Monday, December 15, 2008

Dealing with Canadian Care

I admit to entering the Patriot's 'health care debate' with a predisposition to a system of private health care insurance. I believe that the inefficiencies of current health insurance problems are perfectly explained by cumbersome and counter-intuitive regulatory policies which prevent beneficial competition. I believe that these problems will be carried through to a single-payer, universal system and we should, therefore, avoid them.

That said, however, I was duly impressed by Stony Brook's Dr. David Brown, who was arguing in favor of a universal system. His plea for a fair and equal health insurance system is a hard one to ignore, especially considering the 47 million Americans who go without insurance and the many people who get denied coverage despite having insurance.

However, it's dangerous to allow oneself to fall into Dr. Brown's trap of emotional appeal. From a perspective of the personal, who wouldn't want universal coverage? The government's guarantee of safety; the freedom from worrying about having a bad or no insurance policy, is difficult one to reject. And with good reason, because the current system is certainly a corrupt and broken one.

Before letting emotional appeals cloud sound judgment, we must carefully consider the affect that government socialization of industry has.

To do this we must consider the type of care that one would receive under such a socialized health care system. I asked Dr. Brown, during the Q&A session why my Canadian relatives have to wait months for procedures that would be considered "next-day" in the United States, even despite out 'broken' system. His response, which makes sense only on the surface, is that someone in the system, maybe some government bureaucrat on some doctor's advice, decided to put my grandmother on a wait list because they felt that her condition wasn't in immediate need of a diagnostic procedure. Perhaps this was also true for a Canadian cousin, who had to wait six months to get an MRI, despite the continuous painful headaches, which could have been indicative of serious problems.

Dr. Brown claims that he considers health care to be a universal right, but he is supporting a system that doesn't let people exercise that right very well. For, when you have a single payer system, it also means you have no choices. You couldn't get a better health care coverage even if you wanted to, even if you could afford it. You can't pay extra to get extra services. You have to accept the authority of a government wait list that places your health and well-being below another person's.

In truly a private, competitive system, this would rarely, if ever, be the case. If you get put on a wait list that you don't want to be on, simply find different coverage that gives patients more choices. This plan may be more expensive, but shouldn't people be allowed to decide for themselves how much their health is worth? Shouldn't a person decide for themselves, with the advice of their doctor, that waiting six months for an MRI is unacceptable?

People blame greedy health insurance companies for denying care without realizing that government bureaucrats do the same thing, and on a bigger scale, when there is no competition and no incentive to improve quality. Profits incentivize in an atmosphere where competition is insured; incentives lower cost and improve quality to attract consumers. Government is slow to improve the quality of anything, because it does not have to respond immediately to consumer demands. Americans spend more on health care costs today than any other Western nation, even more so than other 'single-payer' countries because we have a patchwork of private/protected and government care.

The ability to choose between products works to produce the most desirable products. I say that it's time to get the government out of direct insurance and so we can let the free market innovate on health care solutions, as the free market does for anything else. A single-payer system does provide health care for all, but the quality of care should not be ignored.

As Alex Chamessian, editor of the Patriot, said, "Do you really want the people who run the DMV running your health insurance?" Waiting on line at the DMV is an expected annoyance. Waiting on a line to receive desired health care is intolerable.

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Broken Prospects: The Making of an Obama Foreign Policy

Barack Obama ran on a campaign of accountability, change, and the reestablishment of America's standing on the international stage. Inside these platitudes were a set of declarations and promises, ranging from the immediate withdrawal from Iraq, the closing of camp X-Ray in Guantanmo Bay, ending missile defense systems, to the application of interrogation rules found in the Army Field Manual to other agencies in the government, such as the CIA, NSA, and other intel services. Obama has also made the intelligent choice by keeping SecDef Robert Gates on for another year.

Strangely enough, these promise are being backed away from, or in some cases, totally broken.

1) Interrogation techniques:

Earlier this month, the WSJ reported that sources affiliated with Obama's transition team informed them that U.S. intelligence policy will stay "largely intact." During the campaign, Barack Obama campaigned to end techniques such as waterboaring, and to end the tactic by applying rules found in the Army Field Manual to groups such as the CIA. It appears he is now backing off of this promise. This is a very good thing, but it makes for a very angry bunch of left-wingers.

2) Guantanamo Bay:

Barack Obama had as a part of his campaign, a position on ending the existence of indefinite detention at Guantanamo Bay.

Earlier this month, the New York Times of all papers wrote a piece describing the problems of closing Guantanamo. They wrote about the difficulties in undertaking such a task, therefore attempting to soften the blow to left-wingers when Obama actually doesn't close Guantanamo. In addition, Obama's choice for Attorney General, Eric Holder, is on the record saying the Geneva Convention does NOT apply to terrorist detainees. This is another indication of which way the wind will blow on terrorist incarceration in an Obama administration.

3) Ending the Iraq War:

He campaigned to end the Iraq war immediately. Well, now it is abundantly clear he won't. There really isn't much need to explicate on this issue much further. The left has raged against the machine for years, declaring the war in Iraq as an illegal provocation by an imperialistic Western power. The frustration they are feeling right now must be unbearable. Imagine, getting totally cock-blocked (figuratively) by the very man you elected to office. Fratricide, if you ask me.

