Filed under: Domestic Policy, Foreign Policy, Politics | Tags: Crazy Uncle Paul, Election 2008, John McCain, Nanny Huckabee, Politics, Republicans, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani
…unless you’re counting Crazy Uncle Paul and Nanny Huckabee — which I don’t.
The best of all candidates for President of the United States, Rudy Giuliani, withdrew from the race yesterday, and endorsed John McCain. It’s certainly a disappointment, but not unexpected. It became clear after his name dropped out of the headlines, that putting all his eggs in the proverbial Floridian basket may not have been the wisest strategy.
But Rudy was still, in our estimation, the best man for the times.
He was right on all the most important issues facing us today. Iraq, Homeland Security, the War on Terror. He had the right prescription for health-care and the economy, and he was our very best hope, we think, to get conservative judges and justices appointed to the courts.
But there is something else, something important, that Rudy had which the rest of the Republican field lacks — a long record of taking on, and beating, Democrats and the liberal press to advance and implement conservative principles. “Consensus is the absence of leadership,” said Margaret Thatcher. I fear we are left with no leaders and only consensus-seekers.
And it is not just Democrat politicians and the liberal press that need to be taken on, there is liberal establishment in the CIA, Justice, and the State Department that are doing America great harm and are openly defiant of the Republican administrations they serve under. This is no minor problem. They are going to get Americans killed (if they haven’t already). Aggressive interrogation, Guantanamo, the Terrorist Surveillance Program, data mining… these are just some of the essential tools in keeping America safe that partisan liberal lifers in these departments have leaked and turned into scandals to Americans’ peril.
This was a problem even Bush and Cheney could not overcome, and someone has to clean house before these treasonous bureaucrats get us all killed. Rudy is the only man that I can see even taking on the problem, and he has the law and order record, and the occasional pit-bull temperament necessary to get it done.
I still hope he will be appointed Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security.
As for who to vote for now? Well, looks like I’ve got a lot of thinking left to do…
Filed under: Domestic Policy, Foreign Policy, History, Politics | Tags: 9/11, BDS, conservatives, Courts, Debunking Liberal Lies, Economy, History, Iraq, Katrina, Politics, President Bush, Republicans, Taxes
…and so is the Anchoress, who takes us down memory lane in an excellent post recalling all the great good President Bush has done for conservatives, for America, and for the world. In the face of the most evil vitriol and venom the hysterical left could muster, President Bush has exemplified the very best in grace and character.
In this poisonous atmosphere — where it has become de rigueur for cowed conservatives to qualify their support of the President with caveats like, “well, I don’t agree with everything Bush has done” (Of course you don’t you ninnies!) — there are some on the right who would greatly benefit from (and should be somewhat shamed by) this reminder of what a great man with the courage of his convictions looks like.
The left is hopeless. They are hysterical, ignorant, and naive. They loathed President Reagan much the same way, and look how stupid history has proved them to be. I have no doubt that history will record President Bush as near-great, and the Anchoress recalls many of the reasons why.
Read the entire post.
Filed under: Domestic Policy, Foreign Policy, Politics | Tags: Conservativism, Debunking Liberal Lies, Democrats, liberalism, Politics, Republicans, Socialism
Demagogue: [Děm’·a·gŏg] n. a political leader who gains power by appealing to people’s emotions, instincts, and prejudices in a way that is considered manipulative and dangerous.
Authenticity: The (probably erroneous) belief that the demagogue is telling you the truth.
Anti-Americanism: Demagogues are, by the force of their personalities, going to make the world love us again. Unfortunately anti-Americanism has been with us since the days of the founding.
Big Oil: (Evil). Earns 10 cents for every gallon of gas sold. The Federal gas tax is 18.4 cents per gallon. My state gas tax is 37 cents per gallon. Who is gouging whom? Big oil plunges the money into searching for more oil. The government apparently spends their take on other things, for they constantly want more money for roads and to relieve traffic congestion.
Big Pharma: (Evil). They not only produce drugs that save lives, prolong life and help avoid the need for costly medical procedures, but they do it for only 11 cents of every dollar spent on health care. And for less than the rate of inflation as well. Obviously must be regulated.
