Archives for the Month of October 2005 on College Conservative Movement
Liberal Media has Libby's Charges Wrong According to Patrick Fitzgerald
The following is another quote from press conference with Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor who handed out the indictment.
"I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent."
Alito is Going to Start a Senate Battle
Well... we said we wanted a battle over the supreme court. Well... get ready for one. The appointement of Alito is sure to drive the democrats up a wall. We'll see how the "Gang of 14" reacts to this! With the conservative movement fueled by the Miers nomination, I don't think the McCains of the Senate have a choice. If they want to keep there jobs, they have to support this nominee! Prepare for a battle... this is going to be sweet! George W. Bush could not have picked a better judge.
Here's a link to the Confirm Judge Alito Coalition main page
Fox News 2?
I love this guy... it looks like CBS news may become less liberally biased than it was before... Could they perhaps deliver another blow to the liberals by taking away one of their agenda advancing media outlets? This could even mean the end of doom and gloom on CBS news...
"NEW CBSNEWS PRESIDENT: WORLD SERIES OVER SUPREME COURT?
Sun Oct 30 2005 20:27:16 ET
At his first editorial meeting of the "CBS Evening News" since being named president of CBS News last week, Sean McManus listened to the proposed rundown for that night's program: Harriet E. Miers' troubled nomination for the Supreme Court; the possible indictments of I. Lewis Libby Jr. and Karl Rove in connection with the leaking of the name of a CIA agent, the aftermath of Hurricane Wilma and the World Series victory of the Chicago White Sox.
The NEW YORK TIMES reports on Monday, "Then they said, 'Sean, what are your thoughts?"' recalled McManus, who will remain as president of CBS Sports. "I just said, 'You have to move the White Sox to the top of the show, which is more important than all the Harriet Miers stuff.'
There was complete panic in everyone's eyes, like 'Is this guy serious?' I heard the pause and I said, 'Come on."' "
Libby indictment has NOTHING TO DO WITH IRAQ!!!
Excerpt from the press conference with special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald courtesy of CNN.com
QUESTION: A lot of Americans, people who are opposed to the war, critics of the administration, have looked to your investigation with hope in some ways and might see this indictment as a vindication of their argument that the administration took the country to war on false premises.
Does this indictment do that?
FITZGERALD: This indictment is not about the war. This indictment's not about the propriety of the war. And people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel.
This is simply an indictment that says, in a national security investigation about the compromise of a CIA officer's identity that may have taken place in the context of a very heated debate over the war, whether some person -- a person, Mr. Libby -- lied or not. The indictment will not seek to prove that the war was justified or unjustified. This is stripped of that debate, and this is focused on a narrow transaction.
And I think anyone's who's concerned about the war and has feelings for or against shouldn't look to this criminal process for any answers or resolution of that.
The Reporting of Scooter Libby's Indictment is Biased
What I find interesting is the way the media is reporting this story. Let me make this clear. This crime has absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WAR IN IRAQ!!!!!!!!!! Despite this undeniable truth, the media is making that connection. Here is an excerpt from the AP article about this indictment by the Associated Depressed (Associated Press).
"Any trial would shine a spotlight on the secret deliberations of Bush and his team as they built the case for war against Iraq.
Bush ordered U.S. troops to war in March 2003, saying Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program posed a grave and immediate threat to the United States. No such weapons were found. The U.S. military death toll climbed past 2,000 this week. "
I THOUGHT THIS WAS ABOUT SCOOTER LIBBY LYING!!!??? THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WAR IN IRAQ! What Libby and Rove did with Valerie Plame's name was 100% legal. If it were not, there would have been indictments today other than what occurred today. However, the media discusses 2000 deaths in Iraq?! That is absolutely BIASED MEDIA.
One thing to remember, is this is an indictment is a charge, not a conviction. All of these actions are alleged. Nothing has been proven yet.
Scooter Libby vs. Bill Clinton
Clinton - Lied under oath, presented Monica Lewinsky with a fraudulent signed document to present, lied to the American people in a televised speech, lied to foreign leaders
Libby - Lied about the source of a non-covert CIA officer's name.
I am not saying that if the alleged case against Libby is serious because it is. I am just going to point out that Bill Clinton was not indicted and his crime was more serious.
Who says our economy is bad?
Was the Whole Harriet Miers Thing More Karl Rove Genius?
We all know that the mastermind that is Karl Rove is one of the sharpest strategists that have ever walked this earth. It was his keen intellect that got President George W. Bush into the white house for two terms. His plan is not often clear until one steps back and looks at the whole picture. It is my belief that the Harriet Miers nomination was all part of another one of those plans. The president’s agenda was in jeopardy from growing criticism of the war and numerous media attacks. The congress was just riding the wagons trying to make everyone happy. The Republican Party was in need of a wake up. They needed to convert from being the minority voice to the majority. By nominating a Souter-esque nominee, this has been obtained.
