Why Israel Is Right

If you watch the news at all these days, you probably hear an awful lot about Lebanese civilians dying. You also probably hear a lot of the anti-Semitic drudge that comes out of the UN. Perhaps you were beginning to be swayed by the media's stories and beginning to wonder why the Israeli Air Force keeps "targeting civilians." Fortunately for you, one Australian report has you covered. He's on the ground and has answers to those questions.

Check out this article

You see, Israel targets civilian areas because those are the areas that Hezbollah uses to launch their rockets. Note when the reporter points out that "until the Hezbollah fighters arrived, [the area] had not been touched by the Israelis. [After Hezbollah used it,] it was totally devastated." In other words, Israel avoids targeting civilians, that is, until Hezbollah fighters drive into civilian areas and try to use the locals as human shields. Then, unfortunately, civilians become caught up in the battle; and they have no one to blame but Hezbollah.

It's scary stuff for sure, and a true insight into the "holy" nature of Islamic terrorism. Not many other groups can claim that they ooze anti-Semitism and cause hundreds of innocent civilians to die because they want to use them as shields and exploit their deaths politically. Needless to say, don't by the anti-Israeli message for a second.

Abdicating, Abusing, and Adding

Back in 1787 when the Founding Fathers laid out our government in the Constitution, they intended to create a government that was limited in its power and scope. Furthermore, they hoped that the Legislature could work in the interest of the people and in regulation to the Executive. However, considering the vast array of power held within the current Congress, and in light of its intended powers as put forth in Article I, Section 8, it seems that the aims of our Founders have come up short.

The powers that Congress was original given are, actually, quite few. The Legislature was to concern itself with coining money, setting up the Postal System, building roads, unifying the States' laws on bankruptcy and naturalization, authorizing patents and copyrights, and punishing crimes committed on the "high seas." The aforementioned are all vital and logical functions for Congress to perform; nonetheless, the remaining clauses in Article I, Section 8 delineate Congress' two most important powers: the power to levy taxes and tariffs, and the power to declare war and maintain the armed forces. Those two encompass, by my count, some 10 of the 18 clauses in this section. Thus it seems safe to say that the main activities in which Congress engaged were expected to simply be imposing taxes and dealing with warfare. Regrettably, in modern times, Congress no longer lines up with its Constitutional counterpart.

Congress' first power, that of taxation, has been thoroughly abused; never in their worst nightmares would the Founding Fathers have imagined a country in which the tax burden would be as high as ours is today. Between income taxes (which were first implemented in the Civil War, 90 years after the Founders' era), property taxes, sales taxes and all the other taxes Americans pay, it's safe to conclude that James Madison never intended for Congress' taxation power to be used that much.

The second power, the power related to warfare, has, in a very real sense, been abdicated. While the Congress may still be in charge of funding and raising the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force, the one thing they are not in charge of is sending those forces to war. That's right, Congress no longer has the power to declare war; and what's worse, they didn't lose that power, they simply gave it up. Of course, they didn't just give it up to anyone, they gave it up to the last person on earth the Founding Fathers wanted to have the power to declare war: the President.

Don't believe me? Consider this, the United States of America hasn't declared war since December 8, 1941; nevertheless, we've fought in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan and many other places since then. But how, without a declaration of war, can the Commander in Chief deploy forces all over the world? Unfortunately, nowadays, all the President has to do is either get a 'resolution' of support from Congress, like LBJ did in Vietnam, or go on a 'UN police task,' like Truman did in Korea. This is not a statement on how just or unjust all Wars since W.W.II are, but rather a statement on how the United States Congress has simply given the President the very thing they dreaded he would. Remember, our ancestors fought in opposition to a King, in part, because of how a monarch can rush to war at his own will.

Finally, as we all know, the modern American Congress has many, many, many, many, many more things it does than just overtax and abdicate declaring war; it handles Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, and Medicaid; it funds everything from education to its own pockets; and has snatched as much power as possible away from the States and the people (And, no, all of those things don't fall under the clause about setting up the Postal Service). Unfortunately, the advent of big government programs and power snatches has never been seriously questioned on the basis of Constitutional authority. As a matter of fact, questioning FDR's 'New Deal' got you put on a wiretapping list that actually included American citizens (unlike President Bush's).

