We're winning because the Iraqis want us to--Moqtada al-Sadr included.
By Bartle Bull
Wednesday, October 3, 2007 12:01 a.m.
The war in Iraq was always going to be won by the Iraqis, and so it has proven. But the Iraqis who have won it are on our side.
It was in the spring of 2004--a month or so before I first arrived in Baghdad in a taxi to stay in a small hotel--that the Sunnis launched their disastrous insurgency. Its defeat is becoming ever more clear this autumn as new reports reach us of the patriotic stand of the Anbar tribes, the pacification and nascent prosperity of Fallujah and Ramadi, the isolation of al Qaeda, and the peace overtures of defeated Baathists.
That first season of serious fighting also included the time of the original uprising by the poor Shiites of Iraq, led by Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army. Six times during that fighting I drove with Iraqis through the so-called Death Triangle of Sunni towns south of Baghdad to cover the events in Najaf. Surrounded on the highway by pickup trucks carrying chanting Mahdi Army fighters and caskets bearing the dead from the Sadr City fighting, one would see the green and black flags of the Shiite saints atop houses and feel safe.
Why did it feel so good to see those Shiite flags? Why was the Death Triangle so lethal? What on earth were the Mahdi fighters doing trying to fight the U.S. Marines and Cavalry head-on in pitched battles?
The last three years in Iraq have evolved as the answers to those questions suggested they would. The leaning, rag-like Shiite flags were good news because it was Sunnis, not Shiites, who beheaded people. Islamic violence in Iraq was then as now a phenomenon of the Wahhabis--Sunni fundamentalists. The Sunnis also did the kidnapping, and were the ones behind the car bombs that targeted random civilians.
The Death Triangle was so bad because the Baathists who lived there, angry to have lost their apartheid privileges, desperate for the chaos that might derail the new project, would sell you to the Wahhabis, who would cut your head off to make good TV to erode the will to fight the chaos. The Mahdi fighters were dying not because their leaders thought they could beat the Americans in battle, for their leaders were too clever to think that, but to earn Mr. Sadr his nationalist credentials as the only important Iraqi--Shiite or otherwise--to stand up and fight the Americans.
Mr. Sadr's eyes, we learned at Najaf, were on domestic politics. It was clear then that his skinny men with their pickup trucks and light arms, men who on that road down from Baghdad were as scared as I was of the Sunni minorities, lacked the muscle to take over the country. Domestic politics for Mr. Sadr could never mean the whole cake, but only as much of it as he could grab. If he was as rational as his success in pushing the Americans to the very brink of his destruction--but never beyond it--in both of his two rebellions indicated he was, the ballot box, promised for 2005, would be where he fought his next battles.
These outlines of Iraqi politics duly asserted themselves over the last three years, providing the basis for the victory that is happening today. The Baathist Sunnis continued to kill to get back what they used to have, until accepting this past summer that they had suffered an historic defeat in a Battle of Baghdad of their own calamitous making. Shiite Iraq has arrived to stay, and today the drawing rooms of Baghdad's dealmakers are full of Baathists, cap in hand, terrified of the Shiite death squads they inspired and hungry for their slice of the coming oil pie. Meanwhile the Wahhabis, mostly foreigners, answering to a higher power and blind to selfish thoughts of wealth and survival, continue to kill but find themselves increasingly unwanted.
A third element of the Sunni violence was tribal. This was particularly prevalent in Anbar province in western Iraq, where Sunni tribes have traditionally prospered from banditry on the Damascus road. Fighting outsiders is an old habit in Iraq's Sunni bandit country. So is making money, and Anbar today, as Iraqis prepare to gorge themselves at the oil trough, is one of the safer places in Iraq.
It was always clear that Iraq's Sunni tribes would eventually take up arms against the Saudis, Jordanians and Syrians in their midst who were banning smoking, killing whisky vendors, blowing up their utilities and oil infrastructure, executing sheikhs of ancient tribes, and forcibly marrying local girls to "emirs" of the absurd Islamic State of Iraq. Anbar's tribal leaders and Baathists were going to be bought off eventually, either directly or by the indirect promise of owning a chunk of what will be a very rich country.
At least 14,000 Anbari young men have joined the state security services since the surge began in February and Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, started reaching out to the chiefs. Now the insurgency has decamped to other provinces, where it does not want to be. Beating them there will be even easier, as is proving to be the case in Diyala.
As for Mr. Sadr, I reported the first hints of his democratic conversion in 2004 when a member of his top political committee told me Mr. Sadr was going to start a political party and contest the elections when they came. He still has not formed such a party, but as I saw up close when I later spent five weeks of the December 2005 election period embedded in Sadr City with his Mahdi Army, he embraced electoral politics with subtlety and enthusiasm.
Of course he did: He is the leader of the country's biggest popular movement. Today, controlling five major ministries and about 30 members of Parliament (one of the two largest blocs in the government) he underwrites the pluralist project in Iraq as he has done since late 2004.
So--with the Sunni insurgency defeated, the Shiite nationalists inside the government, breakup and true civil war avoided, Iran a pest at worst, regional sectarian disruption a fantasy and a White House that will not be forced into declarations of defeat by three IEDs a day--the main questions of Iraqi politics have been resolved. Despite the huge prices paid for these victories, the resolutions have mostly been for the best.
Violence continues in Iraq, but it is mostly local: revenge cycles, factionalism, crime, brutal neighborhood power plays. And it is declining. Iraqi civilian deaths in September, like U.S. military deaths, had halved since their highs earlier this year. By December they will be much lower.
Meanwhile reconciliation, which will never be complete, is happening. We saw, with the huge success of the two 2005 elections and the week-long nationwide celebrations attending the soccer victory this July, that deep unities have survived the 35-year Baath nightmare. The Kurds and Shiites can be forgiven for not wanting to reward the Sunnis immediately for the destructive insurgency that followed those 35 years of apartheid and genocide.
But from the local level to the national, the huge majority of Iraqis are showing enormous tolerance. Federal money is being pumped into Anbar, and in Baghdad this year over 30 Sunni mosques have been reopened by the government, mostly in the mainly Shiite east of the city. Today the Mahdi Army and the Sunni tribes in the Death Triangle are negotiating a modus vivendi. Sheikh Fawaz al Gerba, a Sunni sheikh and former general, is doing the same around Mosul. And Shiekh Harith al Dari, as head of the Association of Islamic Scholars, the leading Sunni group, which many Iraqis used to call the Association of Islamic Kidnappers, is doing it with Shiites in various parts of the country.