This past year, many of the true conservatives donated their time and efforts to getting George W. Bush into office. He has had many brilliant conservative ideas; however, the Republicans in congress had not fully supported him. The party soon got very quiet. This is where Rove made his decision, nominate a Souter nominee. This instantly united the base. As radio genius Rush Limbaugh has been saying, “This has led to a conservative crackdown, not a crack-up.” This is exactly what has been accomplished. The conservatives all over the country united against Harriet Miers. Even the strongest of Bush supporters, myself included, had concerns.
The lobbying of congress and the public expression of opinion that followed Miers’s nomination was absolutely amazing. This showed our congressmen that the people that elected them will not take moderate governing. We want a conservative political agenda. We want it to be passed through congress and signed into law by the President. We want strict constitutionalists put on the bench that will return integrity to the Supreme Court.
This unity that has been obtained from what was likely another Karl Rove plan will be needed in the coming months. As elections approach, the conservative agenda must be advanced. To do so, a strict conservative will be nominated to the Supreme Court. A massive political battle will ensue. However, because of the unity of the party, even the John McCain Republicans in the Senate will have to go to battle for a conservative nominee if they want to get re-elected. A similar battle will ensue for Bush’s Social Security Plan and other things on the Republican agenda.
The unity that has been obtained by what would seem to be the worst thing to happen to a president has turned out to be the source of a boost to the conservative movement in America. This unity will prove to act as a mandate for advancing the president’s agenda. Whether this was Karl Rove genius or just a bit of luck, in 2006 and 2008, the conservatives of America will be able to look back at advance of the conservative movement that they have worked so hard for.
The End to Liberal News on CBS?
New CBS News Boss Donated to Bush Re-Election Bid in 2004
By E&P Staff
Published: October 27, 2005 11:05 AM ET
NEW YORK Conservatives may take heart in a scoop by blogger Michael Petrelis that the new boss of CBS News, Sean McManus, donated $250 to the Bush-Cheney re-election bid in 2004, while shunning John Kerry.
Petrelis, who specializes in digging out election contributions from media types, reported the donation on Wednesday by the New Canaan, Conn., resident, found in Federal Election Commission files.
Contacted by The Associated Press, CBS had no comment.
Former CBS anchor Dan Rather was not exactly a favorite of conservatives, even before the "60 Minutes" Bush/National Guard controversy last year.
But one warning to the right: A year earlier, McManus, the former CBS Sports chief, gave to the re-election campaign for Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.).
The Petrelis blog is at http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com.
E&P Staff (letters@editorandpublisher.com)
New CBS News Boss Donated to Bush Re-Election Bid in 2004
President of CBS News to Step Down
Miers Withdraws From Confirmation Process
USA Today photoshops Condi picture to make her look possessed
'Liberal Bias at the USA Today... Edits Condi picture to make her look evil.
The State of the Republican Party is Strong!
The Miers nomination has transformed the Republican Party. It has not weakened the party as many liberal media sources would love lead you to believe. What this has done is wake up the Republican Party. This has riled and united the conservative base. We must utilize this united base by returning to a traditional conservative platform. Fiscal responsibility, small government, states rights, second amendment rights, social security privatization, lower taxes, and other conservative values must be returned to the agenda as the primary focus in the upcoming elections. The revamp of the conservative agenda is crucial in the upcoming congressional elections in 2006 as well as the presidential elections in 2008.
The return to a traditional Republican agenda is necessary in order for the Republican Party to gain more seats in the House and Senate in 2006 and 2008. This past term the conservatives in Congress have drifted away from their conservative ideals. There was the highway bill, the Kennedy drafted education bill, and other pork barrel spending bills. It is time to stop trying to appease the Democrats. The Republicans have a majority in the House and the Senate. The agenda that has allowed the Republicans to achieve this majority must be furthered.
FEMA is being criticized as not being the save the world organization that the liberals want it to be. It is time for Congress to define that the state and local governments are primarily responsible for hurricane relief. We cannot rely on our federal government to show up at every hurricane landfall. This would result in ridiculous government spending. It just costs way too much to move an organization like FEMA.
The Republicans must also cut other spending. Running a government in deficit is not what the Republican Party stands for. It is time to trim the social programs that have been unsuccessful in improving poverty rates in our country. They must cut taxes to allow the Republican solution to poverty, economic growth. These straight forward ideals must become more than just words and talking points. It is time for congress to take action. If they do not, their jobs may be in jeopardy.
