty of law.

Media: Who Really Runs this Country?

2010-07-21T20:30:00.010-04:00

As many of you know, I've been working on the campaign trail these last few weeks. Bob Turner is running to unseat Anthony Weiner, and I've been busy helping with anything I can, especially in the media department where I coordinate many news network connections. I wanted to talk about politics in the information age; the age where media can take away just as much power as it has bestowed to the voter.

Since the advent of the internet, it has of course become more difficult for politicians to hide behind voter ignorance. There is no longer a real distance between Washington and the rest of the country except for the one facilitated by alienating, out-of-touch federal employees. But even that gap is regulated by the media, which in effect can widen or trim it depending on what they decide to report. Take, for example, the shameless infatuation that supposedly impartial media networks had and still have with once candidate Barrack Obama. Tucker Carlson of the Daily Caller recently proved our uncomfortable suspicions of a major journalist ring that specifically conspired to divert attention from Obama's obvious and ruinous Rev. Wright connections. One contributor to the group (this is all documented through emails) said the only foolproof tactic would be to make allegations of racism against then candidate McCain, baseless as they might be.

And so candidate Obama went on to become President Obama, because no one knew anything about him, his birth, his college papers, his home life, or his connections with anti-American terrorists. Because of this, alternative media outlets like Breitbart TV and PJTV (to name the two that I watch the most) came to be. The main stream media has gained a notoriety with Americans for being partisan and dishonest almost as quickly as it once gained credibility for informing Americans about their soldiers overseas. But Americans still have that unquenchable thirst for knowing what their government is up to (sorry Democrats), so enter alternative social media.

Twitter is a phenomenal political tool, and it's fascinating what's happened to the world of information and government since everything was reduced to 140 characters or less. I personally get all my news from twitter at least 10 minutes before anyone else who doesn't use twitter, because there are no second prizes in the world of reporting. Let me illustrate: if a public official needs to air some dirty laundry, it has become almost customary to do so on twitter. Instead of calling a press conference where reporters may ask him those pesky questions he doesn't want to answer, he can simply release to the press in 140 characters exactly what he wants said. No one is going to take the time to call him, because everyone wants to write up a piece about the story first. So most of the time, they'll just work with the quote they get from twitter.

Of course, Obama's is a special case. If he doesn't want to answer the tough questions, he simply doesn't. But let's be honest folks; since when did the main stream media pitch Obama the tough questions?

P.S. Tweet this out if you thought it was cool!

Moving Forward

2010-07-19T16:30:00.009-04:00

Islam has failed to evolve in the modern world. Liberal infatuation with the culture is completely disproportional to how intolerant, immoral, and violent the Muslim religion demands its followers must still be. Those that we see on TV beheading foreign reporters, lynching homosexuals, shooting dissenting citizens, all have the full support of the highest Muslim religious authority. The greatest irony is that those devout Muslims hate the decadent, Godless, Liberal culture that grants them morally relativistic credence more than anything else. At least God fearing men, are allowed to live as Dhimis, or second-class citizens under Muslim rule.

That dispels the other self-righteous and hollow defense of brutal Islam. The fact that "they allowed all types of citizens while Christians were murdering millions" during the Dark Ages does not mean that non-Muslims had many rights but the right to live in The Ottoman Empire (as Dhimis), and it certainly does not excuse that same degrading behavior now. Every major religion has grown with the generations, evolving to encompass and guide every new possibility that man through his ingenuity has created. But in the eyes of some Liberals, Islam is still resting on its bloody 500 year old laurels.

Lucky for us, Obama doesn't think so. Its refreshing how he understands their complete lack of contribution to anything innovative in the sciences or anything progressive in world culture since they briefly carried the Roman mantle of enlightenment 500 years ago. Perhaps that is why Obama wants NASA Administrator Charles Bolton to "find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and...help them feel good about their historic contribution to science." Since Americans know that they were first on the moon, they don't have to be reminded. Perhaps its important to remind Muslims that they weren't always a force for de-evolution in the world though.

When John F. Kennedy challenged this country to explore space, it catalyzed a forward movement that is so stereotypic of our real historic success. America wasn't conquered by stagnating settlers, and those settlers could not have codified our Constitution without rising to arms. Space is our last frontier, and it represents the progress we've made in technology to get there, and the changes we've made in our Western Culture to deserve it. How dare Obama give it away.

Cold War Antics

2010-07-09T10:11:00.006-04:00

We fought hard trying to get to the 21st century. We fought the Germans in WWII, and from then until the fall of the Soviet Union, we were daily on the brink of annihilation. Finally, when America is a sole superpower, when the only guns that matter are the guns of Democracy, Obama is trying to give it all up. He's expressed in the past a desire to be second-rate, and he's fulfilling years of Liberal philosophy by degrading America to feel like it can no longer be a sole force of good in the world.

For some reason Liberals hate that we are powerful, and insist that we hostilely stole from more deserving people the status that is rightfully theirs. It's the same opposition they raise to free enterprise; they call charitable donation "giving back," as if we took something from society, and now we need to return it. In reality however, when you make money, you generate wealth by providing a service or a product that wouldn't ever earn you anything if someone else didn't want it. So too is the logic with power. America is a sole superpower because we step up to the plate when our service, Democracy, is needed; there's a huge market for it. So just imagine, for a moment, what Eastern Europe, or the Far East, would say if we started "giving back" to Russia.

Yesterday's prisoner spy exchange in Vienna was just a show, I'm willing to gamble. We gave back 10 serious spies, and got a couple innocent people who were accused of being spies in return. We can afford that though. But what we gave to Russia in status and press is far more valuable than any of those 10 spies are worth of Putin. The negotiation should have been one sided, since we won the Cold War we should be calling the shots; after all, of course only Israelis are not allowed to make the rules after they've won a war. Instead, we elevated Russia to our par, reminding the world that "we are accepting our secondary status."

Obama's done this before, and I wrote about it then too. The Nuclear Treaty he signed with Russia was wholly unnecessary and achieved the same effect. Perhaps if Obama can't deal with our current enemies (Islamo-Fascists), he feels the need create a new emergency with an old enemy? I think it's more sinister than that, though. Liberals in general see the Soviet system as superior to "greedy, American capitalism," and they see America as one, big Capitalist. If America starts to fail economically (due to Obama's policies), as Obama gives credence to Russia's might, it would seem to make sense in the long run to do what Russia's doing.

This isn't so far fetched if you think about it for 30 seconds in a row. Obama is always modelling his leadership after the leadership it took to get China to the "superpower status" he's imagining it has. In reality, China is nowhere near as productive, and economically sound as Obama makes it out to be, and it was built on the blood of 40 million under Mao. And yet, somehow communists are the more deserving to whom we "give back."

Why should we model ourselves after the enemies we've defeated for the betterment of the world? We need to accept the responsibility that comes with our power, the same way men with money accept their personal responsibility to help those in need.

But There is No Justice at the Justice Department

2010-07-07T21:53:00.005-04:00

Today's post is a slam dunk, Liberals. In the words of J. Christian Adams, the resigned Department of Justice Attorney, "This is an administration that has campaigned on transparency, campaigned on restoring integrity to the Justice Department, and claims that it will be post-racial." We've seen Obama fail the transparency test before, when all Healthcare negotiations were held behind closed doors. We know there is no integrity in the justice department, as proven time and again by Eric Holder who insisted on providing non-citizens with American legal rights, and thinks a 10 page law is too long to read personally before launching a lawsuit against its writers. And finally, even during the campaign -- while insisting he would be post-racial -- Obama exploited group identity politics to coast to victory.

So Lucy, do you think you can 'splain yourself? There is no way to avoid the fact that The New Black Panther Party intimidated white voters at the voting booths with nightsticks and silly racial slurs. The Department of Justice had already won the case against the Panthers, and Obama's Department of Justice (Civil Rights division) dismissed the case, circulating a memo afterwards which read that the Civil Rights division would no longer take cases where the victim was white, and defendant was black. In other words, an appointed official at the the Civil Rights department is making a point about not extending Civil Rights to white people.

Obama's administration seems to be plagued with ideologues and egotists who muddy the waters of the Constitution with political agendas; Kagan is nothing new. And so, he has just set America one major step back in the fight for "post-racism" to ensure his own power. After all, Obama's victory is largely due to ACORN's organization of thousands of black and thousands of dead voters (all of whom somehow have the same name...). Perhaps a few people who were pushed away by members of the Black Panther Party could have made the difference in 2008? I don't think Obama wants to learn the answer to that question in 2012.

Speech of the Week: Me

2010-07-05T21:48:00.003-04:00

And the worst part about the whole day was that I got supremely sunburned at that podium.

Thanks YAF, for making this possible.

A Monumental Disaster

2010-07-02T10:55:00.002-04:00

The Washington Monument was once the tallest building in the world. Its white marble face reached pointedly, and directly skyward to memorialize the colossal contribution in everything from philosophy to technology that this country’s free people have offered to the world. Thus, it is a permanent commitment to aspirations that surpass all which we have already done, building on top of sound principles we still hold dear.

To that effect, we’ve dwarfed the Washington Monument dozens of times over since the 1880’s when it was completed, each time reestablishing America’s spirit of progress and providence. Our war memorials honor those who died fighting for the US and its allies, so that we can welcome our enemies’ “tired, poor, and hungry” beneath “The Mother of Exiles,” The Statue of Liberty.

Sticks and stones make pretty strong points in America, especially when they’re cemented together to engineer modern marvels like the World Trade Center. Sticks and stones make a pretty strong point in Islamic culture just the same, like when they’re thrown at Israeli and American tanks that are trying to liberate them from tyrannical dictators, or even when they’re lumped together for a 15 story Mosque overlooking the site of Jihad fulfillment.

Jihad is a “holy war,” the idea that all non-Moslems must submit to the book or the sword. It is the idea, as espoused by a Washington DC Imam, that there should be an “Islamic North American State by 2050” (link Jihad Watch). Through the Islamic worldview, the World Trade Center was destroyed as the jumping off point for an all out war against western values.

If we consider the buildings in question, namely the World Trade Center, and the new Mosque, as functions of their builders, then I would say we’re loosing this war. The Mosque would only tower over a hole at this point, a picture worth more words than words can handle. It’s shameful how long we have taken to rebuild something even grander on Ground Zero due to legal issues, and now it would seem as if Islam is winning the fight against progress, against economic, religious, and personal liberty, against everything those Twin Towers stood for.

So I propose we reopen a second front. 10,000 people already gathered from 12 different states to oppose the destructive ends of the Ground Zero Mosque. I want to know, what happened to Freedom Tower that was supposed to stand 1776 feet tall? It got lost somewhere between a lawsuit and indifference, and its development was ultimately stunted. However, if we create, grow, build—in other words, if we do what America does best after it’s suffered—then even if the mosque does stand as a fleeting Islamic victory, it won’t look nearly as photogenic in the shadow of Freedom Tower.

My Right to Bear Arms

2010-06-29T19:20:00.007-04:00

As with any constitutional issue, there are hundreds of years worth of case law surrounding the debate which I have not gone over. However, I want to speak on a personal level about each man's right to defend himself. The idea that our government is set up so that "no man need be afraid of another," (Montesquieu) is an integral part of personal liberty. No one should have the power to take your life out of your hands, even if for a moment.

Nothing less than that is achieved by pushing a gun in someone's face. When faced with a life or death situation, you are at the mercy of another, and your choices are no longer your own; they're animalistic survival instincts, at best. The Second Amendment was actually established to curb this potential for helplessness, but more specifically, against a government that encroaches on personal liberties. It was to ensure that the people could rise up and protect themselves against unjust rulers (as they had just done) if the time was right. Now our government has time and again tried to deprive us of our right to self-defense, but this is just a small representation of how Liberals try to deprive you of your right to self-determination on any level.

Modern Liberalism, or Socialism, as it is more colloquially called, believes in its own superiority and virtue more than anything else, and so, it's one purpose is to stay in power. To accomplish these ends it taxes into oblivion anyone capable of resisting. The joke goes that the Soviets practiced an extraordinarily developed form of Democracy: single electable candidate system. And once Lenin, that single electable candidate, came to power through bloody means, he confiscated all firearms so no one could do to him what he just did to the last guy.

My grandfather always tells me how safe the streets of Soviet Russia were. Death was around every corner, but at least you knew it was there and who it would come from. You see, anyone with a weapon in Russia was killed by the KGB. And of course, the KGB killed plenty of weaponless people too. But at least you knew that if the KGB wanted you dead they would be the only one's getting you, and there was no use being scared on the street at night because they could nab you just as easily in your house.

I'm not saying we're progressing toward a Soviet Russia. In fact, yesterday's Supreme Court ruling reaffirmed just how pervasive the Second Amendment is. But to all you people who think the streets will be safer when no one owns guns, if you ignore the fact that this only leads to more gun owners being people who don't care about the law anyway, then you're probably right. In a world where I don't have a right to bear arms, I could probably walk down the street knowing that someone is always watching me. Now that is dangerous.

12 Angry Men

2010-06-28T17:34:00.005-04:00

In the spirit of Judicial argument (read the piece directly below this one, including the subsequent comments), I watched the classic film 12 Angry Men last night. I kept revisiting some supremely quotable lines said by Juror #11, a European immigrant with a heavy accent who is thoroughly impressed with the infallibility and fairness of American justice. It reminded me just how unique the legal system is in the Free World, and how we should never squander our responsibility to uphold the morality for which we pave the way.

At one point in the movie, as the vote was tied 6 to 6 regarding sentencing an 18 year old boy to death, Juror #7, an impatient, clownish salesman with Yankee Tickets in his pocket, resigns to change his vote because he doesn't want to miss the game. Juror #11 proceeds to ream him out over his baseless vacillation, asking "Who tells you that you have the right like this to play with a man's life?" As I reviewed this outburst from the foreigner, who was equipped with German accent and all, I heard the voice of an entire oppressed 3rd world begging the same question.

As NATO and Israel are preparing for war with Iran, and there will be war, the Iranian people are rising up again for their rights against a totalitarian Islamic regime. Islam demands a domination of the weak and the dissenting, so as the people of Iran dissent we cannot leave them weak. We have a duty to protect victims of twisted, Islamic "justice," just as those 12 Angry Men had a duty to discuss and deliberate before making a rash vote regarding the life of another human being.

I'll spoil the movie for you here, the boy is found innocent of killing his father because not a single fact could prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. We have all the evidence we need to convict Ahmadinjad in an American court and he's not even entitled to American rights. "Americans will always do what is right after every other option has been exhausted" (Churchill), so let's make like 300,000,000 "angry men" and do what's right by the Iranian people.

Keep Kagan Out

2010-06-25T16:51:00.012-04:00

The Constitution is supposed to stay above the influence of petty politics. It is a document shaped "by the people, for the people," and codifies a governmental structure that is to protect our personal Liberties. It therefore goes without saying that no one is above The Constitution, and it is incumbent on every citizen and governmental leader to check himself constantly within the realm of The Law. So in my opinion, Justice Marshall did a terrible thing.

The Marbury vs. Madison case established Judicial Review, which ended up relieving Representatives of all Constitutional reservations when writing laws. Representatives no longer ask themselves when sponsoring a piece of legislation, "now, which clause in the Constitution says I can do this?" Instead, I'm willing to bet that they say "if it's really that bad, the Courts will catch it." But this system of Judicial Review now stands as law, and in a time when there can be such blatant disregard for The Constitution by the Legislative and Executive branches, perhaps it is necessary for the Judiciary to serve as the voice of the Constitution, and by extension, the voice of the people who shaped it, and live by it.

If that's the case, then this Protestant country's future lies squarely on the shoulders of 5 Catholic men; Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy. The Supreme Court now is due to replace Liberal-leaning Stevens with anti-Constitution Kagan. The Senate discussions regarding this nomination are an opportunity for Senators who care about our laws to bring up eternal Constitutional issues, and the exact role of the Supreme Court. The Constitution cannot be changed without consent of the population, but it can be morphed by activist judges who muddle the waters of personal Liberty with political agendas.

I'm sure many of you have seen the horror stories of Kagan kicking ROTC cadets and recruiters off a Harvard Campus. If this person deprives students of their right to enlist in the Armed forces, if she herself does not live the Constitutional lifestyle that is incumbent upon every citizen, how can we expect her to champion the Constitution with a gavel in her hand? Her doctorate thesis lamented the decline of Marxism in America, but Obama's taught us all a valuable lesson about disregarding everyone's college career when it comes to judging them as a person. In fact, most of Obama's college papers are not available to the public for this very reason. Since the few we do have are just as bad as Kagan's thesis, it's no wonder he wants to hide the rest.

