About Me

Name: Always To The...
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

About Bush And Conservatives

Posted by Always To The Right on Thursday, September 07, 2006 10:52:14 PM
The only time you will see conservative writers and talk show hosts mentioned in the pages of the MSM is when they [those that could be called "movement conservatives"] oppose Bush due to some of the things he has done.

We have a Republican President who is conservative on some things [military, tax cuts, Court appointees], but not on others [spending, size of government, immigration]

Comments by some of these conservatives cause great excitement in the MSM and the thought that the Republican party is falling apart.

As has been said about the President; "Bush is conservative but he is not a conservative." 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Twisted Polling As Usual

Posted by Always To The Right on Thursday, September 07, 2006 9:11:36 PM

This is from mrc.org, try the site it's good



Twisted 9/11 Polling from CBS, NYT

Do you feel less safe now than before 9/11?

That's the question posed by a CBS News/New York Times poll, which interprets the results as criticism of the Bush administration's handling of the War on Terror:

Compared with five years ago, 39 percent of Americans say they feel less safe now, compared with only 14 percent who say they feel safer. Forty-six percent say they feel the same.

Count me in the 39% who feel "less safe". How could I not feel that way?

Fanatical Muslims succeeded in pulling off the most devastating terrorist attack in history five years ago; does it seem reasonable to assume that they won't keep trying to repeat that success?

This is not a criticism of the Bush administration's response to 9/11. Who would have believed on September 12, 2001 that Bush would succeed in foiling followup attacks for five years? Not me; I expected another attack within the year.

So, why should I not feel more safe now than five years ago unless I believe that the Bushies are bungling the War on Terror? Because the terrorists have gained powerful new American allies since 9/11. Democrats, whose initial, and correct, reaction was characterized by Al Franken's demand that terrorists be interrogated with "...a red hot poker up the [butt]..." have decided that it's to their political advantage to shift their sights towards Bush and the Republicans.

How can anyone feel safer when one of our major political parties has decided that the greater danger to America is their own countrymen, who happen not to share all of their political views?

How can anyone feel safer when two Ivy League universities actively collaborate with our enemies, admitting Taliban members and providing a platform and credibility to representatives of tyrannical regimes?

How can anyone feel safer when the New York Times, one of the patrons of this very poll, feels comfortable publishing classified documents relating to active counter-terrorism programs?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Can't Trust The Democrats With Our Security

Posted by Always To The Right on Wednesday, September 06, 2006 11:07:47 PM
Remember who it was that said
Star Wars was not worth it.
 
   

Hit Or Missile

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 9/6/2006

Axis Of Evil: Iran has postponed its talks with the EU because of "procedural matters." How many times must Lucy hold the football before Charlie Brown gets wise? Or before someone gets nuked?

'We will not have the meeting today in Vienna," Ali Ashgar, the chief Iranian envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told The Associated Press Wednesday. Meanwhile, unimpeded by procedural matters, Tehran's Manhattan Project to build a nuclear weapon to fulfill President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's pledge of wiping Israel off the map continues apace beyond the Aug. 31 deadline set by the U.N. for Iran to cease and desist.

Like the country song goes, the international community wants to give Iran one more last chance to make nice, saying to Ahmadinejad: Come, let us reason together. But it appears no basket of carrots in the absence of any stick will dissuade a leader convinced he's destined to facilitate the return of the 12th Imam. Even if meaningful sanctions are imposed, would they stop an Iranian nuke in time?

Which is why we think the successful test last Friday of a key component of what liberals and Democrats have long ridiculed as "Star Wars" is such good news. We would rather, like Ronald Reagan believed when he initiated the Strategic Defense Initiative, trust our security to the genius of American technology than to the good will of our adversaries.

The test began with the launch of a target missile from the Kodiak Launch Complex on Kodiak Island, Alaska, to simulate the launch of a North Korean Taepodong-2 ICBM toward the U.S.

Some 17 minutes after the target launch, a 54-foot long interceptor shot out of an underground silo at the Ronald W. Reagan Missile Defense Site at Vandenberg Air Force Base on California's central coast. A refrigerator-size "kill vehicle" separated from the interceptor and hit its target, the simulated North Korean warhead.