Obama also ran against missile defense systems, but it is likely they will continue as well; unimpeded.

Finally, Barack Obama has made the competent and intelligent choice of keeping Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on for at least one more year. Gates is a Bush appointment, and the idea of him having a say in an Obama presidency must chafe the collective crotch of the anti-war left in this country.

Although his presidency will most likely stray hard left on social and economic issues, his foreign policy might actually end up being right of center.

To think, the hope for change among the anti-war community in this country was completely unfounded. To think, there might be a relatively similar foreign policy to the administration of George W. Bush. To think, the anti-war community has no friend in an Obama presidency. To think, all the anti-war movement was mere arm candy for Barack.

Only one word comes to mind:


Painful for them. But oh so sweet for me.

Hope eventually wears off, reality bites, and "change" can be changed itself.

By Conor Harrigan

Friday, November 28, 2008

What to be thankful for

I hope everyone had a lovely time feasting with family yesterday. And, I hope that some of you took seriously what I said about reflecting on what we have to be thankful for. Alas, everyday should be one in which we do a little thanksgiving.

Here is a piece from Cato Institute's David Boaz on why we should be particularly thankful as Americans. I think he says very well what most of us feel when we reflect for a short while.

What to Be Thankful For
by David Boaz

Thursday, November 27, 2008

Much to Be Thankful For

It was a longstanding Thanksgiving tradition for my grandfather to make all the kids say what we were thankful around the dinner table. The tradition for us kids was to sing the praises of the many trivial things that amused us: television, video games, toys, etc. These kinds of answers must have certainly disappointed my grandfather and the rest of the elders, and so after more than a decade of failing to get thoughtful responses from us they just quit trying. In recent years, the Thanksgiving feast has commenced without any declarations of gratitude.

For a long time, I just saw this tradition as a nuisance, and until going off to college, I didn’t understand the purpose and importance of my grandfather’s question.

Like many other young people who have only ever known the comforts and pleasures of America’s prosperity, it rarely occurred to me that life should be any other way; that the life of man was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” for nearly the entirety of his existence and only very recently has he been able to escape that bleak and pitiful condition. I was equally unreflective of the fact that the way of life we enjoy in the United States is one that billions of people around the world dream of but do not enjoy themselves.

But things have changed. Now I marvel at and feel an overwhelming gratitude for things I gave little consideration to before; things that free us up from the exigencies of the human condition in ways our forebears could have never imagined. I am most impressed by very basic things like supermarkets, with their seemingly endless abundance of food, everyday of the year. Now we need not spend our days toiling to produce our own food. Similarly, we can drink clean water that comes to us at the simple turn of a faucet. Our rooms and buildings can be cooled, heated and illuminated at will.

Automobiles, buses, trains and planes enable us to move ourselves and our goods from place to place with great speed and convenience. The telephone, television, radio and computer have transformed our lives in innumerable ways and it is tough to think of life without them now. The ubiquitous ailments and pestilences of yore to which we were completely helpless and vulnerable have been subdued or eradicated thanks to the tremendous advances of modern medicine. Polio, smallpox, measles, tuberculosis be gone!

These are just the material things that make our lives much improved over those of our antecedents. As Americans, we must not forget how remarkable and improved our lives are by the ideas and government we have inherited from the men who established our great country. Blessed are we to live in a place founded on that self-evident truth “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

We are equally fortunate to live in a country in which liberty and self-government are most highly valued and are protected by the supreme law of the land. And so we can say what we want without fear of punishment. We can practice the religion of our choosing. We have the right to bears arms to guard against those who aim to do us harm and can count on the protection of our person and our property from our fellows and our government. Perhaps this doesn’t strike you as anything special, but when it is remembered that never before had a people been granted so much freedom, and also that in places all around the world today people are still not afforded the fundamental rights we take for granted, it is difficult to not feel a great deal of gratitude for our enviable circumstances.

Let me digress for a moment to respond to a criticism that might be made against what I have said so far. One could say that I have neglected the fact that here in the US, not everyone enjoys the things I say I am thankful for; that there are people who cannot just go into the supermarket, or who do not have homes or who cannot receive medical attention when they need it.

It would be insincere of me to deny that there are people who are not so fortunate right here at home, but it would be entirely false to say that America’s prosperity extends only to a small segment of society. On the contrary, it is undeniable that at no time in human history have so many people risen to the position of comfort, security and abundance that the American people as a whole have. And, in no other place and time has so much freedom and opportunity been extended to as many people as in the United States. Indeed, life for Americans with even the most modest means today in 2008 would be the envy of the nobility and aristocracy of centuries past.