When I called Senators yesterday, I reminded them what really mattered to me. The Constitution protects my liberties, and the Supreme Court is now supposed to protect The Constitution. In the debates, I hope they bring up questions of those basic principles that "we still hold true." What makes Kagan ineligible for this highest position, is that she doesn't believe in these principles. We've already elected a President who hates his country, and elected Representatives that disobey their constituents. Please, let's not appoint a Supreme Court Justice that disregards the Constitution.

Leave the Fighting to the Big Boys, Obama

2010-06-23T22:31:00.013-04:00

We have a civilian commander-in-chief for one reason and one reason only: to serve as a check to revolutionary military power at home--the historical bane of many once flourishing societies. Obama, though, a President that has never served his country in uniform, is now micromanaging the war against Islamic insurgents (sorry, I think I'm supposed to call them "not-so-good-guys") in Afghanistan. He deprived the troops of a General who organized them in one of the most tactically and socially innovative and successful military campaigns in recent history, and tore from Karzai the trustworthy crutch which made the Afghan President so comfortable and cooperative up until now. This time around, he's not even hiding behind his usual "team of experts."

The fact that Obama likes to micromanage everything isn't news to anyone who's been reading my blog for a while; the man shows signs of a standard despot on the rise who will let nothing stand in between himself and the image his ego has of him. So Obama's sacking of General McChrystal is unnerving not just because it reminds me that we have a community organizer running a 30,000 troop operation to liberate a country, but it's unsettling because of all that it's juxtaposed with.

I'll give you another example to explain what I mean. A while back, there were a few short articles in the mainstream media about Obama ordering the arrest and imprisonment without trial of an American citizen who was working with terrorists in the Middle East at the time. Personally, I don't mind. If you catch someone sleeping with the enemy (or making bombs with him), you treat the guy as the traitor he is. But when Obama and Eric Holder are at the same time trying Khalid Sheikh Muhamed in an American civilian court, or extending Miranda Rights to non-citizens, I start to question the motive behind the entire scene in perspective.

Returning now to General McChrystal; the broader picture needs to be seen here. For the President to assert his power over the Military is not so uncommon, or incorrect. But when looked at through the lens of 2 years in which Obama has personally taken control of Healthcare and large sectors of the private economy (insurance, car manufacturing), it makes me shudder to think what he'll take next.

And...We're Back! (with a vengeance I might add)

2010-06-21T17:01:00.016-04:00

I've taken a break from blogging to study for and take finals these last 2 weeks, work out some technical and business issues for the site, and jump start some political work (which I will fill you in on soon). In retrospect,I don't think it was such a good idea to stop. The greatest threats to our national integrity have not subsided in my absence, and I dearly regret not having the time to keep you sharp on pressing issues. Which leads me to a sincere question, "did ya miss me?" While Obama's singlehandedly "kicking the oil spill's ass," "waging a political war on Israel," and attacking Americanism at its core, he is unraveling the fibers of capitalism and liberty for political gains, sinister ends, or politically sinister end-gains. That's what we're here to discuss.

Let's take a walk down memory lane for a minute since the Oil Spill has been around for long enough to enable such pleasant ambling, and I haven't filled you in on my train of thought since the last post on this disaster. My original thoughts were as below: the environmental nut-jobs have once again proven to cause more harm to the ecosystem than their existence can justify. Now, 63 days later, I can't believe this hasn't been dealt with. It's not because we don't have ideas or resources, it's not because we don't have friends to help us, it's actually because Obama doesn't want to utilize those resources unless the Unions get a cut, and he's too proud to accept any help when that system fails, as it is now. Out of his team of 10 experts, 8 have said that Obama's only serious federal action in this situation--namely, threatening to disallow all offshore deep-water drilling--would cause more economic harm than the current oil spill is already. And since none of the newly unemployed workers in the Gulf are getting the money BP gave to the Obama administration to dole out, it's safe to say no one is really going to side with the Administration on this one except the Unions, and an extorted BP.

Obama's political moves are pointing more and more toward unsavory political allies (not that they didn't do so before, but now it's very apparent to anyone who's been blocked from aiding in the Oil Spill Cleanup) which has translated into a openly aggressive foreign policy toward Israel. I was in Washington recently, to lobby congress for a continued US-Israel relationship, and the resounding answer I got in several offices was "we're all for it, as our voting record shows, but between you and me, we think the Big Man's got something against it." Obama has continued to isolate himself from American sentiment by openly declaring a "political war" on Israel. I've heard that language used before; it's what "moderate" Muslims say "Jihad" means. "It means a Political War, not a literal one." Apparently no one sent Hamas, Hezbollah, or Iran the memo that we were reforming the word "Islam" to NOT mean "submission," and apparently all of Obama's aids thought he could certainly by now remember that he is supposed to be a devout Christian of Reverend Wright's Church.

I don't think Obama's an idiot. Heck, you're right, liberals; let's assume all Harvard graduates are supremely smart. So if he's not doing this out of ignorance, that leaves only one avenue for Obama to take; a systemic approach to the destruction of this country's values. "The "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse." I wrote about this "panic-mode" in a previous post, but never did I suspect how mapped out this course already is. After reading just part of Saul Alinski's "Rule's for Radicals," (Know thine enemy), I can tell you that all of these plays are strait outa' the book, literally.

It's that time again, when we can restate our faiths to a different book, to the Constitution. It's an easy read, a short one, a powerful one, and we have candidates that are running solely on its words and the liberty they provide. Stay tuned every day for updates from political campaigns interspersed with my usual commentary. I'm Naphtali Rivkin, and it's good to be back. Let's get to work.

The Gulf Coast Oil Spill: A Case for Capitalism

2010-06-03T22:44:00.006-04:00

BP is getting its nose rubbed in its oily mess by President Obama currently as the US government announced investigations into BP's potential negligence in the massive Gulf of Mexico disaster. In military terms, this is called a diversion tactic; a huge commotion is caused up front while a small contingency sneaks out the back undetected. Heavy and unreasonable government regulations are what caused the financial crash in 2008, and silly environmental laws--written under the shameless guise of somehow helping the planet--are what caused the BP oil leak.

Throughout the Clinton and Carter administrations, the Government by way of Frannie May and Freddie Mac (institutions established during the Roosevelt administration) forced large banks to give mortgage loans with complete faith in any John Doe who wanted to buy a house despite his lack of viable income or assets. There was no money grubbing motive on the banks' parts, because any accountant worth his salt knows you don't give a mortgage unless there is some more substantial guarantee that you will get the money back than the government's telling you "not to worry about it." The only people who made money off of these empty mortgages it in the end, were Congressmen like Frank and Dodd, who make these laws up to guarantee bailouts for the "powerful wall street fat-cats" that agreed to these ludicrous banking regulations when they realized that inevitable failure would only result in more money from the Government.

Environmentalists are not much better. One of my favorite South Park episodes is the one where Al Gore tries to convince the world that the single greatest threat to mankind is "ManBearPig" (half man, half bear, half pig), and everyone believes him out of pity because "he has no friends." Environmental laws that are based on "scientific data" as dubious as "ManBearPig" are only extraordinarily taxing and dangerous for the US economy and environment, as proven by this current oil spill.

What was BP doing drilling 25,000 feet below the surface? Technology clearly hasn't caught up enough with Government demands to maintain smooth drilling at such depths, and furthermore, the hole is impossible to plug up if a leak were to occur. Since, however, companies like BP are not allowed to drill off of the US shore or in Alaska, where modern technology could eliminate almost all chances of a similar disaster, they are forced into more dangerous situations that not only threaten wildlife, but have now put over 100,000 people out of work (if there's a leak in Alaska, at least no one looses work).

And as the PJTV Trifecta team put so well, "someone is going to get an egg in the face for this." The Obama administration is throwing lawyers at the hole not with the hope of closing it, but with the hope of exonerating itself from one of the largest man-made disasters of our time. BP has been gentlemanly through it all; paying out more money than it legally has to in order to settle any civil claims, and yet they are the money-grubbing fat-cats. I think its time we start rethinking how to get out of our messes based on how we really got into them, and I think it's time to come up with a picture definition of the term "fat-cat."

The Bizarro World of Anti-Semetism

2010-06-01T23:10:00.007-04:00

I would like to say that yesterday's flotilla events surprise me; but many terrorist-linked activists have tried to work Israel into a lose-lose PR situation before. I would like to say that the media coverage of this incident was outrageously devoid of the copious amount of factually sound first-hand evidence in this situation, and shockingly ignorant of the crux of Palestinian-Israeli conflicts; the media coverage was pretty standard, though, and much inline with several decades of anti-Israel pontification on main stream channels and prints. I would like to think that one day the Jews will just get a break because of everything they have been through, that they won't be the first to get clobbered when things go sour at home, and they won't be the first to get criticized in their own home to divert attention from real humanitarian grievances and war crimes; but we all know better.

It should naturally follow though, that we should at the very least band together. Divided we fall, united...we're still only 1/500 of the world. And yet, the number of Jews is always so vastly overestimated by the average gentile that it's almost comical; numbers in an Austrian survey went into the billions. Israel has proven time and again that we seem larger than we are, and we can stand up to a greater Arab world if we have to. It's too bad that the Jew is his own worst enemy.

Noam Chomsky is not allowed into Israel any more because he is an enemy of his own people. He does more harm to Israel than rockets ever could by denouncing its just actions and lending his tongue to terrorists. Wars like Vietnam were lost on a media level, and lives will be lost without international remorse after Jews were killed protecting themselves. I submit to you an Honest Report that will at least give you the facts as they are without any predetermined agenda to make the Jews look bad.

We make mistakes (this was NOT one of them), but why the Jews?

We Will Not Relent

2010-05-31T23:22:00.009-04:00

My father told me a story of his Belgian client who at one point was having trouble reaching US attorneys right around this time. It was Memorial Day in America about 3 years ago or so, and my father explained to him over the phone that we get a day off to honor our troops, specifically those who served in WWII. The client retorted without hesitation "well considering our troops only kept Hilter out for about 20 minutes, we didn't think they deserved a Memorial Day."

I don't want to make light of troops who serve in any capacity, but I do want to make light of Belgium, which is, as Nigel Farage says, "practically a non-entity." Europe is in a terrifying downward spiral financially (Greece), and culturally (England). If another Hitler came to power tomorrow, who would stop him? Surely not the EU, whose spine can't even support its protectorates (Greece), definitely not any single semi-autonomous nation (that somehow withstands the unionization of government leaders) that can't commit 5,000 sober troops to Afghanistan (Germany).

It would take a United States to come in and remove a Hitler. While Europe dabbles in its "Social Justice" programs, the US still maintains military capabilities to defend its allies. Thomas Jefferson said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and our boys are watching Europe's back, front, left, and right, so its government can implement the social programs that see Greece in financial ruin, the Netherlands on the border of Shariah law, England about to have a civil war with its riotous public, and countries like Belgium reduced to mere protectorates of the United States as a product of their absorption into a European melting pot.

A lesson could and should be taken from Yugoslavia about what happens when you lump together such culturally diverse people and expect them to work harmoniously; there are foods which taste good independently that are simply not meant to be enjoyed together. The Soviet Union suffered the same disintegration we would have enjoyed sooner if the Communist Regime in Moscow didn't mercilessly put down any opposition in Hungary, Poland, or even in its own backyard.

After all is said and done though, after social programs create immature and dependent citizens who demand more than the government can and should deliver, after Greece announces it will default on its loans, after Germany murders millions of its own citizens, who stands with honor and says "this is wrong, we're going to do something about it?" Our boys are stationed overseas because Europe has no boys stationed at home, and having stupid friends is better than being lonely.

On this Memorial Day, I would like to say thank you to those who died for our country, thank you to those who live by our flag, and thank you to those who say "I'm sorry, but you've left me no choice" before pulling the trigger for our children. We appreciate it, and somewhere someone in Europe does too.

"Give me that Damn Gavel"

2010-05-27T17:22:00.005-04:00

And there are 36 other black Republicans running for office this November. This isn't a question of race, of left vs. right, or even of "up vs. down" anymore. This election is a question of freedom vs. tyranny, loving American vs. hating America; let's "hold that line" everyone, so these brave men can stand up to our enemies both foreign and domestic--Osama, and Obama.

Transnationalism

2010-05-25T09:44:00.010-04:00

Ever since Wilson proposed his League of Nations, the prevailing leftward ideology has been to eliminate borders. Carrying the banners of "human rights" and crying bloody racism, Democrats now more than ever seem hellbent on destroying culture and humanity as we know it by demanding a universal hodgepodge of "friendliness." I am all for sharing cultures, dispersing ideas and goods, but not at the expense of my integrity and safety.

Why can't we coexist in alliance and harmony with Brazil, France, China, or England with out becoming Brazil, France, China, and England? When you throw everything into one big cultural blender you don't produce transnational friendship and understanding, you create an entirely new uni-culture, in which a majority of those unique, idiosyncratic national nuances that make each state autonomous, disappear. When liberals cry for worldly mutual understanding, they actually mean to destroy all culture; it's easier to understand only one.

This liberal cry stems from a modern sense of moral relativism, where nothing is wrong because nothing is right, which means nothing is certain, so everything is the same by virtue of it's worthlessness. It then manifests itself in opposition to Israel's and America's border defense. Israelis always used to ask me, "how would you feel if Canada was launching rockets into New York? Would America stand it for 8 years before attacking like Israel did with Gaza?" I have to answer, yes, we are that stupid and then some. Opposition to the new Arizona State Law which protects this nation's borders from potential terrorist threats is the voice of the same people who need to see millions of people die in Israel and America before admitting that our Western culture has an external enemy.

Cultural understanding means knowing your friends, and knowing your enemies through honest intellectual exploration of both. The Islamo-Fascists who threaten both American and Israeli borders exist as a cultural entity that face Western, freedom and life loving culture, as enemies. If we join with them in a giant hodgepodge, by virtue of their very doctrine they must take control and exterminate all the freedom and life loving people that make us unique. Liberals just don't get it; if we go transnational, their decadent, anti-religious,capitulating rears will be the first to go in the blender.

Dinner Table Discussions: The Death Penalty

2010-05-24T12:46:00.016-04:00

The Rivkins always tackle the toughest issues around the dinner table far more effectively than any Sunday morning talk show panelists. This week's debate was over the Death Penalty, and I would like to share my current thoughts on it with you despite my limited knowledge of the extensive case law associated with what was once a controversial issue, but is now largely dismissed as "cruel and unusual."

Regardless of who doles out and administers the execution, State or Federal government, I'm uneasy about it. Call me sensitive, but I don't like the idea of another man, or even group of men, deciding my ultimate fate. We've taken so much personal sovereignty away from the individual, so much of what is supposed to be "God granted" has become "Obama granted," that I wish to at least leave God his last domain of control in Man's heart. The language associated with this argument reminds me so closely of Milton Freedman's argument against communism. "Show me the angels that are going to organize society for us. I don't even trust you to do that, much less myself." There's something even hypocritical of one mortal determining the mortality of another; I don't even trust myself to do that.

I would like it that way; but it's impossible, impractical, and perhaps even immoral. Just as communism sounds nice on paper--everyone working together for one, homogeneous purpose--it inevitably falls apart when put into practice because of the human component. That idealistic theory above sounds damn nice in my mind until you include the modern world, its demands, and its morality in the equation of considerations.

Let's jump to the opposite extreme for a moment then so we can ultimately come to a reasonable solution; let's consider human life from an emotionless perspective. When one kills, he is deemed to be too dangerous to co-exist with society. Though I reject most pleas of childhood insanity and mental instability as intellectually unsound justifications for criminality, that is immaterial in this purely practical case. If someone is too dangerous to be with society, he must be removed from society either through life imprisonment or execution.

When you imprison him for life though, you force the greater American community to pay with tax dollars for his life and upkeep. In other words, the families of those he has killed will be paying for this murderer's food and water bills. That's just backward; when greater society condemns this man as being inherently dangerous to them through due process of law, it's entirely ironic, and almost immoral to make greater society support him as his punishment.

Still, a God-fearing sentiment would pay any price for a human life. It's not the actual money that matters, I must contest, it's the symbolism of monetarily supporting a criminal; that is antithetical to an American God-fearing sentiment. I understand, still, that something far more convincing is needed, even for me. I think I'll illustrate this proof with a case I feel is entirely justified: the federal execution for treason.

A spy, by trading national secrets, puts the entire United States in danger as an institution and jeopardizes the life of each citizen. We execute him almost as an act of war, we kill him because he threatens our national integrity. Now let's work our way down to a smaller scale, so to speak. Let's take a common murderer, a Kitty Genovese murderer, who repeatedly comes back time after time to "finish the job" in cold blood. The judge who sentenced the killer the first time said that he, who was personally against the death penalty, was happy to stick this man in the chair. I must argue that a Kitty Genovese case has national implications when it makes every person look at his neighbor and say "how could we let this happen?"