The biggest unifier of all currently might be the most predictable one. Help from foreigners is welcome in Iraq. The country's elected prime minister, possessing after Iraq's heroic elections more popular legitimacy than almost any leader in the world, often points out that the Coalition is there as invited guests. When the U.S. Senate passed its disingenuous "plan" for extreme federalism in Iraq last week, the uproar in the country crossed the sectarian divide. Iraq already has a constitution. It was written by freely elected Iraqis and ratified overwhelmingly by the public in a brave vote two years ago.
Thousands of Americans and their allies have died helping to give Iraqis this opportunity. We have shown enormous skill and bravery in helping them fight their enemies, and immeasurable goodwill in sending our young men to protect Iraqi schools, mosques and polling booths. The reason we and Iraqis are winning this war together is that its purpose is to give Iraqis what they want.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Columbia's Bollinger Meant Well; Liberals Often Do
By Dennis Prager
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
The president of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, really gave it to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He really did. He called Ahmadinejad a "petty and cruel dictator" and many other harsh names. All richly deserved. And it is likely that President Bollinger felt that he had done a good thing.
In fact, however, as many of us predicted, it was Ahmadinejad who won. The very moment the Iranian Holocaust-denier was given a university platform, he won. Even the deserved insults gave Ahmadinejad a victory. Most people do not like their leaders publicly insulted abroad, even if they agree with most of the insults. I thought little of President Bill Clinton, but if a foreign university president had invited him for a speech and insulted him -- even if I agreed with the content of the insults -- I would have been offended as an American. And Iranians are more nationalistic and place more emphasis on saving face.
It is not difficult to imagine how the average Iranian viewed Ahmadinejad's visit to America. Not only the average Iranian: According to Mohsen Mirdamadi, one of Iran's leading reformist politicians, "The blistering speech against Ahmadinejad only strengthened him back home and made his radical supporters more determined."
But this does not matter to Lee Bollinger and his liberal defenders. What matters to them is feeling good -- feeling good about demonstrating Columbia's commitment to freedom of speech (if an invitation to speak at Columbia is a function of freedom of speech, such freedom rarely applies to conservative speakers), and feeling good about criticizing Ahmadinejad. Contemporary liberalism is about feelings, from compassion as the basis of social policy to the promotion of the self-esteem movement.
He and his supporters are mistaken, however.
In case it is not obvious how damaging Columbia's invitation to Ahmadinejad was, ask yourself whether inviting any other Holocaust-denier to Columbia would have been a good or bad idea. The answer is so clear that it may take an Ivy League Ph.D. to miss it. The net result of Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia University was to render Holocaust-denial a little more respectable -- "more research on the Holocaust" will make sense to some people; and that's all Ahmadinejad and other Holocaust-deniers say they are asking for. So, too, the elimination of Israel seemed slightly more respectable -- just let all Palestinians vote on its future.
Why, then, did Columbia extend the invitation and why did so many liberals -- such as the New York Times and Los Angeles Times -- laud the invitation?
For two reasons.
First, because liberals judge social policies largely on the basis of how they feel rather than how policies actually play out in real life. It felt good to show how committed liberal universities are to freedom of speech and it felt good (for some on the left) to give Ahmadinejad hell.
Second, because today's liberals are, by definition, naive about evil. Since the Vietnam War, the American left, including liberals, have been naive about evil, just as the European left became naive about evil after World War I.
That is why there was universal liberal editorial condemnation of President Ronald Reagan for calling the Soviet Union an "evil empire." That is why there was universal liberal editorial condemnation of Israel for destroying Saddam Hussein's Osirak nuclear facility. That is why prominent liberals -- with no exception of which I am aware -- all condemned President George W. Bush's use of the term "Axis of Evil" to characterize the regimes of Iran, North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
In a nutshell, Columbia invited a Holocaust-denying, homosexual-executing, women-suppressing, genocide-advocating, terrorist-supporting national leader because its president is the quintessential liberal. He is a man with many good intentions who, like other liberals, judges policies primarily by intentions, and liberals know that their intentions are noble (that's why they rarely acknowledge that conservatives can be good people).
But intentions matter little in policy making. Wisdom matters infinitely more. And there is little wisdom on the left.
There is little wisdom not only regarding evil, but regarding taxation, the size of government, illegal immigration, the effects of affirmative action on blacks, bilingual education, male-female differences, boys' needs, high school textbooks (revised in the name of multiculturalism), reasons for violent crime and terror (unemployment and poverty rather than awful values), the promotion of self-esteem in schools, early sex education, early withdrawal from Iraq, and just about every other major social issue.
In each case, just as in the disastrous invitation to Ahmadinejad, liberals feel good about their intentions and therefore about their decisions. But few, if any, of those decisions are wise. This is not surprising. A generation whose primary goals have included overthrowing Judeo-Christian values, which once said, "Don't trust anyone over 30," and which has rejected external moral authority (God, parents, teachers, religion) is not going to be wise. And absence of wisdom is why Columbia University and the New York Times thought inviting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was a good idea.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
The president of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, really gave it to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He really did. He called Ahmadinejad a "petty and cruel dictator" and many other harsh names. All richly deserved. And it is likely that President Bollinger felt that he had done a good thing.
In fact, however, as many of us predicted, it was Ahmadinejad who won. The very moment the Iranian Holocaust-denier was given a university platform, he won. Even the deserved insults gave Ahmadinejad a victory. Most people do not like their leaders publicly insulted abroad, even if they agree with most of the insults. I thought little of President Bill Clinton, but if a foreign university president had invited him for a speech and insulted him -- even if I agreed with the content of the insults -- I would have been offended as an American. And Iranians are more nationalistic and place more emphasis on saving face.
It is not difficult to imagine how the average Iranian viewed Ahmadinejad's visit to America. Not only the average Iranian: According to Mohsen Mirdamadi, one of Iran's leading reformist politicians, "The blistering speech against Ahmadinejad only strengthened him back home and made his radical supporters more determined."
But this does not matter to Lee Bollinger and his liberal defenders. What matters to them is feeling good -- feeling good about demonstrating Columbia's commitment to freedom of speech (if an invitation to speak at Columbia is a function of freedom of speech, such freedom rarely applies to conservative speakers), and feeling good about criticizing Ahmadinejad. Contemporary liberalism is about feelings, from compassion as the basis of social policy to the promotion of the self-esteem movement.
He and his supporters are mistaken, however.
In case it is not obvious how damaging Columbia's invitation to Ahmadinejad was, ask yourself whether inviting any other Holocaust-denier to Columbia would have been a good or bad idea. The answer is so clear that it may take an Ivy League Ph.D. to miss it. The net result of Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia University was to render Holocaust-denial a little more respectable -- "more research on the Holocaust" will make sense to some people; and that's all Ahmadinejad and other Holocaust-deniers say they are asking for. So, too, the elimination of Israel seemed slightly more respectable -- just let all Palestinians vote on its future.