Needless to say, the North Koreans were not amused at the prospect of their claim to fame being neutralized. North Korea's Orwellian-named Committee for the Peaceful Reunion of the Fatherland, missing the days when Clinton and Carter were trying to bribe them with oil and nuclear reactors, issued a statement saying the test "clearly shows that it is the U.S. which is increasing tensions on the Korean Peninsula and threatening war against our country." Whatever.

Twenty-three years ago, Reagan, believing it was better to prevent a nuclear attack than to avenge it, told the nation: "Tonight we're launching an effort which holds the promise of changing the course of human history." A much better option than contemplating the end of it.

Reagan certainly would have agreed with Jack Ryan's mentor in the Tom Clancy novel "The Sum Of All Fears," who said he didn't fear the man with thousands of nuclear warheads, but the man with just one. Mutual assured destruction (MAD) may have worked with Mikhail Gorbachev, but it won't work with Kim Jong Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Neither may negotiations.

The defense Reagan envisioned was a layered defense to include land-based interceptors as in Friday's successful test, plus sea-based systems such as AEGIS, airborne lasers designed to shoot down missiles in their boost phase, space-based systems, and tactical theater defenses such as the Patriot Pac-3.

If we think we have lots of time, or that North Korea can be bought off, or that Iran threatens only Israel, we are whistling past our own potential graveyard. To paraphrase another famous president, we can talk softly, but we'd better get that big stick ready.

 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

You Can't Believe These Democrats

Posted by Always To The Right on Wednesday, September 06, 2006 11:00:28 PM
Investor's Business Daily
 
 

Last Line Of Defense

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 9/6/2006

National Security: Democrats on Wednesday claimed America is less safe today than anytime since 9-11 and called on Don Rumsfeld to quit. Quite a day's work. Any wonder why there's concern they'll take back Congress?

With polls showing Democrats ahead in many key races, the party can almost taste a return to power in November. As such, the two-pronged attack, coming the week of the fifth anniversary of 9-11, reeks of politics.

It may just backfire. Americans know reflexively that Democrats are weak on national security. Heck, a generation of Democratic activists built the party largely around the ideas that making America weaker and appeasing enemies were good things.

Even so, we were surprised to hear Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid claim this week: "Under the Bush administration and this Republican Congress, America is less safe, facing greater threats and unprepared for a dangerous world in which we live."

Reid's entitled to his opinion. But it takes only a few seconds to realize how utterly false and fatuous his statement is. This is the best the Democrats can do? Rank criticism, but no alternatives? Lots of anti-Bush rhetoric, but no pledge to win a war that we must win?

Since 9-11, there've been terrorist attacks or major plots uncovered in Spain, London, Russia, Bali and India. In France, radical Muslims have rioted, and in Denmark they've threatened free speech. The Netherlands recoiled in shock when Islamic terrorists murdered politician Pym Fortuyn and filmmaker Theo Van Gogh.

But for five years America has been mostly quiet. America has been safer than any other major nation on Earth, blessedly free of major attacks though always recognizing the threat.

During this period, we've successfully fought two wars, been responsible for multiple elections in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon, scared a fundamentalist Islamic terrorist — Moammar Gadhafi — to give up his nuclear weapons and encouraged nascent democratic and reform movements in Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

To claim we're now "less safe" beggars belief. Worse, Democrats are calling for the scalp of the man who is arguably most responsible for our success: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Anyone who doubts Rumsfeld's qualifications ought to take a peek at his resume: Ivy League graduate, investment banker, fighter pilot, former congressman, top White House aide, diplomat, corporate executive and defense secretary (twice).

In short, Rumsfeld is one of the most accomplished people to serve in government. Ever. And he's faced the Herculean — and thankless — job of fighting a war unlike any we've ever fought.

And what of the Harry Reids, Howard Deans, Nancy Pelosis and other empty-suited left-wingers who want to take him down? They've acted only to weaken the U.S. war effort.

Whether by making it tougher for us to monitor terrorist communications or by their bizarre insistence on treating terrorists as criminals, not as bloodthirsty avatars of hate, Democrats have made it clear they can't be taken seriously.