The case for a strictly regulated, just, death penalty is just this: as a nation that bases its charity and humanity on biblical qualities, we must also remove corruption from our society as per biblical demands. The concept that gets lost in this discussion is the idea that it is OK to punish misdeeds. The death penalty serves as a proper and moral removal of the threat and corrupting entity, but most importantly, it is a deterrent and reminder for the rest of society that what this criminal has done is unacceptable.

Size Matters

2010-05-17T21:02:00.004-04:00

Alexander Hamilton authored one of America's earliest dirty jokes in Federalist Paper #62, warning against huge bills and their capacity to hide provisions you didn't subscribe to. In fact, Ronald Reagan required every memo put before him to be no more than one page; if the presentation couldn't be said in fewer words, then someone was hiding something between the lines, or the memo-writer wasn't as sharp and concise as he was hired to be.

This concept of "comprehensibility" has been espoused and regurgitated in every campaign, but rarely delivered by any office. Obama promised "transparency," and all we got was closed-door Senate hearings and back-room bribes. I would like to think we should have seen this coming considering the daunting size of Obama's ego; it shadow's even Jimmy Carter's.

It's been said about Carter that "when it came to discerning between the forest and the trees, he was a leaf-man." Carter would sit down at his desk with 2200 page bills, and read through them all since his responsibility, and therefore ability, to make decisions was inherently superior to any of the aids he hired to read 2200 page bills. Carter though is my case-and-point of why every bill needs to be comprehensible enough for even a peanut farmer to understand; otherwise, you get a stagnating, lame-duck presidency that needs to cover its own shortcomings by claiming to take a personal interest in every action of congress. Obama could learn a thing or two from Eisenhower's revolutionary cabinetry system that ran itself under the efficient supervision of a Chief Executive who would cover his honest superiority with golf outings.

Obama's administration though, is plagued with both incompetent cabinet members and an egotistical Chief. When the President asks for "isolation" on the political court, because he is certainly the team's best dribbler, none of his teammates seem to understand that they need to still learn how to shoot. Attorney General Eric Holder made a fool of himself in front of a Congressional hearing recently over the new Arizona Immigration law, claiming in press statements that it could call for law suits on Civil Rights grounds.

The bill is only 10 pages long, and yet the man has never read it. Clearly any amount of text is too much to read when making accusations about its implications; yet somehow even peanut farmers are gathering in Tea Party events because 2200 pages of Healthcare Reform concerned them just enough.

The Proof is in the Pudding

2010-05-13T22:27:00.005-04:00

In conjuncture with yesterday's post, here's a video of David Horowitz confronting the Muslim Student's Association at UCSD just a few days ago. I am proud to say that this was an event sponsored by Young Americans for Freedom. Islamic terrorist organizations have infiltrated every level of Western Civilization, intent on destroying it. It's not just an Israeli concern.

Ex Post Facto Acquittal

2010-05-12T22:19:00.007-04:00

Freedom of Individual Rights in Education has consistently been abused and withheld by universities since a new, violent Liberalism took hold of students in the 60's. Back then student fronts for violent socialism appeared in groups like Students for a Democratic Society. The ones that weren't blown up, and even some of the ones that were arrested now serve powerful roles in the same Universities they once reviled. They've learned from their confrontations and ultimately decided that dismantling American society would be easier from within, and from beneath.

The Weathermen, a self-described Communist Revolution group, conducted a series of violent riots and bombings through the 60's. The most rampant killer of terrorists in history, bomb-making ineptitude, in fact did 3 of those Weathermen in. Many, however, including their leader, Bill Ayers, were arrested. I would love AOL to post a quick photo-shoot of "Where are the weathermen today?" They have all given up boycotting classes for teaching classes, substituted leather for tweed, the sword for the pen. Bill Ayers himself, founder of the group, is now a teacher of Social Justice at The University of Illinois.

A witticism I've read about Bill Ayers and those who regard him as an "educational reformer" analogizes that "calling Bill Ayers an Educational Reformer is like calling Stalin an Agricultural Reformer." But of course, in this day of moral relativity, as preached by professors like Bill Ayers, nothing is certain, which means nothing is fact, which means nothing is right, which means nothing is wrong; he's justifying his actions retroactively. And if you believe that I'll tell you another one. Obama and Bill Ayers are "just neighbors."

Despite Obama's dubious childhood and citizenship, his college and community organization days are well documented. His attendance of Rev. Wright's church is validated, and his meetings with Bill Ayers are confirmed. Yet, we don't even need to go that far. Obama rode into office on the grades of students who were threatened and lectured by professors like Bill Ayers about "social justice." Academia has turned into a Liberal vote factory slowly over the last 50 years as the last people you would want teaching your children in fact have a stranglehold on the country's future by doing just that.

So You Want to Make a Difference

2010-05-11T14:59:00.004-04:00

As I've been mentioning over the last couple of months, I have been organizing students and adults alike in political action. The purpose of a revitalized conservative movement is to get more people involved with and educated about their country. On that note, I thought I would give you guys a quick update of some opportunities you may want to take advantage of in the NY/Tri-State Area as well as national events you might like.

-Sunday May 16, 7:30PM @ Bnei Jeshurun in Teaneck, the Republican Jewish Coalition is sponsoring a screening of The Heritage Foundation's 33 Minutes. Please RSVP by Thursday, May 13th, at 212-922-0839 or newyork@rjchq.org. Tell them Naphtali sent you from A Young American Blog. I'll be there, and I can't wait to meet you and watch the movie for the first time as well.

-Sunday May 16, 9:00PM: Fox news is screening a documentary on Barrack Obama's early life and education. Judging by the angry preemptive liberal reaction, it should be very informative. (Make sure to DVR it if you are coming to the RJC event!)

-PHONE CALL FLOOD: Senator Feinstein (CA-D) claims she received 90,000 phone calls and emails as the Healthcare overhaul was reaching a crucial boiling point. 80,000 of those phone calls and emails were against Healthcare, but certainly a Senator's ego knows better than to listen to the proletariat whose lives will be affected by its selfish, political legislation. Most Senators are not up for reelection this year, and they hope you will forgive and forget their vote by the time the next cycle rolls around. Well, once a month I would like to call on just a fraction of those conscious, and now justifiably dejected, constituents of an American Congress to flood Senatorial offices with polite reminders of an impending election, our eternal memory, and mention of just how hard it really is to find a new job these days.

For the Month of May, the Phone Call Flood will be on May 17th. Please contact me through Facebook if you would like to join the list.

Republican Motherhood

2010-05-10T20:34:00.004-04:00

I'm a bit late on the Mother's Day gift, because I don't know what mothers want; I guess it takes one to know one, and I'm not one. I do know that as equality of liberty was extended properly to all sexes and races in America, men simply surprised women with more responsibility, and I wouldn't want to do that. You see, family is a crucial component of a productive, American culture. Study after study has shown that marriage is often an excellent solution to the puzzle both men and women try to put together as they live their lives simply and practically because marriage creates stability through a division of responsibility and sense of mutual obligation to the next generation. It seems lately that a greater portion of that duty is falling on our American women, and I am proud to say that our mothers have risen to the occasion.

A Republican Mother is the quintessential post-independence era woman of the household whose duty it was to raise proper, educated, patriotic citizens. "But that's not all folks;" today, women still have that natural obligation and instinct to raise proper citizens all while comprising more than half the workforce of 2010. America leads by example on every level of ethical standard, and in that sense our women have reflected this country's values perfectly. You know, it is one thing to die as a man for your country. That, is noble beyond all measure. It is an entirely new animal to live for your country, work for your country, raise the next generation of your country, and make sure it has the opportunity and the desire to live proudly or die bravely by its country as well.

On this day-after-Mother's-Day, I want to thank my mother for her contagious insomnia, which means I am alway busy into late hours of the night with this blog, that article, or the other phone call to Washington. She set the prevalent mood in my house that there is always something more you can do with the limited time you have on earth, and there is always something greater you can work for during your waking hours. I learned by example to never confine myself to a 24 hour day, because if your Republic lives on to represent you, the time you spent awake will be reimbursed to you with a better life for the next generation.

Considering their multi-faceted obligations and sleepless nights, giving Mothers spa days would be the equivalent of telling an American Soldier to "take a break buddy, someone else will cover for your country today." I think what Republican Mothers want more than anything is a true Patriotic Youth as a product of their undying efforts. I would know, I'm a Republican.

Our Heritage

2010-05-06T23:00:00.007-04:00

Tonight is the last night before the AP American History test. You can tell how intensely students in the 11th grade have studied by the degree of teacher-quality corniness in their now all too commonplace history puns. I must confess though, I love it. One of the first things the Left tried to do in the 60s was revise our history, remove our sense of pride in our country, and revile the values we were founded on. Though the history we learn for this exam is a twisted, slanted shadow of our glorious heritage, at least now my peers are giving it some gravitas.

Pop quiz: what saved America from the Great Depression? My textbook (of the left-leaning category) glorifies Roosevelt's New Deal as the cure for all cancers. Somehow the War, and the economic demand and drive that always comes with war, doesn't occur as a solution to most kids since the book didn't say it. Here's another one: why did we loose Vietnam? Most will reflexively answer that the Tet Offensive did us in. That would be a fine answer on the AP, and yet, the Tet offensive only did us in because Walter Cronkite made it so through his reporting. "But we were elated to notice your media was definitely helping us," wrote Vietnamese General Giap in a 1990 letter. "They were causing more disruption in America than we could in the battlefields. We were ready to surrender. You had won!"

That example in and of itself proves how the media can change the course of history simply because it chooses to, and how subsequently those who record it in history books can influence the education of kids who wouldn't know the difference between The New Deal, Fair Deal, or our current Bidenism, The Big ******* Deal, unless you simply demonstrate how they're all just corollaries to something called the Communist Manifesto.

Tomorrow some AP grader is going to read my essays and most likely get indignant about one fact or another that I use to prove a less than Liberal point. Facts don't lie though, people like Walter Cronkite do. Yes, even Walter Cronkite. Sometimes though, to preserve your integrity and identity you have to be good enough to beat the referee. The referees of our present are media personalities as "historians" consistently bastardize our past. Well allow me to teach you a thoroughly American value in that light; in the end, every American is inherently sovereign and subject only to the rules that God set for all the natural world and that we, as a nation-state, set for this country. In other words, we don't take well to lies or coercion to accept lies. I can think of a few places moral relativists and historic revisionists can print their factually unsound ideas, I'd just prefer they stay out of a mandatory curriculum.

People Lie, Numbers Don't

2010-05-05T20:14:00.002-04:00

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

This Debt Clock is both one of the coolest and one of the scariest things I've ever seen.

"When I was 17...It Was a Very Good Year"

2010-05-04T20:51:00.013-04:00

Come November time, I hope I can tell you Mr. Sinatra was right. Things look about ripe enough for a complete overhaul of Congress. Perhaps, if we can have another year like '94 we may take a majority in the Senate too. That majority, however, that "we" to which I refer does not consist of Republican Candidates exclusively. This year, we want candidates who embody or uphold the 3 "C's:" Conservatism, Competence, and Constitutionality. Frankly, I don't care which party they come from.

In 2008, Obama thundered into the Oval Office under a "C" banner of his own, "Change." Straight out of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" comes a one word slogan for an American people accused of not being able to digest more than one word at a time. Well if that is indeed the case, those aforementioned 3 "C's" come in bite-sized forms with powerful implications.

Constitutionality, simply, is the straight forward idea that every act of Congress must reside within the realms of its creators' powers as expressed in the Constitution, and subsequent Federal Case law. I don't think it's too much to ask, but Rep. Hare (D) may have something else to say...

Competence implies common sense. We are fast approaching a deficit that overshadows our GDP, and a country cannot function under that kind of current Government imposed economic strain. Lifting that burden through sound economic policy -- cutting taxes and social spending while simultaneously stabilizing our currency through a pegging to specie -- would empower each person, each cog in a greater economic machine, to produce his best and drive our country. On the same note, we can't tolerate the corruption of any incumbent member of Congress like Charlie Rangel who cheats on his taxes while simultaneously writing higher ones for his constituents; our country can't afford this government anymore. Sorry Nancy, you're going to have to get a smaller jet to shuttle your nieces and nephews.

Finally, Conservatism implies all of the above and so much more. Conservatism goes beyond pragmatism and legality (though insisting on both of those first and foremost) to morality. We are a Judeo-Christian society with Judeo-Christian values, and the timeless enemies who oppose them. We, and no one else before, stood up against British tyranny. We, and no one else before, stood up against Communism. If we don't stand up against Islam, the next great terror to the existence and integrity of humane society, who will? Margaret Thatcher reminded us all that "America is the last best hope," for all mankind. Though we've been made to not believe it, that is still true today.

Conclusion: Republicans and Democrats alike had better start looking for new lines of work; I think it will be a very good year for Americans.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Challenge from the Author: Leave in the comments how many "C" words I used to describe politics in this piece.

Necessary and Proper

2010-05-03T08:47:00.005-04:00

The Elastic Clause of the Constitution allows congress to do anything it sees as "necessary and proper" for the general welfare. If you think about it, the clause itself is antithetical to the 10th amendment (which reserves everything not enumerated in the constitution for the states or people) by expanding Federal power to just about anything it can convince the people is "necessary and proper." Therein lies the key though; public sentiment. No government in the modern world (I exclude Islamic nations from this) would dare openly oppress and oppose its people for fear of revolt. And in our country, that "revolt" comes around every other November.

Convincing the public, or if it is a presidentially proposed piece of legislation, convincing congress, has been the political system that guided this country since its founding--for better or for worse. Alexander Hamilton centralized a huge burdon and power in Washington with his economic plan for stability; a centralized Bank of the US, Federal assumption of State Debts, and high protective tarrifs. He convinced the people, and subsequently the Executive and Legislative branches of Government, that all these provisions were a necessary evil to ensure the survival and flourishing of a fledgling country. And indeed, they were proper.

Let's take an example of a similar situation that didn't turn out so well; Wilson's campaign to ratify the Treaty of Versaille and insodoing join the League of Nations. He was shot down by the likes of Lodge in Congress who would not relinquish American sovereignty to a European body, and again subsequently by the American people who had just won a war that was not theirs so Wilson could have a seat at the peacemaking table as a demigod. Public sentiment was in no mood for this man's ego after seeing so much blood, and from his campaign against the American Sentiment that had just won a war, Wilson learned first hand how difficult it is to negotiate from a position of weakness.

Now we have Obama, and it seems like decades of liberal agenda have been setting this man's legislation up to pass as "necessary and proper." For years we have been told by the left that America is a "dwindeling superpower," or as Carter put it, that America is in a "malaise." Finally, Obama asserted that America has to accept its secondary status in the world. Obama can't possibly insist on overhauling the economy and healthcare systems when the Americans feel good about them, because when Americans feel good about their nation their nation flourishes. To pass his legislation, Obama needs to infantilize the nation to such a state that he can assume the status of an Alexander Hamilton who will save us from our own immaturity, greed, and other childish flaws that he certainly has outgrown.

The reason the "necessary and proper" clause worked with Hamilton and is abused by Obama is because Hamilton sincerely had the nation's best interests in mind. Adams once said that the Constitution is written for moral men, because without morality, all laws are null-and-void. The founding fathers gave a lot of leeway to the Federal government with the Elastic Clause under the assumption that our leaders would be mature enough to not abuse the priveledge. But in the event that they do, the Founders were kind enough to supply us with the power of revolution necessary to get rid of them.

The Price of Freedom

2010-04-29T23:41:00.002-04:00

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
-John F. Kennedy

Unlikely, but Understandable Bedfellows

2010-04-28T19:22:00.010-04:00

There is a Russian axiom that asserts, "tell me who your friends are, and I'll tell you who you are." Naturally, a man's allies speak volumes more about his character than he could ever express in words. In everything from love, to war, to fishing, the companionship you choose will speak truths about you while you openly lie through your teeth. For example, one who stresses the necessity for silence on a fishing trip proves his own duplicity by bringing along a kid who couldn't stop running his mouth if you taped it shut. Well, Obama has Joe Biden to adequately fulfill that child's role; perhaps he thought the presence of a White House buffoon would add gravitas to his own stature. For the time being though, I think we'll leave poor Joe to his own devices. There are bigger fish in Obama's circle of friends to fry.

Zbigniew Brzezinski in Obama's book is "one of our most outstanding thinkers." Well, this "outstanding thinker" gave gravity to "The Israel Lobby" when almost every serious politician saw it as more than a biased publication. The assertions it made about Congress' actions were lies of the highest order, returning to light the parochial anti-Semitic garbage that "everything is controlled by the American government...which is ultimately controlled by the Mossad (of course)." This man's education and political history means I can't help but feel like there is something far more sinister behind the silliness.