CAFE Standards: A demand by people who have no idea how a car is made that manufacturers increase gas mileage. Can only be accomplished by making cars lighter and more flimsy. Will kill approximately 4,000 people a year.
Change: The really big demagogue word. Meaningless, unless accompanied by the specifics of what will change, why that is a good thing, and why the demagogue thinks that he can bring it about. Be very skeptical.
Capitalism: (Evil). The name that Karl Marx gave to the natural workings of the free market. If he could sell the idea that ‘capitalism’ is a system, then he could substitute his system, socialism. Didn’t work.
An economic term easily understood when demonstrated by the example of the buggy whip. When applied to current failing industries, the demand is for government involvement to save jobs.
Diversity: The very odd notion that the most important thing about any group of people is the color of their skin, their sex, and their ethnicity.
There are no qualifications whatsoever to be an environmentalist. More skills are required of a leaf- blower or a dishwasher. Requires only faith.
Equality I: You can be free, or you can be equal. You cannot be both. Human beings are not naturally equal. Some are smart, some are not; some save and invest, some spend and gamble; some are natural athletes and some are clumsy. Some are pretty, become celebrities and a bad example to us all.
Equality II: “A society that puts equality – in the sense of equality of outcome – ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests.” (Milton Friedman)
“For the Children”: A phrase designed to elicit warm fuzzy feelings, like kitten or puppies. We think small children; they include 20 year old delinquents, and young men in the military.
Freedom: Freedom is, to be sure, frightening. There is no telling what values someone will choose to hold. Decent and well-meaning guardians of values were horrified by the monstrous principles of the Declaration of Independence. It is, of course, out of fear that the guardians preach the inculcation of values, fear of knowledge and thought.” (Richard Mitchell)
Responsible for lifting people all over the world out of poverty. Must be regulated by the Democrats to improve the environment.
Global Warming: The globe has not warmed in the past six years. In the last few years, the pillars that support the notion of man-made global warming have been falling, one after another. What warming we have had does not fall outside the normal range of planetary warming and cooling. CO2 is not a pollutant. The Medieval Optimum, when it was much warmer than today, is the finest weather known to man.
Since we in America have the finest health care in the world, it is imperative that we change the system to duplicate the systems that are failing elsewhere.
Hate crime: Thought crime. To the criminal offense is added the supposed state of mind of the perpetrator. Apparently only minorities can be hated. A racist notion, and a ‘crime’ that should be abolished.
A phrase designed to promote class envy. Someone will always have something that you have not. A phrase also designed to create an us-versus-them mentality. Celebrate what you have: freedom and equality of opportunity.
The left decided early on, that since a President who presides over a successful war often ushers in a long reign of his party, President Bush must be prevented, at all costs, from being successful in the war in Iraq. They really tried, but Bush is, fortunately, stubborn.
A matter of contention. The people want the constitution and the law to be obeyed. The politicians want to register new voters.
Jobs: Can be created by the government only by raising your taxes. Government has no money of its own. Government-created jobs are of no net benefit to the economy. Only private investment creates new jobs, and makes new products never before seen in the world.
“Never in human history has one seen a society of political liberty that was not based on a free economic system – i.e. a system based on private property, where normal economic activity consisted of transactions between consenting adults. Never, never, never. No exceptions.” (Irving Kristol)
How remarkably condescending to refer to any American as “the little man”. Words spoken only by very small politicians.
Multiculturalism: The strange notion that all cultures are of equal value. None is better than any other. A theory that was permanently disproved on 9/11.
“The media are less a window on reality than a stage on which officials and journalists perform self-scripted, self-serving fictions.” (Paul Weaver, New York Times, 7/29/94)
( Evil). And where did you think the money came from to create new jobs, build new businesses, invent new products? None of these things can be done by government. Profit is the reward for the investment of capital.
Defined as the bottom quintile of the income pie. Will always be with us. As long as we have quintiles, someone will occupy the bottom. The U.S. economy is characterized by an extraordinary degree of income mobility. The notion that high-income or low-income groups are composed mostly of the same people over time is an illusion.
