The country is awash in news and numbers about the national debt and the run-away spending habits of our government. I am not expert in fiscal affairs; but some things seem clear to me, which I would like to share with you.
We are all aware that the government has agreed among the various legislators to raise the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years. This is supposed to be accompanied by extensive cuts in federal government spending. (Who believes that?) In the past, we have seen the national debt rising by $3.95 billion every day since 9/28/07.
Now, a bond rating agency, Standard and Poor, has downgraded the value of our federal government’s promises to pay back its loans (bonds) to a AA+ rating. This means that S&P believes the government is becoming unable to pay back its loans.
We are told by our leaders that the answer to our financial problems is more spending “to stimulate the economy” and higher taxes to raise the money for the spending. Fortunately for us, there is an exact model for this kind of fiscal policy right in front of us. In 1997, Japan experienced the same problem as the United States is experiencing now; and they followed the same policy decisions as those being promoted by our leaders. The result for Japan was a horrendous double dip where its GDP contracted for five quarters and its banking system went down with it. As a result, the deficit, instead of contracting, increased by a whopping 68%! It took Japan ten years to climb out of this policy mistake. If Washington fails to learn from the Japanese mistake and stays the course along the August 2nd agreement toward fiscal consolidation when its private sector is still deleveraging, the probability of the US economy falling into double dip is not insignificant.
Right now, our national debt rests at $42,026 for every man, woman, and child in our country.
The President is urging us to disbelieve the predictions of Standard and Poor. He is still claiming that his old Keynesian policies of tax and spend are the answer to our debt problems. I would ask you: Whom do you believe the most, Standard and Poor or the federal government? Whom do you think has the most financial expertise? Well…I don’t think I, personally, have much doubt about the answer to those questions. The feds have lost credibility in my mind.
The administration is telling us that the whole problem is due to mistakes made by the Bush administration. But, I ask you, “Who was in charge of the money situation of this country when the excess spending took a marked increase?” The spending of the Obama Administration makes President Bush look like a tight wad.
As we look at this dismal situation, we should ask ourselves what we can do about it. THERE IS AN ELECTION COMING UP.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Teachers’ Union Fights Parents’ Rights
The American Federation of Teachers, the teacher’s union, recently posted on its web site an internal document bragging about how it successfully undermines parental power in education.
In 2010, California voters passed into law a right of parents to hold petition drives to force reform in failing public schools. Under California law, a 51% majority of parents can shake up a failing school’s administration or invite a charter operator to take over a school. This law is commonly referred to as the “parent trigger.” The merit and utility of this law became obvious; and earlier this year parents in the state of Connecticut tried to institute an identical measure for the parents of that state.
AFT published the name of their effort on their web site—it was called “How Connecticut Diffused The Parent Trigger.” AFT began an intensive lobbying campaign to defeat the measure; and they succeeded by use of the subterfuge which they called “engaging the opposition.” They called together groups of legislators who were particularly vulnerable to union pressures and created a system of “school governance councils” to mediate the school problems instead of granting petition rights to parent groups. Interestingly, their conferences did not include any parent groups interested in promoting the petition process.
The AFT document on the web bragged that the name of the councils is “a misnomer: they are advisory and do not have true governing authority.”
It is obvious that the AFT does not want parental interference in their teaching and indoctrination activities in the public schools—never mind the quality of the education they are handing out.
Many are sympathetic with teachers because teachers are thought to be so underpaid. But according to the Department of Education statistics for 2007-2008, the average public school teacher brought in over $53,000 plus health insurance and retirement benefits. The Census Bureau reports that for 2008, the mean household income in the United States was $52,000.
In 2010, California voters passed into law a right of parents to hold petition drives to force reform in failing public schools. Under California law, a 51% majority of parents can shake up a failing school’s administration or invite a charter operator to take over a school. This law is commonly referred to as the “parent trigger.” The merit and utility of this law became obvious; and earlier this year parents in the state of Connecticut tried to institute an identical measure for the parents of that state.
AFT published the name of their effort on their web site—it was called “How Connecticut Diffused The Parent Trigger.” AFT began an intensive lobbying campaign to defeat the measure; and they succeeded by use of the subterfuge which they called “engaging the opposition.” They called together groups of legislators who were particularly vulnerable to union pressures and created a system of “school governance councils” to mediate the school problems instead of granting petition rights to parent groups. Interestingly, their conferences did not include any parent groups interested in promoting the petition process.