Our current economic malaise has inspired much collective self-pity and lamenting, but such feelings are only possible when we dwell on the things we do not have and not on the things that we do. Because despite our present troubles, life is still much better than in most parts of the world and unequivocally better than it would have been in anytime before the recent past. This is why gratitude is important and why my grandfather tried to hard to teach us to feel it. Realizing the fragility of our prosperity and understanding that life could be far more harsh and unforgiving than it is for us in the United States in 2008 must make one feel a sense of contentment and blessedness for the way things are instead of a sense of resentment and dismay because of the way things are not. And, gratitude also compels us to use our resources and opportunities to their fullest extent instead of squandering them as if the good things we enjoy were universal and limitless. Finally, gratitude inspires us to work to extend the joys and pleasures of our own way of life to those who do not know it now or who have never known it.

These are the lessons my grandfather wanted me to learn by asking me to reflect on what I was thankful for.

This Thursday, before we dig into our turkey, I will tell my grandfather and the rest of my family what I have just told you. But I don’t want to do this alone, and so let me invite you to join me this Thanksgiving by telling your families what you are thankful for. And if you did not think you had anything to feel grateful for before, I hope that what I have said here will start you off on the right foot.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Alex Chamessian

Monday, November 24, 2008

Why people do bad things, according to liberals

So I just came out of my weekly HON 401 class - Global Issues. I came in late, but today we were talking about torture. Near the end of the class we were given a mini-assignment. The question arose about whether President-elect Obama should continue working with Pakistan as an ally in light of reports of widespread physical abuse of Pakistani women. ( An article we read from the NYT time today by Nicholas Kristof. Here is a salient excerpt:
One new cabinet member, Israr Ullah Zehri, defended the torture-murder of five women and girls who were buried alive (three girls wanted to choose their own husbands, and two women tried to protect them). "These are centuries-old traditions, and I will continue to defend them," Zehri said of the practice of burying independent-minded girls alive.

For the life of me, I couldn't believe that there was any question about what Barack Obama should do about this. Our professor asked us what we would say to Obama if we were his advisors. I was astonished that there was even any question about what Obama should do. This is the man who walks on water, can part the Red Sea, heal people with the gentle touch of his messianic hand. So the answer is pretty obvious - he should just sit down and talk with the Pakistani leaders and tell them it's time for change. How could anybody resist The One anyway? It's futile. Sorry guys, it doesn't matter what you've done for centuries. Obama says you must change, and you will. So there.

But, we pretended for a moment that Barack Obama were only a mortal and not the demi-god that he is and proceeded with the discussion. The consensus in the classroom seemed to be that, although such acts are deplorable, the US will act in its own interest, and if that means working with Pakistan to fight Al-Qaeda, so be it. To me, it's a matter of which of the possible outcomes is the least bad. In my mind, the circumstances for all Pakistanis, not just women, but their husbands, their brothers, their children and everyone else will be all the worse if Pakistan were overrun by al-Qaeda and its thugs. So it's a question of some women suffering abuse versus an entire country suffering because the US wanted to 'make a point' about human rights.

Someone picked up this quote in the Kristof piece:
"Some worry that militants, nurtured by illiteracy and a failed education system, will overrun the country or that the nation will break apart."

The conversation then devolved into one about the causes of militancy, lawlessness and anti-Americanism. Most of the class agreed with the notion that would-be terrorists are compelled to violence and lawlessness not because of any kind of authentic hatred or animus but because it allows them to brutishly vent their frustrations about not having food, clean water, shelter, etc. Or, in the case of illiteracy and ignorance, the argument is that these people are not learned enough or wise enough to know right from wrong. I admit there is likely some truth to the notion that people's privations make them more desperate and therefore more disposed to doing whatever it takes to secure the necessities of life. But to give such primacy to people's material wants as the central impetus of human action is both false and dangerous. Just as when Obama made his infamous 'bitter' remarks to explain why people in small town America cling to guns, God and antipathy to outsiders, this tired liberal bromide presupposes that when people act badly, it's no fault of their own but is instead the fault of society, or institutions, or of external conditions or bad governance. In essence, poor people, uneducated people, rural people - in other words, barbarians in the world of the liberal - are exculpated for their sins because they were merely acting out in response to their destitution and ignorance.

The appeal of this model of social causation to libs is pretty evident, and it goes back to what Thomas Sowell's thesis about the two competing visions - the constrained and unconstrained. Liberals ultimately subscribed the latter and see human nature not as timeless and unchanging, but they see humans as ultimately perfectible, if only the wisest and most virtuous among us would show the rest of us benighted yokles the way. When it is thought that human failings are the product of bad institutions, bad governments, dysfunctional societies or poor living conditions, it follows that those human failings can be remedied simply by having the right people dream up a better scheme.

Thursday, November 6, 2008

Post-election blues?

I've calmed down quite a bit since Tuesday night. I don't really like Obama any better, but when I started thinking about what imperialistic, corporate tools the GOP has become I realized that we need a change of pace in the Whitehouse.

I have little doubt about the efficacy of free market ideals, as described by the Austrian school of economics, but at this point McCain has all but abandoned these ideals as well in his support of corporate welfare wall street bailouts. Since both candidates share this unacceptable monetary policy, its not like I had a better choice here on what's really the most important, and most invisible, problem facing the nation right now.

We'll see how it plays out, of course, but I have little doubt that the republican party will have to readopt true conservative ideals or people like Ron Paul and the liberty caucus will gut the party and return it to the small government principles which once made it great.