Why, then, did Columbia extend the invitation and why did so many liberals -- such as the New York Times and Los Angeles Times -- laud the invitation?
For two reasons.
First, because liberals judge social policies largely on the basis of how they feel rather than how policies actually play out in real life. It felt good to show how committed liberal universities are to freedom of speech and it felt good (for some on the left) to give Ahmadinejad hell.
Second, because today's liberals are, by definition, naive about evil. Since the Vietnam War, the American left, including liberals, have been naive about evil, just as the European left became naive about evil after World War I.
That is why there was universal liberal editorial condemnation of President Ronald Reagan for calling the Soviet Union an "evil empire." That is why there was universal liberal editorial condemnation of Israel for destroying Saddam Hussein's Osirak nuclear facility. That is why prominent liberals -- with no exception of which I am aware -- all condemned President George W. Bush's use of the term "Axis of Evil" to characterize the regimes of Iran, North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
In a nutshell, Columbia invited a Holocaust-denying, homosexual-executing, women-suppressing, genocide-advocating, terrorist-supporting national leader because its president is the quintessential liberal. He is a man with many good intentions who, like other liberals, judges policies primarily by intentions, and liberals know that their intentions are noble (that's why they rarely acknowledge that conservatives can be good people).
But intentions matter little in policy making. Wisdom matters infinitely more. And there is little wisdom on the left.
There is little wisdom not only regarding evil, but regarding taxation, the size of government, illegal immigration, the effects of affirmative action on blacks, bilingual education, male-female differences, boys' needs, high school textbooks (revised in the name of multiculturalism), reasons for violent crime and terror (unemployment and poverty rather than awful values), the promotion of self-esteem in schools, early sex education, early withdrawal from Iraq, and just about every other major social issue.
In each case, just as in the disastrous invitation to Ahmadinejad, liberals feel good about their intentions and therefore about their decisions. But few, if any, of those decisions are wise. This is not surprising. A generation whose primary goals have included overthrowing Judeo-Christian values, which once said, "Don't trust anyone over 30," and which has rejected external moral authority (God, parents, teachers, religion) is not going to be wise. And absence of wisdom is why Columbia University and the New York Times thought inviting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was a good idea.
Marine Hero: The 5 Things I Saw that Make Me Support the War
By Marco Martinez
Monday, October 1, 2007
Liberals often like to say that "violence is senseless."
That’s wrong.
Violence isn't senseless. Senseless violence is senseless. And I should know. Before being awarded the Navy Cross and having the privilege of becoming a Marine, I was a gang member. Sometimes it takes having used violence for both evil as well as good to know that there's a profound moral difference between the two.
People often ask me whether I still support the war. I never hesitate when answering: "Absolutely I support completing the mission," I tell them, "Now more than ever."
I was honored to have been given the opportunity to fight in Iraq on our country’s behalf. And it was that experience—and five things I saw firsthand—that illustrate the foolishness of those who would equate American military power to that used by thugs and tyrants.
1. Mass Graves
I was part of a group that was tasked with guarding Saddam’s mass graves. And let me tell you something: anyone who could look straight down into those huge holes at the skeletons and remains and see what that monster did to 300,000 of his own people would have no doubt that we did the right thing in removing him from power. Saddam’s henchmen would tie two people together, some with babies in their arms, stand them at the crater’s edge, and then shoot one of the people in the head, relying on the weight of the dead body to drag them both into the hole. This would save on rounds and also ensure that both people died, one from a gunshot, the other by being buried alive.
2. Tongue-less Man
You never know how precious freedom of speech is until you meet somehow who has had it taken from them—literally taken from them. During a patrol we came upon two hungry Iraqi men scavenging for food. When our translator began speaking with the men I noticed that one of them had a stub for a tongue. Through the translator we learned that the tongue-less man had spoken against the regime and that Saddam’s henchmen had severed his tongue. Saddam had quite literally removed the man’s freedom of speech.
3. Adrenaline-Fueled Fedayeen Saddam
I couldn't for the life of me understand why the ninja costume-wearing terrorists we encountered in a series of hellish firefights just wouldn’t go down—even after being shot. Once my fire team and I cleared a terrorist-filled house in a close quarters shootout, I saw dead bodies all around the kitchen. I looked up at the countertops. Scattered everywhere were vials of adrenaline, syringes, and khat (pronounced "cot"), a drug similar to PCP that gives users a surge of energy and strength. That’s when we realized that our zombie-like attackers were zealots who came to fight and die.
4. Human Experiment Pictures
I still can’t shake the pictures out of my head. We discovered them inside a strange laboratory we found inside a Special Republican Guard barracks that had been plunked down inside an amusement park. When I cracked open the photo album, my jaw dropped. There in front of me were the most horrifying images of experiments being performed on newborn and infant children. Picture after picture, page after page, the binder was filled with the most extreme deformities and experimental mutations one could imagine. One baby had an eye that was shifted toward the middle of its head. We turned the books over to our lieutenant as valuable pieces of intelligence.
5. Bomb-Making Materials In a Mosque
Well after the invasion we were tasked to conduct city patrols and build rapport with local sheiks and mosque members. On one occasion we revisited a mosque where the sheik had previously been warm and friendly. Yet this time something seemed a little off. As we made our way through the mosque compound, we were told there were certain "praying houses" we weren’t allowed to enter. But when a Marine walked through a side hallway and passed by a door that had been left ajar, he spotted a huge bottle of nitroglycerin and assorted bomb-making materials.
When I think about my gang member past I shudder in shame. But if there was one lesson I learned from my past it is that there is a profound moral difference between using violence to destroy lives and using violence to save lives. Terrorists do the former; soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines do the latter.
Antimilitary liberals need to learn the difference between the two.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Liberals often like to say that "violence is senseless."
That’s wrong.
Violence isn't senseless. Senseless violence is senseless. And I should know. Before being awarded the Navy Cross and having the privilege of becoming a Marine, I was a gang member. Sometimes it takes having used violence for both evil as well as good to know that there's a profound moral difference between the two.
People often ask me whether I still support the war. I never hesitate when answering: "Absolutely I support completing the mission," I tell them, "Now more than ever."
I was honored to have been given the opportunity to fight in Iraq on our country’s behalf. And it was that experience—and five things I saw firsthand—that illustrate the foolishness of those who would equate American military power to that used by thugs and tyrants.