We can all quibble with elements of U.S. strategy in this war. But there can be little doubt as to who is better suited to lead it.

 

 

 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Do You Believe It?

Posted by Always To The Right on Wednesday, September 06, 2006 10:03:06 PM
Nobody will convince me that Schumer and Wilson were not the orchestrators of all this and then they had some assistance from Armitage and Powell."

We've known for a long time that liberals have been trying to criminalize conservatism. There's no question that this is how they're choosing to fight it because they can't beat it at the ballot box. These people are like Stalinists!

Senator Biden says we won the Cold War by negotiating? Do you think Gorbachev thinks he lost to the United States in a talking contest? Do you think that Adolf Hitler committed suicide because somebody beat him in a debate?

Liberals are the people that have made the case that they care so much about ethics in government. How about the corruption of the criminal justice system by a hack senator and plain old hack Joe Wilson for the express purposes of destroying an administration in time of war?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Who Wants To Give Terrorists Rights

Posted by Always To The Right on Wednesday, September 06, 2006 7:07:47 PM
Another speech by the President about creation of
military commissions find it at http://http://www.whitehouse.gov/
news/releases/2006/09/20060906-3.html

The President's shows it is important to have a President
who will realize that the Constitution is not a "living document."
It is what it says when it was ratified.  Justices like Scalia,
Thomas, Roberts and the like who will follow in that way.
This is only one [very important] thing to remember when
casting your vote.  


Think about who they are that want to give the enemy
full rights-even though they are not members of an
organized military of a nation.


To those that want to "teach the Republicans a lesson"
think about those that might die because of you misguided lesson.



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

You Can't Appease And Negotiate With Evil

Posted by Always To The Right on Tuesday, September 05, 2006 7:07:20 PM

The Democratic strategy is to now say that we're not safer, that the Bush
strategy does not make us any safer. Well, what do you call no attacks in
five years? What do you call thwarted attacks in five years?

If you don't take the war on terror seriously (and if you're not really of the
mind that we have a national security threat), then you probably wouldn't
mind the Democrats being in charge and in power. But to me, that is simply
a risk that is unacceptable.

This is a link to the Presidents speech about the global war on terror, read
it it's good.  Also other links to other information about the war.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060905-4.html
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Posted by Always To The Right on Tuesday, September 05, 2006 6:52:39 PM
This is an answer that was given by the great one [Rush] on his show today.  This is again what I have said over & over to Republicans and conservatives [in this blog and in person] not voting or voting Democrat to "teach them a lesson" this is what will happen.  There are other posts on the blog with the same point, don't do it.









All right, all right. Let me play the game. Let me play the game with you. The real problem has been this. Most Republicans, other than the northeasterner liberal Republicans, campaign as conservatives. And you go rah-rah-rah-rah. Then they get to Washington and, uh-oh. Then the bottom falls out and we start spending money like crazy, and we start letting liberals write the education bills and all this sort of stuff. So I totally agree with you that we need conservatives. I would be the first to say so, and we certainly need a conservative presidential nominee. We really do.

But I want to hearken back to something I said, because I'm starting to get more and more, even some friends of mine, "You know, it might be kind of interesting if the Democrats won the House. It might be kind of interesting." Somebody even said to me, "You know, Rush, I was hearing you talk about how the Republicans in the House are kind of lost because there's no elected conservative leadership in Washington, and the president doesn't provide that. He's a Republican, and he's conservative on some things, but he's not a conservative. I've never heard you say that, Rush, and I've heard you say that the House Republicans really can't go against their own president, so the things he wants and the things they have to give him legislatively, maybe it would be better, Rush, if there were a Democrat Congress so that the Republicans in the House could finally start asserting their conservative values and arguing with them and not disagreeing with the president." Any time I hear an argument that advocates losing, even if it is a long-sighted version -- well, if we lose, we win later -- even if it is one of those, I cringe, because I've never thought there's anything valuable about losing, nor have I ever thought there was anything redeeming about quitting. If you're going to lose, if you're going to advocate defeat, you're advocating quitting. And I can't join you in that.