Indeed, somewhere between the 16th amendment, the New Deal and Congressional 'authorizations' of force, it seems the United States Congress has lost sight of what it was intended to do. And naturally, 'We the People' are the ones who get hurt the most by this. Because a bloated, overburdened, and busy Congress, coupled with a Chief Magistrate holding excessive powers, diminishes the dream of men like Madison and Hamilton - not to mention our freedom.

Don't Mess With the Jews!

There is, indeed, one truly sane country left in the world today. One country that takes threats against itself seriously, has the guts to actually do something about those threats, and doesn't much care what anyone else in the world thinks about it. That country has spent the last 6 days bombing Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon. Perhaps 'bombing' is not the appropriate term - how about 'kicking the living sh*t out of them with airplanes'. Seriously, all Israel has done is bomb for 6 days and somewhere between 40 and 50% of all Hezbollah military capability has been destroyed. Ouch. That's like Italian tanks versus Ethiopian bows-and-arrows bad. (And yes, the Ethiopians vs. Italians is a real historical event.) Furthermore, I believe Israel will actually have the brains to stay and finish the job they started; instead of deciding half-way through that they feel like they've 'sent a message' and can go home.

Needless to say, I fully support Israel and its right to beat Hezbollah to a pulp. Terrorists who willingly attack innocent civilians do not need to have old Soviet-era rockets at their disposal. Fortunately, the task of getting rid of Hezbollah's weapons falls to Israel, a Nation who is quite happy to complete it.

Furthermore, what do these successful attacks say about Hezbollah and the situation in the Middle East? Or Islamic terrorism in general? Well, first of all, it shows us, once again, that Israel really does have a right to exist. Remember, Hezbollah is a group on par with the PLO, (who are also on the receiving end of this bombardment) and they have crumbled, for the umpteenth time, in the face of Israel. How can one possibly say that a people who lose 40% of their military capability in six days, despite not even being invaded, deserve to have a country? Remember if you run a country, you are in charge of "National Defense" something these Arab groups don't quite seem to have figured out. Especially compared to Israel.

Also, on a more philosophical note, this could tell us one of two things about Islamic Terrorism. Either a) the Islamic will to fight is weakening slightly or b) Bush was right. Hezbollah's resistance is quite minimal and, on top of that, they seem to be getting little or no support from the rest of the Arabic and Islamic world. To me, this seems an indication that Islamic militants really feel that Hezbollah can't win this fight; and given the Islamic terrorists 'Allah is with me so I'll never give up' attitudes, that's kind of surprising. On the other hand, it could mean that Islamic terrorists can't help Hezbollah fight back because they are already overcommitted in different places. In other words, no one can support Hezbollah because all their terrorists have been deployed to, say, Iraq. Which would course vindicate President Bush's belief that going into Iraq would attract the terrorists there and prevent them from doing harm elsewhere. Again, this is purely philosophical, but I find it compelling.

So, to our allies and friends in Israel: Good Luck and Happy Hezbollah Hunting!!

Mistake '08?

While traveling through China, one of the things that stands out is the massive relocations that are ongoing. No matter where you go in China, it seems the government is forcing people out of their homes and into high rise apartment buildings; and nowhere is this more prominent that in Beijing. However, in one sense, Beijing is very different from the rest of the country, because there all the re-locating is being done "to prepare for the Olympics" in 2008. Deep down, the relocating of people in Beijing probably has little to do with the Olympics, and would have happened with or without the '08 Games; but still, it begs the question: why are we in the rest of the World providing excuses for the Chinese government?

First off, let me clarify exactly what the Chinese government is doing and why it's wrong. Hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of Beijing residents are being moved out of the homes their families have lived in for years and into new high-rise apartment buildings. The problem, of course, is that there is little or no choice involved for the people being re-located; and, unlike in the United States where we have 'Eminent Domain', those evicted from their homes aren't given adequate monetary compensation.

On the face of it, there seems little the United States or any other Nation could do to directly stop a country like China, which has the largest standing army in the world; but, at the very least, we should refrain from condoning their more malevolent Communist policies. Unfortunately, that's just what the International Olympic Committee did when it awarded the 2008 Olympics to Beijing. Now, anything the Chinese government does in Beijing, whether it be massive relocations or something much worse, can be done under the guise of preparing for the 2008 Summer Games. To make matters worse, there is really nothing the rest of us can say, because we're the ones who decided to put the Chinese in charge of the '08 Games in the first place. Surely, when it comes to trying to fight some of the more terrible elements in the Chinese government, the rest of the World can do better than that.