Obama's current attempts at containing the Iranian Nuclear threat are at "engaging" the enemy rather than "confronting and alienating" it. This theory was suggested most recently by Brzezinski with respect to Hamas, a noted terrorist organization, and Iran as well (another noted terrorist organization). His reasoning in his words is "because it isn't imminent, it gives us time to deal with it. And sometimes in international politics, the better part of wisdom is to defer dangers rather than try to eliminate them altogether instantly." I can forgive the naiveté; Brzezinski may simply not see the imminent Iranian threat, quoting its manifestly nonexistent "access to higher education" and "the role of women in society." However, what bothers me is how a great foreign policy prognosticator of the Carter Administration and the former supporter of arms buildups during the years of a dangerous Soviet Union now discards Iran as something that should not be worried about.

This situation simply does not pass the smell test. It seems as if Brzezinski is defying his own foreign policy principles simply because he doesn't like Jews, and this is the type of crowd Obama is surrounding himself with. Let all those who threw hats in the air over Raham Emanuel's appointment as a Jew in the White House consider some of Obama's other friends and then tell me honestly, who is he?

Why We Do What We Do: An Existential Essay

2010-04-26T16:34:00.005-04:00

At a Write-On for Israel seminar yesterday, I was posed with the profound question of "why do I do what I do?" Ultimately, my personal answer was supposed to catalyze how I market the movements I am involved with (AIPAC, YAF, Write-On for Israel, Tea Party, etc) to perspective members, but I took it far more seriously. The reason I work with and for the aforementioned organizations (and then some others) is because of a personal value-oriented philosophy that some may call fatalistic, but that has allowed me to realize my role in history and head-start getting it accomplished.

For this very reason I can never answer whether I am a Democrat or Republican. Besides for the fact that I can't vote, neither party's candidates reflect my views completely at all times--understandably so. So, what then are my views? To answer that, I hope you will allow me to think aloud. I believe in the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, the Bible as the supreme law of my being, and in the insight both of those scripts offer regarding the definition of human morality and limits of human freedom, constrained only by that morality. Also, inherent within these immortal texts is the recognition that circumstances change from generation to generation, from place to place, and even from person to person. However, that basic humanity, that balance of freedom and morality on a personal and national level, can never change. If it does, we're in trouble.

The reason we do what we do in our day and age, is because Islamo-Fascism threatens the core principles of what it means to be human. Iran poses more of a threat to America than any other country despite Obama's recent pontificating of "how small they are compared to Russia." Our greatest insurance policy with Russia was Mutually Assured Destruction, in other words, they were just as afraid to die as we were. Islamic fundamentalism prefers a "holy death" to the sanctity of a fulfilled life. But most importantly, Islamic "moral code" espouses hatred and brutal subjugation or death of all who do not agree with it. It violates the very basic premise of Western humanity, freedom, and morality, as based on the United States Constitution and the Bible.

I sincerely hope that those moral relativists who insist on a different but equal "Islamic morality" are prepared to take that dogma with them to the grave. Iran's hostility to our values makes them our enemy, and when your enemy says he is going to kill you, I shouldn't have to tell you what to do next.

The Average American

2010-04-22T23:19:00.003-04:00

I've been called many things on this blog when I've tried to write about Middle America, and true American Sentiment. There seems to be a liberal insistence and assumption that I somehow do not fit into this category and therefore am not qualified to speak about how much the corruption of the American government and spirit affects day-to-day issues; certainly, only those all-knowing Harvard professors know what is best for the oppressed American people. From this very same false sense of justice stems the supercilious, racist, Liberal platform of political correctness. And if you won't listen to me say it, then hear it from an "even more average American."

Al is my driving instructor. He's a genuinely nice man in his early 50's, a little awkward in his demeanor and a damn good father. He is working 4 jobs a day just to put his son through college, because his career put him just above the income line for financial aid. Now, his son graduated the Bergen County Academies at the top of his class in the Pre-Medical department, where the state granted him 6,000$ for research on a symptom-less medication (of which I unfortunately do not know the specifics) that he was working on for his final project. This average American was doing something of value for the a broader community, so the broader community decided to support him.

This same kid can't get his own way payed through med-school because money is being wasted on creating a diverse college atmosphere, rather than a meritorious collegiate one. By taking an under-qualified, untested kid from an inner city simply because he is an inner city kid instead of taking an over-qualified student from Bergen County, New Jersey who has proven his merit and potential to accomplish great things, you create a world of intellectuals; namely, people that are educated beyond their intelligence.

So Al, if you are reading this I wish you Godspeed, and I hope one day your son's new developments in the field of medicine save lives, and return to you in the form of pride, profit, and happiness that which you lost in peace of mind and time driving around with me for two hours. And in the mean time, I will do everything I can on my end to work against an Obamacare that would crush any personally lucrative or lifesaving medical advances under the false pretense of helping people like you, the average american.

Airing Dirty Laundry

2010-04-21T20:21:00.012-04:00

We at the Republican party have a little blood letting to do. If our party platform is to uphold traditional, safe, constitutional values, then we need to make sure the voices of those who claim to represent us but do not support our values are clearly, unanimously, and publicly denounced. They have a right to their opinion's, but they do not have the right to speak for the opinions of Republicans.

The man in the video above is the exception that proves the rule, and whoever the brave videographer is that chased this racist down to prove our rules and values deserves something special. If Tea Party activists and Republicans hope to succeed in reclaiming their country in 2010 and 2012, there must be no compromise of values for political gains, because what the American people want now more than ever since this country's founding is a safe and responsible leadership that allows them the rope to either hang themselves with, or to reap the fruit of their own successes. And that cannot be accomplished under the straining fear of a constantly shortening leash.

But in reclaiming the leadership of this country, Republicans need to be wary of loosing their integrity. Politics didn't always use to be dirty though, it didn't always use to be about ACORN stuffing ballot boxes with the votes of dead people. It wasn't always about Raham Emanuel threatening Congressmen in the shower. It didn't always mean getting in bed with the likes of Hugo Chavez, Ahmadinejad, and Putin. It did not always mean trips to the Voyeur by young Republican Party donors.

Yes, I want to air our dirty laundry because this country deserves nothing but the best. The time is right to reclaim America for its citizens rather than for its Government, the young Tea Party and the Grand Old Party are both timeless manifestations of the fight for our liberties and values. So all I am asking is that we choose as a representative to the rest of the world an embodiment of those values. Personally, I have faith in almost any individual with a clever picket sign at a Tea Party; Bill Buckley once said he would rather be governed by the first 100 people in the Boston phone book than all the professors at Harvard University, and I think we have seen just about enough of Harvard Presidents whose every sentence and correlating action contradict each other.

Let's elect a congress that will stick to the Health plan it imposed on its constituents. How about a President that doesn't have a personal Nuclear fallout shelter while he disarms the rest of the country? The Constitution and years of precedent have already set the tone for Washington, but our Government is strangling us with the rope our natural sovereignty granted it. The American people want real, honest, safe, Republican values. I say, let's give them that, and only that. No politicking, no trips to the Voyeur, just honest, safe, Republican values.

A Night at the Republican's Club

2010-04-20T22:40:00.005-04:00

I had a wonderful time tonight at the Metropolitan Republican's Club hearing Col. Carafano Ph.d. speak about our nation's foreign policy. He managed to confirm all my fears; namely, that our President does not have a plan or a desire to make a plan for serious action against Iran. In fact, Obama's misplaced politicking and "statesmanship" seems to be inciting another Cold War by elevating the Russian nuclear might to parity with American, and his general naiveté and spinelessness with regard to serious conflict on his watch is beyond alarming to American citizens and all their allies.

I understand the conflict of whether or not the Preamble of the constitution is binding, but just as we look to the Federalist papers for the "intent" of the founding fathers, the Preamble should at the very least be looked to as the "why" to the rest of the Constitution's "how" (as with the Declaration of Independence). In that light, Government's primary duty is to first "provide for the common defense," then to "promote general welfare." But then again, since the Obama administration is neglecting this country's enemies and simultaneously disarming our nation, the least they can do is provide proper healthcare for after the nuclear fallout.

Dr. Carafano's speech makes me slightly uneasy in a very morbid way to make jokes like that anymore, because the threat we face is so much worse than we ever imagined. So in all seriousness, I think it is necessary for everyone to set up a screening of The Heritage Foundation's 33 Minutes in their town.

This is something you should watch with your neighbor, so that you can look him in the eye afterward and dare yourself to say "I'm sorry, I won't do anything to save you." Many Congressmen and Senators have already signed on to letters insisting on a Foreign Policy plan from Obama, because beyond the greed, corruption, and illegality of much of what Congress does, no one wants to die.

The Cost of Silence

2010-04-19T17:19:00.008-04:00

We should know better. You would think Americans and Jews especially would be more acutely sensitive to impending danger, and would be more vocal in stopping it. The Holocaust was the price Jews payed for years of complacency, while both America and Israel as nations are the evident rewards of active assertion and revolution. Thankfully, Israel and America are true hubs and havens for Democratic, free thought. So, all things considered then, why do more American Jews choose to remain silent while a government slowly kills both of their safe havens?

Americans as a whole I fear have no choice but to become more apprehensive of Jewish dual loyalty. So many Jewish congressmen voted for the Socializing of our nation backed by a vast part of the Jewish community. This in and of itself does not mean much except to uphold the caste of Jewish Communists. However, when you juxtapose it with the recent uproar over Obama being "rude" to Netanyahu, I still can't understand why people would throw bullets into Eric Cantor's windows, but I can understand how we are moving in that direction.

On the exact opposite side of the spectrum, though, you have a lethally silent group. Formerly vocal supporters of Israeli freedom--if not of American--that have fallen silent in the shadow of Obama's insistence on empowering our enemies and alienating our friends. So I must argue in a very facetious way that Jews are not dually loyal, they seem to be loyal to nothing at all.

As a Jew who is proud to be an American, I want to know where the rest of you are. There is AIPAC, which lobbies for the continued US-Israel relationship as mutually beneficial, but to me that is not enough. The relationship the US and Israel shares is a product of the values we both stand for, namely, democracy, capitalism, and liberty. If we fight for those values no one can question our loyalty to either nation.

Charity Minus Government: Taxed Enough Already

2010-04-15T23:25:00.007-04:00

Winston Churchill famously remarked that "if you are younger than 20 an not a Liberal, you have no heart, if you are older than 30 and are not a Conservative, you have no brain." Where that leaves your 16 year old blogger according to Winston Churchill is not entirely covered since we of course all understand that opinions are far more nuanced than can be expressed in one sweeping, yet rather insightful statement. So, short of calling all young conservatives heartless when they simply oppose Government's role in charity, not the concept of charity itself, I think the most appropriate quip for today is "taxes make conservatives of us all."

The sudden realization of exactly how much of your money the Government is taking can be rather staggering when it all hits you at once--and let's be honest amongst ourselves here, everyone does them at the last minute. I can't imagine that even the most "sincere" Liberal doesn't wonder where his money is going. What is it going to be used for? Who is making sure it is going to be used for the right reasons, and are we sure he can be trusted?

Whenever Government gets involved with money, the process becomes corrupt and inefficient. Private, religious, and local organizations do so good a job at taking care of their own because there are fewer steps between the donors and the recipients. Since this reduces the number of times each dollar is handled, fewer Government Agencies have the opportunity to lob off chunks of change for themselves in the forms of fees and taxes. Furthermore, since the process is far more intimate, supposedly the man who was recently put out of work will feel motivated to seek gainful employment by the slight embarrassment of living off of a magnanimous community in between jobs.

Since Government is taking more and more of people's spending money, less and less of it will be going to charity; you have to feed your family first. And since Government is incompetently and corruptly handling the appropriated funds (not paying into Social Security, Frannie May, Freddie Mac, Earmarks through Healthcare Bill to name a few of the bigger examples) we are going to see higher poverty levels in this country than at any time during this recession. Whatever the Liberal goal is, it is not helping the poor by taking away the money that can. How's that for heartlessness?

Wholesome Comics and Obama Foreign Policy

2010-04-14T22:54:00.007-04:00

I've heard the argument several times that Obama wants to destroy this country on purpose. Perhaps I am naive, but I don't think that's the case. I do, however, think that he does not mind if it all goes up in flames provided his power is maintained, and yet I don't think he himself believes this country to be going down the drain. Old Superhero movies and comics used to be good for the exact reason most movies made today are not; good and bad was clearly divided and good always triumphed. With today's moral relativism, the "bad guy" is always either misunderstood, misguided, or even right. Well, short of calling the Obama saga a Superhero movie--mainly because we're already into the second year of "death and destruction" but no hero can readily be identified on the horizon--I think we need to decide whether Obama is any one of the other three aforementioned adjectives and remind ourselves that this is just a bad movie and will soon be over.

Let us use the example of Iran's overt nuclear threat to Western Civilization, to which Obama refuses to respond directly despite appropriate, bipartisan congressional pressure to do SOMETHING other than to make Israel's life more difficult. Perhaps Obama is simply "misguided" in thinking that he will have an easier time negotiating with a Nuclear Islamic State while simultaneously disarming himself. Perhaps his position in all of this as a Citizen of a United World rather than of a United States is "misunderstood;" he would readily surrender our sovereignty to a United Nations controlled by Islamic countries in the shadow of nuclear weapons than have unnecessary conflict sully his political record. Whatever his rational is for not facing Iran, it certainly is not "right" in the conventional sense of the word.

The foreign policy stance Obama is taking may be paved with good intentions, but it is quickly making a cynic out of my self-assessed naivete. If you asked any Captain America or Superman not looking through the lens of moral relativism, they would say it seems like Obama is siding with terrorists. It's scary, but you heard it from the man with the Star Spangled Shield. If only a semblance of what he represents would manifest itself in on our political horizons to combat our very own Red Skull, I wouldn't be so scared of what the next few months have in store for us.

Margaret Thatcher Explains the Folly of Liberal Policy

2010-04-13T18:44:00.005-04:00

Since my arguments and posts of the last week or so have not hit home, judging by the repetitive comments in previous posts, I submit this video as yet another way of phrasing the argument against Socialist and Liberal policies. Whichever way you put it, they would rather have an equal playing field than a wealthy playing field. Take a look.

Vanity (Fair): Driving America into Success

2010-04-12T21:32:00.004-04:00

There is an Old Testament law that goes "thou shalt not covet," and I think it's safe to say that any part of The 10 Commandments is a pretty integral part of our little functioning western democracy. The implication that you should somehow control your thoughts and feelings is easier to swallow if you infer more accurately from this law that you should not act on these desires. After all, in America we have freedom of expression, not freedom of action; you can think, say, and write anything you so desire until it becomes or foreshadows an overt threat to others' natural rights or the laws that protects them. There is, however, one exception to acting on jealousy called drive.

Ever since I was little my parents reminded me that it was OK to want my friend's firetrucks (I was crazy about firetrucks), but I would have to earn it, I could not just take his. This lesson hopefully raises children with the understanding that they can want it, and have it, as long as they can earn it. This process of multiplying wealth makes sense economically; if I take the firetruck away, there is still only one toy for two unhappy children. But if I did whatever it was that I needed to do to earn the firetruck, namely, invest my own efforts to get what I want, then everyone wins. The company that produces the truck gets money, as well as the the person who sold it, and now there are two toys in play between just as many happy kids.

Toys are good to have if you get them the right way, just as jealousy is good to have if it drives you to success at the expense of your own blood and sweat. Well perhaps Vanity Fair finally figured out the real merits of "vanity" when they published a fantastic article on how General Petraeus rose through military ranks on his own efforts to the point where he now has lots of shiny new toys to play with; he has 30 squares stitched on his chest, and 4 stars stitched on each shoulder.

Because he jealously fought his way from the boy scouts, to West Point, through the Army Rangers, parachuting into Baghdad, and finally into the oval office for his appointment as a 4 star General, who wins? The women in Iraq who can now go to school without getting raped, the American Military that now has a strong foothold and new democratic ally in the contentious and despotic Middle East, and the American people who get to watch the good General make a monkey out of Joe Biden on the Senate floor--though granted, that's a pretty cheap form of entertainment.

General Petraeus makes a point about wearing all his medals all the time, and why not? You can call it vanity, but after a job well done I think it's called pride. Because though to us those medals may just be shiny toys, to him they each may represent a time he risked his life for some other person's right to live happily.

Why We Simply Can't Understand Each Other

2010-04-08T11:13:00.004-04:00

In order to argue you have to agree on something, even if it's only the things you are arguing about. Truly, misunderstandings are probably the most common causes for conflict; it doesn't matter to you how fantastic I think apples are if your current point is that oranges are the superior fruit. I've come to realize that the conflict between Liberals and Conservatives boils down to a deep rooted misunderstanding. Both sides are barking up completely different trees.