In order to advance the traditional conservative Republican agenda, the Republican Party must choose the right presidential nominee in 2008. As much as CNN wants it, John McCain is not the right guy. He is too moderate. We need someone who is a traditional conservative Republican. We need to have someone who is vibrant, straight shooting, and not afraid to say he or she has a conservative agenda. We need a nominee who will preach a fiscally conservative agenda that involves cutting social programs. This will anger the left, but who cares? The left will vote democrat anyways. We don’t care what they think. We are not trying to please the Left. We are trying to embody the ideals of those who are advancing the conservative movement.
It is time that the Republicans take a stance. The Republicans have worked for years to build this base. It is now time to shift from being the minority voice to being the majority voice. The majority must set the tone of the federal agenda. The Miers nomination has riled the Republican base and brought fourth what the Republican Party platform is. A revert to the traditional conservative ideals is a must. It is time to stop trying to please the left. It is time to advance the agenda that the majority of America supports.
Clinton's Pacifism in Somalia Shows That We Should Stay in Iraq
In light of recent war criticism, I have decided to republish this article.
There was something today that President George Bush said today in his speech that really made me think. He cited the battle of Mogadishu, Somalia as a rationale for staying in Iraq until the mission is completed. This battle, known by many as “Blackhawk Down,” was really a pivotal moment in recent history. This fairly unknown battle was the beginning of what is now “The War on Terror.” What if things were done differently? Would we be where we are today as a country? This will be evident after understanding Bill Clinton’s course of action, what he should have done differently, and what would be different if the right course of action was taken.
In order to fully understand, one must first understand the course of action taken by former President Bill Clinton. The date was October 3, 1993 and the plan was to send the two small, elite groups known as the Delta Force and the Army Rangers in to Mogadishu, Somalia to capture two terrorist clan members. This mission was successful. However, success would not be justly associated with this in any other contexts. It was during this mission in which the locals shot down two Blackhawk helicopters full of United States Special Forces. There were thousands of people shooting at our troops. In the end 18 troops died in action. The obvious thing to do would be to finish cleansing Somalia of these terrorists. However, the very next day, Bill Clinton gave into partisan pressure and called off the mission.
This was an enormous misjudgment on President Clinton’s part. This sent out a signal to everyone around the world saying that if they killed any of our Americans, we would falter. This is why Bill Clinton should not have backed off his mission goal, to cleanse Somalia of terrorists. Those 18 deaths were absolutely horrible; however, they were nothing compared to what the number of deaths that the falter resulted in. This clan of terrorists would soon be part of an organization known as Al Qaeda. I believe we all know what they are responsible for. Bill Clinton should have finished the mission and done whatever it took to stop this revolt because to our enemies, this was a sign of weakness. Just like any enemy who detects a weakness, they exploited it. They continue trying to exploit this weakness today; however, now it is no longer a weakness. We are strong and will not falter in the face of terrorism. That being said, resestablishing this strenth has resulted in many deaths that could have been avoided if Bill Clinton had finished the mission.
One has to ask what the world would be like without this falter, without this signal to the world that America is weak. For one, the culture of terrorism would not be spreading so rapidly throughout the world. On October 12, 2000 the terrorists bombed the USS Cole in Yemen. However, Bill Clinton perpetuated his culture of pacifism once again. If Bill Clinton would have stomped on the match before it caught the whole forest on fire, it would have been a lot easier to put out. It is likely that the current war in Iraq would have been over for a long time by now if he had not been a pacifist. It is possible that an authoritative response to these would have discouraged the attacks on September 11th, 2001.
This has lead to a lot of frustration throughout the Republican Party. The Democrats are quick to blame President Bush on everything related to terrorism. Even Bill Clinton himself came out to criticize Bush’s position on the war. The reality is, the fire will keep on getting bigger. Clinton could have stomped out the burning match; however, he chose to let the fire spread. It may not be easy to put out now, but the longer we wait, the bigger it’s going to get. President Bush is doing the right thing to change the culture of pacifism that was developed throughout the Clinton years. Although it will not be easy, we must do whatever it takes to be victorious. We must prove to these terrorists that their efforts are in vain by staying in Iraq until our mission is complete. The moment we leave Iraq is the moment the terrorists win and have an unregulated terrorism breeding ground. We will prove that America is strong, and we will not falter again.
Please post your comments as this is meant to be a 2-way blog.
Original publish date 10-6-2005
Increased Hurricanes is NOT GLOBAL WARMING!