Government Handouts Don't Work: Again

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, everyone felt sorry for the storm's victims, including the government. The result: billions of dollars in aid which, as it now turns out, didn't all get used for, um, necessities. That's right, can you believe it? The government gave people free money and instead of spending it on, food, clothing, and shelter; they spent it on strip clubs, Hawaiian vacations, and, most surprisingly, alcohol. Yes it's true, massive, unneccesary government handouts after Hurricane Katrina got wasted, although it shouldn't really come as a surprise. Sadly, free Government handouts have been getting wasted in this fashion since, well, the day they were first given out.

Since the dawn of the Populist/Radical Left-Wing movement in the United States some 100 or so years back, it has become commonplace to believe that problems can be solved by having the government simply throw money at them. As a result, the government gladly finances people's lives and, in an almost humorous way, expects them to do the right thing with the 5-figure check (or fully-loaded debit card) that they get handed -- which is completely absurd. Tell me, would you trust an anonymous stranger enough to give him X amount of dollars because he promises that he'll spend it on something worthwhile? Not unless you're either dumb or loose with your cash.

People, sadly, are not the ever-benevolent beings that big-government socialists would have you believe, especially when you plop a big chunk of change right in their laps. They are bound to use and abuse the gift given to them by the government, and even more likely to become dependant on it. Even the Hurricane Katrina victims, folks who genuinely needed money to purchase things that they had lost in the floodwaters, abused the privilege of government welfare. If these people, who, lets face it, are a bit more desperate and 'in need' that your average welfare recipient, spend their government check on a 6-pack of Bud, the ordinary citizen will too.

This misuse of money by Katrina victims once again proves that government simply cannot be the man with the open wallet, willing to give money to anyone who claims to need it. The reason is simple: it's not right for my tax dollars to help pay for Joe Smith's liquor and strip club binge. I, like most Americans, work hard for my paycheck; and to see the government take part of it away to help the someone pay for Saints tickets isn't just disgusting, it really ought to be a crime.

Oppose Gay Marriage - But Constitutionally Please!

Earlier today, as expected, the proposed Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage failed, and rightfully so. Don't get me wrong, I'm opposed to gay marriage, it's just that a Constitutional Amendment is not the right way to solve the problem. If you're wondering why, you need look no further than a Constitutional amendment that's already in place, the 10th. Marriage, you see, is an issue of States' Rights, and has to be banned at a State level as opposed to the National one.

The 10th amendment states simply that powers not delineated to the Federal Government are reserved to the States. Marriage falls under this category. Marriage licenses are issued by State governments, not the Federal Government; and that's because the power to do so has been reserved to the States under the 10th Amendment. So, if you get a marriage license from the State, doesn't it make sense that you would get a marriage ban from the State as well?

The way to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman is to either introduce a bill in the State legislature or to simply have a Statewide ballot measure. Simply put, make a new State law to define marriage, something that 45 States have already done, but leave the Federal government out of it. In fact, if Congress were to pass the Federal marriage amendment, it would, technically, be unconstitutional; because marriage, via the 10th amendment, is an entity over which Congress has no jurisdiction.

The United States is supposed to have a Federal system of government, which means the States and National government share power. In the last 75 years this has, most unfortunately, not been the case. The Federal government has slowly but surely gobbled up power, and is now at the point where it can blackmail the States into compliance. Of all the things you may think are wrong with this country today, this surely disturbs our Founding Fathers the most as they lie in their graves. Consequently, however old and unfashionable it may be, I try to beat the States' Rights drum when appropriate, and the Federal marriage amendment is clearly one of those times.

Souvenez-vous la France?

Immigration has been the hot topic for some time now. Everyone from politicians on Capitol Hill to protesters in the streets has had something to say about, and a different angle from which to approach, immigration. However, in all this talk, one thing that I have heard no one mention is France; a country which, sadly, Americans could learn a serious lesson from.

Remember the Paris "youth" (read Muslim) riots? The ones that had French "teens" up in arms and torching buildings and cars? Well let me refresh your memory. In France they had the following problems:

- An excess of Immigrants (both legal and illegal)
- A lack of cultural assimilation on the part of those immigrants
- Most of the Immigrants had "low-paying" or "unskilled" jobs
- Massive protests
- A seeming lack of concern/response from the Politicians

Wait a minute, you must be saying, that doesn't sound like France - that sounds like HERE. And sadly it does; mainly because we here in the U.S.A forgot to look, listen and, most importantly, learn when France had its immigration problems forced onto the table; proving that History not only repeats itself, but can do so at an astonishingly fast rate.