The AFT document on the web bragged that the name of the councils is “a misnomer: they are advisory and do not have true governing authority.”
It is obvious that the AFT does not want parental interference in their teaching and indoctrination activities in the public schools—never mind the quality of the education they are handing out.
Many are sympathetic with teachers because teachers are thought to be so underpaid. But according to the Department of Education statistics for 2007-2008, the average public school teacher brought in over $53,000 plus health insurance and retirement benefits. The Census Bureau reports that for 2008, the mean household income in the United States was $52,000.
Monday, August 1, 2011
God’s Different Attitude Toward Sin and Self-righteousness
In 1 Corinthians 1:2, we see how the apostle, Paul addresses the believers in Corinth as “…those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy….” There are similar greetings to every other church to which Paul wrote with the exception of the Galatians. There seems to be a reason that Paul did not address the Galatians with such an apparently warm heart of love for them.
In the case of the Corinthians, Paul was writing to them to address some very serious sins that were being committed by the people there. They were divisions in the church, lawsuits among the believers, gross sexual immorality in the church, mishandling of marriage relationships, worshipping incorrectly, etc. The Corinthians were eating food sacrificed to idols and giving outsiders to the faith reason for believing that they were partaking in idol worship. Paul admonished them to give up those sinful practices. But…he never indicated that they were anything but very loved believers and members of Christ’s body.
To the Galatians, however, Paul was addressing a situation that apparently was more serious than all the sins of the Corinthians. They were beginning to rely on things of the law and on their own righteous activity to bring them the salvation that only Christ could gain for them through faith in Him. They were coming under the influence of the Judaizers who were encouraging them to observe special days, months, years, and seasons. They were, again, relying on circumcision to impart righteousness to them.
Salvation is by grace, through faith. Nothing we can do will ever merit Gods approval unless He empowers it. Oh, yes, sin is terrible; and God will never condone it. He warns us repeatedly in His word to avoid sin at all costs. But…there seems to be something even more grievous than the ordinary sins of the Corinthians in God’s eyes—that is relying on our own righteousness to gain heaven for us.
In the case of the Corinthians, Paul was writing to them to address some very serious sins that were being committed by the people there. They were divisions in the church, lawsuits among the believers, gross sexual immorality in the church, mishandling of marriage relationships, worshipping incorrectly, etc. The Corinthians were eating food sacrificed to idols and giving outsiders to the faith reason for believing that they were partaking in idol worship. Paul admonished them to give up those sinful practices. But…he never indicated that they were anything but very loved believers and members of Christ’s body.
To the Galatians, however, Paul was addressing a situation that apparently was more serious than all the sins of the Corinthians. They were beginning to rely on things of the law and on their own righteous activity to bring them the salvation that only Christ could gain for them through faith in Him. They were coming under the influence of the Judaizers who were encouraging them to observe special days, months, years, and seasons. They were, again, relying on circumcision to impart righteousness to them.
Salvation is by grace, through faith. Nothing we can do will ever merit Gods approval unless He empowers it. Oh, yes, sin is terrible; and God will never condone it. He warns us repeatedly in His word to avoid sin at all costs. But…there seems to be something even more grievous than the ordinary sins of the Corinthians in God’s eyes—that is relying on our own righteousness to gain heaven for us.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Equal Rights for All Human Beings
(Excerpted from Christopher Kaczor in First Things August 2011)
In most states, young people can drive a car at sixteen. At 18, they can vote and serve in the military. At 21, they can drink alcohol. At 25, they can serve in the House of Representatives; at 30, in the Senate, and, at 35, as President of the United States. We gain rights as we age. Some hold that the unborn also gains rights as he ages in the uterus. They believe that an unborn person has fewer rights at the time of conception than he has just before birth. Many Pro-Life people like to adopt this attitude. This attitude is called the “gradualist attitude,” because it gradually assigns the right to life to the unborn as he/she ages.
It should be recognized that the gradualist attitude calls into question one of the most fundamental principles of democratic society: the basic equality of all human beings. The Nazi’s claimed that inequality when they considered Jews less than human. Thus, it can be seen that the gradualist attitude is a dangerous one for civilized society.