1. Mass Graves
I was part of a group that was tasked with guarding Saddam’s mass graves. And let me tell you something: anyone who could look straight down into those huge holes at the skeletons and remains and see what that monster did to 300,000 of his own people would have no doubt that we did the right thing in removing him from power. Saddam’s henchmen would tie two people together, some with babies in their arms, stand them at the crater’s edge, and then shoot one of the people in the head, relying on the weight of the dead body to drag them both into the hole. This would save on rounds and also ensure that both people died, one from a gunshot, the other by being buried alive.
2. Tongue-less Man
You never know how precious freedom of speech is until you meet somehow who has had it taken from them—literally taken from them. During a patrol we came upon two hungry Iraqi men scavenging for food. When our translator began speaking with the men I noticed that one of them had a stub for a tongue. Through the translator we learned that the tongue-less man had spoken against the regime and that Saddam’s henchmen had severed his tongue. Saddam had quite literally removed the man’s freedom of speech.
3. Adrenaline-Fueled Fedayeen Saddam
I couldn't for the life of me understand why the ninja costume-wearing terrorists we encountered in a series of hellish firefights just wouldn’t go down—even after being shot. Once my fire team and I cleared a terrorist-filled house in a close quarters shootout, I saw dead bodies all around the kitchen. I looked up at the countertops. Scattered everywhere were vials of adrenaline, syringes, and khat (pronounced "cot"), a drug similar to PCP that gives users a surge of energy and strength. That’s when we realized that our zombie-like attackers were zealots who came to fight and die.
4. Human Experiment Pictures
I still can’t shake the pictures out of my head. We discovered them inside a strange laboratory we found inside a Special Republican Guard barracks that had been plunked down inside an amusement park. When I cracked open the photo album, my jaw dropped. There in front of me were the most horrifying images of experiments being performed on newborn and infant children. Picture after picture, page after page, the binder was filled with the most extreme deformities and experimental mutations one could imagine. One baby had an eye that was shifted toward the middle of its head. We turned the books over to our lieutenant as valuable pieces of intelligence.
5. Bomb-Making Materials In a Mosque
Well after the invasion we were tasked to conduct city patrols and build rapport with local sheiks and mosque members. On one occasion we revisited a mosque where the sheik had previously been warm and friendly. Yet this time something seemed a little off. As we made our way through the mosque compound, we were told there were certain "praying houses" we weren’t allowed to enter. But when a Marine walked through a side hallway and passed by a door that had been left ajar, he spotted a huge bottle of nitroglycerin and assorted bomb-making materials.
When I think about my gang member past I shudder in shame. But if there was one lesson I learned from my past it is that there is a profound moral difference between using violence to destroy lives and using violence to save lives. Terrorists do the former; soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines do the latter.
Antimilitary liberals need to learn the difference between the two.
S-CHIP and the Politics of Principle
By Thaddeus McCotter
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Democrats and like-witted pundits claim the S-CHIP reauthorization is a defining issue which will seal the GOP's electoral fate next fall. Unscrupulously using children as props in a soulless script replete with ironic appeals to an apparently socialist Almighty, these Denizens of Governmental Dependence gleefully assert the "politics" of S-CHIP will mask their policy's fiscal irresponsibility and trump Republicans' foundational principles.
If this were the case, the Democrats and their Left-wing smear groups wouldn't be threatening to spend millions to intimidate Republicans into abandoning our core beliefs and over-riding a promised Presidential veto. We must and will resist; and, so doing, we will triumph.
First, the S-CHIP bill (H.R. 976) must be vetoed. This politically motivated bill advances a government run health care system by arbitrarily spending $35 billion over the next five years to expand a social program originally targeted at poor children to now include children and adults in families making over $100,000 a year and people who already possess private health care insurance. In consequence, over 2 million people will be crowded out of their existing private health insurance and ensnared in this social welfare program. Moreover, despite purporting otherwise, this bill ensures many of these new enrollees will also be illegal immigrants, who need only show a valid driver's license to join. (Remember: in some states, most recently New York, one need not prove citizenship to receive a driver's license).
Compounding these problems, the bill refuses to prioritize federal spending and, instead, imposes a regressive tax disproportionately impacting the poor. Even with the new tax hike, the new S-CHIP program is unsustainable beyond 2013 and, thus, is fiscally irresponsible. This insult to the taxpayers is exacerbated when one takes into account the Democrats' Budget Resolution's promise of massive personal tax increases, many of which will be slated to fund S-CHIP or worse in future years.
At its core, then, the S-CHIP debate provides the following stark contrasts between the two parties' guiding principles:
1. Republicans believe Americans are sovereign citizens. Democrats believe Americans are hapless victims.
2. Republicans believe the federal government must serve sovereign Americans. Democrats believe Americans must serve a sovereign federal government.
3. Republicans believe in reducing people's taxes. Democrats believe in raising people's taxes.
4. Republicans believe social programs exist to make poor people self-reliant. Democrats believe social programs exist to make all people state dependents.
5. Republicans want poor people to escape the welfare state. Democrats want all people inside the welfare state.
6. Republicans believe America needs a fiscally sound social safety net that temporarily helps poor people and respects taxpayers. Democrats believe America needs a big government trampoline that permanently traps poor people and impoverishes taxpayers.
7. Republicans believe a social program's success is measured by how many people have escaped from it. Democrats believe a social program's success is measured by how many people have been added to it.
8. Republicans believe government should not use taxpayers' money to unfairly compete against taxpaying businesses. Democrats believe government should use taxpayers' money to unfairly compete against taxpaying businesses.
9. Republicans believe in free enterprise and our citizenry. Democrats believe in the welfare state and its bureaucracy.
If our Republican Party is daunted by the politics of S-CHIP and shrinks from reaffirming its defining principles, social welfare programs will never help poor Americans escape governmental dependence. Instead, the Democrats will continue their push to shackle Americans with a bureaucrat-centered health care system and other insidious forms of governmental dependence; and our Republican Party – the party of the Great Emancipator – will not only lose the next election.
It will lose its soul.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Democrats and like-witted pundits claim the S-CHIP reauthorization is a defining issue which will seal the GOP's electoral fate next fall. Unscrupulously using children as props in a soulless script replete with ironic appeals to an apparently socialist Almighty, these Denizens of Governmental Dependence gleefully assert the "politics" of S-CHIP will mask their policy's fiscal irresponsibility and trump Republicans' foundational principles.
If this were the case, the Democrats and their Left-wing smear groups wouldn't be threatening to spend millions to intimidate Republicans into abandoning our core beliefs and over-riding a promised Presidential veto. We must and will resist; and, so doing, we will triumph.