The French situation will fully repeat itself in the United States if nothing is done. This is why the President and all others who call for anything less than Rep. Tancredo or the Minutemen don't get it. Their "I swear-it's-not-amnesty" 'Guest Worker' (wink, wink) program leads down the road, across the Atlantic, and into the not-so-distant past. If Mexican immigrants to this country do not learn English, fail to assimilate culturally, and continue to pollute the job market with their 'unskilled' labor, the United States will fall into the same situation France was in last year.

One of the problems France has is sky-high unemployment. While this is due, in part, to a Socialistic economy; it is due in large part to France's millions of Muslim immigrants. These Immigrants came to France, drove down the average wage and leeched off all of France's massive welfare programs. Immigrants coming in and working for less takes jobs away from locals; which, surprise, causes them to become unemployed. Furthermore, the willingness of immigrants to work for less money causes employers to offer less in salary figures; if locals don't want to work for less, immigrants will. Thus, the average hourly wage is driven down. Of course, in France, the problem is complicated by the fact that individuals can make more money simply accepting welfare checks than from actually getting a job: but that's not my concern here.

However, transpose the above scenario to the United States. Who gets harmed the most in the wage and unemployment department? The poor, that's who. Excessive numbers of Mexicans will harm poor Americans just like it did poor Frenchmen. Additionally, can you image what would happen if the millions of Mexicans already here were able to fully benefit from our welfare programs as they do in France. You think Social Security is in trouble now? Imagine if it had to make payouts to 10% of the Mexican population, on top of Americans! Yikes! Massive fiscal disaster here we come!

Looking back, it is truly frightening to think that the French riots could happen right here in America. Just think, 20 years from now, all these Mexican immigrants (now citizens under the "guest worker program") demanding their Welfare or Social Security checks, while a bankrupt Congress tries to find a way to please them. Throw in the fact that most of those immigrants still don't speak good English and really don't care much for America. Mexican "youth" riots anyone? Hell, I'd be scared of what the lower class in this country might do to protest. 20 years from now, after being spat on constantly by the government in favor of "migrant workers" from another country, you don't think they'll be ticked off?

The above horror scenario is why we need a Border Wall, now. It's why we need to crack down, with jail sentences, on employers who knowingly hire illegals. It's why we need to stop talking about 'guest worker,' 'Visa', or 'earned citizenship' programs. What's happening in America right now leads to disaster. France would know. What's happening in America right now is why we desperately need Real Immigration Reform, now; because 20 years from now I don't want a Mexican torching my house -- or, for that matter, taking my job.

Stop Protesting the 'Da Vinci Code'

All over the globe, as the movie "The Da Vinci Code" premieres, Christian groups are going out to protest the film. Of course, this is hardly unexpected, as this is merely a continuation of the discontent they expressed with the novel written by Dan Brown. However, I really don't understand why these groups keep going out to protest the 'Da Vinci Code' phenomenon; and I really wish they would just stop.

First off, it's fiction. When someone writes a story that they admit isn't true, there's no need to get angry. It's not like Dan Brown started a revolution within the church; I don't recall seeing any mass streams of 'converts' to the, shall we say, 'Dan Brown form' of Christianity. If, for whatever reason, Dan Brown's outlandish (fictional) claims about Christianity offend you, don't watch the movie or read the book. Furthermore, if the movie does offend you, don't start a protest to tell those of us who want to enjoy it how awful it is. We're just trying to go watch a movie; and honestly, at this point, protesting the 'Da Vinci Code' isn't go to do much.

Additionally, how can all these people be so offended by such a great book? I absolutely loved it. So, lay your sensibilities aside and just enjoy the novel for what it is: a well-written thriller. I, for one, can't wait to see the movie, and if you don't agree with me -- I don't care. And you know why? Because, well, it's just a movie.