Liberals take the philosophical stance that "equality" should be the yardstick with which we measure a successful society. Frankly, the argument that this communist slogan can only result in an equally miserable Soviet State really devalues the most basic opposition. True, experiments in communism have almost always resulted in death, poverty, or worse, but I must argue that another Soviet Union is simply not possible anymore, and no honest liberal wants it. Instead, they point to countries like France and Italy that have socialized government services so that everyone is equally taken care of by the nanny state.

Well I don't want Italy or France, that's why I live in the good old USofA, where the tag-line for everything we believe in can be summed up in "liberty." Liberty is the freedom to shape your life as you wish within moral guidelines. Since this Liberty is extended to everyone under the Constitutional system, everyone by definition is equally free. Unfortunately, some are born into worse circumstances than others, but in an ideally liberated society no one is incapable or restricted from rising above his predisposed hindrances.

When considering the practical implications of either viewpoint, "Liberty" forces the lower class skyward while "Equality" shoves everyone into the same dismal situation. It should therefore be no wonder that in its freest times, America as a nation has also been the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world; any system is only as strong as its weakest link. And perhaps only because they can depend on American might for protection is the reason why France and Italy can play around with what they call "equality."

I've come to realize though that many Liberals like it this way. Many claim they are willing to sacrifice what they have earned for the sake of giving it away to another at the discretion of an unaffiliated third party (though what they do in deed may very well completely contradict this dogma), and no amount of persuasion will convince them otherwise. Liberals want France and Italy, and I dare you to try convincing a man allergic to citrus that he should stop eating the orange in his mouth if he has already made abundantly clear that he understands the consequences of his actions.

So my fellow Conservatives, most battles for Liberty can be won by arguing on Liberty's terms. Call them stubborn, stupid, or even even genuinely informed and committed at times, but ultimately if a liberal doesn't agree with Liberty then he won't agree with any argument involving it just as their definition of equality conflicts directly with the values of any traditional, Constitutional American. This is not something we can agree to disagree on if we can't even anchor the argument in one common point.

Coffee House Communism

2010-04-07T15:19:00.007-04:00

A passage in the SATs I just took gave a quick overview of the varying perceptions governments throughout the last quincentenary had of coffee. Interestingly enough, many kings banned the drink within their borders for fear of a communist revolt. If I interpreted that passage correctly (and for the sake of my score I hope I did), coffee houses were brewing pots for revolutionary ideas since that drink could bring people together and would keep people awake and energized deeper into the night without the debilitating effects of alcohol.

History has proven that those kings had a right to be nervous. Throughout 19th and 20th century Europe, "Proletarian Revolts" were run by political intellectuals who reached their masses in gatherings at cafes late after work. The Secret Agent by Joseph Conrad novelizes this situation so much so, that it became one of the most cited books in the news since September 11, 2001. Even the Boston Tea Party has a rather profound connotation for this very reason. Somehow caffeine has become the key ingredient to radical change. Even when its practical uses have long since been outdated by electricity and faster means of communication, the "intellectual" coffee culture of major cities and schools remains central to modern manifestations of communism.

If you were to go to any New York City or college town Starbucks and take a look at the literature open either on people's laps or laptops, I am almost certain you would not find another copy of The Heritage Foundation's We Still Hold These Truths. In fact, if you were to judge solely by the fidgety, slightly unnerved complexion of the gentleman staring at my cover, my copy of this book that outlines and explains this country's founding principles must have been a novelty in the Columbia University Starbucks. And to answer why students at universities wear Che Guevera T-Shirts, why New York City High Schools are hosting Young Democratic Socialists, and why the man next to me turned a queer eye to a book about the Constitution, Andrew Klavan explains "because they read it in the New York Times, on their I-Pads, at Starbucks."

There is a cultural movement that claims equality of status and money at the expense of everyone's happiness is more important than the liberty to make that money and then spend it on a 5$ cup of coffee if you so desire. Is there not also something hypocritical in imbibing that culture while still buying your 5$ cup of coffee? Call it Marxism or Liberalism, dress it in a turtleneck and tweed jacket or stockings and a wig, but no matter what label and price you put on it, it's still the same cup of coffee.

Freedom a la Passover

2010-04-01T23:04:00.002-04:00

Jewish defenition of slavery is very different from the European affliction practiced in most Western Countries up until about a few hundred years ago. In fact, while studying the Civil War for my AP US history class last year, my teacher--in whose posession you can depend to find any and every printed word since Guttenberg's Bible--showed us New York Times articles from 1860 in which weekly sermons from religious leaders were printed.

The then current Rabbi of a large New York congregation denounced Southern American Slavery as against Jewish law. In the Jewish sense, a slave is a debtor who is sold as the only means by which to get back on his feet; British debtor's prison and American Welfare meet at the bible I guess. As such, the slave owner is required to make his slave's life more comfortable than his own, in every sense whatsoever. The slave must have the more comfortable bed, abundant food, and must ultimately be let go with a large sum of money so he can restart his life.

However, he is not allowed to stay longer than a certain period of time because he may develop the notion that he is indeed a "slave," to a man, while men can only be subservient to a Heavenly Authority. For this precise reason did the founders not think necessary to include specific statements about slavery in the constitution. The concept of one man controlling another's freedoms is simply ludicrous.

Now it's time for the big analogy. Yes, I will venture to say that Big Obama Government is slavery in the Jewish sense. True, we aren't picking cotton in a field or building pyramids, and certainly we may have beds to sleep in, but the fact of the matter is that that bed is provided by the whim of the government. A welfare system of sorts may be ok for short periods of time to help individuals get back on their feet, but any man who ultimately resigns himself to serving government should bear a mark of shame.

The Freedom to Know

2010-03-25T20:48:00.003-04:00

Vladimir Lenin said that "it is most important to take control of the Post Office and Telegraph first." Hitler had his Minister of Propaganda, Goebbels, and the first thing he did in 1933 was burn all Jewish books. China's Iron Firewall that limits internet content is only a modern manifestation of the common knowledge that common knowledge itself is the greatest hindrance to a communist government.

In America we do it a little differently, less obviously. News agencies, with a supercilious air, constantly interview Tea Party protesters who don't necessarily know the particulars of the Reconciliation Bill in an effort to pass communal apprehensiveness off as ignorance. Federalist Paper #62 warns specifically against incomprehensible bills like the 1018 page communist monstrosity that is Obamacare and its detrimental effects to a free society's functioning. The Obama way of taking over this country is a bit less direct than Lenin or Hitler, but no less potent or effective. He already took the first step, what's next?

"You Are a Racist"

2010-03-24T19:31:00.004-04:00

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes sure that no one is discriminated against because of race. It was a monumental step forward in expanding the definition of "man," when considering how we were all created equal. I, and Andrew Klavan below, would simply like to remind the Liberals in government that groups don't define an individual, and this Act (like so many liberal agendas before it) undermines all "minorities'" (however you may define that term)rights to have a piece of the American dream.

I'll Have What He's Having

2010-03-23T19:27:00.012-04:00

Nanci Pelosi in all her "grace" and "majesty" has finally let the American people see the Reconciliation Bill now that it is an act, as promised. If you can get through all 1018 pages of this monstrosity you will find that Congress has exempted itself from the new Socialized Health Care system. Even with my limited economic experience I know the best sign for a company's future is if its executives are buying up shares; it means they have confidence in what they are doing, and chances are things will be alright. Well, our "executives" are dumping the shares right off the bat because they don't want to be in the questionable situation Newfoundland Premier Williams was in when he had to travel to the US for surgery saying "my heart, my choice."

Well, Williams came here because we have (had) procedures they didn't necessarily offer in Canada. After the American medical market, training resources, and opportunity for success in any field medical all crash, where exactly do Obama and his cronies plan on going for surgery, even if given the choice?

As always though, I take issue with this on a far more philosophical and constitutional level than on a technical, monetary basis. After all, you can't buy freedom, brains, or a heart (yes, Harvard, that was a shot at YOU). Every law in Western civilization since the Magna Carta, through the Declaration of Independence to the Civil Rights Act, has been based on the sound principle that no man is above the Natural Law, and no man is inherently more deserving of special privileges than his neighbor.

Whatever special pass Obama has to heaven and better Health Care, I simply want to know what he has done to deserve it so I can work toward getting one myself. At the very least, I want to know how my children can be born like Charlie Rangel, with "get out jail free" cards stitched to their rears.

Reconciliation Act of 2010

2010-03-22T01:47:00.005-04:00

Who's excited for 900 Billion$ in taxes and the destruction of our country's accountability, personal liberty, and founding principles? This guy. This guy is also going to be running campaigns against Representatives like Rothman (his all too comfortable incumbent Democrat who just lit a flame under his own ass by voting "yes") this summer, and working with young conservatives across the country who are doing the same in their districts.

In fact, there was a poll on Sean Hannity's website that asked people how they thought dissatisfied Americans should react to this fiasco. Let's be honest, most of us are furious, and it's not because we are racists like Wanda Sykes insists we are if we don't support the Reconciliation Act. We don't support Obama's plan because it was forced on us, it will cost us money, and it will not give us better healthcare.

Often I speak about the spirit of this country as being more binding than law, because if you get wrapped up in the "hows" instead of the "whys" you end up with the most revolutionary act since Social Security perhaps going through as Reconciliation. Yes, it is a weird loophole in the system intended for something else entirely, but leave it to the crooks on Capitol Hill to abuse it.

That is why my response to Sean Hannity's question of "what do we do now?" is to vote every incumbent out of office. I'm sick of "tweaking" Washington, because as we begin to pinch off some "accountability" here (Charlie Rangel) and "transparency" there, (Nancy Pelosi) we lose track of who's been bribed with a judgeship (Matheson*) or who's been threatened in the shower by Rahm Emanuel (Massa). Let's start fresh by electing a slow, deliberating Senate that represents the needs of the States as independent entities, a President who leads the people and upholds the spirit of the Constitution by NOT assuming that his word is law ("executive order"**), and Representatives that do nothing more than represent the cumulative opinion of their constituents.

I hope Obama promised everyone that "saw the light" nice cushy lobbying positions once they get voted out of a job in November, because the American people will repeal this bill, and they will do it the right way.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
*Matheson: It is my opinion that Obama allowed this guy to vote "no" because the Democrats already had the votes. Matheson was just allowed to save his own behind.
**Executive orders like the Emancipation Proclamation were not taken as seriously by a court of law until a bill or amendment was passed to affirm them. In this case, it was the 13th amendment that freed slaves, NOT the Emancipation Proclamation.

So You Want to Be a Spy

2010-03-18T22:32:00.000-04:00

I sure do. I was just at the Spy Museum in Washington DC, and thanks to all those spies that lived to talk about their experiences I am thoroughly convinced I have what it takes. As a matter of fact, I'm a downright James Bond...minus the womanizing and the drivers license, let alone a "license to kill". Unfortunately, I can only assume covert operations are not nearly that glamorous. A license to kill does not always mean a desire to kill, but in a kill-or-be-killed situation, do you have another choice?

Cary A. Friedman once told a story at a lecture of his that I attended. He, as a rabbi, was a panelist on a radio show (with several other notable religious figures) that was broadcast to hundreds of thousands of police stations across the country. Sometime into the program a police chief from Kentucky called in and said he had a young cop standing next to him, crying, with his gun in his mouth. The cop accidentally witnessed an armed bank robbery just an hour before, and when the situation got hostile, he had no choice but to kill the man shooting at him. They teach you how to shoot in police school, but they can't teach you how to cope with the psychological trauma that comes with killing.

"Thank You," said Mr. Friedman, and then proceeded to explain something rather profound. The only person in our country that has a license to kill is a police officer or a soldier. We trust only those men that are in uniform to pass instantaneous judgment on another man's life. And, quite frankly, the fact that this police officer was shaking all over with a gun to his face after he exercised his duty and right, is to me the greatest signal that he deserves that badge more than anyone else.

It's not a new game to demonize heroes that have to kill gun-toting bank robbers; Hollywood's been doing it for ever. I am appalled though that our Government has joined the bandwagon (notice how I did not say I am shocked...nothing out of Washington shocks me anymore). The attempted new provision to the Proposed Intelligence Authorization Act would simply give our government the right to criminalize any intelligence officer that had to use harsh interrogation to get information out of terrorists that could save American lives. Furthermore, Obama's "transparency" is completely misguided toward the CIA where he released memos to the public that could compromise government agents.

Do you still want to be a spy? Well if you employ the Moscow Rules in Washington I think you might have a shot at survival. But to be honest, a military hero's greatest opposition is now not coming from his enemy, from the government that claims to support him; the people you save will solute you, but I don't think their representatives will.

This is Going to Be Big: American Youth Fight Back

2010-03-17T20:43:00.000-04:00

I started this blog with the hope that it could be a rallying center and point of reference for Young Conservatives, specifically High School Students. Well, my expectations have been exceeded. By reading this blog you are telling the world that you refuse Academia's Liberal Indoctrination at the cost of your grades. By telling your teachers that they are wrong and using solid evidence to prove why, you are actively and admirably asserting your First Amendment Rights.

My Grandfather once told me, "never be ashamed to be right." I was in Washington all day today organizing a High School movement that will make sure you never have to be reminded of that again. In the next few months I look forward to sharing opportunities, conferences, speakers, and fun events that you can spread the word about. To put it another way, our goal is to NOT be like these guys below.

As educated, concerned, American Youth, we will not be silenced and our education certainly will not be compromised because we love our country.

Our Brothers Across The Sea: "A Petition Worth Signing"

2010-03-16T22:19:00.000-04:00

In light of recent Obama Administration statements about "strained relationships with Israel," please take a moment to sign this petition put forth by the Republican Jewish Congress. It is worth a read, and a few minutes.

After all, perhaps Biden really puts his foot in the Obama's mouth when he makes statements like this, but he nailed it on the head:

“The cornerstone of the relationship is our absolute, total, unvarnished commitment to Israel’s security. Bibi, you heard me say before, progress occurs in the Middle East when everyone knows there is simply no space between the United States and Israel. There is no space between the United States and Israel when it comes to Israel’s security.”

The Audacity of the "No to Yes" campaign

2010-03-15T12:56:00.000-04:00

Congress functions like my classroom. Every time a test date is proposed by the teacher, students begin to haggle as if they have a choice in the matter. The final solution is always a shouting match between the two most vocal students, followed by an impromptu "vote" proposed by whichever kid thinks he has the most students on his side (judging by the decibel level of the general agreement after he's made his pitch).

The vote is conducted by a simple raise of hands, and interrupted by every student trying to abusively change his neighbor's mind by shouting everything from "logical scheduling arguments," to "accusations about his sexuality." I think that is why our votes are private now. This isn't a community effort, each kid wants to take the test on a day that is most convenient for him, and if his neighbor does not agree, then so be it; those are not grounds for a hindered friendship.

Now, if congress were run by 16 year old children this process would be understandable. The fact is, our representatives are children of a slightly older (though no less pompous) variety. Congressmen should not have a choice in the way they vote, if their constituents demand another way. Mr. Obama's firm belief that we can "make a deal" completely bypasses the point of Congress.

Congressmen are supposed to directly represent the will of their people. So ideally, no matter how much money or power they are offered (like Jim Matheson and his brother the New Judge) , or threatened in the shower by Rahm Emanuel (like Massa), they cannot vote contrary to the desire of their people.

Unfortunately congress right now is far from ideal, they function more like a High School Classroom. I respect Rep. Massa's bravery in the face of Raham Emanuel "in all his glory," but would have liked him to stay and duke it out. We need more people that are devoted to the people of the United States rather than the President of the United States, and until that happens I would be afraid to cross a busy street in Washington if I were one of those few brave and moral men who oppose the Healthcare Bill at the behest of their constituents.

A Personal Note

2010-03-11T22:37:00.000-05:00

Hello all,
Thank you for being one of the A Young American Blog's 1,700 readers. As you are probably aware, I try to post something fresh every Monday-Thursday, and have been sticking to it through all my schoolwork, projects, and the looming "judgment day" known as SAT Sunday in just a few days.

I want to take this space to let you know that I will be in Washington DC sometime between Next Wednesday the 17th, and Friday the 19th for meetings with Campus Reform, The Heritage Foundation, and some Congressional Staffers that I respect dearly (yes, there are respectable people in Washington still, and I was fortunate enough to meet all 3).

Please feel free to email me, Facebook, or call me (all the information is in my profile in the sidebar, or at the bottom of this post) if you would like to meet me in New York or Washington sometime over the next week. I would love to meet some of my readers, whether they all agree with me or not.