The rights listed in the first paragraph depend upon one’s ability to perform responsibly; and those things advance as one ages. The right to life, however, does not depend upon maturing intellectual and physical abilities. It is a right that is conferred simply on the basis that every living human being has the innate right to live, regardless of his/her level of dependency or his/her ability to feel pain (There are many other criteria that have been proposed by those eager to assign non-human status to early unborn babies.)
The gradualist viewpoint appeals to some because they think it is a view of moderation, which seems desirable to them. Aristotle pointed out centuries ago, however, that not everything admits of a virtuous mean—that is, moderation in the form of compromise between two radically different viewpoints is often not virtuous but vicious. As an example, the difference between killing 100 people and killing no people cannot be resolved by taking a “moderate” viewpoint and killing only 50 people. The moderation of the gradualist view is no evidence of its truth.
This is the reason that Pro-Lifers cannot compromise with gradualists or those who would assign life rights to some unborn babies and not others. An aborted baby is just as dead if it is killed at an early stage of fetal life as if it were killed later in its development.
Human life begins when the human genome is completed at conception by the23 chromosomes from the mother and 23 from the father, and that completed genome is encapsulated within a bath of cytoplasm and a cell membrane. That fertilized ovum only needs nutrition, oxygen, and time to become a fully developed human being. He/she is, indeed, a human being despite his/her size, level of development, and sentience.
In most states, young people can drive a car at sixteen. At 18, they can vote and serve in the military. At 21, they can drink alcohol. At 25, they can serve in the House of Representatives; at 30, in the Senate, and, at 35, as President of the United States. We gain rights as we age. Some hold that the unborn also gains rights as he ages in the uterus. They believe that an unborn person has fewer rights at the time of conception than he has just before birth. Many Pro-Life people like to adopt this attitude. This attitude is called the “gradualist attitude,” because it gradually assigns the right to life to the unborn as he/she ages.
It should be recognized that the gradualist attitude calls into question one of the most fundamental principles of democratic society: the basic equality of all human beings. The Nazi’s claimed that inequality when they considered Jews less than human. Thus, it can be seen that the gradualist attitude is a dangerous one for civilized society.
The rights listed in the first paragraph depend upon one’s ability to perform responsibly; and those things advance as one ages. The right to life, however, does not depend upon maturing intellectual and physical abilities. It is a right that is conferred simply on the basis that every living human being has the innate right to live, regardless of his/her level of dependency or his/her ability to feel pain (There are many other criteria that have been proposed by those eager to assign non-human status to early unborn babies.)
The gradualist viewpoint appeals to some because they think it is a view of moderation, which seems desirable to them. Aristotle pointed out centuries ago, however, that not everything admits of a virtuous mean—that is, moderation in the form of compromise between two radically different viewpoints is often not virtuous but vicious. As an example, the difference between killing 100 people and killing no people cannot be resolved by taking a “moderate” viewpoint and killing only 50 people. The moderation of the gradualist view is no evidence of its truth.
This is the reason that Pro-Lifers cannot compromise with gradualists or those who would assign life rights to some unborn babies and not others. An aborted baby is just as dead if it is killed at an early stage of fetal life as if it were killed later in its development.
Human life begins when the human genome is completed at conception by the23 chromosomes from the mother and 23 from the father, and that completed genome is encapsulated within a bath of cytoplasm and a cell membrane. That fertilized ovum only needs nutrition, oxygen, and time to become a fully developed human being. He/she is, indeed, a human being despite his/her size, level of development, and sentience.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
What’s the Difference Between Public and Private Debt?
I publish this blog post as a sincere question. I do not know the answer to the question; and I am hoping that some of my readers know the answer. What is the essential difference between public and private debt? Could it be that public debt is really a beneficial effect of our governmental system? It seems to me that government debt serves a good purpose in that it provides us, Americans who save money and buy treasury bonds, with a steady and safe source of income.
I know that private debt needs to be paid back with interest in order to establish a stable and safe family economy and to nurture a healthy banking system. One needs to save and budget the money one has in order to pay back his personal debts. It seems to me, however, that the government does not feel constrained to do these things, and I am wondering why. I am even wondering if it is good thing for the government to pay back its debts.
One might think of government pay-back money in the form of interest a sort of other “entitlement” program. We already have several entitlement programs, i.e., Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, government pensions, and now, Obamacare. We might now think of the interest being paid out to service the debt as another “entitlement” program. The main difference between this “entitlement” and the other entitlement programs is that this new “entitlement” is totally deserved by the recipients. In the case of this new “entitlement,” the people and agencies who receive the interest money are the ones who have saved and scrimped to save their money for a rainy day. The other, more traditional entitlements go to people who may or may not have saved money for a rainy day fund for themselves. These conventional entitlement moneys act more like a traditional insurance fund that only seeks to share risk so that everyone gets cared for, even though they may not have saved the requisite money, themselves.