There has been increased hurricane activity in the past few years. The media has been crying "GLOBAL WARMING!!!!, It's ALL BUSH'S FAULT!!!" However, it has been said by numerous meteorological experts that the increased hurricane activity is not from global warming. They have said that the hurricane activity actually moves in cycles. We just so happen to be on the upswing of a new cycle. This corresponds with periods of activity in the past. The director for the National Hurricane Center has presented this theory to Congress. article on cycles
Everyone is freaking out about this year being the worst hurricane season ever, which by the end of the year, it very well could be. However, as it stands, the annual hurricane total is currently tied with the record year. However, if this were the result of global warming, why is that record year 1933 (link to article on that)? The fastest wind speed of 180 miles per hour recorded was in the Great Hurricane of 1938 link This was also recorded on land since they did not have buoys or reconnaissance planes then. As one can see by the recent hurricane statistics, hurricanes weaken as they approach land. It is likely that The Great Hurricane of 1938 had wind speeds were higher than the recorded 180 miles per hour. While the hurricanes this year were destructive and were once category 5 hurricanes, the winds were 140 miles per hour or less when the storms came ashore. They were not nearly as bad as they could have been. The point I am trying to make is that this season is active, but it not unusual. We are just simply entering an active period.
an interesting take on global warming
Sheehan calls Hillary a "war hawk" and groups her with Rush Limbaugh
Billions of dollars of welfare down the drain!
Poverty rates have remained steady around twelve percent for the past twenty years (http://www.census.gov). Social programs like welfare have been funded by the Federal Government throughout all of these years. According to the programs philosophies, the rate should be dropping. It is time we stop pouring money into a hopeless cause. It is time for a readjustment of strategy.
There are many reasons why welfare related programs do not work. In some cases welfare can be a good thing. There are people who legitimately need it. However, while the idea of giving tax money to the poor looks great on paper, the welfare system provides no motivation to get off the system. Part of the reason for this is that welfare provides no means of getting out of poverty. It provides temporary financial assistance, but it does nothing to prevent poverty in the future. This becomes a problem because it does not address the causes for the poverty in the first place. Welfare is a short term fix with little to address the long term.
One of the biggest problems is that welfare does not control how money is spent. A welfare recipient who is poor because of an addiction to drugs or gambling could simply purchase drugs or gamble with it. Nothing is stopping them from doing that. These programs do not address the issues causing the problems. It just merely supplies money to fuel them.
By far the biggest problem is that the next generation in a poor family on welfare is often trapped by the culture of poverty. In some cases, people choose to stay on welfare rather than getting a job since it is more convenient. While this is not a commonplace, it does occur. When this happens, the children see their parent or parents putting food on the table without having to hold a job. Since children tend to learn demeanors from their parents, this can lead them to believe that they should not have to work for their money either. A similar problem is that a lot of parents living legitimately on welfare cannot provide the same path to success for their children as a wealthier family. There are some programs that help for this; however, it is still difficult for a child to become successful coming out of a financially unsuccessful family. As one can see, it is not easy to get out of the welfare loop if one is born into it.
There are new strategies that we need to implement to fix the problems with welfare. It should not be eradicated all together. Welfare should remain, but it should be greatly reduced from its current form. First of all, there needs to be protections so that the money is spent wisely. The current system just gives a check that can be cashed and spent on anything. An excellent solution to this would be a debit card that can be spent on only certain things. Social programs like food stamps have already implemented a similar system to prevent misuse. Implementation of this would prevent the poor from using their funds on things that are not necessary.
The way that the budgets are configured for these programs also needs revisiting. As of right now, the budget goes up by a given percentage every year. It needs to be an “as needed” increase instead of being independent of enrollment. This would promote more responsible distribution and management of funds.
The most important aspect of the new system is its long term strategy. It is necessary that the maximum time spent on welfare is reduced. In order to make this possible, an exit strategy must be formulated. The best way to accomplish this is a two part plan. First it is necessary to use a portion of money saved by the proposed reduced spending to offer more tax incentives to business and tax cuts to the citizens. This will result in economic growth just as George W. Bush’s tax cuts turned the recession into a period of economic growth in record time (it was the shortest recession on record). This economic growth would create jobs. To ensure that the poor are qualified for these jobs, the second part of my plan will be implemented. The other portion of the money saved must be spent on expansion programs similar to the Pell Grants (grants that help pay for college). The only way we are going to beat poverty is to give the children of poor families the same opportunities to succeed as the wealthy.
The new strategy is a shift from the old short term Band-Aid fix. However, a Band-Aid cannot heal the wounds that currently exist. The only way to fix the problem of poverty is to shrink the short term fixes and expand the fixes that are geared for long term. Educating the poor will help them come out of poverty and sustain their own financial well-being. This is why the strategy should shift from welfare to a more education oriented, fiscally conservative, and economic growth centric approach. Reduced spending, reduced taxes, and increased educational assistance is the answer to poverty.