“What do the poor most need? They need to stop being poor. And how can that be done on a mass scale, except by an economy that creates more wealth? Yet the political left has long had a remarkable lack of interest in how wealth is created. As far as they are concerned, wealth exists ‘somehow’ and the only interesting question is how to re-distribute it”. (Thomas Sowell)
We used to be able to prevent crime by questioning suspicious people. Civil rights activists suggested that the large number of young black men in prison was somehow due to racial profiling rather than the fact that young black men were committing more crimes. Careful studies have shown that racial profiling seldom exists.
Recession: The only question interesting to politicians about a recession is who can be blamed for it, and who can be credited for ending it. Unfortunately the answers to these questions are often not available until it is over.
Control and power are the goal of all bureaucrats. Regulation is the enemy of growth and creativity, whether economic, social or individual. Rules stifle initiative. Trial and error is the key to all progress.
A romantic notion that we can dispense with evil petroleum and replace it with nice solar, wind or biofuel. We can’t. They are not reliable sources of energy, require large subsidies, and take far too much land. The rush to ethanol is driving food prices up as farmers are switching to subsidized corn, but there is not much demand for ethanol.
Remarkably successful. As it became apparent that the Surge was working, the media lost all interest, and it has disappeared from conversation entirely, except when leftists disgracefully accuse the brilliant General Petraeus of lying.
(aka: Universal Healthcare) If you give government the power to decide what health care you can have, you have also given government the power to decide what health care you cannot have, as British and Canadian citizens are learning to their pain.
Taxation: You do not improve an economy by raising taxes. You improve an economy by allowing people to keep more of their own money.
Are you giving up your convictions or did you expect me to give up mine? The call for unity represents a misunderstanding of the nature of American politics. We are supposed to debate and argue in public. That is the nature of our society.
The time in their lives when many baby-boomers felt most alive and authentic. Most were simply afraid of being drafted, and once the draft was abolished, they lost all interest in the war. Nevertheless, Vietnam remains the screen through which all current events must pass.
Germany, Japan, Italy, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, Serbia, Grenada, Afghanistan.
Wealth: (Evil). In a country that offers equality of opportunity and equality before the law, anyone can aspire to wealth.
The safest place in the world to store nuclear waste. Opposed by the demagogue, who prefers to have nuclear waste stored in many places around the United States, perhaps right in your neighborhood.
Filed under: Domestic Policy, Foreign Policy, Politics, The Constitution | Tags: Conservatism, conservatives, constitution, defense, economic growth, Economy, Election 2008, health care, judges, law enforcement, national security, pro-growth, Rudy Giuliani, Taxes
American Elephants likes Rudy Giuliani! Let us count the ways:
First, remember that Rudy was the mayor of a city larger than the entire state of Massachusetts. When he inherited NYC, the Big Apple had an astronomical crime-rate, declining school performance, oppressive taxation, a suffering economy and a bloated government packed with hostile political adversaries.
Rudy developed a philosophy of government completely at odds with New York’s political culture.
…the former prosecutor had fashioned a philosophy of local government based on two core conservative principles vastly at odds with New York’s political culture: that government should be accountable for delivering basic services well, and that ordinary citizens should be personally responsible for their actions and their destiny and not expect government to take care of them. Giuliani preached the need to reestablish a “civil society,” where citizens adhered to a “social contract.” “If you have a right,” he observed, “there is a duty that goes along with that right.”
He followed through on his conservative principles, no matter how much he upset the elites, no matter how many threats were made against him. Total crime dropped by more than 64 percent and the murder rate dropped by 67 percent. Giuliani proposed cutting the city’s huge budget deficit entirely through spending cuts and savings and even a modest tax cut. As crime dropped, tourism soared. The city gained around 430,000 new jobs, personal income soared and the unemployment rate was cut in half.
He revived the largest city in America when everyone else said it was impossible. And he did it all in the face of bitter opposition. It’s an inspiring story.
Rudy has the only Healthcare plan of any candidate that will actually make healthcare more available and more affordable. It rejects public entitlements and tax hikes and embraces private property and tax incentives to extend health coverage overall — private coverage that people would own, control, and transport throughout their careers like they do with home or life insurance.
His blueprint for homeland security, The Resilient Society, shows that Rudy really understands the problems and issues facing national security. Its a long piece, but worth reading in full.