First, the S-CHIP bill (H.R. 976) must be vetoed. This politically motivated bill advances a government run health care system by arbitrarily spending $35 billion over the next five years to expand a social program originally targeted at poor children to now include children and adults in families making over $100,000 a year and people who already possess private health care insurance. In consequence, over 2 million people will be crowded out of their existing private health insurance and ensnared in this social welfare program. Moreover, despite purporting otherwise, this bill ensures many of these new enrollees will also be illegal immigrants, who need only show a valid driver's license to join. (Remember: in some states, most recently New York, one need not prove citizenship to receive a driver's license).
Compounding these problems, the bill refuses to prioritize federal spending and, instead, imposes a regressive tax disproportionately impacting the poor. Even with the new tax hike, the new S-CHIP program is unsustainable beyond 2013 and, thus, is fiscally irresponsible. This insult to the taxpayers is exacerbated when one takes into account the Democrats' Budget Resolution's promise of massive personal tax increases, many of which will be slated to fund S-CHIP or worse in future years.
At its core, then, the S-CHIP debate provides the following stark contrasts between the two parties' guiding principles:
1. Republicans believe Americans are sovereign citizens. Democrats believe Americans are hapless victims.
2. Republicans believe the federal government must serve sovereign Americans. Democrats believe Americans must serve a sovereign federal government.
3. Republicans believe in reducing people's taxes. Democrats believe in raising people's taxes.
4. Republicans believe social programs exist to make poor people self-reliant. Democrats believe social programs exist to make all people state dependents.
5. Republicans want poor people to escape the welfare state. Democrats want all people inside the welfare state.
6. Republicans believe America needs a fiscally sound social safety net that temporarily helps poor people and respects taxpayers. Democrats believe America needs a big government trampoline that permanently traps poor people and impoverishes taxpayers.
7. Republicans believe a social program's success is measured by how many people have escaped from it. Democrats believe a social program's success is measured by how many people have been added to it.
8. Republicans believe government should not use taxpayers' money to unfairly compete against taxpaying businesses. Democrats believe government should use taxpayers' money to unfairly compete against taxpaying businesses.
9. Republicans believe in free enterprise and our citizenry. Democrats believe in the welfare state and its bureaucracy.
If our Republican Party is daunted by the politics of S-CHIP and shrinks from reaffirming its defining principles, social welfare programs will never help poor Americans escape governmental dependence. Instead, the Democrats will continue their push to shackle Americans with a bureaucrat-centered health care system and other insidious forms of governmental dependence; and our Republican Party – the party of the Great Emancipator – will not only lose the next election.
It will lose its soul.
At War with Being at War
By David Limbaugh
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman must be awfully tired of the global war on terror (GWOT). In his column "9/11 Is Over," he laments that "we've become 'The United States of Fighting Terrorism.' I will not vote for any candidate running on 9/11. We don't need another president of 9/11. We need a president for 9/12."
Alrighty, then. Let's just declare the war over.
Liberals have tried to convince us they are hawks on the GWOT but that they just don't believe Iraq is part of it. They want to go back into Afghanistan with greater force, or perhaps into Pakistan and capture Osama bin Laden, who President Bush "let escape" at Tora Bora.
Many conservatives have long been skeptical about the Democrats' claim to be hawkish on the GWOT. As I've detailed before, Democrats have opposed President Bush at every turn in the GWOT -- not just on Iraq.
They've scoffed at President Bush's moral clarity in depicting the GWOT as a struggle between the forces of good and evil. They've tried to undermine the Patriot Act, which was designed to break down the walls between our intelligence agencies and help us "connect the dots" to prevent future terrorist attacks.
They've opposed -- and exposed for terrorist consumption -- our efforts to track terrorists' finances. They've tried to sabotage our terrorist surveillance program, fraudulently labeling it as "domestic spying," though it has probably saved American lives and might have, had it been in place then, enabled us to prevent 9/11.
They have opposed tough interrogation techniques against suspected terrorists, though some of the methods they've opposed have demonstrably saved American lives. They've accused the Bush administration of systematically torturing enemy prisoners, though such false allegations diminish our image in the world and inflame potential terrorist recruits, which these same liberals profess they want to avoid at all costs. They insist on full-blown constitutional rights for "the worst of the worst" at Gitmo.
In the face of all this evidence, the left says it is better equipped to protect America's national security. Maybe some have even convinced themselves it's true, having temporarily suppressed their inner antiwar demons. But apparently this artificial suppression is too much for some liberals to sustain. Friedman's inner Jane Fonda is now exploding to the surface. He's tired of us acting like we are at war, and he isn't going to take it anymore, reality be damned.
"9/11 has made us stupid," says Friedman. "I honor, and weep for, all those murdered on that day. But our reaction to 9/11 -- mine included -- has knocked America completely out of balance, and it is time to get things right again."
Friedman admits that "we need new precautions, new barriers. But we also need our old habits and sense of openness. Our government has been exporting fear, not hope: 'Give me your tired, your poor and your fingerprints.' You may think Guantanamo Bay is a prison camp in Cuba for Al Qaeda terrorists. A lot of the world thinks it's a place we send visitors who don't give the right answers at immigration."
Well, Tom, if they think so, why don't you use your "paper of record" megaphone to disabuse them of that abominable falsehood? Perhaps it's because you agree with them, since you say, "I will not vote for any candidate who is not committed to dismantling Guantanamo Bay and replacing it with a free field hospital for poor Cubans. Guantanamo Bay is the anti-Statue of Liberty."
Like a good liberal, Friedman expresses no concern for the consequences of closing down Gitmo or for where these violent murderers will be transferred. Practicality doesn't matter. He just wants the war to be over.
"We need a president who will unite us around a common purpose, not a common enemy," says Friedman. "Al Qaeda is about 9/11. We are about 9/12."
Why didn't we think of that? We don't need this war. It's bringing us down. It's just so 9/11.
Many have warned that liberals -- despite their denials -- don't believe we're really at war. They can wish it away, just like they can wish away that part of human nature that recoils against socialism, but the reality remains unchanged.
In the meantime, we must pray that adults continue to steer the ship of state in these perilous times, recognizing and confronting the real dangers and real enemies we face and leading us to make such temporary sacrifices as may be necessary to protect ourselves and safeguard our precious liberties.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman must be awfully tired of the global war on terror (GWOT). In his column "9/11 Is Over," he laments that "we've become 'The United States of Fighting Terrorism.' I will not vote for any candidate running on 9/11. We don't need another president of 9/11. We need a president for 9/12."
Alrighty, then. Let's just declare the war over.
Liberals have tried to convince us they are hawks on the GWOT but that they just don't believe Iraq is part of it. They want to go back into Afghanistan with greater force, or perhaps into Pakistan and capture Osama bin Laden, who President Bush "let escape" at Tora Bora.