Do you know what's going to happen if the Democrats get control of the House? I have run this by you countless times. Impeachment, impeachment, impeachment, investigations, investigations, investigations. They may not be able to get much legislation signed into law. They will not have in the House enough to override a presidential veto if they start going nuts on all kinds of things, but they can certainly sabotage whatever the president's agenda is for the past two years. But they are strictly right now interested in impeachment and investigations. They want to have all these committee hearings with subpoena power, trying to criminalize everything this administration has done.

Now, if you don't take the war on terror seriously, and if you're not really of the mind that we have a national security threat then you probably wouldn't mind Democrats being in charge and being in power. But to me, it is simply a risk that is unacceptable. These people have not demonstrated at all the fact that they take this seriously, that they have the wherewithal to know how to deal with it. Every time I hear we gotta talk to them, we need diplomacy, we need to rebuild our image around the world, I hear from these people that they're just clueless, haven't the foggiest idea what we face because they don't want to admit it. It's just too risky, folks, especially if you go down the line to 2008 and say, well, let's let the Democrats win the White House, too, you know, because that would make life more interesting, then the Republicans could really come alive and blah, blah -- we're talking four, maybe eight years? I'm sorry. I don't subscribe to the notion that if I don't get exactly what I want in a candidate, I'm sitting out. Because you never get exactly what you want in anything, ever. And to demand it of a business like politics is a little shortsighted.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

al Qaeda And Saddam A Pair?

Posted by Always To The Right on Tuesday, September 05, 2006 4:23:50 PM 
From today's opinionjournal it's good and 
the last paragraph is a good read 




"U.S. and Iraqi forces have captured a top al Qaeda in Iraq leader who 
ordered the bombing in February of a Shiite Muslim shrine in Samarra 
that started a wave of ferocious sectarian killings, Iraqi officials said 
Sunday," the Washington Post reports from Baghdad: 
 
*** QUOTE *** 
 
The arrest of Hamed Jumaa Farid al-Saeedi, described by officials as 
the No. 2 leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, was the latest in a series of blows 
to the Sunni Arab insurgent group, believed responsible for numerous 
suicide attacks on civilians and other deadly violence. . . . 
 
"The al Qaeda organization in Iraq has been seriously weakened and is 
now suffering from a leadership vacuum," Iraq's national security 
adviser, Mowaffak al-Rubaie, said at a news conference. . . . 
 
Iraqi officials said al-Saeedi, an intelligence officer for 
then-President Saddam Hussein, was captured within the past few weeks as he hid 
among women and children in an unspecified location just north of 
Baghdad.  
 
*** END QUOTE ***
 
This is all lies! All lies, we tell ya! Everyone knows Iraq has nothing 
to do with al Qaeda. It's just a distraction! Even more preposterous is 
the claim that "an intelligence officer for then-President Saddam 
Hussein" would join al Qaeda. Saddam Hussein was a secularist, whereas the 
al Qaeda guys are religious fanatics. Everyone knows that, except maybe 
the boobs who watch Fox News! The kind of transformation the Post is 
describing would violate the laws of physics. It's just another example 
of the Bush administration's war on science, and it's sad to see the 
Post drinking the neocon Kool-Aid.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Democrats Are Shocked To Find A War For Our Survival Going On

Posted by Always To The Right on Tuesday, September 05, 2006 1:33:29 AM
Congress debated whether or not to authorize the President to take military action against Iraq. The subsequent vote authorizing war (Senate: 77-23; House: 296-133) occurred just before the 2002 midterm elections and was largely supported by Democrats.  The public also overwhelmingly supported the military option as a way to deal decisively with jihadists—starting with Operation Enduring Freedom to root out the al Qaeda-sponsoring Taliban in Afghanistan shortly after 9/11.

Now, four years later—as the 2006 midterm elections approach—The Iraqi war has  become very unpopular, and many of the very same Democrats who voted to authorize the war now seek to ride the popular anti-war sentiment to victory in November.

Like Captain Renault in Casablanca—“shocked to find gambling going on in Casablanca”—no one can seriously be shocked to find born-again anti-war Democrats politicizing the very war they authorized in 2002. There is something deeply disquieting in this. The “loyal opposition” after all had it in their power—and, indeed, was morally obliged—to vote “no” in 2002 if they seriously thought, as they would now have us believe, that the President’s strategy was flawed.