If we think of government interest pay-back money as an “entitlement,” we should know that it is the very largest of all the entitlements—it is flowing out of the Federal Government at the rate of $1.13 billion daily. I know that the Federal government was never meant to be a wealth producer for the people. But I also know that many of us older citizens are using Federal treasuries as buffer money against an insecure economy. We always thought of government bonds as the most secure of all investments. These days, I am not so sure about the safety of government bonds. Nevertheless, many of us American citizens hold these securities, and we know that we are entitled to the interest that the government promised to pay us for the use of our dollars.
Governmental programs have a funny way of not producing the exact thing for which they were intended. For instance, the Medicaid program was intended to pay health care costs for the poor. As it turns out, however, about 70% of Medicaid dollars are used to pay for nursing home costs for all of our people. Medicaid dollars are doled out to any of us Americans who need nursing home care without a means test of our relatives. It can be seen, then, that Medicaid nursing home money is not necessarily reserved for the poor.
Government bonds were sold to the people in order to pay the costs of the government. However, it seems to me that they are now serving another purpose. They are paying for the financial support of many older persons who have saved money, invested it in a secure place, and now hope that the returns on that money will help them pay their way in their old age.
Am I thinking correctly or wrongly about this issue? I hope to hear from many of you about this question.
I know that private debt needs to be paid back with interest in order to establish a stable and safe family economy and to nurture a healthy banking system. One needs to save and budget the money one has in order to pay back his personal debts. It seems to me, however, that the government does not feel constrained to do these things, and I am wondering why. I am even wondering if it is good thing for the government to pay back its debts.
One might think of government pay-back money in the form of interest a sort of other “entitlement” program. We already have several entitlement programs, i.e., Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, government pensions, and now, Obamacare. We might now think of the interest being paid out to service the debt as another “entitlement” program. The main difference between this “entitlement” and the other entitlement programs is that this new “entitlement” is totally deserved by the recipients. In the case of this new “entitlement,” the people and agencies who receive the interest money are the ones who have saved and scrimped to save their money for a rainy day. The other, more traditional entitlements go to people who may or may not have saved money for a rainy day fund for themselves. These conventional entitlement moneys act more like a traditional insurance fund that only seeks to share risk so that everyone gets cared for, even though they may not have saved the requisite money, themselves.
If we think of government interest pay-back money as an “entitlement,” we should know that it is the very largest of all the entitlements—it is flowing out of the Federal Government at the rate of $1.13 billion daily. I know that the Federal government was never meant to be a wealth producer for the people. But I also know that many of us older citizens are using Federal treasuries as buffer money against an insecure economy. We always thought of government bonds as the most secure of all investments. These days, I am not so sure about the safety of government bonds. Nevertheless, many of us American citizens hold these securities, and we know that we are entitled to the interest that the government promised to pay us for the use of our dollars.
Governmental programs have a funny way of not producing the exact thing for which they were intended. For instance, the Medicaid program was intended to pay health care costs for the poor. As it turns out, however, about 70% of Medicaid dollars are used to pay for nursing home costs for all of our people. Medicaid dollars are doled out to any of us Americans who need nursing home care without a means test of our relatives. It can be seen, then, that Medicaid nursing home money is not necessarily reserved for the poor.
Government bonds were sold to the people in order to pay the costs of the government. However, it seems to me that they are now serving another purpose. They are paying for the financial support of many older persons who have saved money, invested it in a secure place, and now hope that the returns on that money will help them pay their way in their old age.
Am I thinking correctly or wrongly about this issue? I hope to hear from many of you about this question.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Notes on the State of our Nation
I have received the following facts from Capt, Woddie Sprouse, USN/RET, a personal friend of Nancy and me. Capt. Sprouse is an experienced officer of the USN; and I deeply respect his understanding of our national condition. Please read the following and consider the significance of this information.
* 14.5 million Americans are unemployed, or 9.1% of the population this number equals the entire populations of Wyoming, Arkansas, Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Maine, New Mexico, Nebraska, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
* The 7/1/2011 Gallup underemployment rate is an additional 9.2% of the population over 18 years of age.