One thing is clear. The current system is not functioning. The poverty rates have been holding steady despite fifty years of the welfare approach. Agree or disagree with my solution, it is clear that the current system is not working and it is time for change.
Atheism Declared Primary Religion in America
Atheism is the established religion in this country. Any mention of "God" is removed from the public domain. We cannot even legally say the pledge of allegiance anymore because the word "God" is in it. Is this just separation of Church and State? No... it is not. Atheism, is a religion in itself. Their stance on the origin of man proves this. A majority of Christians believe in intelligent design by God. A majority of atheists believe that we were brought to this earth by a complex evolution process. They both lead to an unanswerable question. For Christians, it is "Where did God come from?" For atheists it is, "Where did the matter for the Big Bang come from?" By definition, a religion is "personal beliefs or values: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, or attitudes" (Encarta.com). They both fall under this category.
The constitution says we are entitled to freedom of religion. How is the word "God" in the pledge of allegiance, the phrase "Christmas Break," the phrase "Easter Break," going to prevent anyone from freedom of religion? Pushing atheism into the lives of the children of our country is not acceptable. If we are going to push athiesm, we should at least present other points of view to prevent any one religion from gain precidence. If we live in a country with religious tolerance and awareness, the freedom can be maintained. Our forefathers did not intend for absence of religion. They intended for there not to be "The Church of the United States."
It is time do as our founding fathers intended. We must maintain freedom of religion. The only way to do this is to give all religions their respect, not to suppress them. We cannot let any one point of view take precidence. If we are to truly follow the founding fathers' intentions, we must remove atheism as our country’s established religion.
To address a common thread in all of the comments I have been receiving. I consider evolution a religion because it is not proven. It is still very theoretical. Scientists have yet to directly link man to ape. Have they found similarities, yes. However, they have not found any direct links between the two.
Why should a religious person who is a believer in intelligent design have the views of the evolutionists shoved down their throat? I understand that the focus of a biology class would be on evolution. However, why can't the ideas of intelligent design or other means of origination at least be mentioned as possibilities? For years the believers of intelligent design have listened to the theory of evolution in the classroom even though they do not believe in. Why can't the evolutionists listen to the other side? This would at least make the classroom more comfortable for the students who believe those theories.
This has turned into a debate over evolution versus intelligent design. The main point has been missed. What I am trying to say is that America's secular society is taking over. It is important that there is freedom of religion, not suppression of it. Things like the recent lawsuits over the word "God" in the pledge of allegiance are ridiculous. This needs to stop. Religious tolerance needs to replace the current absence of religion (Atheism).
Republican Young Adults are the Rebels of Today
The Democrats are often considered the rebels in society. However, in the current college generation, this has taken a turn to the right. The rebels in today's society are the outspoken Republicans. The signs are clear. The environment that has developed is lined with liberal propaganda. By definition, a rebel is one who goes against what the environment around them is pushing them to do. The teachers in our education system, the media from which we get the news, and colleges campuses nationwide have a distinct liberal environment, therefore the Republicans become the rebels.
The teachers in our education system from elementary school on up favor liberal ways of thinking. Perhaps one of the strongest demographics for the democrats is the union vote. Most teachers fall into this category. However, if they were able to keep their views to themselves, that would not be a problem. This is not the case. All across the country, Republican students who speak out their views in the classroom are getting discriminated against. It happened to me in high school on more than one occasion and I have seen it happen in college.
For example, the former president of the College Republicans Case chapter was intending on majoring in Political Science. His teacher was a very opinionated professor who attacked George W. Bush's stance on the war in Iraq on a daily basis. About halfway through the course, he spoke up to defend our president and his own beliefs. His grades shortly after this dropped from A's to F's. Similar things began to occur in other classes. He switched majors shortly after.
One other fine example of the liberal leanings in the education system is their approach towards religious issues. Rather than take a neutral stance and introduce a diverse gathering of ideas, they choose the scientific, atheist approach. One fine example of this is the origin of man. Evolution is taught in high schools across the country. Only a small handful of states even do as much as suggest intelligent design as a possibility. Once again the conservative beliefs are being suppressed.
It is not only the teachers themselves that are contributing to this forced infusion of liberal thinking. College Campuses also tend to be very liberal. Take Case Western for example. Case Western Reserve University is supposed to be a more conservative campus. However, it's left leanings are clear on first glance. Last year, rather than getting a dignified keynote speaker, the college got Chris Mathews, a left leaning television talk show host, to address our graduating class. The year before that, the left leaning Ellie Wiesel was the keynote speaker.
