Democrat New York Senator and front runner for the Democrat Party Presidential nomination recently spoke at the Manchester School of Technology in Manchester, NH. Her vision for America was typical for those who but into the fallacy of collectivism preached in the 1960s and 70s. Senator Clinton was critical of President Bush’s view of ownership. Instead she embraces a philosophy of ‘we are all in it together’. While what she says may sound nice and rosy, essentially bypassing the failures of previous attempts to employ such thought process, it in all actuality bad for society and sounds very much like socialism.

Collectivism is at the heart of progressive liberal political and economic thought. The roots of such are found in John Locke’s Social Contract writings. In short Locke’s philosophy, which was later expounded on by other philosophers, describes a society where few rights are given up in order for a government to maintain social order. The definition of social order and its interpretation varies as wide as the colors of the rainbow. The term’s description has lent itself to the works of Karl Marx, father of communism to noted French socialist philosopher Emile Durkheim and American sociologist Talcott Patterson. While Ayn Rand’s objectivism (sometimes referred to as individualism) values one’s pursuit and mankind’s pursuit for one’s self is absolute. Her philosophy would jumpstart the Libertarian Party political thought whereby the government at any level should be maintained at a minimum. One of Rayn’s contemporaries and devoted practitioners is former Federal Reserve chairman Allan Greenspan. The economic application of objectivism is found in the Laissez-fare theory of capitalism, which in short calls for little if any government intervention and markets are always self- correcting.

Those who are fully saturated with objectivism may find their legitimization in our American Constitution and in particular with the use of the word ‘we’.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The idea of ‘general welfare’ has often been expounded upon and interpreted liberally by many on the American Left, while securing blessings of liberty has often been ignored. Senator Clinton later said the following, "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none." Is this to say that the eight years of the Bush Administration mitigated that of her husband’s?

America is still the opportunity for all. Isn’t that why we have an illegal immigration problem? Isn’t that many are fleeing lands of no opportunity for a greater chance?

Now Senator Clinton was addressing a college, an assumed institution of higher learning but she has the audacity to state the following, "We have sent a message to our young people that if you don't go to college ... that you're thought less of in America. We have to stop this." No the problem is that our country doesn’t have enough skilled labor and instead would be successful plumbers have bachelor of art degrees in subjects that cannot elevate them to an occupation that doesn’t provide economic advancement. We need more plumbers and electricians and fewer college graduates holding down two part time jobs because there is no market for their chosen major.

Who will be paying for these future college students? Currently we have student loan programs that have seen their usage grow at substantial rates. These mechanisms were not previously available decades ago. Are we now asked to dip in our wallets to foot an additional bill?

Other items not mentioned by Clinton but is often employed by her camp is a higher taxation on oil companies and national healthcare. In fact Clinton stokes and basks in class warfare-the tension (genuine or otherwise) that supposedly exists between the haves and have nots-assuring her constituency that Washington DC has the answer. Yes the same group of elected officials who failed to uphold the enforcement of current immigration laws only to substitute them for a new set of laws can save the day.

Sadly Senator Clinton chooses to ignore the words of the great legendary economist Adam Smith. Unlike Clinton, Smith knew a thing or two about economies. From Smith’s Wealth of Nations It is the highest impertinence and presumption, therefore, in kings and ministers, to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expense. ... (Kings and ministers) are themselves always, and without any exception, the greatest spendthrifts in the society. Let them look well after their own expense, and they may safely trust private people with theirs. If their own extravagance does not ruin the state, that of their subjects never will."

It is also even sadder that she chooses to ignore the Tenth Commandment ‘Thou shall not covet your neighbor’ and instead bases her reasoning on the very idea.

 

Today we honour our servicemen and women from the past to today. We remember those who lived and died defending our way of life and our freedoms. From World War I, which caused the United States to become an international power to the present day Iraq War. Your author expresses a genuine and generous token of appreciation, which is probably not even enough for what has been given. Your author has had the good fortune to have many of his relatives serve in various battles, from a great great uncle who was a private first class and WWI MIA to World War II and Vietnam. Several friends of your author are serving or have served, with some even returning to Iraq. It is indeed a good fortune because it makes these events much more personal. These events bring it home to your author as it does for many Americans. In this day and age of what has become confusion for many, your author needs no explanation. It does sadden your author that many use this moment in our time to exploit the troops and the need for a strong military force. In the past our country has always had objectors to military conflicts. During World War I Eugene Debs, American Socialist Party presidential candidate was a vocal critic. When World War II occurred such anti war sentiment was expressed in the literary classic of the day as with Catch 22 by Joseph Heller. The Vietnam War presented a legendary anti war protest movement that allowed pop culture, particular in music, to profit. We have seen the Iraq War produce a long list of anti war protestors. Your author certainly agrees with their right to protest or express their thoughts. That is a tenant of our country that makes us unique and rich. Sadly, at least with this most recent round of anti war expression, if one does not agree with them then they must be ‘pro war’, which is ludicrous. Additionally consider that supporting the troops and the military as a whole, standing firm against the very real threat of radical Islam, is not for profit. However can the same be said for the other side of the coin when one considers the likes of DailyKos.com, Michael Moore, moveon.org, Cindy Sheehan and others? Right now Democrat Presidential nominee John Edwards is reinventing his campaign to include support your troops, end the war movement. Former Senator Edwards stands to win the White House. Many from this profitable anti war movement, often referring to themselves as patriots, have already concluded that the Iraq War is lost. What does this do to troop morale? What does this say about some of our fellow citizens? Will we ever be able to win a war as long as these figures can be heard so loudly? With that kind of grim spinning, why have a military? Why even have a country? Why not shred The Constitution and call it a day? Maybe find some other place to set up camp and start over? This is what the profitable anti war movement would cause in the end. The misuse of words is common with the profitable anti war movement. Two that stand out for your author are patriot and hero. We first must define these two words before we can critique what is being said. From Merrian Webster Dictionary: Hero-one that shows great courage. Patriot-one who loves their country and supports its authority and interests. US National Guard Staff Sargent Camilo Mejia is described by the profitable anti war group as being a hero. Mejia decided he did not want go to Iraq. Instead he opted to become AWOL. In 2004 Mejia was sentenced to a military prison for six months. US Army Specialist Jeremy Hinzman fought in Afghanistan and upon hearing he would be shipped to Iraq fled to Canada with his wife and daughter. He is currently living in Vancouver and attempting to obtain refugee status. His contention with the Iraq War-it would be benefit Haliburton. What is so heroic about these individuals? Nothing. Six months in a military prison would pale in comparison to risking your life in a war. And despite Hinzman’s claims, Haliburton has not profited from the Iraq War. Unlike Mejia and Hinzman, Casey Sheehan was a patriot. In May 2000 Sheehan, following graduating from a community college, enrolled in the US Army. Originally desiring to be a chaplain’s assistant, Sheehan became a light wheeled mechanic. Nearing the end of his tour, the Allied Forces invaded Iraq and this drove Sheehan to reenlist. He knew full well his First Calvary Division would be shipped to Iraq. Despite the obvious dangers, Sheehan believed in the cause. Sheehan became a hero when he volunteered to be a member of the Quick Action Response Force to rescue troops and was killed on April 4, 2004. Sheehan’s mother Cindy Sheehan would become an important figure in the profitable anti war movement. She would author a book, engage in numerous anti war demonstrations and profit from speaking tours. Her book entitled Peace Mom was about her son and plenty on her anti war stance. In the past several years she embraced both Socialist leader Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Communist leader Fidel Castro of Cuba. Her son was a brave and heroic patriot. Cindy Sheehan, obviously struck with grief that your author can only imagine, became a member and ultimately a tool for the profitable anti war movement crowd. It has concluded, she has been spent and today she threw in the towel. It is because of soldiers such as Sheehan and thousands of others that the profitable anti war movement can even exist. It is because of these brave men and women, those who gave their time and the ones who sacrifice their lives that allows your author to express such support for them. We remember you-the true patriots and heros.