Rudy has proposed not only the largest tax cut in modern American history, but also a dramatic simplification of the tax code. He would give every tax-payer the option of using a one-page “Fair and Simple Tax Form.” There would be only three rates 10%, 15% and 30%. Deductions for mortgage payments, state and local taxes and child tax-credits would be preserved. Taxpayers who prefer existing forms would be free to do so. It is the best and most pro-growth proposal of any of the candidates.
But, “isn’t Rudy pro-abortion?” you ask. He has said that he, as a man, doesn’t think he has the right to tell a woman that she can’t have an abortion. But he is opposed to partial-birth abortion and is in favor of parental notification. He has pledged to appoint strict constructionist judges, and since he has chosen Ted Olson as one of his advisers, this seems very likely. And it is strict constructionist judges that are precisely what is needed to overturn Roe. Rudy Giuliani is the only candidate we are convinced will appoint true conservatives to the bench.
.
.
American Elephant Adds: I would also point out that Rudy has been extremely disturbed how activist liberal judges are endangering the country with their unconstitutional meddling in the war. Unlike John McCain who has talked about “consensus nominees” for far too long to be beleived, and who is unlikely to appoint anyone who would endanger McCain/Feingold, and unlike Mitt who says all the right things, but strikes us as a man who will compromise once he is in office, Rudy Giuliani is the only candidate who will insist on conservative justices, and he will fight Democrats and the press to do it.
Also, there are some who complain about Rudy’s divorces. I would remind them that Ronald Reagan was also a divorcee, and he turned out pretty darn good in my book!
Filed under: Politics | Tags: Election 2008, Fred Thompson, Republicans, Rudy Giuliani
Fred Thompson, whom I still think would make an excellent choice for vice-president (hint, hint, Rudy), has ended his campaign for president of the United States.
“Today, I have withdrawn my candidacy for president of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort,” the former Tennessee senator said in a brief statement.
Thompson’s fate was sealed last Saturday in the South Carolina primary, when he finished third in a state that he had said he needed to win. [read more]
I’ve liked Thompson from the beginning; he was certainly the most reliably conservative of the lot. But, when it came right down to it, he never really seemed like he cared about winning that much. Kind of a disqualifier as far as presidential candidates go.
UPDATE: I should also add that Fred Thompson’s mother has been very ill in the hospital for several days now, while all this was going on. I hope everyone will join me in praying for Fred’s mother and the whole Thompson family.
I can already see the veins popping and heads spinning over at DailyKos if Nader were to run and the Republican were to win by a small margin. That alone would be worth a contribution to his campaign.
MONTREAL (Reuters) – Consumer advocate Ralph Nader said on Monday he will decide soon on whether to make a another bid for the White House in 2008, eight years after playing a key role as a third party presidential candidate.
“I’ll decide in about a month,” he said in an interview broadcast on CBC Radio’s Daybreak show in Montreal. [read more]
With all the excitement over Hillary/Obama/Edwards/McCain/Romney/Thompson/ Guiliani/Huckabee, there was not very much in the news about the President’s trip to the Middle East, and that little was fairly well distorted.
President Bush, however, gave an amazing speech in Abu Dhabi, in the United Arab Emirates. It is really worth reading the whole thing.
Filed under: Domestic Policy, Foreign Policy, History, Politics, The Constitution | Tags: Congress, History, Republicans, The Constitution
The brilliant Mark Levin lays out the bedrock principles of conservatism using the founders’ own words. It is no coincidence that they are the exact same principles our nation was built upon. These are the exact same principles that made America great, they are the exact same principles that liberty depends upon, and they are the exact same principles that liberalism seeks to destroy:
“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”
~ Thomas Jefferson
“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated.”
~ Thomas Jefferson
“[T]he powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.”
~ James Madison
“…[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
~ James Madison
“…the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
~ Thomas Jefferson
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
~ Benjamin Franklin
“No nation was ever ruined by trade, even seemingly the most disadvantageous.”
~ Benjamin Franklin
“Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread.”
~ Thomas Jefferson
“Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.”
~ Thomas Paine
“They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
~ Benjamin Franklin
“Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.”
~ Thomas Paine
“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.”
~ John Adams
“To be prepared for war, is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.”