Right before the election of 2004, the universities left leanings were most obvious. There were two large get-out-the-vote campaigns on campus that were deemed "non partisan." However, they were both left leaning. One of them was the Vote Or Die, a campaign that tried to push the message that if you did not vote for Kerry, you would get drafted and die. There were also many other "nonpartisan" speakers that came to our campus that were equally as left-leaning.
The most blatant display of liberal favoritism came on the eve of the Vice Presidential Debate. As a member of College Republicans, I wanted to exercise my first amendment rights and have my minority voice to be heard on campus. I went on a flyering mission with my fellow Republicans to poster the entire campus. As I postered, I noticed that there were many College Dems posters in the wrong places. We put ours next to theirs. Our posters were PROMPTLY torn down BY THE UNIVERSITY! Our organization was fined well over a thousand dollars. The College Dems posters remained and no fine was assessed to them. As one can see by the "more conservative" university, Case Western Reserve University, that liberalism is forced upon students and conservative thinking is suppressed.
The most significant source of liberal pressure is the media. Even the most liberal minds would admit the left leaning tendencies of mass media. The media does this in three primary ways, story selection, doom and gloom while a republican is president, and in some recent cases, false reporting.
Story selection is something that has been practiced since the dawn of mass media. Story selection is where the media picks and chooses what stories they cover based on their political ideals. This occurs a lot on networks like CNN and MSNBC. The most recent example is comparing the controversy surrounding Karl Rove versus Former FBI Director Louis Freeh. Karl Rove, Bush’s main advisor, has not been charged with any crime. However, he was accused of leaking the identity of an undercover CIA officer. The man behind it, one of Dick Cheney’s main men, came out and admitted that he did it. However, the media still tries to spin that Rove “might have done it.” However, in a similar case, Former FBI Director Louis Freeh wrote a Bill Clinton damning book. This made many crippling accusations like unethically taking money from foreign governments. This book also presented several significant examples of being soft on terrorism. The media barely touched it because it’s Bill Clinton.
Doom and gloom is another widely used tactic that goes hand in hand with story selection. The media loves to report negative news when a Republican can be blamed. One example is the economic reporting in recent times. Rather than saying the economic index went up, they would say “the economic index went up, but not as much as expected.” They love to dwell on negatives. The reality is the economy is growing at a sustainable pace. However, the media tries to convince the American people that their lives are in shambles with the economy in shambles at their feet.
False reporting is a recent tactic by the news media. The first case of this came with Dan Rather. He knowingly broadcasted a story that bashed Bush’s National Guard service based on a forged memo. While he later recanted it, the damage was already done. The same tactic was used in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The news outlets reported mass murder, mass rape, tens of thousands of deaths, and many more atrocities. NONE OF THEM WERE TRUE! They made up the news to try and make George W. Bush look bad. The news organizations never came out to admit their mistakes.
It is evident that there is pressure all around the children and young adults of America today, to think like a liberal. Doing so, is conforming to what everyone wants you to do. While many liberal thinkers consider themselves rebels, this is clearly not the case. Since a rebel is one who goes against societal pressures, the true rebels are the conservatives who stand up against the liberalism that surrounds them.
Half the senate Republicans doubt Miers
"Bork calls Miers nomination a 'disaster' "
"Bush is guilty of CRONYISM!!!"-The Left
By selecting Miers as the next nominee to the United States Supreme Court, George W. Bush is guilty of "cronyism" as the left has consistently portrayed. However, this practice of “cronyism” is a practice that has gone since 1828! This is nothing new. This is something that has gone on to some degree in every presidential administration. Andrew Jackson, the founder of the very party who is criticizing it today (the Democrats), created a system similar to this in 1828. This system, “The Spoils System,” is quite simple. The President appoints his highest donors to high positions. As Andrew Jackson would say, "To the victor, goes the spoils.” As the Democrats try to jump all over our President for picking a “crony,” he is merely rewarding loyalty, similar to the system that was pioneered by the criticizer’s party! Bush's implimentation of this is not necessarily a bad thing either. "Cronyism" generally is reserved for the most loyal of friends. This loyalty can often prove to be a strong quality in any position.
One thing you have to keep in mind too is that this is far better than the spoils system. The spoils system was where unqualified donors were appointed to almost all the governmental positions. However, in this case qualification is not an issue. She has held presigious positions within lawfirms and the Texas State Bar.
One should also note that the President knows the personality of his loyal friend more than someone with a conservative court record. While I believe that there were other better choices that could have been made, I can't really say that with conviction since I do not know Miers. No one in the media knows either, but they are reporting their famous doom and gloom. That being said, while I do not think she was the best choice, the charge of "cronyism" does not mean anything.