 

This week your author noted two incidents where members of the Hollywood elite have made profound statements by their words and/or actions. This is at least what they would like for the reader to believe. Of course like their industry, which produces fiction on film, these very same proponents literally live in a fantasyland.

At one time, long before your author entered this world, Hollywood was known as a hodgepodge of different types varying on their personal political thought. In 1947 Congress’s House On Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) began an investigation looking into the leanings of film actors and producers who were deemed to be supporting the American Communist Party. Congress called such Hollywood notables as future President and then head of the Screen Actors Guild Union Ronald Reagan, Walt Disney and Gary Cooper to give their assessment of the then current state of Hollywood.

At the end of the day a group known as the Hollywood Ten, which consisted primarily of directors and screenwriters, were deemed undesirable and eventually blacklisted. Others who protested the Committee, most notably the actor Humphrey Bogart, were marked as a sympathizer.

Before and after the Hollywood Ten investigation the film industry was literally controlled by Conservatives. Producers such as Jack Warner of Warner Brothers fame and Sam Goldwyn co-owner of MGM Studios, were hard right in their political beliefs.

The actions against the Hollywood Ten led by the HUAC have since been referred to as senseless. Often times this investigation has been labeled as being part of the ‘McCarthyism’ era, which is a complete falsehood since at the time of the trial Senator Joe McCarthy was just beginning his first Senate term.

Unlike today, the 1940s-50s actors, actresses, producers and writers who may have had controversial political beliefs weren’t publicly known until events such as Hollywood Ten case. In other words these figures did not advertise such or at least not inform the masses of their thought. While they may have had such sympathies they certainly would not venture to the former USSR and embrace communist society. They were not so bold.

This week your author read reports on actor Danny Glover and his acceptance of $18 million from Venezuela President Hugo Chavez. Your author has previously discussed President Chavez and how the future of his country will be a bleak one. The leader, elected by a criticized vote, has already nationalized their fuel industry and has made overtures to do the same with banking. In the end, as it always happens, this will fail and fail miserably but not before Chavez has safely made off with some of the loot. This has always been the scenario when hard left Socialist policies are implemented.

Chavez gave Glover the funding to produce a movie about the Venezuelan born Latin American independence leader Simon Bolivar. The freedom fighter or ‘El Libertador’ as he was known, who died in 1830, envisioned an American Revolutionary style war for Latin America. The primary enemy was Spain and their colonization of South America. A series of battles would become collectively known as the ‘Bolivar Wars’ and the country of Bolivia was named after him, one of the few to have an actual country named for their legacy. Bolivia was said to have espoused individual freedom above all else.

Your author must wonder if Chavez sees himself in the same light as Bolivar. This in itself would walk inline with many hard left Socialist and Communist leaders who build their legacy long before they are out of office. This cult of personality description is usually reserved for those who have passed away.

Latin American has had a long flirtation with hard left politics and multiple South and Central American countries have attempted to embrace such thought only to see it turn into chaos, civil war and poverty. Bolivar, much like Chavez, saw various republic countries coming together and having himself as their president. At the end of the day Bolivar was ousted.

Why would Glover accept such an offer? In no short order much of it stems from 2006 when Chavez was given center stage at the United Nations General Assembly and referred to President Bush as the devil. Other rogue leaders gave a loud applause in approval. Chavez is currently making plans to edit his country’s constitution in order to campaign again in 2012. His critics and Venezuelan dissidents describe his government as a ‘gigantic fraud’, if and when the price oil depreciates Chavez’s time will probably conclude as this has been a driving factor in his rule.

Anyone with scant knowledge of political science and economics knows that Chavez’s reign will throw Venezuela back several decades. We now know Glover’s reasons why and the fact that someone else is flipping the bill.

Then this week we were reminded by the big media machine of the on air catfight between Rosie O’Donnell and Elizabeth Hasselbeck on the television talk show The View. Your author wouldn’t even acknowledge this event except for O’Donnell’s previous statements that border on insanity.

In 1999, before her debut on The View, O’Donnell previously stated the following relating to her pro gun control philosophy, "You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun, I think you should go to prison". Then in 2000 O’Donnell’s personal bodyguard applied for a concealed weapons permit in Connecticut.

