Originally published at Frontpage
So much for “transparency and open government.”
With economic recovery nowhere in sight and its fiscal policies increasingly called into question, the Obama administration yesterday revealed that it would not be releasing its expected mid-year budget review until next month. Although the administration insisted this was a mere bureaucratic formality, critics were quick to note that the delay would help bury some politically unpalatable news about the budget, including its projected rise of the 2009 deficit.
Concern about the administration’s budget has already been stoked by the Congressional Budget Office, whose reports in recent months have read like an unending barrage of bad news. The CBO’s latest, “Long-Term Budget Outlook,” is no exception.
The CBO wastes little time getting to the bad news, noting that “Under current law, the federal budget is on an unsustainable path.” A few paragraphs down, we get grim projections about the growth of the national debt. Specifically, the “CBO estimates that in fiscal years 2009 and 2010, the federal government will record its largest budget deficits as a share of GDP since shortly after World War II. As a result of those deficits, federal debt held by the public will soar from 41 percent of GDP at the end of fiscal year 2008 to 60 percent at the end of fiscal year 2010.”
This suggests that at the end of the next fiscal year, the debt of the federal government will be 60 percent of GDP. High as this number is, the actual figure is likely larger still. By some estimates, the debt could be close to 100 percent of GDP.
continue reading at Frontpage
Who would have ever thought that we would seriously debate whether to prosecute those who have kept us safe since 9/11?
Most of us can still recall the fear and uncertainty of the days and weeks that followed. Shell-shocked and frightened, we lived in imminent expectation of further attacks. Few would have bet a dime that in the next seven years we wouldn’t be hit again. That it did not happened is almost difficult to believe, since the hijackers’ spectacular success inspired jihadists far and wide. Every year since they would promise an even greater slaughter with blood running down the streets and American mothers veiling in despair. That those threats never materialized has surely not been due to a lack of trying on their part, but to the vigilance of George W. Bush and those in his administration who devoted themselves to protecting this country. The fact that they managed to keep us safe is a remarkable achievement and something we should all be grateful for.
Continue reading at American Thinker
By fear their hearts are rent
In their mansions opulent
The world’s about to end
Because of cows flatulent
Originally published at the American Thinker
May the 3rd marks the National Day of Prayer. It truly could not come at a better time. Under assault from without and within, America needs God more than ever before. It is a great tragedy that this once overwhelmingly Christian nation has been turning away from God. Needless to say, we are paying a steep price as a result. Most of the ills that plague us today – our moral looseness, our perverted popular culture, our flaccidness in the face of fanaticism – can be directly traced to a lack of godliness. We can, therefore, do no better than to repentantly implore God for his favor and protection.
May God keep our country and may His mercy and love be upon us.
Originally published at the American Thinker
The New York Sun, March 29, 2007
Dear Fellow Immigrant:
As you may know, Congress is grappling with the serious immigration problem of this country, seeking to design what it calls comprehensive immigration reform. I think it is only appropriate that we who are at the center of this problem should do our best to help with the solution.
I am afraid, however, that the behavior of some among us only makes the already complex matters worse.
You may have noticed certain unlovely tendencies that have been becoming increasingly prominent in the immigrant population. We have learned to demand many things and then complain when our requests are not met. Protesting and tossing about charges of cultural insensitivity, discrimination, or worse have become our latest pastime.
It is safe to say that this ungracious attitude would not be tolerated anywhere else in the world. That it has been in America is due to the matchless amity of her people. But as criticisms and complaints grow more and more unreasonable, the situation is slowly becoming intolerable.
Being an immigrant myself, let me say something that needs to be said, but which Americans are reluctant to say.
Human Events, February 23rd, 2007
The dramatic events of the last few years have made it plain that the West is in a fight for its life. The terrorist attacks on New York, Washington, Madrid and London have demonstrated with ample clarity the enemy’s commitment to his stated goal of our destruction. The situation could not indeed be more dire, since never before have we faced a foe so dogged and fanatical. Whether we want to admit it or not we are in a war to the death, for the enemy will not relent until he either accomplishes his objective or is himself destroyed in the effort. Given the stakes, it is vitally important that we understand who this enemy is, because only then we’ll be in a position to formulate an effective strategy for the struggle ahead.
Contrary to all appearances, radical Islam — that militant form of Islamic fundamentalism — is not a religious movement. That this is generally not recognized is not surprising given the movement’s exploitation of religious rhetoric and symbols. But a closer look at its modus operandi shows that it is virtually indistinguishable from that of fascism and communism. The striking similarities should alert us to the fact that radical Islam is at bottom a political ideology along the lines of the great totalitarian ideologies of the past.