Take care, keep reading, and I will updated you on some of the exciting projects I am working on in Washington when I get back.

Naphtali Rivkin
en1226@gmail.com
201-835-4742

Religion and America

2010-03-10T20:23:00.001-05:00

"There seems to be a misinformed view of religion in American history, that America is somehow founded on Christianity." Wrong, Mr. Revisionist. Firstly, whether you like it or not, you cannot deny the fact that the founders of this country were religious men. But more importantly, I don't know from where you've conceived this "misconception," since (save Adams), the founding fathers were not Christian. They believed in the divinity of creation, and so, codified the basic tenet of humankind "that all men are endowed with certain unalienable rights," by virtue of their Creator. Once you remove that cornerstone, the entire building crumbles. And indeed, that is exactly what schools across the country are trying to do.

This vote in the Texas School Board that will ultimately decide the fate of my, and many of my friends' education, is trying to make sure that certain basic American faiths are taught in schools, and the dissenting view is quoted above (and at the bottom of the linked article). Honestly, it baffles me how those who take an active stance against the idea that there is a God (forget methods of worship) can claim to be patriotic. What other indisputable power is there to guarantee us our freedom? Surely not the government. Government's duty is to protect and represent that right, and whenever "any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government." If not by God's authority, then by whose?

Perhaps someone could enlighten me.

Second-Hand Ruminitions: Question of the Week

2010-03-09T20:18:00.000-05:00

While in Israel I had the pleasure of listening to Yaacov Lozowick speak. He is the author of the moving polemic, Right to Exist, and his blog is in the sidebar (I encourage you to check it out). I was reminded of his lecture on the conflict of morality in conflict and war by all the buzz about "the legality of drones."

Basically, you face a problem any way you look at war. On one hand, full-scale battle is undesirable because of the collateral damage. So the perfect solution seems to be direct assassinations using incredible new drone technology or the good ol' Navy SEALS (those guys that can do just about anything short of make the earth spin the other way). However, this would put us in the precariously hypocritical situation of deciding the fate of one man without due process of law (and we know how much our Government loves extending American rights to non-Americans...but still, it's distasteful). The alternative to that would of course be to fight a full scale battle where a dead man is just a number and effect of war, not a specific decision. But then again, we've already ruled that option out.

We've caught ourselves in a circle. Personally, anything that can kill our enemy without risking the lives of our troops is OK by me. After all, those SEALS are only as impervious as their vests. Let me know what you think in the comments below.

Real Politic vs. Welfare Conservatism

2010-03-08T10:59:00.000-05:00

This is the girl effect.

There are countries where many people, women included, don't have a shot at life because of racial, militant, or religious oppression. Women are, more often than not, the target of these injustices, and I just want to add some facts to the list about countries like Zimbabwe already provided on the website.

Rape cases in England have increased exponentially in areas populated heavily by Muslims. Islamic law states that a woman who is not dressed as-per Muslim standards, is "asking for it." It astounds me that stories from Saudi Arabia or Iran are not first on the list of primal concerns for the aforementioned organization. Countries that are ruled by Shaariah Law do not allow their women to go to school, own property, or even choose their own marital future (let alone vote, or participate in Government). And yet, not a single Human Rights group that champions woman's rights so much as wags a finger.

As the flag bearer of liberty, it is the United State's moral duty to intervene on these poor woman's behalf. The preachers of Real Politic are not happy with our involvement in the Middle East to that extent, simply because our situation there practically defines the "entangling alliances" that George Washington warned against. But the moral obligation enunciated in our core documents speaks louder. I am sure Washington would now agree that we fight for the girl in Iraq that can go to school without getting stoned.

Besides for that, what the video asks for does not seem like an entangling alliance. We pay a small price to give a girl an opportunity (note: we do not hand out STUFF, we allow people the OPPORTUNITY to GET STUFF as their natural right). We free her of her oppressive society, give her a little capital to get an education or start a business, and watch her community flourish. In the end, perhaps she will revolutionize her country to the point that it indeed becomes in our economic and political best interest to do business with places like Iraq.

Take Israel as the example. Truman had a falling out with his closest adviser and Secretary of Defense, General George C. Marshall. Marshall insisted that Truman not follow his gut and simply consider the long term consequences of recognizing the State of Israel. He was not an anti-Semite by any standards, he simply had this country's best interest in mind, and Washington's warning at heart. But look at what we have now? 62 years later and Israel has a remarkably powerful economy, and is one of America's closest allies in the UN, and in the fight against terror.

To quote the end of the video, "are you getting this?"
America=Liberty+powerful military-->safety for people around the world to make their home a better place.

Obama, Your Money is No Good Here

2010-03-04T11:32:00.000-05:00

Obama, I don't want your money mainly because its not yours. As a student soon to be facing the enormous tuition of higher education, it would be shameful for me send the bill to the 100 most wealthy people in the country. When you offer me those 900 million dollars to cover my college education, you are just sending the bill through the medium of "taxes" to somebody who is already paying for his own child's education, and, through voluntary donations, probably paying for 10 other children as well. Lincoln once asked, "if you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? 4, Because if you call a tail a leg, it is still a tail." Stealing from the rich and giving to the needy is still stealing, even if you call it a tax, Mr. Obama.

Quite frankly, Mr. Obama, I don't want your money because I didn't earn it. Now, I could rely on the government to pay for my college. I could go as an ROTC cadet, or perhaps to a military academy like West Point (which has just been ranked #1 college in America and only has a 14% acceptance rate, just to dispel any misinformed assumptions as to the "baseness" of the military). In either of these programs my college would be free of monetary debt, but I would still owe a few years of service to my country. One has to work for anything he gets, isn't that law of equal exchange something they taught in unsubsidized kindergartens?

Finally, the basic premise of this "Robin Hood complex" of yours assumes that I cannot get by on my own. By throwing money at me you assume I am incapable of getting a job to ease the debt, and I have no inherent merits that would award me scholarships.

Your money is illegitimate and insulting, so no thank you.

It Just Writes Itself

2010-03-03T23:08:00.000-05:00

Sometimes liberals just screw themselves so badly that all you can do is laugh about it. What isn't funny though, is Nancy Pelosi's statement of "well its not like he endangered national security or anything." So that is the standard we are holding ourselves to now; it's legal as long as it doesn't endanger national security. I wonder how your constituents feel about you screwing them out of trillions of dollars through these "stimulus packages."

But for now, enjoy the sheer buffoonery that is Charlie Rangel.

A Student of Our Values

2010-03-02T11:30:00.001-05:00

I am spreading the word about a heartfelt challenge set forth by Bill Whittle. The Constitution may be the "how" our country is based on, but the Declaration of Independence is the "why," and sometime we get so wrapped up in the technicalities of that we forget the bigger picture behind each word. Therein lies the spirit of this country, the cumulative and eternal values we all hold dear.

These values are dying as the physical ink fades on the original Declaration. Our challenge as students is to never forget, and never let that ink fade. So as a physical manifestation of our commitment, let us set new ink to new paper, and write down old, but eternal ideas.

I am committed to hand-write a copy of The Declaration of Independence, and in so doing, commit it to heart. "I could just as easily type it, but I want it to hurt a little." Who's with me?

Separation of Purpose

2010-03-01T14:21:00.000-05:00

The constitution is not a static document, its laws need to change with the times as per the desire of the people who follow it. That is what amendments are for. The constitution, however, is so much more than laws. It is a living, breathing, and eternal insight into the nature of the relationship between government and people. That, we cannot twist. Not even a little.

So when The Constitution establishes a separation of powers by virtue of concrete purposes delineated for each branch of government, it leaves the Supreme Court to dissect the meaning between each line, and challenges every American to determine the intent and insight behind every phrase. If you take this duty seriously, you should find one very shocking thing. You will see how little the executive branch is really meant to do and control. Then consider the fact that the continually updated list of executive Bureaus and Departments is infinitely larger than both the other branches' combined, and you should start to get a little apprehensive. Finally, remember that the entire Executive Department is controlled by only one man that represents the desires and needs of little more than half the country at best.

Presidency is a lofty position, established to enforce domestic law, and serve as the face and mouth for the country's needs as an entity. He proposes, and ratifies laws. He does not debate, create, or pass them. True, Grover Cleveland said that "when you elect me, you elect my judgment." But that judgment must be employed by the President when deciding whether an issue is up to the judgment of the President. Most of the time, as delineated in the Constitution, it belongs to the people.

That being said, and putting aside my personal doubts as to Government's (of any branch) involvement in Health Care, why was President Obama mitigating a summit on a Congressional debate? I think the answer can be found in the predecessors to Obama's ego.

Wilson was the first President to leave the country while in office. He did so to manage affairs in Europe at the Versailles Conference, and ultimately present to the American people a relinquishment of their sovereignty to the "League of Nations," his little brainchild/Frankenstein. Of course Wilson went by himself because there were no better foreign policy negotiators than he to decide the fate of countries that were not his. And of course, the American people were not smart enough to understand what was good for them and their country. But Wilson knew better, and insisted upon the League of Nations until oblivion.

Jimmy Carter insisted on reading 2200 page bills by himself, because there was no aid whose salary was high enough to read the bill and explain it to the man who would ultimately have to decide on a hundred such bills. Reagan, on the other hand, recognized the intelligence of those around him, and trusted them to make sure no memos he received were more than 1 page long. Because ultimately, the President is not required to be the most educated man in the country, especially since the men with the least amount of formal education make the smartest Presidents. Take for example, Lincoln and Truman.

Obama's ego will not allow him to simply let congress do its job. It's not like they were elected by very specific groups of people to represent their needs. Obama simply cannot accept that Americans know what is in their own best interest, and so, that dangerous ego of his must involve itself in every part of the law-making process. What this will result in inevitably, is "Obama the Mitigator," not "Obama the Decision Maker." Someone who substitutes the inherently lofty nature of the Presidency with his own self-assumed superiority, cannot, and does not deserve to make decisions that affect a nation.

Why Don't You Tell Us How You Really Feel

2010-02-25T22:33:00.000-05:00

If we dissect the analogy then Herman van Rompuy is Obama and Nigel Farage's speech is the election of Scott Brown and the cumulative sentiment of an American people who do not know who their President is, or under what authority he is handing our country over to the dogs.

That being said, this is something we are totally unaccustomed to in American politics (my God, people want Justice Alito's head for mouthing "you lie"). Personally, I am not sure whether I should laugh, clap, or cringe. Regardless of the delivery, the message is spot on.

Barrack Obama as an Historical Phenomenon

2010-02-25T00:16:00.000-05:00

I think it is time I made good on some promises in previous posts. With specific regard to his foreign policy, I have called Barrack Obama a Neville Chamberlain (as opposed to a Hitler), and a Wilsonian idealist and internationalist to the umpteenth power when referring to his domestic policies. Well I think I owe you an explanation.

Neville Chamberlain was the British Prime Minister during the time of Hitler's rise to power. While Hitler was making speeches in the Reichstag about slaughtering Jews and invading Germany's neighbors, Europe sat by listening. Of course, they thought, "the war to end all wars" would live up to its name, and the new standards of international morality and conduct would never be breached a second time.

Just to make sure though, Neville Chamberlain payed Hitler a personal visit to ask him politely to cut out the inflammatory remarks. Hitler agreed after receiving a chunk of Czechoslovakia as a gift from Britain, and then proceeded to fulfill his promises of destruction while Chamberlain recommended to his people that they "go home and sleep quietly in [their] beds."

The rest is history. Unfortunately history repeats itself, and I hope we don't have to wait for another genocide to realize who the Hitlers are around here.

Good old intransigent Wilson, the man who could not get his own Congress to join the League of Nations, a project he had been working on in Europe for several months during his Presidency of the United States. Instead of tweaking things here and there to make the general proposal more palatable, Wilson threw a tantrum and refused to reconcile with the opposition.

However, Wilson at the very least decided to appeal directly to the American people. He went on a tour of the US, trying to rally support for something Congress already seemed to understand was not in America's best interest. Americans, like their Representatives, let him have it on this tour though; no one wanted what he had to offer.

My suggestion to Barrack Obama is if he really wants to be this immature, international, idealist Wilsonian, he should at least do it properly. He should jump in his truck, put 200,000 miles on it, and let us tell him how we really feel.

A Violation of the American Spirit

2010-02-23T20:08:00.001-05:00

The redefinition and reinforcement of 1st amendment rights provided by Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission has set a dangerous, but proper precedent. Several humanitarian organizations have brought the legal ban on supporting known terror organizations to the Supreme Court as a breach of their civil liberties. They want to offer advise and expert council, to organizations like Hezbollah that want to "build homes, not just bombs."

First, allow me to just clear up a misconception. Hezbollah does not build homes, and Hamas' economy will NEVER be more than 3rd world no matter how much aid and expert advise you throw at its, because quite simply, they don't want it. Hamas was elected with the understanding that they would fight to destroy Israel, and Hezbollah's primary and secondary goals are entirely focused on destroying another society rather than helping their own. The numbers then follow the philosophy as missile stockpiles grow infinitely yet still no homes are built in Gaza and Lebanon.

Second, I beg anyone bringing this case to the Supreme Court to cut out the nonsense; many Americans still have complete faith in their Constitution, so please do not use it to destroy us.

Quite frankly, this case is in the right. It is within a man's first amendment rights to offer verbal council to terrorist organizations so long as he does not reveal any information about his country that could jeopardize its safety, or Congress does not officially declare war (remember, congress has not done so officially since 1945). Our Constitution only works when in the hands of people who love this country. Yes you are within your rights, but common sense dictates that you just stop the silliness.

Show some discretion folks, and for once, stop exercising your first amendment rights. Just because it is legal, doesn't mean it is proper.

A Personal Essay

2010-02-12T16:12:00.000-05:00

I was in Israel this week. The following is an essay I wrote for the program that has now just taken me to Israel, and I thought I would share it with you. Also, I have a link here to an article by Jay Nordlinger, on what Israel means to Non-Jewish Americans like Sarah Palin. This is for the simple reason that if you change where it says "Israel" to "America," and then mess around with the dates, the message is unchanging.

This is an essay of values that Americans and Israelis hold dearest (might I add, to the exclusion of almost all other nations).

Enjoy
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My father’s family fled soviet Russia as refugees in 1975 with nothing more 7 cardboard suitcases to their name. Even as recently as 35 years ago, my father was blatantly insulted in every public building and spit upon on the street, because his identification card read “Jew,” instead of “Russian;” even in the land of his birth he was a foreigner. His story is, for me, just a unique bond to the larger example of Jewish History. The Jewish nation has always been defined by the tightly knit, deep-rooted traditions and ethics that bind every scattered soul to a common heritage and belief. After generations of persecution, it was a mere 61 years ago when physical borders were declared, and—once again—land was dedicated to house our common ancestral values. With values and love, a house becomes a home; and a piece of territory becomes a homeland.

Mark Twain once asked, “All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?” My grandfather always told me, almost in answer to Mr. Twain’s question, that we are lucky if we have but one friend in this lifetime. What defines this profound friendship is a connection on a filial or spousal level; an understanding of, though not exclusively an agreement with, one another’s passions and philosophies which in turn translate into the way each partner, respectively, lives his life. A friend is someone for whom you would ultimately run into a fire.

The secret to the Jews’ immortality is that every death saves another soul, whether physically or spiritually. During the Holocaust, 6 million died in the name of God, to inspire the next generation to act in the name of God and establish a sanctuary of tradition where their deaths would not be forgotten. Since 1948, Israel’s presence has reminded the world of every Jew’s devotion and ardent loyalty to his kinsman, and proven the quintessence of friendship.

“It is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of virtue,” demonstrated John Adams; Jewish history has proven “quality” the victor in his relentless argument with “quantity.” Though we have never numbered a significant population, our footnote in history is undeniable, as we always have a significant impact on the world around us, and we are hated for it. Israel is the manifestation of the strength that Jews possess together, through their spiritual bonds, friendship, common experience, and shared memory. Israel is the land where a man with “Jew” stamped on his passport can feel at home and amongst true friends. In the words of a brave Israeli paratrooper, “reality and legend, dream and deed, all unite here.”

Speech of the Week: Political Correctness Gone Awry

2010-02-11T13:56:00.000-05:00

The video speaks for itself (isn't that the point?). It fits nicely with yesterday's post as well, check it out.

The Fidel Castro Center for the Continued Studies of Why America Sucks vs. FIRE

2010-02-10T14:10:00.001-05:00

Today I do not have my computer, I am snowed in, and I have the flu. To honor my limited mobility and relative disconnection from the world, I took the time to watch a DVD sent by FIRE, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. The stories I saw were examples that would make you wish you had a professor who at least openly argued for his political agenda.