Many conservatives have long been skeptical about the Democrats' claim to be hawkish on the GWOT. As I've detailed before, Democrats have opposed President Bush at every turn in the GWOT -- not just on Iraq.
They've scoffed at President Bush's moral clarity in depicting the GWOT as a struggle between the forces of good and evil. They've tried to undermine the Patriot Act, which was designed to break down the walls between our intelligence agencies and help us "connect the dots" to prevent future terrorist attacks.
They've opposed -- and exposed for terrorist consumption -- our efforts to track terrorists' finances. They've tried to sabotage our terrorist surveillance program, fraudulently labeling it as "domestic spying," though it has probably saved American lives and might have, had it been in place then, enabled us to prevent 9/11.
They have opposed tough interrogation techniques against suspected terrorists, though some of the methods they've opposed have demonstrably saved American lives. They've accused the Bush administration of systematically torturing enemy prisoners, though such false allegations diminish our image in the world and inflame potential terrorist recruits, which these same liberals profess they want to avoid at all costs. They insist on full-blown constitutional rights for "the worst of the worst" at Gitmo.
In the face of all this evidence, the left says it is better equipped to protect America's national security. Maybe some have even convinced themselves it's true, having temporarily suppressed their inner antiwar demons. But apparently this artificial suppression is too much for some liberals to sustain. Friedman's inner Jane Fonda is now exploding to the surface. He's tired of us acting like we are at war, and he isn't going to take it anymore, reality be damned.
"9/11 has made us stupid," says Friedman. "I honor, and weep for, all those murdered on that day. But our reaction to 9/11 -- mine included -- has knocked America completely out of balance, and it is time to get things right again."
Friedman admits that "we need new precautions, new barriers. But we also need our old habits and sense of openness. Our government has been exporting fear, not hope: 'Give me your tired, your poor and your fingerprints.' You may think Guantanamo Bay is a prison camp in Cuba for Al Qaeda terrorists. A lot of the world thinks it's a place we send visitors who don't give the right answers at immigration."
Well, Tom, if they think so, why don't you use your "paper of record" megaphone to disabuse them of that abominable falsehood? Perhaps it's because you agree with them, since you say, "I will not vote for any candidate who is not committed to dismantling Guantanamo Bay and replacing it with a free field hospital for poor Cubans. Guantanamo Bay is the anti-Statue of Liberty."
Like a good liberal, Friedman expresses no concern for the consequences of closing down Gitmo or for where these violent murderers will be transferred. Practicality doesn't matter. He just wants the war to be over.
"We need a president who will unite us around a common purpose, not a common enemy," says Friedman. "Al Qaeda is about 9/11. We are about 9/12."
Why didn't we think of that? We don't need this war. It's bringing us down. It's just so 9/11.
Many have warned that liberals -- despite their denials -- don't believe we're really at war. They can wish it away, just like they can wish away that part of human nature that recoils against socialism, but the reality remains unchanged.
In the meantime, we must pray that adults continue to steer the ship of state in these perilous times, recognizing and confronting the real dangers and real enemies we face and leading us to make such temporary sacrifices as may be necessary to protect ourselves and safeguard our precious liberties.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Trigger-Happy Journalists
Some of our finest special-op soldiers serve companies like Blackwater.
By Ben Ryan
Monday, October 1, 2007 12:01 a.m.
"They are immature shooters and have very quick trigger fingers," says an anonymous lieutenant colonel.
"Why are we creating new vulnerabilities by relying on what are essentially mercenary forces?" asks a nameless intelligence officer. "They often act like cowboys over here," says an unidentified commander.
Ever since a recent shootout in downtown Baghdad, newspapers have been ablaze with charges that private security contractors in Iraq are trigger-happy.
This rush to pass judgment is hardly surprising. Frequently derided as "mercenaries" and "rent-a-cops," security contractors make an easy target for war opponents.
As a former employee of a major Blackwater competitor, I find this categorical smearing of contractors to be starkly at odds with my experience. I served as an officer in the Navy SEALs for six years. After I left, I joined a private security firm and was promptly sent to Iraq.
Contrary to the popular belief that Blackwater contractors are "thugs for hire," most are highly professional and well trained. Blackwater operates the world's largest private military training facility. Its 1,000 contractors working in Iraq are drawn from the ranks of former military and law enforcement officials. Many of its workers are former SEALs or veterans of other special-operations units.
The risks these workers assume are underscored by the infamous 2004 ambush in Fallujah, in which four Blackwater contractors were murdered and mutilated. To date, Blackwater has lost 30 contractors. For all anyone knows, last month's incident could have turned into another Fallujah had Blackwater's contractors reacted differently. The details are still terribly unclear.
The contractors--and the U.S. diplomats they were escorting--claim they were ambushed. Yet Iraq's Ministry of Interior almost immediately issued a report declaring that the contractors were "100% guilty." Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has charged that the operators killed "in cold blood."
With conflicting reports, condemnations should not be made until the joint Iraqi-U.S. investigation is completed. The media, however, has accepted the Ministry of Interior's version of events, all but writing off the accounts of both Blackwater and the State Department.
This follows a long-established pattern of unfounded claims in the press about security contractors. For instance, numerous reports reference contractors making over $1,000 a day--far more than active-duty soldiers. Some point to the more than $700 million Blackwater has received in State Department contracts in order to denounce security firms as war profiteers.
The truth, however, is that contractors are cost-effective. Blackwater contractors, for example, are generally paid $450-$650 a day. More important, unlike U.S. servicemen, they usually receive no benefits and are paid only for the days they work. Security contractors at the better firms have typically retired from active duty or left the military on their own accord after extended service. They are honorable veterans who have chosen to risk their lives to protect American diplomats in a war zone.
Instead of depleting our armed forces, security contractors allow the government to recapture its investment in these men during wartime and avoid the extraordinary expense of training new recruits. In short, they're already trained and experienced--and cost money only when they're needed.
Another common myth is that contractors are above the law. True, the June 2004 Coalition Provisional Authority Order 17 exempts contractors (and other diplomatic personnel) from local prosecution. But that doesn't mean that contractors have been granted blanket immunity from prosecution. In fact, the order clearly states that this immunity is limited only to acts necessary to fulfill contracts. Indiscriminate attacks on civilians--as alleged in last month's incident--are not covered.
Contractors are also subject to numerous U.S. statutes and regulations, as well as international treaties. Just last year, Congress amended the Uniform Code of Military Justice to include contractors. Contractors can also be prosecuted under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000, which permits charges to be brought in federal court for crimes abroad.
Like soldiers, security contractors are sometimes forced to make split-second decisions with enormous consequences. They must be--and are--accountable to our government for their actions. But the people I worked with in Iraq, including veterans working for Blackwater, were hardly rogue cowboys. I did, however, meet some trigger-happy journalists over there.