Like communism and fascism, radical Islam is intrinsically utopian in that it offers itself as the answer to all great problems of man. This feat is to be accomplished by eliminating the root cause from which all human trouble ultimately derives — the lack of true faith. The solution, then, is the conversion of peoples to Islam and the subsequent conforming of their conduct to Shari’a, a God-inspired body of law.
Truly amazing things are happening in Britain. The British public schools will actually attempt to teach ‘traditional British values’ under a plan being put forth by the Blair government. Said the UK’s higher education minister:
I very strongly believe that we are a multicultural, diverse society and I think that gives us incredible strength and richness. But I think it is crucial that we recognise that there are some core British values that are central and common to us all.
This is clearly an effort to counter the Islamic takeover of Europe and reverse the decades of rabid multiculturalism by which Britain has been badly mauled. After many years of overextending itself to accommodate various (mainly Islamic) cultures and minorities, the country received its reward last July – bombs on the transport system set off by ‘alienated’ youths. Alienation is, of course, the inevitable result of multiculturalism, and a year ago the British got a taste of this poisonous fruit.
But now it looks like they finally want to do something about. It is very encouraging to see that there is still some will left in Europe which so obviously and painfully suffering from moral and cultural lethargy.
It remains to be seen whether the British will sustain the initiative and turn the proposal into reality and then follow up in other areas as well. Such work is desperately needed, but they are certain to face vicious opposition from the usual quarters. We wish the British very best for their own sake, and also for the sake of a great civilization that is slowly dying on the very continent which gave it birth.
Originally published at the American Thinker
This article originally appeared at the American Thinker
One of the Left’s great agonies and frustrations of the past fifteen years has been its abortive quest to field a counterpart to Rush Limbaugh. Fully cognizant of the massive damage inflicted on it by talk radio, a number of contenders placed bids to mount a counterattack. To their bitter dismay, they all came to grief despite the great hype and hope that surrounded each successive attempt.
A decade and a half worth of feverish effort thus produced no headway, not even a single nationally viable host. With nothing to show for, the time has surely come to ask the obvious question: Why?
Why have liberals failed to make any inroads in talk radio? And why has their failure been so complete?
It surely cannot be due to a lack of trying or will, since they have done everything they could to prop up their hopefuls even to the point of raising donations in this consummately commercial medium. All to no avail.
But rather than to reevaluate their obviously failing approach, they stubbornly carry on in the same way with predicable results. Again and again they run headlong into the same wall, each crash more pathetic and embarrassing than the one before. So bad things have gotten that most recently they placed their bets on Al Sharpton hoping that the kooky reverend would carry their water on national airways. A futile dream if there ever was one. Rather than pursuing vain hopes, liberals would do much better to take a pause and search for the root cause of their fiasco.
Any such effort would have to begin with a hard look at the format in which they are trying to succeed. In the type of political talk show inaugurated by Rush Limbaugh, the host openly takes an ideological stance (conservative or liberal) and then applies it to the issues of the day during his two hours on the air. What this in effect amounts to is in-depth analysis of current affairs from a specific political point of view.
The key to success in this kind of enterprise is the host’s ability to articulate his positions in a logical and cogent manner. This is because most people will not listen for very long to an analysis-driven program if the analysis itself does not make rational sense.
And this is precisely where the crux of liberals’ problem lies. They are simply not able to explain and defend their views in rational fashion. This is not at all surprising, for how does one justify high taxes, gay marriage, abortion, multiculturalism and such? They are all based on false premises and they all produce disastrous outcomes. Anything more than a superficial examination must reveals them for the frauds and failures that they in truth are. This is why liberalism cannot withstand the analytical vigor of talk radio and why it has failed so abysmally in it.
Talk radio has thus exposed in a striking way a fatal flaw at the very heart of liberalism – its indefensibility by rational argument. Without having yet grasped it, it is the medium’s format that became liberals’ stumbling block.
However abysmal their current predicament may be, the future holds bleaker prospects still. Most liberals do not yet realize that they will never be able to succeed in talk radio. To make it there – at least in the form in which it is currently practiced – requires that hosts do something which liberals simply can’t: logically and rationally expound their views. To make matters even more desperate there is nothing they can do about it short of abandoning their untenable ideology. In popular parlance, they are cooked… completely and utterly cooked.