Meanwhile, I'll just have to remain critical of the Obama administration where criticism is due (and even praise when that's due) and use the platforms I'm lucky enough to have to get these important ideas out there (like the Patriot blog and newspaper as well my Statesman column).

Just because we have a big government democrat in the white house doesn't mean true free market conservatism and Austrian economic theory is dead... not by a long shot.

Just think about it. A few years ago, Ron Paul was a sole voice in congress preaching Austrian economics. After 60 years of being marginalized and ignored (and yet somehow getting re-elected again and again!) he finds himself surrounded by devoted followers... and not just stuffy intellectuals either. Thousands of real, hardworking, devoted people dedicated to getting more government out of our lives.

What right do I, having called myself a free market libertarian for little more than a year, have to get upset over one small election loss (which wasn't really a loss at all, considering we had no real options) when, for Dr. Paul, the future has never looked brighter for his ideology. To quote American Revolutionary War naval hero, John Paul Jones, when it comes to my defending and promoting my new found ideology, "I have not yet begun to fight."

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Hail the Star and Sickle

You asked for it, and now you've got it. Barack Obama is our new President, and to usher in this 'historic' moment, his fawning lemmings came down to the White House to greet him with the nation's new flag. Lovely!

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

For the Obama Sheeple

I get that people are excited to see something other than a lillywhite face in the whitehouse. But why are people acting like its some big accomplishment? We've really only elected another corporate sponsored, tax and spend, foreign interventionist, bloodsucking politician.

People are actually, literally crying in happiness at Obama's victory. Do they not realize that this is a politician like any other? His economic policies are going to be disastrous. The great delusion of this election is that a nanny state government has the ability and mandate to create economic growth. Well, with no sources of production, the government can't do shit about the economy expect mess around with our monetary policy to sink the value of the dollar and create business cycles.

Way to go America... you were so eager to see some kind of change you forgot about the principles this country was founded on. I'll give you a hint. It's not "national unity" (yes he actually said that in his acceptance speech)

Robert Spencer Event Recording

For those who are looking for the Robert Spencer event recording, I'm trying to find an external site to load the file to so people can access it through the blog. This blog format won't let me upload it directly. Sorry for the inconvenience if you're looking for it.

Sunday, November 2, 2008

Statesman Op-Ed Rebuffs Robert Spencer

The Statesman has published an Op-Ed on the Robert Spencer talk. The piece is typical, and not at all unexpected. I was hoping for better. You can see the ongoing discussion about the talk on their page. Comment here, or there, or both, but keep it civil, logical and substantive.


Robert Spencer's Radical Agenda

Patriot Election Coverage Live

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Pelosi: Total Democratic Control Will Make Congress More Bi-Partisan

Over at Hot Air there is a link to a video which shows Supreme Madame Pelosi

“Elect us, hold us accountable, and make a judgment and then go from there. But I do tell you that if the Democrats win and have substantial majorities, Congress of the United States will be more bipartisan,” said Pelosi.

Hope and insane!

Monday, October 27, 2008

My Time With Robert Spencer; Part One

Where to begin?

I suppose we can begin in September. Alex, the president of the EFA and I decided to have Robert Spencer speak at Stony Brook. We thought that even though many in our group, and most on campus did not agree with Spencer's view on Islam, Jihad, and traditional Islamic doctrine, his presence would be riveting, thought-provoking, and controversial to say the least.

October came and went (still is), and I found myself driving to school this morning, anxiously awaiting what appeared to be a coming good night. My feet and fingers tapped the day away (a nervous habit when I am anxious).

Finally, I found myself on the phone with a friend named Floyd. Floyd takes care of security detail for both Ann Coulter and Robert Spencer (some other speakers too, but I cannot recall). As usual, Floyd was cordial and helpful, and got me in touch with a Mr. Murphy, who was Spencer's bodyguard for the day.

I finally, at 4 o'clock, got to the hotel near Stony Brook that Robert Spencer was staying at to escort him back to campus. Upon arriving at our destination on campus, our trio was met with many of the wonderfully helpful policemen that helped the Ann Coulter event go off without a hitch last year. The chief of police and his assistant were great and accommodating. For some reason, a student from the Muslim Students Association called in a threat before the event, warning that if Robert Spencer was allowed to come on campus there would be quote "repercussions." Wonderful.

At five o'clock, people began entering the ballroom where Spencer was planned to speak. Alexander gave a great introduction, explaining to Spencer's opponents that if they wanted to truly silence him, they would thoughtfully and factually disprove what he had to say.

Enter Robert Spencer. Mr. Spencer is quite a normal looking fellow. Not quite the angry "hate monger" and "angry Islamophobe" as he is consistently made out to be. He was wonderfully cordial and sociable. He took to the podium to discuss the topic of Stealth Jihad: How Islamic Terrorists are Subverting America Without Guns or Bombs (something to that effect; too tired to look it up).

