David Online

Denying Children 

“The health of millions of children who lack insurance cannot be held hostage to the president’s visceral distaste for government and its essential role to protect the weak, or his desire to protect the tobacco industry.”

As might be expected, the New York Times has the roles of government backwards; opposites of what they truly are.

The only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of Life, Liberty, and Property. “The purpose of government,” said Thomas Jefferson, “is to allow for the preservation of life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Any other function assumed by government is usurpation and oppression.

The Times says the essential role of government is to protect the weak. Either the Times is ignorant of the role of government or it is intentionally misinforming its readers. The statement that the essential function of government is to protect the weak from the strong is a tenet of liberalism. In truth, it is no more a function of government to protect the weak from the strong than it is to protect the strong from the weak.

To protect the weak from the strong is to imply the weak should get more of an advantage from government. Since most of us are weak rather than strong, we find little fault with that reasoning. And yet if we put aside our own selfish interest for that of the nation as a whole and how it may grow strong and endure, it seems absurd the government would favor weakness over strength. A nation that favors weakness over strength will soon find its action self-fulfilling.

Regardless however, the function of government is neither to protect weakness from strength nor strength from weakness. The purpose of government is to protect life from harm, liberty from enslavement, and property from seizure. It matters not whether the illegal act is performed by the strong or the weak, it is to be repressed.

The protection of the tobacco industry is a function of government. The tobacco industry is property and as such, it is inherent upon the government to protect it.

For the government to confiscate an undue portion of its wealth without consent or compensation to give to another is nothing more than illegal theft of its rights to protection of property

The New York Times is incorrect. The essential role of government is to maintain a national military and local police forces for protection against loss of life, loss of property, and loss of liberty at the hands of either foreign enemies or domestic criminals. Nothing more, nothing less.

We’re Not in 2006 Anymore - Michael Barone

“Things are not working out as Democratic congressional leaders expected. For the first eight months of this year, they struggled to find some way to shut down the American military effort in Iraq.”

“The Democrats … suffered from a lack of imagination. They could not imagine that the United States military could perform more effectively in 2007 than it did in 2005 and 2006.”

“The Democrats have found themselves on the defensive on other issues, as well. Last week, the House Democrats were forced to delay a vote on their version of the revision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which among other things would have prohibited surveillance of communications between suspected terrorists abroad and persons in the United States without a court warrant.”

“The House Democratic leadership also backed down last week from its determination to bring a resolution condemning the Turkish government’s massacre of Armenians in 1915-16.”

Wouldn’t all these and a number of other Democratic failures look more understandable against a president with high approval rating rather than one hovering in the low 30’s like President Bush’s?

Obama Asked about Obama-Gore ‘08 Ticket

“[A] supporter asked the ‘08 presidential hopeful if he would consider taking “the wind out of Hillary’s sails” by asking Nobel prize winner former Vice President Al Gore to be his running mate before the primaries.”

What an asinine question! After being knighted at the Oscars and crowned by the Nobel Peace Prize committee, you think Al Gore is going to walk gently into that good night, also known as the White House Basement Bill Clinton kept him in for eight years?

NYC tries again to get calories on menus

“City officials have argued that action is needed to address an obesity epidemic in the city, which they blame partly on more residents relying on fast food for a large percentage of their regular meals.”

If New York City has an obesity epidemic, instead of requiring McDonalds to list the number of calories in a Big Mac, why doesn’t the city just make it against the law to be obese? Naw…I guess they can’t do that. That would make it the individual’s responsibility with no one to blame.

Pete Stark (D-Ca) – October 18, 2007

“Where are you going to get that money? Are you going to tell us lies like you’re telling us today? Is that how you’re going to fund the war? You don’t have money to fund the war or children. But you’re going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old, enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president’s amusement,”

 Pete Stark (D-Ca) – October 23, 2007 – 5 days later

“I want to apologize to my-first of all, all my colleagues, many of whom I’ve offended, uhhh, to the president, his family, to, uhhh, the troops that may have found in my remarks, as were suggested in, uh, the motion that we just voted on, uh, and I do apologize.”

Earlier this week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was forced by public pressure into apologizing for Stark’s remarks. Pelosi said, “What Congressman Stark said during the debate was inappropriate and distracted from the seriousness of the subject at hand – providing health care for the children.”

I wonder if Speaker Pelosi had to take Pete Stark to the proverbial woodshed for a good tongue lashing to get him to apologize?

The U.S. troop increase and Iraqis’ rejection of insurgents are cited by the military.

By ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published October 24, 2007

“BAGHDAD – October is on course to record the second consecutive decline in U.S. military and Iraqi civilian deaths, and Americans commanders say they know why: the U.S. troop increase and an Iraqi groundswell against al-Qaida and Shiite militia extremists.

Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, who commands the 3rd Infantry Division, points to what the military calls “concerned citizens” – both Shiites and Sunnis who have joined the American fight. He says he has signed up 20,000 of them in the past four months.

“I’ve never been more optimistic than I am right now with the progress we’ve made in Iraq,” Lynch said in a recent interview at a U.S. base deep in hostile territory south of Baghdad.”

This report warrants even more merit in light of Osama bin Laden’s audio tape two days ago in which he cajoles his mujahedeen to “unite and avoid extremism”, apparently intended to win over Sunnis opposed to al-Qaeda in Iraq.

A Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll conducted last year found that over a third of Democrats believe that President George Bush and his administration participated on the attacks of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon because Bush wanted the United States to go to war in Iraq.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth, a society of students, faculty and “experts” dedicated to exposing falsehoods and revealing truths about 9/11 allegedly includes physicists, mechanical engineers, civil engineers, pilots, and aeronautical engineers among its members. Scholars founder and co-chairman, Professor James H. Fetzer, P.H.D., says,

“We have no funds and no budget but are doing this because we believe the American people are entitled to know the truth about their own history. Even I find it difficult to believe that the American government could have attacked the American people and killed 3,000 civilians to promote its political agenda, but that is where the evidence leads.”

Professor Emeritus Fetzer of the University of Minnesota Duluth does not explain the circumstances under which he has been allowed to live while the government has been able to keep secret the murder of those 3,000 innocent civilians who died in the 9/11 attacks. Maybe its just me, but I would think that if Bush and company can take out 3,000 lives and keep it under wraps, snuffing out a 66 year-old deranged ex-professor of philosophy would be a walk in the park.

A similar poll recently conducted finds that an even larger number of supposedly sane Democrats believe that George Bush was somehow responsible for the Katrina disaster. This group of folks believe that George Bush and Dick Cheney repaired to a secret Haliburton bunker in an undisclosed location and using as yet unknown technology steered Hurricane Katrina into New Orleans. Then previously laid explosive charges at critical points in the New Orleans levees were remotely detonated in order to flood the black neighborhoods.

As to why Bush and Cheney did this, we have only to turn to the authoritative statements of Spike Lee, Louis Farakhan, and Kanye West. George Bush hates Blacks.

Al-Jazeera, Osama bin Laden’s favored news outlet next to CNN, reports receiving another audiotape from its favored celebrity, the third such tape in the last month and a half.

In this newest tape, bin Laden scolds his al-Qaeda followers for “failing to overcome fanatical tribal loyalties and unite in the fight against U.S. troops.” In the tape, he used the word, “ta assub” – fanaticism – to chastise fellow insurgents for placing their allegiance to tribe and family above the larger fight of killing Americans and infidels.

“My mujahedeen brothers in Iraq, you are a people worthy of praise and flattery. You’ve done well to carry out a glorious duty by fighting the enemy. But some of you have lagged behind in carrying out another glorious duty, which is to unite as one – as God wants,” said bin Laden.

Some of those laggards are now dead thanks to General Petraeus and his troops.

The bearded cave-dwelling terrorist said “Everybody can make a mistake, but the best are those who can admit their mistake.” Like himself? “Mistakes have been made during holy wars but mujahedeen have to correct their mistakes.

General Petraeus and his troops “help” a lot of them by correcting their mistakes, too.

President Bush sent Congress a $45.9 billion emergency funding request yesterday for expenses related to current U.S. military campaigns.

Addressing the obvious, the Los Angeles Times reports this funding request is certain to further inflame tensions between the president and the MoveOn.org Democratic Party. Ahh…those tensions will get you every time! For those of us unaware of what is going on in politics, the Times tells its readers that Bush and the Democrats are locked in a debate over federal spending as well as the war in Iraq, and I guess have been for some time.

“Demanding nearly $200 billion for Iraq while vetoing health care for 10 million children exemplifies the Bush administration’s misplaced priorities,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Monday, referring to the president’s objection to expanding by $35 billion the SCHIP program.

I’m not what you call a constitutional scholar, Senator, but even I can tell the difference between a military funding request and a government hand-out.

President Bush is Commander in Chief of the military and funding for the military is spelled out in the constitution. The SCHP program is not.