Things used to be infinitely more palatable (for liberals) when the television talk show was the main forum for the mass dissemination of political opinion. Its relatively short broadcast time – rarely more than fifty minutes – is usually intensely contested by several guests. As a result of severe time constraints, the discussants rarely speak for more than a couple of minutes at a time. This, of course, makes any serious analysis all but impossible. This problem is made all the more acute by the fact that the guests’ statements are routinely intended to rebuff points made by their opponents which themselves are often quite irrelevant to the topic under consideration.
This format just fine with liberals who – knowing instinctively that their positions cannot withstand thorough scrutiny – are always happy to avoid in-depth discussion of anything. Conservatives, on the other hand, are badly disadvantaged in this kind of environment. Conservatism requires methodical exposition, quite unlike liberalism which can only survive in the realm of disjointed statements and unsupported assertions. The television talk show is thus liberalism’s perfect vehicle. Often nothing more than a scattered clash of personalities, it is normally dominated by those with the biggest mouth. And since liberals have almost a complete grip on television, they make sure that the biggest mouths on their programs come from their own camp.
But things changed dramatically with the advent of Rush Limbaugh when the program format he made commonplace became the first ever forum in the mass-media that allowed for the systematic analysis of issues. Nowhere indeed are things discussed more deeply and thoroughly than in talk radio where not infrequently the whole show revolves around two or three subjects. The level of analysis is further deepened by the input from callers who enrich the discussion with their unique input and perspective.
And then, of course, there are those who disagree and openly challenge the host’s positions. To retain his audience’s trust he must be able to deal with their objections in an honest and fair manner. Woe be to the host who keeps dismissing those who oppose him without properly addressing the points they raise. Sooner or later he will be abandoned by all except the most narrow-minded in his audience. No one understands this better than Rush Limbaugh who accords those who contradict him the time and courtesy which go far beyond the bounds of common politeness.
Unable to face the unsavory truth, liberals charge that Mr. Limbaugh owes his success to his showmanship and that their failure to compete is due to their inability to field an equally talented performer. But this surely is not the case. Success in talk radio is not contingent on the host’s ability to be funny. There have been a number of other conservatives who succeeded in this medium without possessing Mr. Limbaugh’s flair for entertaining. Sean Hannity, Michael Reagan and Oliver North immediately come to mind. Funny or not, not a single liberal talk show host has come even close to matching their level of success.
The most acute observer of the American scene, it is his intelligence, penetration, and grasp of issues that primarily account for Rush Limbaugh’s success. His sparkling humor is merely the icing on the sumptuous cake of analysis he serves up on a daily basis. To liberals, however, it does not taste as delicious and understandably so. To them his wit feels more like a stinging petard in their rear regions as they lie prostrate in the ruins of their ideology brought down by the power of his analytical firestorm.
The fact that Dick Cheney made last year a charitable donation of $6.87 million – the largest ever by a public servant – has gone virtually unnoticed in the mainstream media. Given that they are so eager to report all the bad things they can find about those evil trial-lawyer shooting republicans, they should at least have the decency to also report the praiseworthy. But obviously they don’t. To be fair, one does not often hear them reporting charitable donations by liberals either.
This, however, is probably due a different reason. Do you still remember Al Gore’s 1997 charity totaling $367?
As a general rule, heart-bleeding liberals talk very good talk when it comes to giving something back but when it comes to their own money they are rather careful. Most of the wealthy ones have become masters at avoiding taxation and hiding their wealth in various tax sheltered instruments. Ted Kennedy could tell you a great deal about it. But since he won’t there is an excellent book that does.
There is, of course, nothing wrong with people deciding not to part with their own money. What grates is the hypocrisy. One wonders just how much of his newly-found personal wealth Bill Clinton has ‘given back to the community,’ to use the phrase that he so loved when in office. It is well known that the man is rather sharkish when charging for his appearances and that he cannot be got on the cheap.
His wife likewise has shown considerable cunning when it comes to steering money to her own nest. Some people may still remember how she arranged to get paid her huge book advance just days before being sworn in as a US Senator after which fact she would have been ineligible for much of that money.
It would surely seem that Mr. and Mrs. Clinton exhibit the classic symptoms of that same greed against which they so bravely fought while in the White House. It would also appear that they are not the only ones among the liberal folk who suffer from this execrable affliction. Can it be that Dick Cheney’s enormous charitable donation puts many of them to shame which is why their friends in the mainstream media are so loath to report his benevolent act?
Originally published at the American Thinker