Just like a typical self-professed Liberal, O’Donnell believes in freedom of religion but not when it comes to Christianity. Following the Supreme Court decision that overruled the legality of partial birth abortion, O’Donnell said the following, "You know what concerns me? How many Supreme Court judges are Catholic?" Prior to this proclamation, in November 2006, O’Donnell expressed hypersensitivity for gays when on the television program Live With Regis And Kelly, the show’s host Kelly Ripa protested having the hand of co-host Clay Aiken placed over her mouth. Ripa explained that she had not known where his hand had been. O’Donnell suggested it was a homophobic gesture.

Following the events surrounding Iran’s capture of British Royal Naval personnel in March of this year, O’Donnell compared the event to the Gulf of Tonkin, telling viewers to "google it!". O’Donnell would later further explain that the British officers purposely allowed themselves to be taken hostage in order to justify a war with Iran. O’Donnell also showed contempt of the US Military personnel when in a May 2007 episode of The View she expressed her ‘love’ for the military but later said the following, "655,000 Iraqi civilians dead. Who are the terrorists? If you were in Iraq and another country, the United States, the richest in the world, invaded your country and killed 655,000 of your citizens, what would you call us?" She certainly didn’t imply that the US Military were terrorists but she used the word enough in her discussion that would make one wonder.

Finally to add further insult, regarding Tower 7 of the World Trade Center that collapsed during the 9-11 attacks, she stated the following, "I do believe that it's the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel. I do believe that it defies physics that World Trade Center tower 7 — building 7, which collapsed in on itself — it is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved. World Trade Center 7. World Trade Center 1 and 2 got hit by planes — 7, miraculously, the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible. To say that we don’t know that it imploded, that it was an implosion and a demolition, is beyond ignorant. Look at the films, get a physics expert here [on the show] from Yale, from Harvard, pick the school — [the collapse] defies reason".

Hollywood is allowed to act foolish. They are often a part of the elite rich class-the exact wealth achievement obtained by others they demonize. They don’t shop at Wal-Mart, therefore that business is evil too and usually live safely behind mansion like compounds. Many in the field of the film and television industry are aging baby boomers so desperately wanting to make the rest of us believe that their time in the 1960s should be relived. It isn’t so much that your author spats at the 1960s, the Age of Aquarius and protest, just that it appears to have accomplished very little and filled with many pop culture icons made of paper. Although many who were politically active in that era would like one to believe that something of substance was achieved. Others such as O’Donnell push an agenda that is often littered with hypocrisy and lies, which your author provided evidence of such. Additionally individuals such as O’Donnell seem desperately obsessed with their own smug popularity but basically not producing anything of tangible substance. Either way Hollywood is best left to the big screen and television, sparing them entry into political thought, preventing an embarrassment and removing all doubt about their ignorance.

AmericanYank.com

 

Today the reader should have taken note on what is being described by many as successful immigration reform. As we all know US justice has been asleep at the wheel in patrolling the borders and over the past 20 years have allowed an estimated 11-12 million illegal aliens to currently reside and work in our country. Of course the language has been doctored up and refers to such individuals as undocumented workers.

When Senators from both sides of the political aisle announced they have reached a compromise, look out and the voter should remember such action when it is time to step up to the sacred ballot box. Here is a breakdown of what is being heralded as successful legislation.

1. The 11-12 million illegal aliens, oops workers, must come forward to obtain a probationary card that would allow them to live and work legally in the United States. Additionally for those who come forward they must pay a $5,000 fine.

2. The legislation would call for an assessment in determining an illegal worker’s education and skill level. This would be part of a temporary work program separate from agriculture workers.

3. The legislation would call for 18,000 more border patrol agents.

4. The addition of over 300 miles in fence between the US and Mexico.

5. The time frame for American citizenship will be 8 years.

First what will happen if only half the estimated illegal workers come forward? What if some of these who don’t come forward are fathers or mothers? Will they be swooped up and sent back presumably south of our border? This is exactly what Congress is trying to avoid. This has been the new battle cry from the American Left. It has been said by proponents of immigration reform that many of these workers fill jobs that Americans won’t take. This implies they are of the low wage nature. How will the illegal worker be able to pay this fine assuming they are working in a low wage job?

Secondly at what scope will an agency go, assuming that a government agency will conduct such action, to verify a worker’s education and skill level? While your author does support the thought process, that having one less unskilled worker in our country, he cannot help to consider that this gives government yet one more excuse to grow. This will also make a good self-professed Liberal cry ‘unfair’. And as far as the fence and beefing up border security-don’t hold your breath.

The common thread in immigration policy for the past 40 years has been Democrat Senator Edward (Ted) Kennedy. He echoed this sentiment after the Senate’s agreement:

"The agreement we just reached is the best possible chance we will have in years to secure our borders and bring millions of people out of the shadows and into the sunshine of America,"

Senator Kennedy it isn’t an issue of whether or not illegal workers are hiding and none of them are hugging shadows. They are on our streets, tapping into our social programs and creating a burden on law enforcement. What Kennedy, Senator Arlen Specter Republican from Pennsylvania, who is not a conservative and maverick Republican Senator John McCain from Arizona along with the other supporters have done is managed give themselves a pass for not enforcing current federal laws.

Senator Kennedy in particular has assisted more than any other elected official in creating this catastrophe. Rewind to 1965 when then the youthful Senator supported the Hart-Celler Act, which greatly altered immigration laws. In short the legislation curbed visas accessible to European immigrants to 170,000 with 120,000 for eastern hemisphere countries but the legislation contained a kicker. The kicker was that it allowed for unlimited family reunification visas. In other words bring your wife, kids, mother in law, cousin, etc. At the time of the vote Senator Kennedy said the following:

"...our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually.... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset...."

This may have well been true except for in 1968 when Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society introduced the Bilingual Education Act. The bill was introduced by then Texas Senator Ralph Yarborough. It called for federal funding devoted to bilingual teaching classrooms. This was later amended in 1974 with a claim that civil rights were being violated because schools were conducting such on a voluntary basis. The amendment would make way for what we see now and that being entire areas in our cities were English is rarely spoken. As your author has stated he wishes for our country not to have an official language because this will only be challenged in courts and will be forced to recognize more than one language. Not speaking English is encouraged from pressing 1 for English and 2 for Spanish to government agencies that contain instruction signs in both languages.