Hayden and the CIA

President Bush recently nominated Air Force General Michael Hayden for the top CIA position, a move that has upset folks on both the right and left. The only problem is they have no legitimate reason to be upset. General Hayden is a great choice for the top CIA position, mainly because he knows the intelligence community so well. Of course, this doesn't stop Democrats or Republicans who are facing re-election from questioning the nomination. Most of the dissatisfaction has come from two main points:

The first complaint is the one that comes from the left and bemoans General Hayden's piloting of the NSA's 'Domestic Spying' program. Consequently, Democrats have threatened him with 'though' questioning; and, I'm sure the thought of 'tough' questions from Ted Kennedy has the 4-star General shaking in his boots. Seriously, are the Democrats stupid enough to believe that President Bush (read Karl Rove) would overlook the fact that Democrats will be upset over Hayden's lead role in NSA spying and, thus, question it intensely? The President obviously hasn't overlooked this, instead he must feel that the General is not only capable of handling these questions but will be stellar in doing so. This is why every 5 minutes someone on FOX News is wondering whether the President is "looking for a fight". Of course he's looking for a fight, because he wants to challenge the Democrats on this issue. The only question is whether the Democrats will be foolish enough to play the White House's game.

The second major concern, that Republicans and Democrats both have, is that Hayden is "a military man leading a civilian agency". The hilarity here is watching these politicians try to defend their reasoning behind this opinion. In interviews it usually goes like this:

Interviewer: Do you think Gen. Hayden is qualified for the job?
Sen. Whoever: Yes, and I think that he would be in the top 3 on everybody's list, both Republicans and Democrats
Interviewer: Really?
Sen. Whoever: Oh, absolutely. No one questions his qualifications for the job.
Sen. Whatshisname (from the opposing party): Yes, I agree with you on that Sen. Whoever, he's well qualified for the job.
Interviewer: So, you both seem to like this guy, will you be voting to confirm him?
Sen. Whatshisname: No, not at this point, I have some questions I want to ask him first.
Sen. Whoever: I'm not really sure that putting a military man in charge of the CIA is the right move.....

And the interview goes on, as the Politicians try to explain how and why they don't, 'at this point', plan on voting for a guy who is "supremely qualified" and "one of everybody's top choices". C'mon, where is the logic in that? If he's the best man for the job, give it to him; it really isn't that complex.

Ultimately, it comes down to whether or not Michael Hayden can restore confidence in, and smoothly and successfully run, the CIA; and, by Congressional officials' own admissions, this is something he can definitely do. Oh, and lastly, I have to give President Bush credit. For all his faults, he is very good at selecting and appointing people for everything from the Supreme Court to the CIA.

Who's the Real 'Evil, Warmongers'

So, its been a while since I've posted, and during that time the following occurred to me:

Democrats often like to call us Conservatives 'Warmongers' but a review of the last 100 or so years doesn't confirm that:

- Since 1898 America has been in 8 Wars: Spanish-American, World War I, World War II, Korean, Vietnam, the Cold War, and the First and Second Gulf Wars
- Only 3 were started by Republicans: The Spanish-American, and the Gulf Wars
- Of the 7 that have been concluded, despite only starting 2, Republicans have ended 5 (McKinley - Spanish-American, Eisenhower - Korea, Nixon - Vietnam, Reagan - The Cold War, Bush Sr. - Gulf War)
- The only War that was won without actual battle, the Cold War, was won by Ronald Reagan, a Republican
- The total number of deaths from all 3 Wars started by Republicans (appx. 5,150) is about seven times less than the number of deaths from the least costly War started by a Democrat (Korea 36,914)
- The 3 wars started by Republicans are (as a percentage of the GDP) the 3 cheapest of the 8 Wars

So, in conclusion, not only do Republicans actually fight less Wars than Democrats, but they are better at doing so, and they are much better at making peace. This does not mean we shouldn't have fought the Wars started by Democrats, au contraire. Rather, it goes to show that Democrats are in absolutely no position to criticize Republicans for being 'warmongers', 'illegally putting the troops in harms way', etc., etc. because, well, they're actually much better at those things themselves.

Reading Into Iran

So, in case you missed it recently, our good 'allies' in Russia came out in support of Iran over the weekend. Sounding an awful lot like the anti-war crowd here in the United States, Nikolai Spassky, head of the Kremlin Security Council said that "diplomacy" was the only way to deal with Iran. He further urged that no sanctions against Iran should be implemented until there was "concrete evidence" that Iran was using its nuclear program for non-peaceful measures. Basically, we should willingly trust a guy who has explicitly denied the Holocaust, predicted the apocalypse, and called for the elimination of an entire country when he tells us he's (honestly) not developing the most powerful weapon known to man.