So we began. Mr. Spencer started with a quote from a 1991 internal document from the Muslim Brotherhood, a group founded in Egypt in the late 1920's. This internal memo stated the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood as the subversion of western civilization and culture, with the desired outcome of an Islamic Khalifate in the U.S, with the guide of a Khalif (successor of Muhammad) at the reigns. With the idea of "stealth jihad" established, Spencer went on to discuss its various parts and pieces.

From forth the Muslim Brotherhood sprang various U.S.-based Muslim institutions such as the Muslim Students Association, a group that exists on college campuses all around the country, and the Council on American Islamic Relations. Spencer explained to us how these so called "moderate groups" have their very existence vested in the roots of Islamic jihadist doctrine. He also noted quickly to us that until recently, the website for the Saudi embassy in Washington D.C. had a section of it's website devoted to declaring the need for good Muslims to "raise the banner of Jihad" so that Allah's religion prevails. The website also noted the need to subjugate non-Muslims, Christians, and Jews into the status of Dhimmitude, in which the kuffar (non-believer) pays the Jizya (the Muslim tax on kuffar), and wears special attire designating he or she as a kuffar.

As I noted before, there was an internal Muslim Brotherhood memo written in 1991 about the need for Islamic subversion of western civilization. Inside this memo, a few allied groups were named. Among them was the Muslim Students Association. In past days, leaders of various campus MSAs have been inciting violence against Israel, and against the West. The MSA has been closely tied to the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, an Islamic "charity" which was found to have been raising money for Hamas.

At the 7th annual MSA West conference at the University of California, former MSA UCLA member Ahmed Shama stated that: "We want to restore Islam to the leadership of society. … The goal … is the reestablishment of the Islamic form of government" (January 2005).

Robert Spencer's talk was thought-provoking, dynamic, and a bit frightening. A little fear goes a long way, though. Makes you get off your ass and do something, ya heard?

Anyway, that was the jist of the talk, and we eventually moved on to the Q and A section of the event. Luckily, I had my camera rolling, and caught a very testy, and at one point yelling match between Sister Nadim Sanaa of the MSA and Robert Spencer.

More to come in Part II with video.

-Posted by Conor

Saturday, October 25, 2008

A Lesson on Economics for Robert Spencer

For anyone who wasn't aware, the Patriot sponsored Robert Spencer as a guest speaker at Stony Brook University earlier this week. Overall, I enjoyed the speech and the controversy and debate it sparked, especially in the Q&A session. I'm not going to get into that here, though, because I'm sure the event will be covered in great detail in the November Patriot issue, as well as other student media publications such as the Statesman and Press.

What I want to respond to here is a specific point that Spencer brought up in his talk which I found objectionable after the fact, though unfortunately I didn't think of it at the time and so didn't have the opportunity to challenge him on directly.

Spencer, who is of course famous for his book "Stealth Jihad" makes the point that the leaders of extremist Islam are trying to covertly bring Sharia law into the country. He brought up examples in which the leaders try to implement rules of Sharia under the guise of religious tolerance.

He specifically cited an incident that occurred in St. Paul, Minnesota that sparked controversy. The Muslim (mainly Somali) taxi drivers, at the instigation of their religious leaders, decided that they no longer wanted to carry passengers with alcohol on their person; this violates a passage from Islamic law. As a result, many taxicab drivers began refusing to take on passengers.

A possible solution, which was considered and discarded, was marking the cars that followed Sharia law so people carrying alcohol knew not to take those cabs. This solution was rejected primarily by the taxi companies and the reasons were, of course, economic.

Spencer objected to letting the Muslim taxi drivers get their way on the basis of civil rights. In a way, I understand his point. We tried the whole "separate but equal" thing and the result was a human rights disaster.

However, in the specific case of taxi drivers trying to follow a detail of their religion that they had previously, and most still, ignore, never, I think, in a million years would this escalate into a larger scale adoption of Sharia law in this country. The economics of the thing simply wouldn't allow it.

This is because the group that would have been the happiest about the marking of Sharia cars would have been the non-Muslim cab drivers. It would have meant less competition from their Muslim counterparts, more customers per cabby and so more fairs. The St. Paul airport's concern about increased lines, waiting times and customer frustration was unfounded, at least in the long term. Any entrepreneur exiting the airport would have seen those lines and realized that there's money to be made in the St. Paul taxicab business.

What Spencer perhaps doesn't get, is that market competition would more than make up for the lost cabbies. Taxis aren't some monopolistic government venture; imagine if some entrepreneur would have created a bus line where an individual's race was ignored during the 1960s. Such a business would have prospered from the patronage of the South's black community, especially if they could innovate technologically as well. Racial or religious intolerance doesn't last long when its not institutionalized because there will always be someone who can benefit from an 'integrated' market. In modern day St. Paul, where theoretically anybody can start a taxicab company, no cab driver would adopt a policy that costs them customers, despite religious beliefs.

The Muslim cab drivers would have quickly realized that, by listening to their religious leaders, its costing them in their pockets. Perhaps in Europe, this would cause a riot or two, governments would be forced to compensate cab drivers for the lost fair and sparked a "re-education" initiative to convince Europeans to realize the error of not understanding religious tolerance.