Then in 1986 Kennedy once again stepped up to the plate by supporting the Immigration Reform and Control Act. The legislation resulted in what amounted to amnesty for illegal aliens working in the United States. The bill called for intensifying the border patrol, which eventually fell by the wayside and at the end of the day 2.7 million illegal aliens were legalized.

Your author calls such current bipartisan legislation a fantasy. It didn’t work before so why will it work now? What is wrong with the notion of enforcing current laws? America is indeed the land of immigrants but in 1900 items such as social welfare and national security were not an issue. The federal government was only a miniscule size then as compared to now.

Currently House Speaker Democrat Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi has expressed the following:

"We need to improve the bill as it moves through the legislative process." She no doubt knows that if such legislation, as it is written today, passes it will assure that her term as Speaker will be one of the shortest.

Now a constant theme your author has had to repeat is why the Democrats won in 2006. Their victory was because of a few things most notably the Republican scandals involving Jack Abramoff and former Congressman Mark Foley. Another issue that voters felt strongly on was the problem with the number of illegal aliens perusing our countryside. Voters flocked to the polls and voted for what they perceived as conservative Democrats, also known as ‘blue dogs’. The victory had nothing to do with the Iraq War yet Pelosi and others would have you believe otherwise. Your author cites the victory of Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman over anti-war candidate Ned Lamont as proof.

If Congress is unable to successfully cut and edit this bill so that it effectively addresses the problems with our southern border, then we have lost. Additionally many of these elected officials may be finding themselves looking for another job. The giddy Senators are referring to this legislation as reform. In the case of Kennedy and others reforms means chaos, which neither claim responsibility. There will be no sunshine at the end of this journey.

AmericanYank.com

 A new bill set to be introduced by Democrat Congressman Bart Stupak from Michigan would address the ‘issue’ of current gasoline prices. The bill entitled Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act (HR 1252) would penalize any person or corporation that engages in the drilling, brokering or refining of crude oil and/or natural gas while charging what would be considered as being unconscionably excessive. In short this is price ceilings. This is sort of a consumer protective act that will perverse free markets.

The phrase unconscionably excessive may be murky and what the bill describes as such is nothing more than a mere curbing of price increase. The bill states that if gas prices significantly increase from the prior 30 days an investigation is to be launched. The fines levied for those who don’t follow this law-$150 million for a company, $2 million for an individual.

First to believe this initiative will work one must believe that A. there is a conspiracy of collusion between oil drillers and gas producers and B. economic laws of supply and demand are irrelevant. Also the believer must skip the face of crude oil to gasoline conversion, which is facilitated through refining. Okay now that the reader has dumb down, let’s explore why such legislation is ineffective.

If there was collusion between gas distributors and oil drillers this must be the best kept secret kept from the public since the second gunman on the grassy knoll, providing the reader believes the nonsense of JFK assassination conspiracies. The great statesman Benjamin Franklin once said ‘three can keep a secret if two are dead’. If such a relationship existed an oligopoly economy or at least an oligopoly industry would persevere. If that was the case such examples rarely last a significant amount of time unless you consider when the government is involved as in the case of utilities, water and Ma Bell. When speaking of these one must remember they lasted for decades. It is then the consumer is left paying whatever price and providing top quality is not priority because there is no need to do such a thing.

Two notable examples of price ceilings are rent control apartments commonly found in New York City and some of the economic strategies employed by the Nixon Administration. Each time such techniques are employed the price remains at the top of the ceiling. Another reaction is that those engaged in such industries or services that are forced to adhere to these policies will often cut corners or shut down completely. In the case of rent control the apartment owner could charge the maximum allowed by the ceiling and forego maintenance in order to maintain a profitable asset. In some cases if the government imposes a maximum price to sell, the producer may opt to simply replace the product. Ultimately in the end the consumer, the very person that the government is trying to protect, suffers.

One theory on why gasoline prices were so high during the 1970s was because of the price controls placed on oil and fuel in the earlier part of the decade. Although originating during the Carter Administration, it was in the Reagan Administration that removed price ceilings and effectively ended the fuel crisis.

Consider also what impact these ceilings would have on the working poor. While living in urban areas public transportation may be an alternative means of commuting to work; how many from this group do not have access to such facilities? Furthermore with industries predictably charging the consumer a ceiling price the rich will be able to afford what will ultimately become a pseudo luxury.

If we as consumers know these price ceilings never work then why is there an attempt to revisit them? The Democrats may prefer description Progressive over Liberal but they should be referred to as nostalgic. It is a stroll down memory lane that we cannot afford.

AmericanYank.com

This is a follow up to yesterday’s blog entry.

Despite what the likes of Democrat Senator and campaign lightweight Barrack Obama and failed 2004 Democrat Vice Presidential nominee, former Senator, rich socialist and ambulance chaser John Edwards thinks about America’s international role, that being one that has been diminished, the facts state otherwise.

Since the onset of the Iraq War, the American Left has enjoyed reminding anyone and everyone who will listen to them that America has lost in the international community, how President Bush is an embarrassment and other countries are laughing at us. How we have screwed up so badly that it will take decades to repair international relations. Just like everything that is hurled from the Left’s side of the aisle, these assertions are exaggerated and your author dare states that in many cases they are outright lies. Truth and consequence is not priority for the Left, imagery, intent and fluff rule the day.

Reader here is a rundown of several foreign presidents and prime ministers that either support President Bush, admire his tenure in office or still hold America in high regard. The American Left, the ever tolerant intolerant confused gaggle of misfits, has yet to label these figures as neo cons. Here is the list representing much of the world or the regions of world, where according to the American Left and the big media machine America has lost face.

* Canadian Conservative Party member Stephen Harper became Prime Minister after his party swooped a major victory in 2006. Harper is described as a no nonsense type of a guy, intolerant towards terrorists, favors tax cuts and is a Bush ally, of course that infuriates the American Left.

* Australia’s beloved Prime Minister John Howard who has stated that if the Democrats take back the entire Congress and the White House that the terrorists will win, which is something we in America need to hear from our own.. The Liberal Party member, which is the country’s conservative party as opposed to the left leaning Labor Party, joined America as a member of the Allied Forces in the Iraq War. Currently Australia is more American than America! In 2004 Howard led a Liberal Party victory and in a historical move began his third term as Prime Minister. He opposes gay marriage and supports capitalism and has no problem speaking his mind.

* Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany and member of the conservative Christian Democratic Union Party. Mrs. Merkel is pro free economy, pro deregulation and pro business owner’s rights. She shares a similar vision with that of President Bush and others that will be listed. In 2005 she produced a crushing defeat against anti-Bush chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. She is often compared to the UK’s former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

* The UK’s Tony Blair, who will be retiring soon following a decade long tenure, was praised in the media machine during the Clinton Administration yet is now more likely to be referred to as a Bush lapdog. He has steadfastly maintained his allegiance with Bush. His likely replacement will be Gordon Brown, who has vowed to maintain good relations with the US and President Bush.

 * Japan’s previous prime minister Junricho Koizumi (2001-06) and the current Shinzo Abe are pro Bush, pro American, pro free economy, pro deregulation and proactive against radical Islamic terrorists. Time and time again the New York Times predicted defeat for Koizumi and his Liberal Democrat Party, yet they were proven wrong every time.

* President Alvaro Uribe Velez of Colombia has been pro Bush, pro America and pro free markets since his ascension in 2002. He took on the guerilla groups that are funded by drug cartels and watched as crime statistics dropped to historical lows. Currently several pro Uribe lawmakers are embroiled in a domestic scandal. Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat from Vermont, is threatening to hold up $52 million in foreign aide that would be directed towards Colombia’s army. If Leahy and others manage to stop the funding, America will lose their only ally in South America.

And now France, oh yes the country of civility and their city of lights! The country that was held up by the American Left for their tolerance, unwillingness to become involved in combating radical Muslim terrorists while riots popped up around them and celebration over their universal healthcare-the model of successful socialism. This example of nirvana and anti Bush, anti America culture has gone and elected a center to right man named Nicolas Sarkozy. More importantly they chose him over a female candidate! Using the American Left’s logic (think Senator Clinton) ‘France isn’t ready for a woman leader’.

After compiling this list of international leaders and having proven the American Left is wrong with their ‘saving face’ claims, your author began to think of leaders that fit the Left’s criteria. The criteria being a leader that has been clear about their thoughts on the Bush Administration, those thoughts being that Bush is a fool, wreckless and incompetent. He came up with three that would be considered vocal enough with their objections. The list contains Kim Jong Il of North Korea, communist leader Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Need your author continue?

 

Your author has devoted more than one blog entry to France and their state of affairs. In the past your author has criticized the legacy of former French President Jacques Chirac as ineffective and weak. Time and time again Chirac attempted to sink teeth into one issue after another but allowed popular thinking and protesting constituents to dictate the final outcome. This is so reminiscent of the Clinton era in the United States and that of many other nationally elected officials who become preoccupied with opinion polls and forego sound reasoning.

Just yesterday France came out in historical numbers to elect Union for a Popular Movement (UPM) candidate conservative Nicolas Sarkozy over Socialist Party candidate Segolene Royal. Ms. Royal was able to garner 47% of the vote and more women actually voted for Sarkozy with 80% overall turnout from French voters. French political pundits have described this election as being historical and a clear sign that France is moving to the right of the political spectrum.

To understand where France has been and why it is taking this direction one must go back in history. Fortunately your author will give the quick version for the reader.

It is post World War II and for the most part France has been wrecked by the Socialist Nazi army led by Adolph Hitler. Like many European countries France is shell shocked from nearly succumbing to Germany’s domination. Recovery from the War is slow. In May 1968 the country’s government under Charles de Galle is suffers intense criticism led primarily by student radicals wearing shades of communism and socialism. Essentially these were hippies that wanted entitlements-free education, free love, free healthcare, guaranteed jobs, free handouts, etc. Hundreds of workers decided to join the students with labor strikes, demanding much the same and wanting ‘someone’ else to flip the bill. Although de Galle was able to end the civil unrest, the merging of leftist organization would eventually spill into the political arena and have a long lasting impact on future elections. The unification of the left allowed strength in numbers, classic socialist thought if it ever existed, resulting in capturing many regional elections during the 1970s-80s and climaxing in the 1981 Presidential election win by leftist Francois Mitterand.

In just a dozen or so years the left wing had dramatically impacted the French life and political culture. This, by the way, would come to equally climatic grinding halt when Mitterand’s Prime Minister Pierre Mauroy retired from office in the wake of the Socialists party’s collapse.

And now France is ready to make a turn. They said in droves that they want this right wing figure to address their immigration problem, which has seen countless undocumented members establishing residency in ghettos. On such area, Clichy-sous Bois, was the site of rioting in October and November 2005.

The constituency has said that they want the 40 hour workweek as opposed to the 35 hour schedule that is in place now. They don’t want their businesses to be forced to employ unproductive workers, which is currently in place due to the influence of unions. The reader must also consider that despite this job protection stance that France has had chronic unemployment higher than many of their European neighbors.

Segolene Royal was heralded by many in the international press, if she had won, as being the first female French president. This is all that seemed to matter to some. Her campaign addressed none of the issues, at least not as in depth as Sarkozy’s camp and instead opted to make comments in favor of Canada’s French province Quebec becoming a sovereign nation. Her comments were denounced by Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Quebec Premier Jean Charest. Then she proceeded to remind everyone that Sarkozy would be a mere Bush Administration tool, while she offered nothing of substance to address the significant problems facing France and their role in international politics.

Reader your author isn’t fully convinced that France will do a complete about face but this recent election is definitely an important event. In fact following Sarkozy’s win 700 people were arrested in and around Paris for rioting, protesting his victory. This tells your author that at least some take his intentions seriously and are none too happy.

AmericanYank.com

 

Following the aftermath of the Don Imus fallout and subsequent call for Reverend Al Sharpton to take an active role in cleaning up the lyrics in hip hop music; no doubt an embarrassment for Sharpton due to his lack of previous actions; the politically correct American Left in their quest for justice have deemed yet another word illegal from the American vernacular. The word is ‘w-tback’, slang for Mexican and derived from swimming across the Rio Grande River would cause them to be wet. So bad is this word it now is being substituted for the phrase ‘the w-word’. This is laughable when the reader really thinks about it. Whether it is the ‘n-word’ or ‘w-word’ the implication still makes the reader think of the word and at least mentally say it to themselves. How much longer will it be until these phrases are also outlawed? Once the political correctness police, enforcers of anything but the truth and facts, take an inch the reader may as well give them a mile.