My immediate response to this bit of news was that this is the reason why we don't let the United Nations dictate our foreign policy. Furthermore, it's why we genuinely don't care when other countries decry our actions and political stances. Other countries, like France, are run by naive idiots like these people at the Kremlin. Seriously, who thinks we can trust Ahmadinejad when he says that Iran is enhancing uranium solely for 'energy' purposes? Yes Moscow, the Nation that sits directly atop some of the largest oil reserves in the world needs 'alternate sources of energy'. When I hear crap like this from international leaders, it makes me glad that my President really doesn't give a damn what they think.

Furthermore, let's be completely honest: diplomacyis not going to work with Iran. As I have said before, the people in charge over there are completely insane. This little stunt they are pulling, claiming innocence, is a way for them to buy more time; and when they do feel like telling the truth, they'll have a nuke to prove it. So let's stop all this talk about diplomacy and sanctions: because they aren't going to work. Using diplomacy or sanctions with Iran would be like having a high school principal call a student to his office for threatening a teacher, and saying: "boy that was really, really, really bad - don't ever, ever do it again" and then letting the kid go without further punishment. I bet that kid is gonna be really scared of that principal saying "no," he'll really learn his lesson. Except that he won't, because he has no reason to. Same with Iran. Saying "NO" really loud and with a grave tone isn't going to accomplish anything.

As for the Russian Government's desire for "concrete evidence" of Nuclear weapons, I thought we learned this lesson in World War II. Wasn't that what Hitler taught us - that we cannot simply close our eyes to the evil around us and hope it goes away? Didn't a, now infamous, British Prime Minister teach us that treaties don't mean much when you make them with the devil? This is, or at least what should be, the beauty of the post-World War II era: the preemptive strike. We learned that it's best to take note of madmen and deal with them before they get their hands on serious power. Remember Mein Kampf, that crazy book published in 1926? Remember how the rest of the world completely ignored it? Remember how well that turned out for them? President Ahmadinejad is writing his own Mein Kampf. Russia doesn't want to read it; they probably want 'peace' ('in our time,' I assume). Let us hope, however, that President Bush learned a lesson from the generation of his father, and takes good notes on his Ahmadinejad.

Trouble in the Neighborhood

As a student at Wake Forest, I have been paying close attention to the ongoing allegations of rape against members of the Duke Lacrosse team. This is not only due to the proximity of our two schools, but because this case has been (or at least should be) of concern to college students around the country. The actual legal case, as far as I can tell, is rather complex, and I will refrain from attempting to apply my not-so-expert opinion to it. However, as I have been following this case, several things I have seen in the coverage have bothered me, and I am compelled to share them.

First and foremost, what the hell ever happened to 'Innocent until proven guilty'??? ESPN, ABC, every newspaper and news organization, not to mention Duke University itself, has told this story, from the very beginning, as if the players had big red 'R's on their chests for 'rapists'. I know that the allegations are very serious, and I know it's not exactly 'cool' to go around defending potential rapists; but they have Rights too, and those Rights need to be respected.

Next, can we PLEASE stop talking about issues of race? If you listened to the media reports on this case during the first week or so, you might have thought that the alleged crime was saying the n-word. Let's remember, there is the possibility that a woman was raped here - and that's just a wee bit more concerning than a drunk college kid calling someone a nasty name. Furthermore, the locals in Durham aren't exactly helping, as they are all protesting because the woman is black. They seem more upset that it was a white man (allegedly) raping a black woman than that it was (or could be), well, a rape. I know that 'race issues' are extremely sensitive for some people, but priorities, folks, please.

Finally, perhaps one of the most annoying aspects of the coverage of the Duke Scandal is the all-out 'bash the rich' session that it has become. Seriously, can I stop hearing about how Duke Students are more 'privileged' than the surrounding Durham community? Maybe, just maybe, the reason the Duke students are so 'privileged' is because they worked hard in high school, were good students, did well on the SAT or were very active in their community and got rewarded with a slot at a top-notch University. Or perhaps the reason all those kids at Duke are so 'privileged' is because their parents worked hard and earned lots of money so that they could afford to send their children to a $40,000 a year University. Why is this kind of success a crime? I'm not saying the residents in Durham aren't hard-working or successful, but should they hate on the Dukies for being so? In fact, considering that about 17% of Durham residents don't even have a high school diploma, maybe they should start taking a cue from some of their (better behaved) neighbors at Duke University.

Well, that's it for now, maybe not the most politically correct of complaints; but honest ones nonetheless. I really hope that this case is solved quickly, although I doubt that will happen. It should be interesting, and let's hope that justice can still be done - despite the media circus that already surrounds this case.