However, this would not happen in America. Capitalism and the spirit of self empowerment for advancement is not quite dead yet. Any person living in this country can make sacrifices for the sake of their religion, but nobody can make others pay for those sacrifices. I that that even the left realizes, to some extent, that if you expect to succeed in this country, you have to do it for yourself. No government is going to make you rich.

Muslim immigrants should understand this as well as any natural born citizen. They know as well as anyone what it takes to get ahead. This is why they're working as cab drivers in the first place. It's probably to save up enough money to send their kids to American universities so that their children can have a better life than they do. No cabbie would give up that American dream for some archaic rule that many religious Muslims don't have a problem with (this issue hasn't come up in any other Western city that I'm aware of).

The point is, that Robert Spencer can be worried about Muslim leaders trying to implement Sharia law in the west. But, as long as the capitalist spirit of competition lives on, the people who one would expect to most readily adopt Sharia law will reject it in favor of the higher standard living they came here for.

This, of course, makes it extra important for America to protect the open nature of its markets. As long as entrepreneurs are free to enter the market, we have nothing to fear from religious extremism taking root at home.

Thursday, October 9, 2008

It Isn't Over

According to Zogby, this race is not even close to being over:

"Zogby said the race mirrors the 1980 election, when voters didn’t embrace Ronald Reagan over then-President Jimmy Carter until just days before the election.

“The Sunday before the election the dam burst,” Zogby said of the 1980 tilt. “That’s when voters determined they were comfortable with Reagan.”

Now voters are wrestling with two senators with opposite resumes - Obama, at 47, the unknown, and the established 72-year-old McCain.

Zogby said he’s still hearing from moderates and non-partisan voters - what he calls “the big middle” - who are still shopping for a candidate.

“It still can break one way or the other,” Zogby says."
This is right.  Ford-Dole caught up twenty points to Carter-Mondale in their election in the '76 election.  John McCain has a lot of time to narrow the gap.  In this wacky election that you just can't make up, thirty days is the equivalent of a political eternity.  There is plenty of time for Barack Obama to slip up, or for Barack Obama to be exposed.  

Monday, October 6, 2008

The Gloves Come Off:

Here it is folks, the red meat you've been waiting for:

"Our current economic crisis is a good case in point. What was his actual record in the years before the great economic crisis of our lifetimes?

This crisis started in our housing market in the form of subprime loans that were pushed on people who could not afford them. Bad mortgages were being backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and it was only a matter of time before a contagion of unsustainable debt began to spread. This corruption was encouraged by Democrats in Congress, and abetted by Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has accused me of opposing regulation to avert this crisis. I guess he believes if a lie is big enough and repeated often enough it will be believed. But the truth is I was the one who called at the time for tighter restrictions on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that could have helped prevent this crisis from happening in the first place.

Senator Obama was silent on the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and his Democratic allies in Congress opposed every effort to rein them in. As recently as September of last year he said that subprime loans had been, quote, “a good idea.” Well, Senator Obama, that “good idea” has now plunged this country into the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

To hear him talk now, you’d think he’d always opposed the dangerous practices at these institutions. But there is absolutely nothing in his record to suggest he did. He was surely familiar with the people who were creating this problem. The executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have advised him, and he has taken their money for his campaign. He has received more money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than any other senator in history, with the exception of the chairman of the committee overseeing them.

Did he ever talk to the executives at Fannie and Freddie about these reckless loans? Did he ever discuss with them the stronger oversight I proposed? If Senator Obama is such a champion of financial regulation, why didn’t he support these regulations that could have prevented this crisis in the first place? He won’t tell you, but you deserve an answer."
This is red meat at its most raw.  

John McCain now has a fighting chance, and it is strong.  He must walk into the debate with a no holds-barred assault on Obama's economic beliefs and policies, and his ties to the mortgage crisis.  Stand up and fight!

Saturday, October 4, 2008

Sarah Palin Makes Less Than Joe Blow Biden, but Gives MORE to Charity???

How could this be?!

Well, conservatives usually give more. Duh. You see, my friends, there is a narrative that if you are conservative, you don't care about others. You don't care about the unfortunate, or the unlucky, or those who made poor decisions. You look down upon them in all their squalor, chuckling to yourself, "patting yourself on the back as you scoff" (Say Anything, anyone?).


Here is a little factoid the left doesn't want you to hear:

Conservatives are more charitable than liberals.

The Biden family makes more than the Palin family, yet gives so substantially less its laughable.

"Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin made considerably less money than rival Sen. Joe Biden, but the Palin family gave more to charity in the last two years than Biden has in the last eight combined, according to Palin’s tax records released Friday afternoon."

Liberals only want to be charitable with other people's money.

You see, conservatives are not against giving. They are against compulsion to give, as everyone should have the free will to give or not.

And we know the liberals are exercising their free will not to.


Friday, October 3, 2008

More Obama-ganda

Via NewsBusters:

It seems more and more Stanlist as days go by. Man, you Obamanites are some freaky-deaky, obsessed people.

I suppose that is what happens when you can't comprehend the utter ridiculousness of his beliefs; you must focus on the persona, and worhip that.