If you peer through the eyes of our soldiers what you discover is an intense desire to win the war and preserve our freedoms. 

Far different from just winning an election and saving your political hide.


  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Don't Trust Them

Posted by Always To The Right on Monday, September 04, 2006 6:27:17 PM
The U.N. is as ineffective as the Liberal left in this country




Editorial Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Try To Answer These Questions

Posted by Always To The Right on Monday, September 04, 2006 5:18:04 PM

This is from frontpagemag.com with the title "You Might be a Leftist If" by Mark Levin.  As you can see by the questions [it was published in October 2003] it is not current.  Take the quiz.



-You believe John Ashcroft poses a greater danger to America than Osama bin Laden

-You think President Bush lied to the nation but his predecessor did not.

-You believe President Bush is too dumb to be President and Arnold Schwarzenegger is too dumb to be Governor of California, but the Dixie Chicks, Martin Sheen, Alec Baldwin, Barbra Streisand, Eddie Vedder and Jeanine Garofalo are qualified to discourse at length on foreign policy.

-You believe all conservatives are racist, but do not think minorities can ever succeed without Affirmative Action.

-You can't decide which is worse: the Patriot Act or the Patriot Missile.

-You believe Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, and Yasser Arafat were fairly and democratically elected, but President Bush was not.

-You root for prisoners when they escape from our oppressive prisons, but oppose allowing poor children to escape from failing public schools.

-You support every kind of "diversity" on campus, except political orientation.

-You support banning the smoking of tobacco and legalizing marijuana.

-You are enraged by the so-called mistreatment of Muslim prisoners (who have gained weight while dining on their specially prepared Koran-approved meals) at Guantanamo Bay, but believe the world should have stood idly by while Saddam Hussein filled mass graves.

-You have found where the right to an abortion is written in the Constitution but cannot find where the Constitution provides for a right to keep and bear arms.

-You support campus speech codes that ban pick-up lines and amorous gazes, but never spoke out against President Clinton's physical sexual harassment in the White House.

-You applauded Jimmy Carter for talking about human rights in foreign policy but opposed George W. Bush for doing something about human rights.

-You believe that trial lawyers taking 33 to 40 percent of a plaintiff's recovery in lawsuits is just about right, but the federal government taking this amount of our income in taxes is not nearly enough.

-You believe the former Governor of a New England state with 608,827 people is more than adequately experienced to be President in 2004, but the Governor of a Southwestern state with 21,325,018 people was completely unprepared in 2000.

-You agree with Toni Morrison that President Clinton was "the first black President," but didn't criticize Al Sharpton for recently labeling President Bush a "gang leader."

-You believe we could get more truth out of the Pentagon if only Don Rumsfeld were replaced by Mohammed Al-Sahhaf.

-You believe evangelical Christians are destroying America but don't feel threatened by the radical Wahabbi sect of Islam.

-When it comes to violent crime, you believe in hating the crime but loving the criminal.

-You support unlimited appeals for convicted criminals, but believe it is undemocratic for Californians to reverse their earlier mistake of electing Gray Davis.

-You believe U.S. exports of genetically modified foods pose a greater threat to African nations than corrupt dictators like Zimbabwe's Mugabe.

-You believe welfare is a fundamental human right and workfare is a human rights violation.

-You believe religion is a scourge on our society, but becoming one with Mother Nature by merging with the universal consciousness and harmonizing with lunar reverberations will save us.

-You believe President Bush is an environmental criminal for poisoning the water with arsenic, but have never complained about Saddam Hussein's devastating Iraq and Kuwait's environment by setting intentional oil well fires and committing genocide against the Marsh Arabs by draining their wetlands.