~ George Washington
“One single object. . . [will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation.”
~ Thomas Jefferson
“Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
~ John Adams
“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
~ Thomas Jefferson
” I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.”
~ Benjamin Franklin
“The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.”
~ Thomas Jefferson
“[The purpose of a written constitution is] to bind up the several branches of government by certain laws, which, when they transgress, their acts shall become nullities; to render unnecessary an appeal to the people, or in other words a rebellion, on every infraction of their rights, on the peril that their acquiescence shall be construed into an intention to surrender those rights.”
~ Thomas Jefferson
Filed under: Domestic Policy, Foreign Policy, Politics | Tags: 2008 Election, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Media, Obama, Politics, Presidential election
Haven’t you often wondered just what it is that impels a person to seek the office of President of the United States? Admit it. You have looked at one candidate or another and snickered and wondered “what were they thinking?”
There is ambition, of course, and we can all identify the candidates with burning ambition. But what makes them think that they are up to the challenge? Do they want to do, or do they want to be? Hillary claims vast experience, since she lived in the White House with the President — which is about as plausible as a wife replacing a retiring C.E.O. It may have been interesting and fascinating, but it wasn’t experience, at least as we usually define experience.
John Edwards had one term in the Senate, and one campaign for Vice President, and apparently fell in love with his ‘two Americas’ theme. Barack Obama was in the Illinois State Senate, but no sooner did he take his seat in the Senate than he began campaigning to be President, and hasn’t been in Washington much since. Thin resumes indeed.
Occasionally a candidate will be selected by a group of others who seek him out and urge him to run. But every one of the current candidates on both sides is self-selected. This, I think, makes our job of learning about a candidate harder. Why do they want to be President, and why should we agree?
Here’s how I think you do it. First, go to a candidate’s website, print out what you can find under ‘Issues’ or some equivalent title, and go over it with a fine tooth comb. Make notes. Do they seem to know what they are talking about, or are they just pandering — promising to give you stuff if you vote for them? Do they have a grasp of the current problems in foreign affairs? Do they understand the current threats to the security of the United States? This, after all, is the primary job of the President. Do they have a clue about economics? They can ask Congress to pass laws to accomplish other items on their to-do list, but Congress doesn’t have to agree, and probably won’t.
Second, look carefully at who the candidate has selected as advisers. Do these people have good resumes on their own? Obama, for example, speaks of hope and change and unity, yet his advisers are from the Carter Administration and advised what many consider the worst presidency in history.
Third. Pay far less attention to the candidate’s looks, what they say on the stump (after a while they all turn into demagogues, promising goodies and avoiding the really serious questions).
If I had my choice, I would do away with the debates. It’s silly, waiting for someone to sweat, or get angry, or trip over his own tongue. I’d like to see a relaxed conversation about the state of the country and the world with all the candidates and an interesting, scrupulously non-partisan host, rather than a Sunday show host who is trying to get the candidates to embarrass themselves. No stage and lecterns, but comfortable seats around a table. I want to get to know the candidates, not trick them into saying something they didn’t intend. Much of the mischief on the campaign trail is committed by the media — who are ever ready to pounce on anything that might make a more interesting story.
How would you prefer to choose a candidate? Are you satisfied with the way we do it now?
Filed under: Domestic Policy, Foreign Policy, News, Politics | Tags: Afghanistan, Debunking Liberal Lies, Iraq, Liberal lies and corruption, Media Bias, New York Times, Veterans
The news out of Iraq has been very good indeed — both military and civilian deaths have been drastically reduced, Iraqis are making significant political progress both at the local and national levels — a peaceful, stable Iraq seems more and more realistic all the time. Just the kind of news everyone should welcome.
Not the New York Times.
In fact, so distraught has the Grey Lady been over all the good news from Iraq, and the complete absense of any bad news for them to distort, exaggerate, and misrepresent, that they resorted to the only option left in their playbook — they decided to fabricate bad news instead.
So, last Sunday, the loathsome propagandists ran a huge front-page story (above the fold of course) smearing Iraq veterans as war-traumatized killers, coming home to spawn a nationwide epidemic of murder.