These cases all had in common an egregious disregard for a student's first amendment rights, and a woeful misuse of university power to force kids into compromising their beliefs. Whether it's threatening a student's grades becasue she refuses to send a pro-gay letter to her state representative in Missouri State, or blemishing a student's record with charges of Racial Harrassment for reading a book (about the downfall of the KKK mind you!) in Indiana, these "methods of education" are unjust, unconstitutional, and, in the Indiana State case, just plain stupid.

My message to high school students who insist that a university's "political persuasion" doesn't calculate into their considerations; please rethink your applications. It's one thing to have it out with a liberal proffessor when in the end you know you two can just agree to disagree. But it's an entirely new animal when you are in a university like Delaware State, where the Residential Student Life Department led a mandatory crusade with the explicit goal of "coercing students into accepting its values as truths" through terribly racist programs and activities.

My message to college students who find themselves in these situations; stand up for your principles. It is a student's duty to learn, and a college's duty to expose this student to any and all information available. But students, you do not have to accept all this information as the truth. If your professors can not sway you with their facts and arguments, then either they are wrong (in which case, don't budge) or you are being completely stubborn (in which case, rethink your approach to learning).

I outline this proper educational pattern to the exclusion of all others; if a team of 7 university professors has to assault you in a conference room for 3 hours about your beliefs and threaten your diploma like they did to the poor girl in Missouri State, I suggest a transfer or a lawsuit is in order.

I'm Proud to be an American (?)

2010-02-08T16:40:00.001-05:00

I have just finished going through a lot of footage from the TEA Party Convention in Nashville, and sometimes it's the smallest details that just slap you in the face. Sarah Palin's speech was nothing short of phenomenal; sharp, logical, and inspiring. But more than all her witticisms and gutsy, but true statements (because stating the truth is sadly considered a "gutsy" move nowadays), I was the most struck by her first comment: "I am SO proud to be an American." I can't remember the last time I heard that on TV.

Oh, wait, yes I can. It was when Michelle Obama said "for the first time in my life, today, I am proud to be an American." In all my research her husband has only said that sacred phrase once, immediately followed by "and a citizen of the world." We've elected a proud citizen of the world, not a proud citizen of the United States, so how could we possibly expect him to have our interests in mind?

The idealist Obama subscribes to every culture in an attempt to rectify the United States' personal situation. Looking up to a more successful country, culture, or system is fine, but I challenge you to prove to me with facts that there is something better out there; maybe I just don't see it.

"Perhaps Britain's or Canada's socialized medicine is better than our own system." I'm sure that is exactly why Canadians illegally insure themselves in the USA.

"Well, we have a far way to go when it comes to treating everyone equally; profiling and Wire-Tapping must go." Agreed, lets model ourselves after France with an extra helping of terrorism to boot. Specifically, three times more terrorism on average per year over the last 10 years than we currently have in the US.

"But something has to be done about the violent nature of our military. We need to disarm, and in so doing, hope rest of the world follows." (I apologize, that was rude, I laughed a little when I wrote that.) Quite frankly, mutual disarmament did not work in the Cold War, and it certainly did not work for Countries like Lebanon prior to their forced occupation by Arafat. Finally, before you call our men and women in the field "violent," take a look at this. In all honesty, that is why I laughed.

I am so proud to be an American, and I am not ashamed to say it (!)

Our Brothers in Spirit: Letter to the Editor

2010-02-04T23:53:00.001-05:00

I wrote a letter to the New York Times today regarding an Op-Ed piece published a few days ago. In the event that it gets published, let it be known that you saw it here first.

"On Israel-Palestine, No More of the Same" almost gets it. It correctly ascertains that both Israelis and Palestinians at this point in time are not ready to seriously negotiate, and therefore, trying to force the process seems petty and unreasonable. However, it preaches other avenues of peace, since the ultimate conclusion is that "a solution to the Palestinian question [as] the key to political, economic and social progress elsewhere in the region...is almost certainly an exaggerated notion."

A clearer understanding of Palestinian perpetual victim-hood would help. It is simply a product of the Arab world's abuse of its own displaced people as a political tool for sympathy from the public eye. The Palestinians are the longest lasting "refugee" crises in modern history, and if that problem were to be suddenly solved, the entire Arab world would loose its shield of media sympathy, and their intransigence would become manifestly obvious.

Moral Reletavism for Dummies: Since "Intellectuals" Pretend to Already Understand It

2010-02-03T22:36:00.000-05:00

On a personal level, people inhale facts, and exhale opinion--at least, that is the way it should be. That opinion will presumably turn into an ideal, a standard that governs you, and by which you will eventually be forced to stand when making a judgment call. This is, of course, until more persuasive facts can enlighten you to the contrary.

Let's use the example of a grocery store. When you go shopping, do you buy every item on the shelf? More likely than not you make decisions on which product to buy, which to consider, study, and subsequently put back, and which isles to avoid entirely. Chances are if you are a 16 year old boy like me, you have no need to browse the "newborn" aisle, although I am sure a young married couple might find that aisle very useful.

On a broader scale, since a society's laws are merely a culmination of what all its citizens hold to be moral, the grocery store is a perfect product of American culture and law. It allows each person to make personal decisions about what he wants or does not want without any consequence.

Moral Relativism is the theory that every moral standard has value simply by virtue of its existence. Therefore, it is our "intellectually honest" obligation to accept each standard as equal. My only question is, if all moral standards are equally good, then they are also equally bad. And so, are there really no moral standards at all?

I must therefore contest, and say that any intellectually honest person will earnestly study every culture, and genuinely try to extract every fact available to him from that culture's literature, art, music, people, and religion. Just as upon seeing a product in a supermarket from every perspective one becomes capable of making an informed decision as to its worth to him, America, as a cumulative entity comprised of all those free-thinking individuals, should be able to accept or reject values available on the world market.

However, the one exception to anyone's freedom is if that freedom causes direct harm to others. If a pushy mall-cart salesman trying to sell me mud from the Dead Sea (which, according to his personal testimony, will prevent warts, cancer, and all sorts of malignancy in between), decided to physically assault me in attempt to spread the stuff on my face, I think any sane person (forget intellectual honesty) would knock him flat.

I must continually insist that America as a nation is no different. We accept the right of any culture or nation to coexist equally with ours as every person's unalienable right. However, that unalienable right can be revoked when you cause us, or anyone else harm, although more often than that people simply want to melt into the big pot we call America. Perhaps it is because this country has been the envy of the world since its founding, and do you know why? Quite simply, because its culture is objectively superior. Yes, the country whose values respect your freedom to decide your own values is morally superior.

Intellectuals: Making the Impossible Argument

2010-02-02T22:14:00.000-05:00

Often I am faced with the challenge of keeping my composure as I bang my head against a brick wall of intellectualism. An intellectual, defined herein as someone educated beyond his intelligence, likes to speak from behind an all-purpose shield of superiority, self-assumed by virtue of his extensive objective studies of the subject matter. It reminds me a bit of a TV show I had seen a few years back where a doctor in a hospital patient's nightmare assured him about the surgery he was about to perform by saying "don't worry, I've pretended to do this hundreds of times."

Somehow, a lack of pragmatic knowledge seems discomforting, to say the least, when a field requires complex understanding only achievable through hands-on experience. Yet intellectuals get away with speaking on entirely idealistic terms without specific or concrete examples. These cretins have invaded our society on two distinct, yet co-dependent levels: the cultural, and political.

When it comes down to culture, the intellectual left takes a stand of "multiculturalism." This employs "a warm and fluffy feeling" (see link above) toward every culture without any sound understanding of facts about said culture. I wish I had a nickle for every time someone called me a bigot for defining Islam as a racist, oppressive, and destructive religion despite the facts that I rattle off at a moments notice. This is simply because to intellectuals, Islam's status as another available culture gives its moral standards validity. But that ignorance is explored abundantly in the link provided by Mark Steyn, and I post it as one of the most highly recommended 10 minute videos I have ever watched.

I, however, want to address the malicious intellectuals; specifically the self-professed demigods in Washington who know what is best for the American people, contrary to the Americans' will. William F. Buckley once said, "I would rather be ruled by the first 100 people in the Boston phone book than all the professors at Harvard." That is because practical businessmen on main street would have understood the hazards of loaning out to unqualified people. Harvard professors, however, plagued by idealism that landed them in their profession in the first place, insisted upon it; I guess those that can't do, teach (at Harvard).

Of course I have mentioned before the need for us to rein in our Representatives, but should we really have to? Grover Cleveland famously said "when you elect me, you elect my judgment." But that statement only holds water when the judgment of those you elect is somehow loosely based on the morals and principles that you and your neighbors believe in. Until intellectualism is combated on a cultural level, namely, until multiculturalism ceases to blur the lines of morality by assuming that every moral standard is valid, we can't fight the Harvard professors who take those questionable moral standards to Washington.

Speech of the Week: THIS is a State of the Union Address

2010-02-01T18:04:00.002-05:00

This State of the Union has me at a loss for words. Luckily, I have a video for you here that spares none for President Obama's shamefully two-faced, and whiny speech.

But more importantly, I recycled through some former presidential State of the Union Addresses delivered a year into the respective President's term to see how they compared. I would like to call your attention to George W. Bush's 2002 State of the Union address. Considering all of Bush's "speaking inadequacies," (in comparison to Obama's "oratory prowess") Bush did a marvelous job of delivering what Obama could not.

If you read through the speech or watch the video, you will find no blaming of previous presidents or current members of congress for political or professional shortcomings. It should, however, become manifestly obvious how in-tune the President is with his "fellow Americans." He clearly addresses the problems of the moment, and puts himself on the spot to offer a concrete and detailed solution going forward. He offers explanation for previous action, and finishes off by offering the right kind of hope; one based on action, and faith in independent Americans to do the right thing when called to such action.

Our Brothers in Spirit: A truly Bipartisan Effort

2010-01-29T12:50:00.000-05:00

As some of you may know, I have been working with AIPAC for a short while now, doing whatever I can to promote and strengthen the special relationship our country shares with Israel. The Senate just passed its version of the House's IRPSA (Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act), but I think I will let the email I just got speak for itself below. (Aside, I think this is the only time you will ever see "Dodd" and "Shelby" on the same paper together.)

Have a great weekend.

January 29, 2010

Senate passes Dodd/Shelby Iran Sanctions Bill

Call and Thank Your Senators

Due to your efforts, last night the Senate passed the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2009 (S. 2799) by unanimous consent. The pro-Israel community owes a special debt of gratitude to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Senators Chris Dodd (D-CT), Richard Shelby (R-AL), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), John Kerry (D-MA), John McCain (R-AZ), Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY). The legislation, which contains the major components of both the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act (IRPSA) and the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act (ISEA), seeks to reinforce American diplomacy by dramatically increasing economic pressure on Iran.

Now that the Senate has acted, House and Senate members will meet to reconcile the Senate bill with the House-passed Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act (IRPSA). After their work is completed, the reconciled legislation will go back to the House and Senate for a vote on final passage before it is sent to the President for his signature.

Click here to view the full text of the legislation.

ACTION

Please contact your Senators and thank them for passing the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2009 (S. 2799):

E-MAIL

Click here to send an e-mail to your Senators through AIPAC's Take Action page.

PHONE

Click here to find contact information for your Senators. You will be prompted to enter your zip code. You can also reach your Senators through the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121.
Sample phone script: "I am calling to thank the Senator for supporting the Iran sanctions legislation (S. 2799) authored by Sens. Dodd and Shelby. This vital piece of legislation will send a strong and clear message to Iran as the regime gets closer to acquiring a nuclear weapons capability."
You may have the opportunity to speak with a staff person or leave a message at your Senator’s office. In most cases, the person who answers the phone will listen to your message and take notes, but not engage you in a lengthy conversation.
If you have questions or feedback, please contact Julie Peretz at AIPAC: jperetz@aipac.org or (202) 639-5192.

They Plead Innocent Because We're Ignorant

2010-01-27T19:31:00.000-05:00

I wanted to post it all. But, in the spirit of providing generally original content, and not simply linking you to other conservative sources, I will only ask you to consider watching Glenn Beck's Special: The Holocaust Revolution. No, we're not comparing Obama to Hitler (he is more of Neville Chamberlain, a reference that I will explain in a later post), we are not saying congress wants to wage a mass genocide. It is truly unnecessarily accusatory and exaggerated statements like that, that discredit a very fundamental and obvious link between current government policy, and governing philosophies that kill millions.

Frankly, I've said it before and I'll say it again, America will never accept socialism in any of its guises because we were founded as a remedy to the principles that both our current administration, and the socialist philosophy, hold dear. Taking control of private corporations and institutions (bailout), lowering the standard of competition and productivity (bank regulations), and limiting freedom of speech (consider the way pundits just like Glenn Beck were berated by the White House earlier this year), all sound like they are strait from socialism's playbook. When all your money is gone, and you can't say a word about it, how different is our government from Russia's, China's, Korea's, or Cuba's?

History has a funny way of running the same plays in a new uniform every generation, and we just keep falling for them.

Respect the System, It's the Best We've Got

2010-01-26T21:50:00.000-05:00

I've never heard anyone speak seriously about assassinating the president, but you must admit that during Obama's campaign, and even beyond, there was heightened security concern around the White House. Attribute that to the increase in serious threats if you will. Many blogging-heads linked it directly to the novelty of a black president, and I have even heard some detractors of the President and his policies joke about it. Whichever route you take, even when lighthearted, it brings you back to the same point that I can't believe I have to address; have respect for the system.

The same system that put the president in office has the power to take him out next election cycle if he is not doing a good job, because the system established by our founding fathers for choosing a government works, even if the government we chose chose does not. If we extend that logic a little further, in fact, there is no requirement for us to respect the president. However, the presidency, the conceptual position of a representative whose powers and tenure are limited by the people that chose him, demands respect.

While I concede that the constitutional system is not perfect--it makes room for amendment--it is the best we have. The Supreme Court recently ruled 5-4 in favor of the First Amendment, lifting the election spending restrictions on corporations. This may very well change the face of campaigns. I for one am terrified of the types of advertising unions will put out days before an election, but that is a necessary evil. As distasteful as it is to allow the unions to run amok on the campaign trail, who are we to deprive them of their God given right to free speech?

In the end, The Constitution is not a book of laws, it doesn't create a system by which we are governed. It is a tremendous insight into human psyche, and codifies the self-evident rights of human beings by which we govern ourselves. By that right we elect for ourselves representatives, and so, their position is an extension of our God given freedoms. The office of the president is off limits. The guy sitting in it? He's all yours.

Government BY the People, FOR the People

2010-01-25T21:56:00.002-05:00

There has been a long standing policy in my house called "don't feed the kid unless he is hungry," and I can assure you, nobody's starved yet. My parents took a firm stand on the issue especially when multiple grandmothers, all of whom meant well and knew what was best for me, tried shoveling fried sausage down my throat as the only viable and healthy way to keep me from crying. Perhaps I just needed a diaper change?

This story speaks volumes if you replace "child" with "People of the United State," the "Grandmothers" with "Government," and "fried sausage" with unappetizing, unhealthy, and ineffective government remedies to an entirely unrelated problem. However, there's more to it, because government is more like your employee than grandmother, since no one elected grandma. I personally am not an employer, but I can not imagine that allowing your employees to take over during times of instability is sound business policy.

A new poll by CNN shows that 75% of Americans believe the stimulus was a waste, but when speaking about the Health Care bill, President Obama said ""I . . . know what happens once we get this done. The American people will suddenly learn that this bill does things they like." Well, 63% of people disagree; they think projects on the government's to-do list over the last year were included for purely political reasons. It looks as if we are being undermined by our employees' seeking personal bonuses rather than doing whats in the best interest of the corporation (my, today's post is just full of subtle analogies).

There is a way to get out of our economic rut, there is a proper and practical recession recovery plan. If ultimately the purpose of economic recovery is to help the people, to make sure they get their money and are free to do with it as they please, then the recovery plan should be to reestablish private market stability as fast as possible, and get out. If, however, government is more concerned with filling their treasury and ballot boxes, then they would probably try to create a system of dependency. Perhaps they would start with making sure the corporations are eternally in their debt, and consequently not allowed to function without bureaucratic obstacles at every turn.

The next logical step would then be to charge their expenses to you, their boss. This manifests itself in the form of taxes, and of course you are stuck paying them off for the rest of your life. Compare the taxes to employee pension funds if you so wish to complete the analogy, but the message is the same either way. Be the boss, call up your Representative or Senator, and remind them that they are here to represent us, not rule us.

We're Going About this All Wrong

2010-01-22T15:29:00.000-05:00

"Government's view of the economy can be summed up in a few short phrases: if it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
-Ronald Reagan

Next week I will try to explore President Obama's currently proposed bank regulations, their historical precedents, political and economic ramifications, and of course, why you should care.