Now your author agrees with just about every decent American in stating that such derogatory words should not be acceptable. However what the American Left is attempting to do is force the reader to adhere to their value system. These are the same types that are first to react with the likes of the ACLU in tow when such issues as the use of Christmas as it relates to a holiday or office party or how the Boy Scouts of America conduct their matters. Once again focus on something that is trivial for the sake of a few, very few.

The politically correct American Left has never been too concerned about achievement but rather on intentions and desired goals, no matter how lofty or unrealistic these may be. No fanciful idealism rules their value system this along with creating greater divides within our society.

It is no wonder that this w-word has become an issue. It falls right on the heels of so-called immigration protests that were held in several cities. Our Constitution protects such action, which is all well and good, but fortunately by most estimates the turnouts were rather low. Your author always questions this type of an event. Your author ponders how many were there out of genuine concern and how many showed up just for the chance to be on television and get out of work for the day. Furthermore what is exactly that these groups wish to accomplish? Apparently what is now being touted is that families are being broken up because of INS raids that have swoop up illegal aliens, sending them back home. Now your author does have sympathy for these families that have been torn apart but don’t they share partial responsibility for these results? Are they now attempting, by their protests that immigration legislation does not apply to them because of their roles in a family unit? So as long as they are father or mother, assuming these are the targets that these protestors claim are being harassed, they receive a free pass. They are essentially above the law? This is beginning to sound like many of our elected officials in Congress and that being they are above the law.

Your author has never argued against the fact that illegal immigrants do fill a labor void. In fact the economic supply and demand slopes are clearly visible even to the blindest members of the American Left who protest capitalism. However does this mitigate the enforcement of federal law? It doesn’t but much like vocabulary the American Left will attempt to state it does. And when we give mothers and fathers of families who are illegal immigrants a pass, who will be the next to qualify for this special status? Will priests be allowed a pass because they serve a parish but are an illegal immigrant? What about day laborers who fill the economic supply slope? This is the problem with the American Left, once their flawed logic is in place it knows no ending or bounds.

AmericanYank.com

 

Today your author came across a news item that only proves his theory on former Vice President and failed 2000 Democrat Party Presidential nominee Albert Gore’s attempt to influence public opinion. As we all know Gore produced his version of the environmental theory known as global warming in the documentary An Inconvenient Truth. The movie’s theme was as much to do about instilling fear as it was about documenting facts.

During the past 100 years the Earth’s temperature has increased but only by 1 degree Celsius. Science also agrees that an ice age existed some 2.7-2.3 billion years ago but much of the surface melted. Now compounding 1 degree Celsius over several billion years the reader can deduct that yes the Earth is warming but very little we can do will alter such a climatic trend. In fact this collective responsibility enforced by Gore and his ilk reeks of typical self professed liberal theory. This meaning that somehow you and your neighbor are responsible or can change the course of nature by your actions and if you disagree then you are without care, void of conscience and callous.

It isn’t that your author doesn’t support environmental laws. No quite the opposite. However the American Left has been gravitating towards environmental causes in hopes of ramming their moral code down the reader’s throat for over 20 years. Al Gore just so happens to be their current poster boy. It hasn’t been for his own altruism. Mr. Gore’s film garnered plenty of awards, including an Academy Award for best documentary and grossed over $46 million worldwide. Additionally Gore chairs Generation Investment Management, a London based hedge fund that seeks out and invests in companies that believe in many of Gore’s environmental theories such as global warming and stand to profit if favorable legislation is enacted. In other words Gore intends to profit from combating global warming.

Gore has face numerous critics, particularly those in the science field who are far more qualified than a former US Vice President on such issues and more recently UK television producer Martin Durkin’s The Great Warming Swindle. While Gore’s movie was heralded as a landmark, his supporters have dubbed Durkin’s work as ‘controversial’, which is an often misused word used by the American Left when faced with a rebuttal. The only thing controversial about Gore and global warming is his investment portfolio as it shows his true intentions.

Gore’s frenzy portrayal of doomsday if global warming is not addressed is just a long list of tactics used by the American Left who have embraced radical environmentalism. The first Earth Day in 1970 was led by US Senator Gaylord Nelson. One of the concerns expressed that day was prediction that America would run out of food. Also starting the 1970s US retail stores began to feel pressure to change from brown paper bags to ones made from plastic. The idea behind this change was due to the trees being used to produce paper. Just last month the city of San Francisco, a bastion of liberalism, banned plastic shopping bags because of a litany of environmental reasons all based around the ‘do this or we all perish’ mentality. In the 1980s American cities and towns embraced mandatory recycling with their blue trash boxes denoting glass, plastic and newspapers. Also in the 1980s CO2 and greenhouse gases were the environmental talk. We were told of the deadly air conditioners and hair spray canisters that emitted such deadly gases into the atmosphere. As a result these were cut back significantly. And now we are being told that all of this, a rolling ball of changing attitudes towards environmentalism, has not been enough. We are told, forced to hear, that we are collectively responsible for the earth’s temperature increasing by one degree Celsius!

And now former US Vice President and failed 2000 Democrat Party Presidential Nominee Al Gore is taking his medicine show on the road. According to the USA Today Gore is filtering ‘thousands’ of applications from individuals who either will profit from global warming legislation or have bought the words of doom and gloom. These Americans will be paid to go on the road and spread the good word of Al Gore. Following training at Gore’s Tennessee farm, the flock of faithful will go forth and speak at public schools, Rotary International and nursing homes across America. Your author had to chuckle when he saw public schools, Rotary meetings and nursing homes as planned stops for Gore’s legion of eco-warriors. Teachers and pupils will gladly welcome a break in class, the Rotary is always opened to any speaker and nursing home patients your author imagines regularly experience days of monotony so a visit from anyone would be appreciated.

Reader your author implores you to download the link provided in this entry and see the other side presenting their case on global warming. They stand not to profit by changing public opinion. Al Gore cannot say this about himself.

AmericanYank.com

Today your author sat in shock as the media updated the customer with the violent shootings that took place at Virginia Tech. The final count is 33 dead, including the shooter and many more injured. Your author extends a sincere prayer for those who lost their lives and the grieving families.