Town by town across the country, headlines have been telling similar stories. Lakewood, Wash.: “Family Blames Iraq After Son Kills Wife.” Pierre, S.D.: “Soldier Charged With Murder Testifies About Postwar Stress.” Colorado Springs: “Iraq War Vets Suspected in Two Slayings, Crime Ring.”
Individually, these are stories of local crimes, gut-wrenching postscripts to the war for the military men, their victims and their communities. Taken together, they paint the patchwork picture of a quiet phenomenon, tracing a cross-country trail of death and heartbreak.
The New York Times found 121 cases in which veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed a killing in this country, or were charged with one, after their return from war.
What the scum, and yes, these “journalists” and editors really are treasonous scum, at the NYT refuse to tell their readers, as any responsible journalists would do, was that despite their best efforts to show otherwise, according to the Times’ own figures, the rate of murders committed by Iraq and Afghanistan veterans is far, FAR LESS than that of the general population! WAAAAY less.
John Hinderaker at Powerline does the number-crunching to put the blatant lie to the Times’ smear:
Do the math: the 121 alleged instances of homicide identified by the Times, out of a population of 700,000, works out to a rate of 17 per 100,000–quite a bit lower than the overall national rate of around 27.
But wait! The national rate of 27 homicides per 100,000 is an annual rate, whereas the Times’ 121 alleged crimes were committed over a period of six years. Which means that, as far as the Times’ research shows, the rate of homicides committed by military personnel who have returned from Iraq or Afghanistan is only a fraction of the homicide rate for other Americans aged 18 to 24. Somehow, the Times managed to publish nine pages of anecdotes about the violence wreaked by returning servicemen without ever mentioning this salient fact.
The figures prove not only are our veterans NOT the war-crazed, cold-blooded murderers the Times makes them out to be — but the veterans of the US military are the very safest, most honorable company you could ever possibly hope to keep!
I don’t care how you feel about the war — this kind of intentional, dishonest, smear should be unacceptable to all Americans. I am still livid 5 days after the story broke! And the NYT has been originating and propagating such lies and heinous distortions since the war began. They have leaked national secrets that have made us all less safe, and printed information they knew would put Americans in danger.
I will not link to any story in the NYT, especially not this one. They are not honest purveyors of news, they are activists with an agenda, willing to betray the truth and their country for their political purposes.
I want to do everything in my power to drive these reprehensible hacks, whom I truly believe to be treasonous, out of business. Not only are they lying to the American people about our military men and women, they are lying to the world. They have done great harm to our nation, our people and our men and women in uniform while they are fighting on the battlefield.
If you still subscribe to the Times, I hope you will cancel your subscription here, or by calling 1-800-NYTIMES. If you are not a subscriber, I hope you will join me in refusing to visit or generate traffic to their site.
If you are as outraged as me, I hope you will even consider contacting businesses like Starbucks and other restaurants, Doctors’ offices, hotels, stores and other businesses that purchase bulk quantities of, or subscribe to the NYT and telling them you would appreciate it if they would give their business to a more honest, less controversial publication.
Many of these companies, like Starbucks, choose to carry the Times over other, more reputable papers. You might remind them it makes good business sense to switch to a paper that doesn’t offend so many of their customers.
It is a quandry. We know that our schools are not doing the job that they should. Math and science take a back seat to multiculturalism and diversity. High school students cannot make change without the help of a cash register that tells them exactly how much to return to the customer. Examples of public writing are bereft of clear thought, grammar and spelling. Yet when we visit the school and our child’s teacher tells us how delightful our child is and what a pleasure to have in class, well, of course, we melt.
Every politician is currently promising to fix education, ignoring the fact that education is not the job of the federal government. Education specialists and activists are busily doing studies and writing papers on just how to go about reforming education, but the conversation seldom includes the people who care most, the parents.
Recent studies show that schools of education, to varying degrees, are more interested in teaching multiculturalism than in teaching math, and sometimes, it is way more. Multiculturalism is, of course, the notion that all cultures are equally valuable, and none is better than another. It would seem that this nonsense should have been settled on 9/11.
There has been some success in reforming the curriculum, in particular in the “Massachusetts miracle”. Sol Stern writes about instructional reform in City Journal. Read the whole thing.
American Elephants 