Have a great weekend.

It's not You...It's Your Policies

2010-01-21T18:07:00.000-05:00

I promised to discuss the ramifications of Brown's election, and I want to do so by responding publicly to a question that I am often faced with. After hearing me talk for a little bit, or reading my blog, people often ask me, "so you're a Republican, right?" And I have to respond, no.

I am not old enough to vote, and therefore cannot be registered for any political party. Furthermore, my blog especially is very specifically about conservative values that this country and I hold dear. Because, quite frankly, I'm helpless when it comes to putting my words into the most basic form of political action; namely, despite my best efforts I still cannot vote for those candidates whose ideas and governing philosophy match mine most closely.

But therein lies the key to electing a government. Rarely will you ever find a candidate for office whose platform you agree with entirely, and how much more likely are you then to agree with an entire party full of such candidates? Our ballot system was reformed over 100 years ago to make sure no one had to vote on party lines, rather, it provides you with the opportunity and privacy to elect the individual candidates that represent your ideals most closely.

So, if we've learned one campaign lesson from the Massachusetts upheaval two days ago, it's that people vote on the issues, and the candidate, not on the party, advertising, or endorsements. Coakley had every luxury in the world of campaigns: she was a democrat in her own state, the natural successor to Kennedy in his state, and had personal endorsements from the President. But when put up against the simple issue that the vast majority of the electorate did not want socialized health care, she was out of luck.

22% of Democrats ended up voting for Brown, and the President was only able to gather a crowd of 1,700 in Boston (I'll repeat it for emphasis...IN BOSTON). If this is not a foreshadow for 2010, I don't know what is.

Competition in the American Style

2010-01-20T21:51:00.000-05:00

Brown just won in Massachusetts, but you know that already. In one of the most crucial and surprising elections perhaps of the last 32 years (I am thinking of a similar race and outcome in 1978), the man with a clear disadvantage won because at first he thought he couldn't, so he worked harder, ran an immaculate campaign, and won.

The political and cultural implications of this election are clear, and I will most likely try to present them to you in the future in a way that many other bloggers have not already done. But I have a still open wound today from loosing a Mock Trial match, and I want to talk about a much broader cultural topic.

The message here is simple. Coakley thought that as a Democrat in a Democrat state she was naturally entitled to Kennedy's seat. Brown, expecting nothing, ran a consistently strong campaign, and came out with victory. I've said it time and again, there are no such things as "birthrights" in America besides for those unalienable ones enumerated in the constitution.

While this election proved that hard work does result in success, sometimes forces beyond your control interfere. My mock trial team worked hard, each person personally dedicating chunks of his personal life to his role. But we lost after a significant undefeated streak, and all we can do is say thank you for letting us play. America is the land of opportunity, not necessarily success.

Coakley's campaign manager leaked a statement that "the integrity of this election is in question." Her supporters, like Senator John Kerry, are blaming the loss on voter fraud, and Brown's campaign "bullying." Grow up, and take a lesson from my High School Mock Trial team; all we can say, is thank you for letting us play.

Speech of the Week: It Just Doesn't Work

2010-01-19T09:36:00.000-05:00

In line with our topic for the last couple of posts, here is this week's speech. You will hear it from the Man himself, Milton Friedman, that capitalism is simply the best way to go. A Nobel Prize Laureate, his policies and ideas were adopted primarily during the Reagan administration and catapulted this country into prosperity after the tremendous inflation and recession of the 1970's.

Give Us Some Credit

2010-01-18T10:29:00.000-05:00

I have heard many like-minded conservatives in awe at how the American people could allow the Obama Administration's policies to happen, but Norman Thomas once said "the American people would never vote for socialism, but under the name of Liberalism they would adopt every fragment of the Socialist program."

We made a mistake and bought the bailouts under the guise of "stimulating capitalism" and health care reform under the guise of "righteous humanitarianism." Give us some credit; the people that proposed these reforms and bills are bailing Liberalism's sinking ship left and right because we, the American people, are starting to call them out on what they really are--Socialists.

Why will America never accept socialism, as Norman Thomas, a long-time leader of the American Socialist Movement said? Because we are smarter than that, and because our values are founded in the "pursuit of happiness." By definition pursuit requires effort, while socialism demands entitlement.

Liberals as they are defined today would trace their roots back to Teddy Roosevelt, the man who instituted powerful government supervision of the economy and reformed social standards through government policy. But there is a difference between Teddy's necessary intervention for the sake of the free market to continue and the current administration's attempt at redistribution of wealth to ultimately fudge statistics connoting prosperity.

Furthermore, how dare they imply that Teddy Roosevelt condoned the dependency and inactivity that socialism results in. Was he not the one who said "the best prize life can offer is the chance to work hard at work worth doing?" That is a strictly, and inherently American ideal.

Speaking of the Devil...

2010-01-15T12:24:00.000-05:00

The last post, the Winston Churchill quote, was a preemptive strike against something exactly like this: a New York Times Editorial piece entitled “Tax Them Both” which endorses, almost to the point of begging, Government’s additional taxes. The justification for this is “to recover the 120 billion$ stimulus package,” and to “discourage big banks from getting even bigger.”

Now, I am no economist, and there are many far more qualified than I to explain the technicalities of how “taxing yourself into prosperity” simply does not work. But I can offer historical perspective. Once that has you ripping your hair out in frustration with the administration, I can demonstrate how that same history offers consolation as well. So, fear not.

Let us break down what the New York Times Editorial Board is suggesting the best way to accomplish its aforementioned goals. First, a huge tax on bailed-out-bankers’ (I think I will call them B.O.Bs in future posts) bonuses. Second, “a permanent tax or fee imposed on the nation’s biggest banks.”

Well, yes, and no. Common sense and courtesy would dictate that a leader, who is more concerned for his own wallet than for the general good of the people he runs, is not fit to lead. When you are being bailed out and standing on someone else’s legs, you do not take bonuses for yourself. In that sense, the taxes are not enough. If the government took the fateful step and essentially decided to support failing institutions (let us not cry over spilled milk) then bonuses for the people that ruined that company should be outright forbidden until the company has freed itself of government debt.

As for the latter suggestion of a permanent tax, it is a big “no.” The origins of modern, heavy-handed Government intervention in the free market can be traced to Teddy Roosevelt, but blamed on those Presidents that succeeded him and blew his policy up to an outrageous scale. Teddy was a “trustbuster,” an enemy of Big Business because Big Business stifled competition. He opposed the machine that stifled the free market trying to make sure that what happened in our current recession would never happen; namely, the banks would get too certain of their own security and their reckless pursuit of profit would freeze credit.

Next came Howard Taft. In 1907 the market had crashed, and was bailed out by J.P. Morgan's U.S. Steel Corporation, a private company that was allowed by Teddy Roosevelt to buy up bankrupt companies like The Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Company. This was a grand-scale acquisition that bolstered the market, and promoted free trade because those formerly bankrupt companies were not in debt to the government, but they could still exist as entities within a larger corporation. When Taft became President, he took U.S. Steel to Court over it, because “big is big, and big is bad.” Throughout his term, Taft simply struck out at over 80 “big” corporations, ignoring their productive contribution to a now stable economy.

I must contest that the current administration is neither as correct as Teddy, nor ignorantly righteous as Taft. Rather, the New York Times seems to have quite an insight when it says “the treasury needs the money.” It sure does, and it’s going to take it in the form of taxes under the guise of “righteous” market regulation.

Relax, I promised I would offer consolation, but it seems this post is long as is. For now I will leave you ripping your hair out in frustration with the hope that you are not completely bald by the time I get back to you with the good news.

Churchill Strikes Again

2010-01-13T09:34:00.001-05:00

"I contend that for a country to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handles."
-Winston Churchill

Without citing debatable statistics and numbers, Churchill's witticism is profound and universal, if not just a funny image.

I will try to throw some comic relief like this into the mix of all the longer posts.
Stay tuned, comment, and pass on the message.

Thank You

Our Brothers in Spirit: A Personal Story

2010-01-12T09:54:00.000-05:00

I thought I would kick off this series with a personal philosophy rather than technical issues. I assure you there will plenty of those to talk about in the near future. But for this to make any sense, you need to learn a bit about me.

I am an orthodox Jewish young man who was born and raised in America. The time has come for me to choose a college, and in so doing, essentially begin choosing the path I want my life to take. With the support of my parents, I have made it clear since a young age that wherever my adult life takes me, it will always begin with fulfilling my civic duty in the American Army. I do not know whether that ideal will manifest itself in an academy, reserves, or even lifetime service, but I do know it is a necessity.

Usually at this point in the narrative a face opposite mine will begin to change. If I look carefully at the person I am talking to right about now, I can follow the invariable pattern of how his smile suddenly drops, then his eyes squint up, and his ears move to the back of his head. Once he is sure he heard me correctly, the exasperated and utterly confused response is "why is nice Jewish boy going into the American Army? You're too smart for the army, and if you must go, then at least go to the Israelis! Because what if at one point in your life you have to choose?"

That, there expresses the core of liberal Jewish Anti-American, Anti-Military sentiment. I will try to kill this flock of birds with a rather small stone.

The army as a concept is not for idiots. The American Army is the strongest fighting force in the world, even though it is strictly a volunteer force. Because bright men and women for various personal reasons feel the need to serve and defend this country's citizens, borders, and values we are able to exist as the hub for providence and liberty. Could we be this successful at doing so if we were stupid?

My personal reason for wanting to join is not very different. I am the son of an immigrant father, military mother, neither of which is stupid in the least. I am close enough in a generational sense to the other side of the Iron Curtain to be living in an environment that values the liberties this country has to offer. Because God knows, "freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction."

In that statement lies the basis for the answer to that falsely profound question..."well what if one day you had to choose?" That day will never come. It is my civic duty to fight for the American ideals and values, to make sure they are never lost in a world hostile to freedom. Israel is our one and only ally in the Middle East, our greatest ally in the UN, and our strong military supporter. They are a station for freedom roughly the size of New Jersey amidst almost an entire continent of totalitarianism. And yet, they keep up the fight.

In other words, as long as Israel's values match America's, and those values match my own, I will never have to choose.

Legalize the Constitution: Decriminalizing Terrorism

2010-01-11T11:10:00.000-05:00

It sounds crazy to say that George Bush and his CIA planned the 9/11 tragic murder of 3,000 people. But we have reached a tragic point where it is NOT OK to admit we have an enemy who attacked us, it is NOT OK to treat the a conflict with an attacker as a war, and it is NOT OK to refer to that attacker by name and title for fear of insulting him. Have we fallen to the point where that no longer sounds crazy to us?

In the Declaration of Independence we spelled out King George's unjust tyranny and enumerated the 27 things he did that we did not agree with. We proceeded to fight that injustice wholeheartedly, then concluded with victory, and freedom. And would you look at that? Great Britain is one of our closest allies in 2010, we work together without any mention of grievance from their shore, or remorse from ours, regarding a war we once fought.

If we could learn again to call a spade, a spade, then we could bury our problems. The conflict we face right now is with Islamic Terrorism. No, I must rephrase. The war we face right now is against Islamic Terrorism. Yet, the Obama administration denies the physical threat they posed and still pose by trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the 9/11 mastermind of an attack on our country from an outside source, in New York City's criminal court. Calling Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab the Christmas Crotch Bomber is a cutesy way of brushing aside evidence of his premeditated terrorist attempt, radical, hostile, anti-American Sentiment, clear connection to Al-Qaeda, and influence by radicals like Anwar al-Awlaki.

Speaking of the devil, Anwar al-Awlaki is the "Bin-Laden of the internet." He is a public recruiter for Al-Qaeda and its factions, and his radical, hostile, Islamic sermons have been attended by three of the four 9/11 hijackers as well as the Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Malik Hassan (who was, by the way, praised for his actions by Al-Awlaki on his Facebook Page later that day).

I am starting to sense a pattern here, and I've only touched the tip of the iceberg. These are not "isolated incidents of extremism" as the Obama administration would like you to believe, they are premeditated, organized, and interconnected acts of war. But we can't fight back. In fact, the Obama administration only sent 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, 20,000 fewer than requested and needed. He also set a clear date for withdrawal, announcing to the enemy "if you hold out until July 2011, our hands will be tied."

I have a video for you here regarding the name calling. If we cannot admit we have an enemy, we cannot say who they are, and if we can't identify them, then how can we fight them?
Hiding our heads in the sand only leaves our rears up in the air and exposed for a kicking.

Speech of the Week

2010-01-08T08:51:00.000-05:00

The first speech of the week...well...it speaks for itself. The Great Communicator is speaking directly to you, or at least it seems so.
Enjoy.

Why Should I Worry? Why Should I Care?

2010-01-07T10:40:00.001-05:00

I got an email last night from a friend congratulating me on undertaking the challenge (and addiction) of blogging. He suggested though "if you are going to blog, why not blog about something kids actually care about?" Late on in the correspondence he sent me a profound, and admittedly upsetting joke; "this isn't even American culture. American culture is to not care about what's going on around you."

Well, I will try to kill two birds with one stone. The fact that after only one day of being up the blog is already getting emails means kids ARE interested in American politics and culture. Furthermore, if you would like to see statistics as proof of revolutionary "Tea Party Youth" movement, kids that are aligning themselves more and more with conservative philosophy, please see yesterday's post.

I could of course give the generic diagnosis. Explain that which any intellectually honest young adult already knows: we are this country's future, we are the ones who will ultimately be responsible for its survival or destruction. It is never "too early" to start taking our lives into our own hands and at least think about what we want to accomplish.

But the deeper reason...is not so much different. Inherent within any American is the conviction, or at least the desire for freedom--freedom to do what we want with our money, our voice, and our actions. If you only knew how those liberties are threatened today, you would all be up in arms.

Let's get Specific: Who Recognizes this picture?
It was taken at a Tea Party in Washington DC by Peter Tamburro III, and it's a lighthearted rendering of a very real threat, not just to your wallet but to your freedom. For the rest of your life you will be trying to pay off a
200,000,000,000,000$ government debt, most of which has been accrued in the last year. The Healthcare Bill alone will cost you about 6 trillion dollars over the next 10 years.

If we are just speaking practically, all damage to culture and tradition aside, the proposed new taxes and fines set on the American people to support government policy are binding enough to be called a restraint of Liberty, and crippling enough to be cause for concern, at the very least.

Let's Jump Right In

2010-01-06T11:28:00.000-05:00

I have two links for you today. One, is New York Times Op-Ed written by David Brooks, and in the second I have found a perfect response; enjoy Bill Whittles "Afterburner" video. David Brooks' article is about us, "The Tea Party Youth," except, he is personally "not a fan of this movement." He is bewildered by the American Youth's gradual movement to the right and their lack of faith in the big-brother government that pretends to support them and their future. Bill Whittle responds appropriately, and the video almost moved me to tears. It's an analysis of American culture and mentality.

Mr. Whittle explains that a liberal America is a backward-looking defeatist America. What the left would have us accept right now is that they have secured our dependency on their health care, social security, welfare, and various other benefit programs so much so that we can not vote them out of office in 2010 for fear of loosing the benefits. The Tea Party Youth are here to prove them wrong. Only 25% of Americans now believe that big government is still looking out for the people's best interest, and in a sense that makes me happy. Because our nation is 75% correct; its a passing grade.

Please take a look at the two links provided, Mr. Whittle sets the tone for the coming year; an optimistic, yet realistic goal. Lets take back our country the way our we did at Boston Harbor that one night...we can be "The Tea Party Youth."

Oh, for your enjoyment I have included a comment I found on Mr. Whittle's video, to which I responded.

"Has anyone noticed the specific irony of this idiot celebrating the World's Fair, an exhibition specifically designed to celebrate the diversity of world culture, and then minutes later decrying liberalism and political correctness, the very same principles that the World's Fair was seeking to reinforce? Silly really. The negativity he speaks of is of his own and like minded people's making. I'm glad I am not burdened with the mind-numbing negativity of the right, which this video so aptly expresses while simultaneously and disengenuously pretending to refutre."

My Reply: "The Worlds Fair is a free market place for each country to bring its ideas to the table, the best of what it has to offer. Whether it be a technological discovery, or philosophical innovation, America can and should choose to filter what products it likes and does not like. Like any shopper, America is not required to buy every piece of crap on the table at the World's Fair.

That being said, I am not quite sure where you get off saying the World's Fair promotes "Liberalism," in the sense that you mean it. Because as I understand it, Liberalism stifles creativity and innovation. Again, the World's Fair is a market place for every country to sell it's "pride and joy." Much of it may be crap, as in the free market. But there are ALWAYS a few gems, and those gems change history. That is how a free market works my friend."