I can’t ignore Pelosi’s comment that “Bush vetoed health care for 10 million children.” No, he didn’t veto their health care. They still have it. What he vetoed was the added expense to the American tax payer to foot another Democratic proposal to expand government-paid heath care.

It is interesting to note that according to the Washington Post, 90% of the children who qualify under the current SCHIP program are not enrolled. And yet the Democrats say we need to expand it.

People who truly want to know what’s going on in Iraq do not tune in to CNN or MSNBC to listen to the likes of Keith Olbermann pretending he is Edward R. Murrow reporting from a bombed out bunker in World War II London. People who really want to know what’s going on in Iraq go to Iraq to see for themselves.

Military historian and columnist Victor Davis Hanson, who has been to Iraq several times, was recently in Baghdad where he met up with Colonel Rick Gibbs, commander of the 4^th Infantry Combat Brigade, better known as the Dragon Brigade.

The Dragon Brigade’s area of operations is the so-called Rashid Security District in the southern portion of Baghdad and is perhaps the most volatile area in Iraq. Predominately Shia, the area also has a significant number of Sunnis along with a large presence of al-Qaeda and other extremist groups.

Since the arrival of the Dragon Brigade last March, there has been a radical decline in violence. Murders have fallen from 553 a month to a tenth of that number. IED attacks have fallen by half. The Dragon Brigade has overseen some $100 million in investment in Rashid commerce and infrastructure. There are now 900 businesses open.

Something quite significant is going on, Hanson says, and we in the United States are unaware of it. In that context, Hanson interviewed Colonel Gibbs to find the answer and why Americans seem confused, almost stunned, by the unexpected good news coming out of Iraq.

Hanson’s interview with Colonel Gibbs can be found here. Colonel Gibbs’ remarks at the end of the interview are especially illuminating and heartening.

“I would just say that what the brave men and women of the Dragon Brigade are accomplishing here in southern Baghdad is nothing short of amazing. I like to say that “Our soldiers are our greatest ambassadors,” because it is absolutely true. I watch young captains, lieutenants, and sergeants who have but a few years in the army carrying on healthy, effective relationships with local military, government, religious, and tribal officials here that you would expect of people with years and years of service.”

“I want the American people to know that their most precious resource – your sons and daughters – are doing amazing things here and we are seeing the kind of progress that I hope I’ve successfully illustrated in the previous questions.”

Debbie at Right Truth has a Time Magazine photo of Barack Obama with the American flag as a backdrop, casually standing with his hands clasped together in front of him while the National Anthem is played.

The event was Democratic Senator Tom Harkin’s Steak Fry in Indianola, Iowa on September 17, 2007. In line behind Obama are Bill Richardson and Hillary Clinton – both of whom apparently had the sense to put their hands over their hearts when the anthem was played.

Last month Barack Obama gave up wearing an American flag pin. This month it appears he has given up saluting the American flag.  

How does a Chinese dishwasher living in a run-down tenement in the impoverished Chinatown section of high-cost New York City come up with a $2,000 campaign donation to Hillary Clinton?  According to the Clinton campaign, he did and so did hundreds of other dishwashers, trinket sellers, and hawkers of rubber sandals and bargain-basement clothes.

The Los Angeles Times reports that hundreds of dishwashers, waiters, and others whose jobs and dilapidated home addresses seem to make them unpromising targets for political fundraisers are pouring $1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Hillary Clinton’s campaign treasury. The Times reports that in April a single fundraiser in an area long known for its gritty urban poverty yielded a whopping $380,000. John Kerry in 2004 received only $24,000 from the same area.

Worse yet, when the Times checked the donors, more than a third couldn’t be found and most were not even registered to vote. Some didn’t even have green cards.

At this point in the presidential campaign cycle, Clinton has raised more money than any candidate in history. It should also be mentioned, that candidate Clinton has also had to return more campaign “donations” than any candidate in history. Last month, Clinton had to return $850,000 in campaign contributions collected by Chinese con man and Clinton collaborator, Norman Hsu.

Investors Business Daily said voters had better pay attention to this because for the first time in our history, we could be electing a Manchurian candidate – someone who’s loyal to foreign and unseen donors rather than American voters.

“What do these hidden interests want in exchange for marshaling the dishwashers of Chinatown to contribute to Clinton’s campaign coffers? What has she promised them in exchange?”

“Knowing that the Chinese seek greater access to U.S. technology, how will this serve their national interests over our own? Will voters find themselves in the situation of watching a President Hillary Clinton sit on her hands after an American aircraft is shot down because of what someone in Beijing knows about cash she accepted?”