"You and I Have a Rendezvous With Destiny...."

Even back in the 1960's when Ronald Reagan made his 'A Time for Choosing' speech, he understood that it was the ultimate destiny of the West to defeat the "Evil Empire." In the aftermath of his presidency it has become clear to the rest of us that it was his ultimate destiny as our leader to be the man responsible for that victory. Well, okay, not all of us. Some of the friendly folks on the left, the ones who spewed (and continue to spew) venomous hatred for Ronald Reagan, have, for quite sometime now, loudly claimed that it was Mikhail Gorbachev who did this and that Reagan had nothing to do with the downfall of the Soviet Union.

This is an unusually common occurrence in college history courses, as leftist professors (such as mine) frequently have full-scale 'Gorbasms' when attempting to 'teach' the Cold War. The lecture goes something like this: 'The Soviet Union was falling apart, and was going to end at any moment, Gorbachev came along and tried to implement perestroika and make the USSR a Democracy, because he understood the dire situation and wanted to promote the well being of Russian citizens.' Well, at least, that's the jist of a typical liberal Gorbasm. But, as usual, these leftists are simply wrong.

First off, lets just go along with the whole rant and say that Gorbachev did want to end communism. That begs the question of 'how did he rise to power?' The answer is, in two words, Ronald Reagan. Immediately after he became President, Reagan took a new approach to foreign policy; he abandoned Detente and declared that he would be satisfied with nothing less than the destruction of the U.S.S.R. The new rhetoric and new direction that American foreign policy took were well noted within the Soviet Union. In response, the Soviets realized that they would need a new type of leader, someone from outside the old Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev mold. The Party elite in Russia needed someone who could stand up to this 'Reagan' fellow on the International Stage, the man they choose, in 1984, was Mikhail Gorbachev. So you see, the only reason Gorbachev had the power to affect any change within the USSR was Ronald Reagan - without his election the Soviets would have chosen someone else to lead.

Of course, Gorbachev's intention was never to dismantle or 'Democratize' the Soviet Union, he was as much a believer in Communist dogma as Vladimir Lenin. Gorbachev had hoped his reforms would offer temporary relief and enable him to strengthen and re-build the communist regime, he never intended for the reforms to be permanent. Gorbachev never wanted communism to end. The only problem was he didn't realize what would happen when he implemented economic reform. Although someone did. Reagan knew the Soviets couldn't compete, so he forced them to do it. The military build-up of the 1980's, forced Gorbachev to enact changes and new economic policies; policies that Reagan realized would topple the Soviet system.

However, the fact that the Soviet system was weak and in abominable shape brings us to another question: 'Was the downfall of the Soviet Union inevitable?' The answer: yes. It may have been two or three hundred years later, but eventually it would have fallen. The Soviet system was weak, and near collapse, but it had always been that way. The Soviets had a terrible economy in the 1920's, the 1930's, the 1940's, the 1950's, the 1960's, the 1970's and, yes, the 1980's. The thing is, when you have an oppressive dictatorship running the country, you don't need economic success to continue on as a world superpower. All you need is a few nukes, the KGB and a couple of gulags. The point is, when liberals claim that the Soviet system would have collapsed in 1991 with or without Reagan's military build-up, they're lying; the Soviet Union had lived on the brink of collapse for over 60 years. In order for the Soviet system to collapse its economic equation needed to be catalyzed, and Ronald Reagan provided the catalyst.

Ultimately, the reason the left tries so hard to deny Reagan's importance in the destruction of the Soviet Union is because, as always, it puts them on the wrong side of history. When Reagan first said the Soviet Union was "evil" the left derided him, called him the dumbest man alive, said he was a dreamer, said he didn't understand the nature of foreign policy, and concluded that he had lost all perception of reality. Yet they were wrong - and Reagan was right. Within 10 years of the 'Evil Empire' speech, the Soviet Union was gone, just as Reagan said it would be. Exactly as Gorbachev said it wouldn't be. It hurts the left to give Reagan credit, because on the question of the Cold War, on the most important question of the 1980's, he proved them utterly wrong, and in the process, won his greatest victory.

Finally, A Politician Who Understands Immigration

I haven't posted on the recent immigration protests that have been sweeping the nation, mainly because the coverage elsewhere is so in-depth and intense. However, it's clearly a big problem and one that I'm finally going to address, albeit in a new way. I have discovered a speech given in 1915 by Teddy Roosevelt in which he discusses 'Americanism' and 'Americanization.' I have posted some of the more interesting parts below. Normally, I would add my own commentary, but the genius of TR speaks for itself.....