Forget Hitler Youth, here is Obama Youth!

Funny how the one kid at the end says, "Because of Obama, I am the next entrepreneur," or something.

Well, with all the taxes Obambi plans on bringing forth upon a possible presidency, I don't see that entrepreneurship going too well.

Tee hee.

Monday, September 29, 2008

BREAKING: House Bailout Bill Fails (Epic)

Just coming across the wires:

"WASHINGTON - The House has defeated the $700 billion bail-out legislation for the financial industry.
More than enough members of the House had cast votes to defeat the Bush administration-pushed bill, but the vote was held open for a while, apparently as efforts were under way to persuade people to change their vote.
On Wall Street, stocks plummeted as investors followed the developments in Congress."

The Democrats have failed again, living up to the growing "Worst Congress Ever" mantra. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are two of the most pathetic political failures this nation has seen in quite some time.  Pelosi had 94 of her colleagues voting against the measure in the House of Representatives.  Perhaps this is what the Democrats get for attempting to bloat this measure with insane provisions, such as covering car loans, and trying to funnel money to ACORN last week.  

This bill was a leech.  The Democrats kept trying to fill their bowls with money for ACORN, car loans, other junk motions, and the "Purpose" provision in the bill read as "ensuring the economic well-being for all Americans" (paraphrase); A.K.A, socialism.  It also encouraged the exact same sort of habitual lending practices that got us here in the first place.  The Democrats were never the solution, and they have ALWAYS been the problem.  Their bill failed.  They are failures, and hopefully the American people will now see it.

It is time for John McCain to come out with his six-shooter.  No holds barred, no fear, suppressive fire.  He must, in meticulous fashion, explain to the American people who was responsible for this bloody mess.  He must lay out how Barney Frank, Jamie Gorelick, and others caused this economic bloodshed through their bed sharing with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and their forcing of banks to lend to those unqualified.  Enough with the populist, "greed on the street" argument.  Get to the crux of the situation.  Time is of the essence.

And there isn't much left.

Saturday, September 27, 2008

The Erosion of Speech:

Michelle Malkin has done a wonderful job of cataloging the intimidation tactics used over at the Obama camp.  This most recent instance is nothing new. The Obama campaign has a history of using thug tactics to shut their opponents up.

Case in point:
Here, Breitbart news covered last month the ongoing issue of Barack Obama's campaign imploring the Department of Justice to investigate stations and their managers that decided to run ads connecting Obama to various radicals, such as William Ayers.  

And I quote:
"Obama not only aired a response ad to the spot linking him to William Ayers, but he sought to block stations airing the commercial by warning station managers and asking the Justice Department to intervene. The campaign also planned to compel advertisers to pressure stations that continue to air the anti-Obama commercial."

We all know the narrative by now.  Free speech is reserved for liberals and other sixties radicals.  Not for the backward, hick conservatives "moose-killers" as Obama puts it, who kiss their siblings.  

In the last few months, various left wing netroots groups have been targeting Republican donors and threatening them with pursuant legal action.  The NYT reported:

"The warning letter is intended as a first step, alerting donors who might be considering giving to right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives."

By reading into the Obama campaign's record of attempting to utterly squelch freedom of speech, it seems that the possibility of Obama instituting the Fairness Doctrine and eliminating talk radio upon presidency is real.

You see, big government liberals do NOT like competition. This is why they want to eliminate homeschooling, private school vouchers, and media outlets that don't tote their line. The government hates competition. This is why they want to control everything. Why would you think Barack Obama, one of the most far left Senators this nation has ever seen, would be any different?

Welcome to liberalism.

My friends (McCain, anyone?), I am pleading with you to consider the ridiculousness of your choice for president. The government is NOT better at spending your money than you are. You should NOT be reliant on subpar government healthcare service, and other promises that fail to deliver.  You are capable of making the right choices for yourself, and should NOT have the government penalize you for making the right choices, while the government bails out people who don't.

The government is not your savior, and the government is not your keeper. You are your brother's keeper, and you are your sister's keeper, as Barack Obama has reiterated.  The difference between conservatives and liberals is that we believe we are our brother's and sister's keeper without compulsion. You should have the free will to be charitable, and no government bureaucrat should force you to be generous and magnanimous through taxes. 

The government should not be anyone's keeper. You are your own. If you vote for Barack Obama, you are voting for bigger government, the erosion of speech, higher taxes, the very foreign policy that handed us September 11th, and the continuation of the very economic policies that have led us to this bloody mess.

The emperor has no clothes, and Barack Obama has no change.

Friends of Angelo:

Hot Air has a great round up of the details surrounding the corruption of Barney Frank, Jamie Gorelick, and other Democrat politicians. It covers the relationship between these corruptoCrats and their friend Angelo Mozilo of Countrywide Financial.

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Even Slick Willy Knows McCain isn't Afraid

It is telling that all the people around Obama, the people who are supposed to be his right-hand men, can't help but divulge their respect - maybe admiration?- for John McCain. Even they can't stomach the character assassination that the Obama campaign tries so hard to commit, but cannot because of John McCain's indelibly clean and honorable record.