By Ben Ryan
Monday, October 1, 2007 12:01 a.m.
"They are immature shooters and have very quick trigger fingers," says an anonymous lieutenant colonel.
"Why are we creating new vulnerabilities by relying on what are essentially mercenary forces?" asks a nameless intelligence officer. "They often act like cowboys over here," says an unidentified commander.
Ever since a recent shootout in downtown Baghdad, newspapers have been ablaze with charges that private security contractors in Iraq are trigger-happy.
This rush to pass judgment is hardly surprising. Frequently derided as "mercenaries" and "rent-a-cops," security contractors make an easy target for war opponents.
As a former employee of a major Blackwater competitor, I find this categorical smearing of contractors to be starkly at odds with my experience. I served as an officer in the Navy SEALs for six years. After I left, I joined a private security firm and was promptly sent to Iraq.
Contrary to the popular belief that Blackwater contractors are "thugs for hire," most are highly professional and well trained. Blackwater operates the world's largest private military training facility. Its 1,000 contractors working in Iraq are drawn from the ranks of former military and law enforcement officials. Many of its workers are former SEALs or veterans of other special-operations units.
The risks these workers assume are underscored by the infamous 2004 ambush in Fallujah, in which four Blackwater contractors were murdered and mutilated. To date, Blackwater has lost 30 contractors. For all anyone knows, last month's incident could have turned into another Fallujah had Blackwater's contractors reacted differently. The details are still terribly unclear.
The contractors--and the U.S. diplomats they were escorting--claim they were ambushed. Yet Iraq's Ministry of Interior almost immediately issued a report declaring that the contractors were "100% guilty." Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has charged that the operators killed "in cold blood."
With conflicting reports, condemnations should not be made until the joint Iraqi-U.S. investigation is completed. The media, however, has accepted the Ministry of Interior's version of events, all but writing off the accounts of both Blackwater and the State Department.
This follows a long-established pattern of unfounded claims in the press about security contractors. For instance, numerous reports reference contractors making over $1,000 a day--far more than active-duty soldiers. Some point to the more than $700 million Blackwater has received in State Department contracts in order to denounce security firms as war profiteers.
The truth, however, is that contractors are cost-effective. Blackwater contractors, for example, are generally paid $450-$650 a day. More important, unlike U.S. servicemen, they usually receive no benefits and are paid only for the days they work. Security contractors at the better firms have typically retired from active duty or left the military on their own accord after extended service. They are honorable veterans who have chosen to risk their lives to protect American diplomats in a war zone.
Instead of depleting our armed forces, security contractors allow the government to recapture its investment in these men during wartime and avoid the extraordinary expense of training new recruits. In short, they're already trained and experienced--and cost money only when they're needed.
Another common myth is that contractors are above the law. True, the June 2004 Coalition Provisional Authority Order 17 exempts contractors (and other diplomatic personnel) from local prosecution. But that doesn't mean that contractors have been granted blanket immunity from prosecution. In fact, the order clearly states that this immunity is limited only to acts necessary to fulfill contracts. Indiscriminate attacks on civilians--as alleged in last month's incident--are not covered.
Contractors are also subject to numerous U.S. statutes and regulations, as well as international treaties. Just last year, Congress amended the Uniform Code of Military Justice to include contractors. Contractors can also be prosecuted under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000, which permits charges to be brought in federal court for crimes abroad.
Like soldiers, security contractors are sometimes forced to make split-second decisions with enormous consequences. They must be--and are--accountable to our government for their actions. But the people I worked with in Iraq, including veterans working for Blackwater, were hardly rogue cowboys. I did, however, meet some trigger-happy journalists over there.
My Constitutional Right to be Loved
By Mike S. Adams
Monday, October 1, 2007
Dear Fellow UNC-Wilmington Professor:
I want to take a few minutes to thank you for sharing your views on abortion while I was urinating in the men’s restroom at our place of employment. I didn’t mind learning that your support for abortion is predicated on your belief that every child in America has a “constitutional right to be loved.” But I did mind that you tapped me on the shoulder to get my attention while I was facing in the other direction with my pants unzipped. Try your best to keep your hands off me the next time you see me in a public restroom unless, of course, you plan to run for the United States Senate.
Naturally, by the time I zipped up my trousers I began to contemplate your rationale for keeping abortion legal in America. I quickly fell in love with your method of expanding the number of rights guaranteed by our Constitution. Since you shared your “strong feeling” that all children have a constitutional right to be loved, I thought I would take a moment to share my strong feelings in the hope that these feelings will somehow be elevated to constitutional status despite the fact that they don’t actually appear in the Constitution:
• I strongly feel like I have a right to be free from funding a public education system that tries to advance an agenda diametrically opposed to my most cherished religious beliefs.
• I strongly feel like I have a right to walk across campus without seeing a feminist from the Women’s Resource Center showing students how to put a condom on a cucumber. (I can’t imagine why that silly feminist thought her cucumber could get her pregnant. Or maybe she thought it was pleasuring another feminist behind her back).
• I strongly feel like I have a right to buy gas for less than two dollars per gallon.
• I strongly feel like I have a right to be loved by Jessica Alba.
• I strongly feel like I have a right to be free from seeing women dressed in mini-skirts while (they are, not I am) wearing snow boots.
• I strongly feel like I have a right to free health care paid for by the citizens of France. They wouldn’t still be speaking French if it weren’t for Americans so I figure they owe us one. (Author’s note: I also reserve the right to use double negatives or to not use them if I don’t feel like it).
• I strongly feel like I have a right to have illegal aliens work in my yard free of charge on weekends. It’s the least they can do for wasting so much of my time by making it hard to find a parking space at Home Depot.
• I strongly feel like I have a right to urinate in a public restroom without having you touch me on the shoulder.
Unfortunately, the list of things I would emote into the Constitution (if given the chance) fails to capture the total absurdity of your argument. Give me a few more lines to try and catch up.
I strongly feel that whenever my constitutional rights are violated, someone should die. For example:
• The Governor of North Carolina should be killed if he does not immediately sign an executive order fulfilling my strong desire to be free from supporting the pitiful public education system of this state.
• The next feminist from the Women’s Resource Center I see instructing students on how to put a condom on a cucumber should be killed.
• President Bush should be killed because his “War for Oil” has failed to bring gas prices below two dollars per gallon (note to Secret Service: THIS IS A SATIRE).
• Jessica Alba should be killed for not loving me.
• All women dressed in mini-skirts and wearing snow boots should be killed.
• We should kill the citizens of France for failing to provide me with free health care.