"... There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all..... Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance. But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else.

....The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American. There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else. For an American citizen to vote as a German-American, an Irish-American, or an English-American, is to be a traitor to American institutions; and those hyphenated Americans who terrorize American politicians by threats of the foreign vote are engaged in treason to the American Republic.

[Immigrants] are expected to do justice as well as to receive justice, [they] are expected to be heartily and actively and single-mindedly loyal to the flag no less than to benefit by living under it.

We cannot afford to continue to use hundreds of thousands of immigrants merely as industrial assets while they remain social outcasts and menaces any more than fifty years ago we could afford to keep the black man merely as an industrial asset and not as a human being. We cannot afford to build a big industrial plant and herd men and women about it without care for their welfare. We cannot afford to permit squalid overcrowding or the kind of living system which makes impossible the decencies and necessities of life. We cannot afford the low wage rates and the merely seasonal industries which mean the sacrifice of both individual and family life and morals to the industrial machinery. We cannot afford to leave American mines, munitions plants, and general resources in the hands of alien workmen, alien to America and even likely to be made hostile to America by machinations such as have recently been provided in the case of the two foreign embassies in Washington. We cannot afford to run the risk of having in time of war men working on our railways or working in our munition plants who would in the name of duty to their own foreign countries bring destruction to us. Recent events have shown us that incitements to sabotage and strikes are in the view of at least two of the great foreign powers of Europe within their definition of neutral practices. What would be done to us in the name of war if these things are done to us in the name of neutrality?"

It is all eerily applicable today.

"History doesn't repeat itself - but it rhymes." ~ Mark Twain

Doctoring and Lawyering: Mixing As Well As Vinegar and Oil

One of the greatest sites on the web is the Manhattan Institutes' Trial Lawyers Inc, which reports on the industrial behemoth that the lawyering business has become and the problems it is creating for American society. I finally got around to doing an in-depth reading of their newest piece, the one on Lawyering and the Health Care Industry, and it contains some truly scary stuff. Perhaps the most frightening was the information they gave about Obstetricians.

Did you know that "of the 46,000 members of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 76 percent have been sued at least once, 57 percent at least twice, and 41.5 percent three times or more?!?" Have 3/4 of the Obstetricians in the United States committed such grievous errors that they deserved to be sued? Do 41.5% of the Obstetricians in this country stink so bad at their jobs that they deserved three or more court dates? This means that the United States has either the worst Obstetricians in the world or that lawsuits have gotten out of hand. Now, since Doctors in the United States generally receive more, and better, training than Doctors in every other country in the world, I'm going to assume that lawyers are the cause of these high Malpractice case rates.

Furthermore, in these cases "million-dollar verdicts are now the norm" and the average payout is "$4.7 million;" which is odd when you consider that, according to the U.S Census Bureau, the medical cost of having a baby is between $5,000 and $12,000. So, let's assume that you paid $12,000 to have your baby delivered, and then sued the Doctor for $4.7 million. That would mean that you received, as your court payout, a sum that is over 391 times as large as what you paid for the original procedure. Holy Shiite! Is a person really entitled to that much of a payout?

And that's, of course, assuming that these cases are due to actual 'Medical Malpractice' in the first place. Which they are not. As Trial Lawyer Inc notes: "nearly half of malpractice suits—49.5 percent—are dropped, dismissed, or settled without payment." As for the other 50.5% that do go to court or result in payouts, many are still simply bogus lawsuits. Additionally, the majority of these cases are from Medical Malpractice 'hot spots' such as New York State. As a result Obstetricians in these areas are either, retiring, moving to other areas, or refusing to perform high risk procedures. If the onslaught against Obstetricians continues in these areas, the midwife may come back into style.

You know the crisis for American Obstetricians is bad when the Journal of the American Medical Association carries an article entitled: "Who Will Deliver Our Grandchildren?" Honestly, the information in Trial Lawyers Inc.'s article is warning sign number 2,943,453,234,785 that this country has a problem with frivolous lawsuits. And it further depicts how, in the long run, those lawsuits hurt the patients every bit as much as the Doctors. The reforms passed in some states, like Texas, are working; but it's time to get the ball rolling everywhere. Indeed, it is to be hoped that we as a counrty can get reform started and moving quickly, so that this problem gets solved by the time my Grandchildren come along.