This is one loyal person that he has appointed to the supreme court. You may call that "cronyism," but that is his right as president. The only reason the left is using this weak arguement to discredit her is because there is nothing for them to critisize since she has no judicial record. They have to go with the trend of the past 5 years of being anti-whatever the republicans do. This is is an excuse for their actions not a reason.
Dates were pulled from http://www.u-s-history.com
Links to conservative blog sites
This list will get bigger over time.
GOP Bloggers
Blogs for Bush
If you want me to link to yours, just leave a comment and I will address it.
This is a blog search engine that I recomend
Blog search directory
Blackhawk Down
There was something today that President George Bush said today in his speech that really made me think. He cited the battle of Mogadishu, Somalia as a rationale for staying in Iraq until the mission is completed. This battle, known by many as “Blackhawk Down,” was really a pivotal moment in recent history. This fairly unknown battle was the beginning of what is now “The War on Terror.” What if things were done differently? Would we be where we are today as a country? This will be evident after understanding Bill Clinton’s course of action, what he should have done differently, and what would be different if the right course of action was taken.
In order to fully understand, one must first understand the course of action taken by former President Bill Clinton. The date was October 3, 1993 and the plan was to send the two small, elite groups known as the Delta Force and the Army Rangers in to Mogadishu, Somalia to capture two terrorist clan members. This mission was successful. However, success would not be justly associated with this in any other contexts. It was during this mission in which the locals shot down two Blackhawk helicopters full of United States Special Forces. There were thousands of people shooting at our troops. In the end 18 troops died in action. The obvious thing to do would be to finish cleansing Somalia of these terrorists. However, the very next day, Bill Clinton gave into partisan pressure and called off the mission.
This was an enormous misjudgment on President Clinton’s part. This sent out a signal to everyone around the world saying that if they killed any of our Americans, we would falter. This is why Bill Clinton should not have backed off his mission goal, to cleanse Somalia of terrorists. Those 18 deaths were absolutely horrible; however, they were nothing compared to what the number of deaths that the falter resulted in. This clan of terrorists would soon be part of an organization known as Al Qaeda. I believe we all know what they are responsible for. Bill Clinton should have finished the mission and done whatever it took to stop this revolt because to our enemies, this was a sign of weakness. Just like any enemy who detects a weakness, they exploited it. They continue trying to exploit this weakness today; however, now it is no longer a weakness. We are strong and will not falter in the face of terrorism. That being said, resestablishing this strenth has resulted in many deaths that could have been avoided if Bill Clinton had finished the mission.
One has to ask what the world would be like without this falter, without this signal to the world that America is weak. For one, the culture of terrorism would not be spreading so rapidly throughout the world. On October 12, 2000 the terrorists bombed the USS Cole in Yemen. However, Bill Clinton perpetuated his culture of pacifism once again. If Bill Clinton would have stomped on the match before it caught the whole forest on fire, it would have been a lot easier to put out. It is likely that the current war in Iraq would have been over for a long time by now if he had not been a pacifist. It is possible that an authoritative response to these would have discouraged the attacks on September 11th, 2001.
This has lead to a lot of frustration throughout the Republican Party. The Democrats are quick to blame President Bush on everything related to terrorism. Even Bill Clinton himself came out to criticize Bush’s position on the war. The reality is, the fire will keep on getting bigger. Clinton could have stomped out the burning match; however, he chose to let the fire spread. It may not be easy to put out now, but the longer we wait, the bigger it’s going to get. President Bush is doing the right thing to change the culture of pacifism that was developed throughout the Clinton years. Although it will not be easy, we must do whatever it takes to be victorious. We must prove to these terrorists that their efforts are in vain by staying in Iraq until our mission is complete. The moment we leave Iraq is the moment the terrorists win and have an unregulated terrorism breeding ground. We will prove that America is strong, and we will not falter again.
Please post your comments as this is meant to be a 2-way blog.
Miers... a weak pick: Not the Scalia that was promised
Harriet Miers is a poor choice for nomination. It’s not because of the cronyism that the left keeps whining about… it’s not because she was never a judge… it’s not even because of her stance on any social issues. She is a weak pick for four reasons: she has little public record, she may rule differently on the bench than people percieve, she does not make the democrats cringe enough, and she may not be the judge bush promised us in the campaign last year.