• Illegal aliens unwilling to work in my yard free of charge on weekends should be killed.
• You should be killed for touching me on the shoulder in a public restroom.
But of course, learned full professor, I still have not matched the absurdity of your pro-choice argument. To this point, I have made the more rational argument that the person who has violated a constitutional right should be punished by being killed. Your position, of course, is even more absurd. You argue that the person whose constitutional right has been violated should be killed. Hence, I propose the following in an effort to reach (down to) your level of intellectual (un)sophistication:
• The governor should order that I be killed immediately if the governor does not sign an executive order fulfilling my strong desire to be free from supporting the pitiful public education system of this state.
• I should be killed by a feminist the next time I see a feminist from the Women’s Resource Center showing students how to put a condom on a cucumber.
• President Bush should order that I be killed because the “War for Oil” has failed to bring gas prices below two dollars per gallon.
• I should be killed by Jessica Alba because Jessica Alba does not love me.
• I should be killed by a woman dressed in a mini-skirt and snow boots the next time I see a woman dressed in a mini-skirt and snow boots.
• I should be killed by the citizens of France because they failed to provide me with free health care (and, not to mention, maternal love).
• Illegal aliens should kill me because they are unwilling to inconvenience themselves by working in my yard free of charge on weekends – an inconvenience not quite on par with a lifetime commitment to parenthood.
• You should kill me because you touched me on the shoulder in a public restroom in violation of my constitutional rights.
Many of my readers are wondering how a tenured professor could accrue a level of intellectual arrogance severe enough to produce a belief that he may, a) invent constitutional rights, b) enforce them via the death penalty, c) remedy the constitutional violation by the murder of the person (note: the professor admitted that the fetus was a “child”) whose rights were violated, and d) allow the killing to actually be ordered by the perpetrator.
Fortunately for my readers, I will address the origins of such arrogance in my next column. I strongly feel like I have a right for you to read it. If you choose not to, feel free to kill me.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Dear Fellow UNC-Wilmington Professor:
I want to take a few minutes to thank you for sharing your views on abortion while I was urinating in the men’s restroom at our place of employment. I didn’t mind learning that your support for abortion is predicated on your belief that every child in America has a “constitutional right to be loved.” But I did mind that you tapped me on the shoulder to get my attention while I was facing in the other direction with my pants unzipped. Try your best to keep your hands off me the next time you see me in a public restroom unless, of course, you plan to run for the United States Senate.
Naturally, by the time I zipped up my trousers I began to contemplate your rationale for keeping abortion legal in America. I quickly fell in love with your method of expanding the number of rights guaranteed by our Constitution. Since you shared your “strong feeling” that all children have a constitutional right to be loved, I thought I would take a moment to share my strong feelings in the hope that these feelings will somehow be elevated to constitutional status despite the fact that they don’t actually appear in the Constitution:
• I strongly feel like I have a right to be free from funding a public education system that tries to advance an agenda diametrically opposed to my most cherished religious beliefs.
• I strongly feel like I have a right to walk across campus without seeing a feminist from the Women’s Resource Center showing students how to put a condom on a cucumber. (I can’t imagine why that silly feminist thought her cucumber could get her pregnant. Or maybe she thought it was pleasuring another feminist behind her back).
• I strongly feel like I have a right to buy gas for less than two dollars per gallon.
• I strongly feel like I have a right to be loved by Jessica Alba.
• I strongly feel like I have a right to be free from seeing women dressed in mini-skirts while (they are, not I am) wearing snow boots.
• I strongly feel like I have a right to free health care paid for by the citizens of France. They wouldn’t still be speaking French if it weren’t for Americans so I figure they owe us one. (Author’s note: I also reserve the right to use double negatives or to not use them if I don’t feel like it).
• I strongly feel like I have a right to have illegal aliens work in my yard free of charge on weekends. It’s the least they can do for wasting so much of my time by making it hard to find a parking space at Home Depot.
• I strongly feel like I have a right to urinate in a public restroom without having you touch me on the shoulder.
Unfortunately, the list of things I would emote into the Constitution (if given the chance) fails to capture the total absurdity of your argument. Give me a few more lines to try and catch up.
I strongly feel that whenever my constitutional rights are violated, someone should die. For example:
• The Governor of North Carolina should be killed if he does not immediately sign an executive order fulfilling my strong desire to be free from supporting the pitiful public education system of this state.
• The next feminist from the Women’s Resource Center I see instructing students on how to put a condom on a cucumber should be killed.
• President Bush should be killed because his “War for Oil” has failed to bring gas prices below two dollars per gallon (note to Secret Service: THIS IS A SATIRE).
• Jessica Alba should be killed for not loving me.
• All women dressed in mini-skirts and wearing snow boots should be killed.
• We should kill the citizens of France for failing to provide me with free health care.
• Illegal aliens unwilling to work in my yard free of charge on weekends should be killed.
• You should be killed for touching me on the shoulder in a public restroom.
But of course, learned full professor, I still have not matched the absurdity of your pro-choice argument. To this point, I have made the more rational argument that the person who has violated a constitutional right should be punished by being killed. Your position, of course, is even more absurd. You argue that the person whose constitutional right has been violated should be killed. Hence, I propose the following in an effort to reach (down to) your level of intellectual (un)sophistication:
• The governor should order that I be killed immediately if the governor does not sign an executive order fulfilling my strong desire to be free from supporting the pitiful public education system of this state.
• I should be killed by a feminist the next time I see a feminist from the Women’s Resource Center showing students how to put a condom on a cucumber.
• President Bush should order that I be killed because the “War for Oil” has failed to bring gas prices below two dollars per gallon.
• I should be killed by Jessica Alba because Jessica Alba does not love me.
• I should be killed by a woman dressed in a mini-skirt and snow boots the next time I see a woman dressed in a mini-skirt and snow boots.
• I should be killed by the citizens of France because they failed to provide me with free health care (and, not to mention, maternal love).
• Illegal aliens should kill me because they are unwilling to inconvenience themselves by working in my yard free of charge on weekends – an inconvenience not quite on par with a lifetime commitment to parenthood.
• You should kill me because you touched me on the shoulder in a public restroom in violation of my constitutional rights.
Many of my readers are wondering how a tenured professor could accrue a level of intellectual arrogance severe enough to produce a belief that he may, a) invent constitutional rights, b) enforce them via the death penalty, c) remedy the constitutional violation by the murder of the person (note: the professor admitted that the fetus was a “child”) whose rights were violated, and d) allow the killing to actually be ordered by the perpetrator.
Fortunately for my readers, I will address the origins of such arrogance in my next column. I strongly feel like I have a right for you to read it. If you choose not to, feel free to kill me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)