-Your car sports the bumper sticker saying that "it will be a great day when our schools have all the money they need and the military has to hold bake sales," but oppose allowing the U.S. military to volunteer recruitment tables on college campuses because of their "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

If the above has successfully profiled you, congratulations! You have won a one-way ticket to Paris aboard the massive cruise ship, "The U.S.S.R. Michael Moore."  Your ticket will be held at the nearest Dennis Kucinich for President rally.  Matricular consular ID cards issued by foreign governments will be gladly accepted as identification.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Islamic Fascism

Posted by Always To The Right on Monday, September 04, 2006 1:56:49 AM
The media and the left will do all they can, as long as Bush is the President to criticize, and attack whatever is done to fight the war on terror [remember they'll tell you Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror] or it's all our fault and on and on.


The should never be allow back into power for the safety and security of the country.

Below adapted from a Townhall column.





The media is all abuzz this week over the Bush administration’s decision to use the term “Islamic fascism” to describe our terrorist enemies.
 
The reaction to this new policy of acknowledging self-evident facts has centered on its perception as a desperate political ploy to win support by frightening the American people (fascism is, after all, one of the few things that most Americans really can stand up against) by demonizing people who don’t really deserve it. They may be terrorists, but surely they’re not fascists. It’s just too mean, too horrible to think about.
 
Fortunately for the country, most Americans are smart enough to see through this characterization. Even those politicians and activists who insist that Bush is being too partisan, or not nuanced enough, or is simply wrong about his fascism facts, must be smart enough to know that’s not true. At least, the country should hope that its opinion leaders are that smart. Yet they’ve still latched on to this as a source of irritation and occasional outrage.
 
Underneath all the accusations of partisanship, broad brushes, and foggy facts, it appears that the Islamic fascist label irritates many of those on the left for its recognition of the religious dimension of this enemy. Religion, according to the secular West, is supposed to be a thing of the past and something that simply doesn’t matter that much. It is, at best, a sideshow in the tent of hard-headed modernity and its persistent manifestations both in Western societies and elsewhere make certain people a bit nervous. They mistrust it, do not understand it, and so prefer to pretend that it does not exist.
 
Yet radical Islamists do not perpetrate suicide bombings because they are hungry. They do not attack the West because it is too intrusive. They did not fly planes into the World Trade Center because they were jealous of the high-tech gadgets that could be found in its offices. All these things matter, of course. Someone who is hungry, poor, and uneducated often has little hope for a better life on Earth and so will turn to the hope of a better life beyond the tangible world. A young Muslim man who is too poor to marry may be tempted by the promises of pleasure in Paradise and the financial rewards that will give his family more opportunity than he had. But the common denominator that encourages an individual to seek solutions to his problems in the Beyond, not on Earth, is religion.
 
Whether radical Islamist teachings are an inevitable part of Islam, whether they represent historic Muslim teachings or a modern reactionary bent, and whether they are an apostasy or a valid interpretation of the Koran, they are still religious in nature. And even though Islamist thought clearly crosses the line and has a political dimension, its root is still spiritual. This is the foundation that makes “Islamic fascism” an accurate characterization. By joining the traditional fascist principles of militarism, authoritarianism, and exclusion to the teachings of radical Islam, this ideology has blurred the lines between temporal and spiritual in a way that makes committed Western secularists decidedly uncomfortable.
 
The media and the left may not like it and they will undoubtedly continue to suggest that Bush and his aides have either been duped or are trying to dupe their constituents, but this does not change the fact that the Islamic fascist label is inherently accurate. The problem in the United States lies not in the label itself, but in the reaction of those for whom it presents an inescapable problem. If modernity is truly meant to sweep religion aside, shuffling it to the bottom of the list of profound human influences, Islamic fascism should not exist. And since it clearly does, it will require a response that acknowledges and appreciates the role of religion in human life, an acknowledgement that too many modern individuals simply cannot make.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Social Security Trust Fund Is An Accounting Fiction

Posted by Always To The Right on Monday, September 04, 2006 1:13:36 AM
  • The real problem comes in 2017.
  • Currently, payroll tax collections exceed benefit payments, and will continue to do so until 2017 when the program will spiral into annual deficits.
  • Surpluses credited to the trust fund are not saved or invested. Rather, they are immediately borrowed by the government and spent on other priorities or used to pay down debt. All that remains in the trust fund are government IOUs.
  • For the government to pay social security benefits in 2017, it must first raise taxes or reduce spending to generate the needed funds.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12345Next »