Your author recalls the 1999 Columbine High School shootings that took place in Littleton, CO. The killing spree facilitated by teenage students Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. In their violent wake 12 were left dead and twice that many were wounded with Harris and Klebold taking their own lives. The media machine is already comparing this to the violence at Virginia Tech.

Following the killing spree at Columbine, President Bill Clinton used the moment to pitch the idea of gun control bill to close a loophole that impacted gun sales conducted at gun shows (House Bill 1243). Klebold and Harris had obtained their firearms through a straw purchase performed by 18 year old Columbine student Robyn Harris. Just with every firearm they used, there were several, they too were purchased by someone of age for the two students. Then the big media machine focused their attention to high school bullying, spinning a story that Klebold and Harris were picked on and ostracized by other students. This was proven to be false. What is known about the two is that they shared a love for violent video games, both had been convicted of breaking into a motor vehicle, both shared an interest in Nazism, Adolph Hitler, Social Darwinism and genocide. When it came to musical taste they both enjoyed listening to house and industrial music. Journals kept by both of them described how they hoped to surpass the violence and death caused by the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. Additionally neither of the boys’ parents have spoken publicly about the incident.

The American Left will use these events, as bad as they are, to cite the need for tougher gun laws. While your author agrees that background checks and responsible gun ownership is a must; how would tougher laws better serve society? What the media machine won’t say in blunt terms is that the shootings at Virginia Tech, the massacre at Columbine or any other spree killing are perpetrated by mentally and emotionally deranged individuals. If they could not have obtained a gun another means of destruction would have been used. However it is the arrogance of the Left that always believes they can dictate social behavior to a finite formula through taxpayer funded legislation and full compliance will create a nirvana. They are delusional.

The American Left will cite the following:

35,000 gun deaths in America

Source: Center for Disease Control

However what the Left won’t tell you in their anti-gun pitch is that 54% of these deaths are attributed to suicide. This eliminates 17,500 of these deaths. From the remaining amount roughly 1,000 are ruled unintentional and accidental. Remember the Left is spinning the data to suggest that eliminating or impeding access to guns would reduce crime and death. It is in your moral good they will say, dictating the reader’s own value system, that stiffer gun control laws are in your best interest. Now this leaves a net number of 16,500 gun deaths linked to crime. This is a far cry from what the American Left will quote.

Often times the American Left will use other countries in the Western Hemisphere as an appropriate role model for the States to follow. This in itself tells the reader who does not support tougher gun laws then you are some ignorant buffoon living in a country where the majority is just as foolish! One country cited by the Left is Canada where they have a Gun Registry. In short, beginning in the 1990s and under the tenure of Liberal Party Prime Minister Paul Martin, Canadian gun owners had to register their arms. A novel idea that in ten years became an example of government mismanagement and the failures of liberalism. Originally budgeted at a cost of $119 million, the figure is estimated to be north of $2 billion. Furthermore it was found that a trend suggested the following, that 86% of gun related homicides were with an unregistered gun and that 80% of the murderers were unlicensed gun owners. Both sides of the political aisle have agreed the Registry has not lowered violent crimes.

While the Left is probably salivating to drum up support for stiffer gun control laws, a detestable testament of their willingness to exploit the murders at Virginia Tech, their underlying message is not really to reduce violent crime. They may say this but what they ultimately would achieve is the removal of personal accountability. Another way to say it, you aren’t responsible enough to own a firearm because of the actions of a demented few. Should we allow these misfits and sick individuals to chip away at our Constitutional right?

AmericanYank.com

Please see AmericanYank.com.

Reader, due to the language in rapper Timbaland's songs, the clean folks at Town Hall prevented me from posting the entry. You may view it at the following American Yank entry. By the way Timbaland is a fundraiser for Senator Hillary Clinton.

 

Today the American Left and self professed liberals have once again proven to your author that like mother tarantulas they will eat their own. As everyone has heard that crotchety windbag who plays a disc jockey, Don Imus, made the following comment regarding the Rutgers University Girls Basketball team on his Imus In The Morning radio show.

Imus: That's some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos and . . .

McGuirk: Some hardcore hos.

Imus: That's some nappy-headed hos there, I'm going to tell you that now (laughing). Man, that's some ... whoo ...

 

Note: McGuirk is Bernard McGuirk, the radio show’s producer.

Since Imus uttered those words the big media machine has been thrown into overdrive. What your author finds hilarious is that the multi million dollar hip hop performers, the vast majority being black, use similar slang regularly with their songs and they are immune to the Left’s evil eye. The American Left has come out in droves in condemning Imus. What about Freedom of Speech? Well once again as long as the speech is coated in political correctness, which assists in hindering the truth, the American Left will protect it or if they agree with such then it is worthy of their seal of approval.

Two of the most well known tools of the American Left Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, described by the big media machine as civil rights leader, have drop the hammer on Imus. Today the radio show host apologized to infinitum on Sharpton’s Keeping It Real radio show. This was a big day for Sharpton because your author feels comfortable in assuring the reader that this interview and apology session probably garnered the most listeners in his radio career.

Unfortunately Imus’s on air lapse of judgement and the aftermath involving Jackson and Sharpton says more about the latter two than Imus himself. Both Jackson and Sharpton are incapable or unsympathetic to significant issues facing black Americans. The first being the obvious lack of attention big media machine devoted to a growing black middle class and the significant increase in black owned business, both facts ignored by Jackson, Sharpton and others. The second being that the other side of black America, the one that still garners big media machine’s attention, is the one living in ghettos with a 70% out of wedlock birthrate and living in on the borderline of poverty. Jackson, Sharpton and others dubbed by the press as civil rights leader only focus on this group. Your author has stated this before and that being if every black American gravitated towards the middle and upper class of socioeconomic advancement; Jackson, Sharpton and others of their race hustling ilk would not have a job. In other words it is Jackson and Company’s best interest to have a certain group in our society remain poor. This only proving that they are of no use for our society’s advancement.

Now Don Imus is Caucasian and has earned millions from his radio career. In the past ten years he and his wife have focused their attention in help cancer stricken children. How would Imus know of the slang ‘ho’, which is a derogatory phrase? Well one possible source would be rap or hip-hop music. Where has Jackson and Company been on this issue? Silent.