It has been said that the confirmation hearings are going to be crucial in this nomination because there is no paper trail indicating her judicial style. However, I strongly disagree. One can rarely find out much about a candidate by what they say, and they can find out even less under the restrictions of these hearings. Sure, they ask all the “right” questions like “What would you decide if Roe v. Wade showed up again,” and “What is your stance on gay marriage?” However, they cannot even answer those questions! If they were to answer, they would be forced to remove themselves from that case if it ever reached the court. We can all say that the only important thing is that they will strictly interpret the constitution. However, it is not possible to do so without at least a bit of partisanship. We need to get a conservative on the court so that the liberals lose their final bastion in the federal government. Without any public record, one cannot be sure that she is that conservative we need.
The most important thing that many are overlooking is the fact that she may rule against her own views on bench if she interprets the constitution to mean something different than what she feels on the inside. Just because she is likely a pro life, evangelical Christian person, does not mean she is a pro life judge. It is very possible, and maybe even likely that she is from the same mold as Justice Scalia. However, we cannot be sure! There are just as many signs pointing towards her being in that mold as the contrary. For example, she was seen at pro life fundraisers. However, she did give money to the 1988 Al Gore campaign and she did indicate on a form that she is for full gay rights. While the first may indicate that she is a conservative, the later two would indicate she is a liberal. Let me remind you of Justice David Souter. This associate justice has a similar resume to Miers. David Souter is the poster child for exactly what we are trying to avoid. He was appointed by George HW Bush in 1990. The press used the term "stealth justice" to describe Souter. He appeared conservative, but his views were not evident from public record. While Bush Sr. thought that he was a conservative, it turned out he would take on the roll of the most liberal justice on the court. The press is using the same exact terminology for Miers. We cannot afford for this to happen again! We have the religious base rallying around the Republican Party. We must make sure we maintain that by moving the court to the right.
We can talk about how we need to bridge the gap between the Republicans and Democrats, however, lets face reality. That doesn’t happen in real life. The left and the right have constantly have been at war since 1776. While the values have changed, the names have changed, and the times have changed, the battle has always been present. Right now, for the first time in many years, the Republican party has a majority in the House and the Senate while a Republican is president. It is not just a 51% majority. They have a significant majority. What is really needed is a proven conservative justice. This justice should be so conservative that the Democrats cringe at the mere sound of his or her name. One may ask why the Republicans would want to stir such a controversy. They would want to because it would cause the democrats to come out and stand for what they believe in. By forcing them to do that, they cannot hide behind the shroud of deception that they currently hold in front of them. This would perhaps make at least a small percentage of “democrats” realize that while they may not be crazy about the President, they do not agree with what the democrats stand for either. I believe that there are these closet Democrat voting Republicans because of this past election’s political buzz word campaign. It was the trendy thing to hate Bush. The entire election their platform was “Bush sucks. Bush is Stupid.” Their real agenda being exposed to the uninformed who fell victim to this trap of deception will likely cause some to defect from the party.
The absolute most important reason why Miers was not a good pick is that SHE IS NOT THE JUDGE GEORGE BUSH PROMISED TO HIS BASE. No matter how people try to spin it, the religious conservatives won the election for President Bush in 2004. The main reason that was the case was because the President made it clear that he would put judges in the mold of Thomas and Scalia on the bench. Thomas and Scalia were both proven conservatives on all issues. Most importantly, both voted pro life and were against gay marriage. It IS possible that Miers could be out of the same mold. However, why take that chance? If the court moves to the left, it is likely that the Republican Party will lose its religious conservative base. They would have to build the trust of that demographic all over again. It is possible that with the loss of that base, the next president could be a Democrat. More than likely 1-2 judges will retire in the next term. That would mean that the court would be pretty much set in stone as liberal for 20-30 years. If Miers were to be a liberal, the courts would lean left for a very long time. We have the chance to move the court to the right after 30 years of work by the Republicans. We should capitalize on that and nominate someone who has proven that they are a conservative judge to prevent any reoccurring Souters.
It is evident that much is at stake here. We really need to move the court to the right. The fate of the conservative movement could depend on it. I don’t know about you… but I do not want to hear the phrase “President Hillary” ever in my life. Choosing a new pick would make the probability of that far lower.
Should she step aside?
FLASH: Bill Kristol/FOXNEWS on Harriet Miers: 'I'm not convinced she's going to make it, honestly... Maybe she would do the president a favor by stepping aside'... This is taken from www.drudgereport.com
Should she step aside? I will address this issue further this evening.
What is your opinion?
Harriet Miers
I will comment on this later on today. This blog is going to be one that strongly encourages reader involvement. For now, I would like to get your opinions on her nomination. This is a canidate that appears to be recieving mixed response from sides of the aisle. What is your take?
Welcome
Welcome to my conservative political blog. As issues arrive that are important to the conservative movement in America, I will post my thoughts and insights. This will be a look into the slowly growing conservative scene at Case Western Reserve University and colleges across the country.