* The national debt is over 14.5 trillion dollars.
* The interest that must be paid on this debt will equal 414 billion dollars in 2011, this amounts to 1.13 billion dollars in accumulated interest per day. Nothing is being paid on the principle.
* There has not been a national budget approved by Congress for the past two fiscal years.
* The current 2011 Federal deficit, income - expense, is in excess of 1.3 trillion dollars, the Federal fiscal year ends on September 31, 201. This1.3 trillion deficit must be financed by seeking addition credit, adding to the total national debt.
* The nation is engaged in three wars, or something that resembles war to this old warrior.
* None of the three wars were declared by Congress. And, I submit that had they never would have been declared had the Congress been asked to do so.
* The nation has no defined foreign policy, or doctrine, to deal with Iran's nuclear development.
* The Mediterranean Muslim region has undergone a significant, yet to be understood, transformation.
* The wealthy, Muslim Gulf and Arabic, states have deferred taking an active role in the Mediterranean transformation.
* The nation has no defined foreign policy to deal with the diverse aspects of the above transformation.
* With the exception of Germany, the major European economies are in financial, debt, distress.
* The European Central Bank is struggling to cope with the wide spread, Southern European National Debit crisis and protect the Euro common currency.
* The nation has permitted the value of the US currency to decline with respect to the Euro.
* With the exception of the Secretary of the Treasury, all the original, key, members of The Administration's Economic team have left the administration.
* The Chinese national defense expenditure is estimated to be in the range of 20% of their annual budget.
* China is expected surpass the US as the number one world economy in the next 10 years.
* The Japanese economy has been stagnate for the past decade.
* There is no regional economic or military power to counter, or balance, Chinese growth.
* Significant quantities of oil and gas reside in the South China Sea, a region of increased Chinese attention.
* Russia has proven not to be a predictable world player.
* Much of central Europe is now dependent on oil and gas supplies by Russia.
* There are 12-14 million undocumented aliens residing in the nation.
* There is no effective method(s) to control undocumented alien access to the nation.
* There is no comprehensive plan to address the status of the 12-14 million undocumented aliens currently in the nation.
* Currently, only four States: Alaska, Montana, Arkansas and North Dakota, will not have a state budget deficit in 2011. 46 States will have deficits and the majority of these will require significant cuts in their services and/or increases in state revenues to abide by their state constitutions to have a balanced budget.
* All aspects of the US housing industry continue to experience a prolonged decline.
* Over 50% of US families pay no income taxes.
* US College tuition is increasing at a rate exceeding the national inflation rate.
* US Medical care expense is increasing at a rate exceeding the national inflation rate.
* The future national supply of energy is in question.
These facts are not just so much dross and Republican haranguing at an objectionable government administration; these are REAL facts, and we, Americans absolutely must do something about them!
* 14.5 million Americans are unemployed, or 9.1% of the population this number equals the entire populations of Wyoming, Arkansas, Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Maine, New Mexico, Nebraska, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
* The 7/1/2011 Gallup underemployment rate is an additional 9.2% of the population over 18 years of age.
* The national debt is over 14.5 trillion dollars.
* The interest that must be paid on this debt will equal 414 billion dollars in 2011, this amounts to 1.13 billion dollars in accumulated interest per day. Nothing is being paid on the principle.
* There has not been a national budget approved by Congress for the past two fiscal years.
* The current 2011 Federal deficit, income - expense, is in excess of 1.3 trillion dollars, the Federal fiscal year ends on September 31, 201. This1.3 trillion deficit must be financed by seeking addition credit, adding to the total national debt.
* The nation is engaged in three wars, or something that resembles war to this old warrior.
* None of the three wars were declared by Congress. And, I submit that had they never would have been declared had the Congress been asked to do so.
* The nation has no defined foreign policy, or doctrine, to deal with Iran's nuclear development.
* The Mediterranean Muslim region has undergone a significant, yet to be understood, transformation.
* The wealthy, Muslim Gulf and Arabic, states have deferred taking an active role in the Mediterranean transformation.
* The nation has no defined foreign policy to deal with the diverse aspects of the above transformation.
* With the exception of Germany, the major European economies are in financial, debt, distress.
* The European Central Bank is struggling to cope with the wide spread, Southern European National Debit crisis and protect the Euro common currency.
* The nation has permitted the value of the US currency to decline with respect to the Euro.