Freedom of speech is a precious right that too many in our country take for granted. Others tout ignorance and balderdash while hiding behind the concept of this freedom. However when perverted by the far left practitioners of political correctness with a pick and choose mentality mixed with poor taste, the right becomes exploited and experiences a depreciating osmosis. This has resulted in the Imus incident becoming an issue out of a non issue and the refusal to address the demeaning lyrics often associated with some types of popular music. Sadly such tenants as personal responsibility and the appreciation of this right are forgotten.

AmericanYank.com

 

Reader an item that has come to your author’s attention cannot be ignored and it is pertinent that you give it some scant attention. Trust your author, this is far more important than who will win American Idol.

There is an alarming trend in Congress that for whatever reason the big media machine are unable or refuse to take note. Some publications considered ‘right wing’ by conventional thinking self described liberal groups are taking note. Why every American isn’t outraged over this trend or at least clued in is beyond your author’s understanding.

Senator Dianne Feinstein Democrat from California and former Mayor of San Francisco has suddenly stepped down from her post on the Military Appropriation Appropriations subcommittee (MILCON). The subcommittee oversees the construction projects for military base and other entities. Here is a list of recent contracts awarded by MILCON with other relevant details.

Boston Scientific: $17.8 million awarded for medical supplies, 85% of the contracts awarded without a competitive bidding process.

Kinetic Concepts, Inc: $12 million awarded for medical supplies, 28% of the contracts awarded without a competitive bidding process.

CB Richard Ellis: Owner and property manager for commercial property that rents to the Department of Veteran Affairs. *

Feinstein’s husband is the ultra rich Richard Blum. Through a series of investment partnership he and Feinstein own an estimated $1billion of the outstanding stock for these three companies. In the case of *CB Richard Ellis Blum is considered a major shareholder owning 7.5 million of the company's 227 million outstanding shares. These astute investments have allowed Feinstein to claim the title the fifth most wealthiest Senator.

Also note the absence of the non-bid factor in some of these contracts. Where is the American Left with their cries of such nuggets? These were the same ones that cried foul when Haliburton and the Iraq War were mentioned in the same sentence

To date not a single major publication has picked up on this story. It wasn’t until MetroActive News, a regional news web page focused on California’s Silicon Valley, reported on this obvious conflict of interest. Despite the LA Times willingness to publish this Feinstein penned rant against the President defending his Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez..

Senator Feinstein isn’t the only one with a conflict of interest issue. There is Democrat Congressman Allan B. Mollohan of West Virginia who watched his net worth ramp up after he appropriated funds to his home state where his business partners benefitted. There is also House Republican power figure Dennis Hastert from Illinois whose son Joshua lobbies on behalf of biotech giant Amgen and Lockheed Martin. There is also the favorite war hero for the American Left, Democrat Congressman Jack Murtha from Pennsylvania and Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. Murtha’s brother is Robert "Kit" Murtha, an employee of KSA Consulting, which is a lobby group specializing in representing defense contractors among other industries. And finally there is Senator Hillary Clinton , Democrat Senator from New York and humiliated First Lady during the Clinton Administration. While she ripped the Bush Administration over the Dubai Ports incident because a company from the Arab Emirates would manage several US ports; it was uncovered that her husband and former President Bill Clinton was actually charging a fee to speak with the country’s officials and addressed the ports issue specifically, thereby allowing the Clintons to play both sides of the issue.

Many within the Congressional Democrats team have set about to destroy the Bush Administration. At every corner taken by the President, words such as ‘impeachment’ have been thrown around and acceptable sound bites for many in the big media machine. From Haliburton to the Patriot Act to Attorney General Gonzalez, they have been relentless in their attempt to cause what is nothing more than static or haze and in the end a complete waste of time. Maybe they wish to deflect the attention from their own questionable closets? Thus far it is working.

American Yank

 Recently your author was discussing with a colleague the death toll from the Iraq War. Your author noted a trend or at least what appears to be one, that for every Coalition Force member’s death the media appears to multiply it by ten to estimate the number of Iraqis who died at that very moment.

Your author began to ponder on the reliability and truthfulness of such figures. It is safe to assume that an accurate figure on the deaths of the Iraq citizens cannot be fully known but does the 600,000 figure quoted by the media close to reality? Just on his own analysis your author already has these questions to ponder.

How many of these who are reported dead are not Iraq citizens but rather visiting members of an insurgency?

How many of these have been reported twice? In other words a passerby states a certain number were killed and another witness states another figure. The gatherer of the information simply combines these two accounts.

Now the big media machine should not be spared. Remember reader their industry competes for profits and headlines help impact their bottom line. The higher the body count the more ‘gotcha’ effect they can use to snag the reader or viewer.

In the April 1^st issue of the UK’s The Independent your author found an article that discusses the topic of the Iraqi body count. Now we should all know by now that the big media machine is less than honest. As your author has pointed out in previous entries they have either refused, forgotten or deemed it not newsworthy to tell the reader/viewer on the rebirth of the Baghdad stock exchange, the demands on the country’s utilities because people are loading up electronic items for their households or the success in Kurdistan province. They won’t tell you that 3 of the 18 or roughly 90% of the country’s provinces are under control. So why would the big media machine be honest as it relates to the body count?

According to The Independent article scientists from John Hopkins University and the Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad have derived the Iraqi death count figure of 600,000. Although what it doesn’t say nor can your author find this snippet of fact is exactly how this number is calculated. However the article goes further and states these unnamed scientists cannot paint a clearer picture. From the article:

"The researchers, reflecting the inherent uncertainties in such extrapolations, said they were 95 per cent certain that the real number of deaths lay somewhere between 392,979 and 942,636".

What does this tell us? Well for starters the obvious is that the figure quoted by the media machine and the American Left isn’t accurate. At best the scientists who estimated the 600,000 are now stating between 392,979 and 942,636. This means a range that doubles and that is hardly an accurate estimation but rather a guess.

To add more doubt for the reader to ponder, in the hopes they will form a reasonable conclusion, recall Hurricane Katrina. This was the big storm that flooded New Orleans, arguably the most corrupt city in America and caused the American Left and the big media machin