* With the exception of the Secretary of the Treasury, all the original, key, members of The Administration's Economic team have left the administration.
* The Chinese national defense expenditure is estimated to be in the range of 20% of their annual budget.
* China is expected surpass the US as the number one world economy in the next 10 years.
* The Japanese economy has been stagnate for the past decade.
* There is no regional economic or military power to counter, or balance, Chinese growth.
* Significant quantities of oil and gas reside in the South China Sea, a region of increased Chinese attention.
* Russia has proven not to be a predictable world player.
* Much of central Europe is now dependent on oil and gas supplies by Russia.
* There are 12-14 million undocumented aliens residing in the nation.
* There is no effective method(s) to control undocumented alien access to the nation.
* There is no comprehensive plan to address the status of the 12-14 million undocumented aliens currently in the nation.
* Currently, only four States: Alaska, Montana, Arkansas and North Dakota, will not have a state budget deficit in 2011. 46 States will have deficits and the majority of these will require significant cuts in their services and/or increases in state revenues to abide by their state constitutions to have a balanced budget.
* All aspects of the US housing industry continue to experience a prolonged decline.
* Over 50% of US families pay no income taxes.
* US College tuition is increasing at a rate exceeding the national inflation rate.
* US Medical care expense is increasing at a rate exceeding the national inflation rate.
* The future national supply of energy is in question.
These facts are not just so much dross and Republican haranguing at an objectionable government administration; these are REAL facts, and we, Americans absolutely must do something about them!
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Two Ways to Look at Bin Laden’s Death
Conservatives and liberals have reacted much differently to the Navy SEAL’s operation that killed Osama bin Laden. On the right there was pride in the capabilities, precision and bravery of an elite commando team. There were no illusions that victory had been achieved over international terrorism and islamist fanaticism. But there was a feeling of satisfaction, if not relief, that retributive justice was finally delivered to a heinous mass murderer. There was hope that this could be a turning point in a protracted and continuing war, along with renewed resolve that we persevere for as long as it takes.
On the left, there was no celebration. The liberal penchant for guilt was indulged with hand-wringing about a lack of due process in what may have been a planned “kill mission.” (So what? We are at war!) Abstract moralizers lamented the tragedy of any human life being taken. But even more revealing of the leftist mindset and their detachment from the real world was their indignation over continuing security precautions, which they regard as an affront to civil rights.
They fretted that bin Laden’s death might cause the Patriot Act to be continued, that the CIA and the FBI would still be allowed to conspire together (i.e., share information to thwart terrorist plots); that Gitmo would remain open; that the Transportation Security Administration would continue to inconvenience air travelers; that terrorist phone calls would be monitored without warrants (but with court approval under the Foreign Intelligence Act,); that captured terrorists might be subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques; that American troops will remain abroad, and so on.
These things are all true for the simple reason that we are still at war with suicidal fanatics who are intent on randomly killing innocent American civilians.
I think it is high time that we, Americans, quit being so guilt ridden with the fact that we need to protect ourselves and the ones we love. Let’s end this war on terror with a victory!
This blog post was largely excerpted from the Denver Post 2 June 2011, page 11B. It was part of an editorial written by Mike Rosen.
On the left, there was no celebration. The liberal penchant for guilt was indulged with hand-wringing about a lack of due process in what may have been a planned “kill mission.” (So what? We are at war!) Abstract moralizers lamented the tragedy of any human life being taken. But even more revealing of the leftist mindset and their detachment from the real world was their indignation over continuing security precautions, which they regard as an affront to civil rights.
They fretted that bin Laden’s death might cause the Patriot Act to be continued, that the CIA and the FBI would still be allowed to conspire together (i.e., share information to thwart terrorist plots); that Gitmo would remain open; that the Transportation Security Administration would continue to inconvenience air travelers; that terrorist phone calls would be monitored without warrants (but with court approval under the Foreign Intelligence Act,); that captured terrorists might be subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques; that American troops will remain abroad, and so on.
These things are all true for the simple reason that we are still at war with suicidal fanatics who are intent on randomly killing innocent American civilians.
I think it is high time that we, Americans, quit being so guilt ridden with the fact that we need to protect ourselves and the ones we love. Let’s end this war on terror with a victory!
This blog post was largely excerpted from the Denver Post 2 June 2011, page 11B. It was part of an editorial written by Mike Rosen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