Here is BJ Clinton coming to the defense of John McCain, telling his media cronies, 'hey guys, let's hold on for a sec. John McCain isn't afraid.'

If Biden and Willy clash with Obama, is there any chance that the rest of us will not?

Bill Clinton: Don't 'overly parse' McCain request to delay debate'

Palin 'Don't Care Too Much What They Do With Jews and Blacks'

You might be thinking that this nauseating and entirely untrue statement was utterred by one of America's notorious race hustlers, such as Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the newest edition, Jeremiah Wright. We expect nothing better from these lowlifes.

On the other hand, we do expect much more from our elected officials, in particular, those who serve on the national scene. For those who are familiar with the tactics of the American left, you might not be that surprised to find out that the person who said that Sarah Palin 'Don't care too much what they do with jews and blacks,' was actually Democratic Congressman Alcee Hastings of Florida.

This is the level to which the left stoops on a daily basis. They scream of bigotry and hatred emanating from the right side of the aisle, but in fact, it is they who propagate the base and disgusting notions of racism. They are the ones who divide our country by making such irresponsible and fallacious claims like this, with no grounding at all, for purely political gain. For, Congressman Hastings and the audience he spoke to can't actually believe this dribble.

And what do conservatives do about this? Absolutely nothing. They don't even entertain such folly because while the kiddies are out egging each other on, the adults are at work moving this country. While the demagogues are out inciting hatred and fear without just cause, the statesmen are in Washington focusing on our current and future problems.

Can you imagine what would happen if anyone from the right said something so outrageous as what Congressman Hastings has said? If John McCain or any other Republican came anywhere near making a statement so blatantly untrue, particularly about race, he'd be crucified by the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the rest of that obnoxious ilk. A double-standard indeed.

Lest you be duped into thinking the Democrats offer anything positive to this country, look at Congressman Hastings as an augur of things to come if you vote for B. Hussein Obama on November 4.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

BREAKING: McCain Suspends Campaign

The McCain camp has announced that it will be suspending it's campaign and delaying the first debate that was originally set for September 26th to return to D.C. to "work" on the current economic situation.

Interesting move. It is similar to the move he pulled with his announcement of Sarah Palin. It took the spotlight off of the One and put it squarely on McCain. Updates forthcoming...

Update at Breibart:

"In a statement, McCain says he will stop campaigning after addressing former President Bill Clinton's Global Initiative session on Thursday and return to Washington to focus on the nation's financial problems. McCain also said he wants President Bush to convene a leadership meeting in Washington. Both he and Obama would attend the session."

Thursday, September 18, 2008


How "progressive."

"She insisted there was "nothing wrong" with people being helped to die for the sake of their loved ones or society. The 84-year-old added that she hoped people will soon be "licensed to put others down" if they are unable to look after themselves."

Be it intended or unintended, the above story is yet another example of the consequences of socialized medicine. We have seen it before. We've seen the push to have smokers be prevented from medical care in Britain. Now, we are seeing a push by some to have others "put down" to prevent them from being a burden on National Health Services.

"Singer's response came to Dublin reader Karen Meade's question: 'Would you kill a disabled baby? Yes, if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole. Many people find this shocking, yet they support a woman's right to have an abortion,' he said."

We can also see this intense disrespect for life in Barack Obama's opposition to bills that would protect babies from being left to lay and die after their birth. Herein lies the deception that the left perpetrates everyday. Often the liberals tell us that they are the bastion of equal opportunity; that they are the arbiters of equivalence for all peoples.

Wrong. Equality is reserved for the few. The elderly, the sick, the smokers, and the disabled (90% of Down Syndrome babies are aborted) have no equality in this modern "Aryan race," so to speak. The similarities between modern, leftist eugenics and Hitler's purification plan are quite alarming when all is considered.

It is a common theme in the behavior of the left. Freedom of speech is reserved for liberals. Conservatives do not, and in their minds, should not enjoy any freedom of speech.
In their hearts of hearts, liberals do not seriously entertain this notion of equality of all people. This is becoming abundantly clear.

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

President: Commander in Chief, Not Commander of the Economy

Walter Williams, one of the country's finest economists and public intellectuals, says it so clearly here: The President is not master of the Economy! In reality, Williams needn't have said this. It's in the Constitution. Or rather, it's not there. No mention of the economy that is. No where in that hallowed document is there any power given to the president to create jobs, provide housing, healthcare, change interest rates, do any kind spending or levy any kind of tax. So why so much fuss about how the president needs to 'fix' our ailing economy?

Tell um Walt!

News Wrap Up : 9/16/08

Barbara Stress-Band

Drudge is flashing that Barbara Stress-band will be holding a fundraiser for Barack Obama in Beverly Hills, with tickets going for 28 grand. Snobbery at its best, my friends.

HotAir: Ed Morrissey

Ed Morrissey over at HotAir has done some fine reporting work in regards to the credit crisis that our nation is currently facing. it turns out that five years ago, the Bush administration attempted to institute regulations in the lending industry. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac eventually accepted the push, but Democrats, and more specifically Barney Frank, infamous for his involvement with a prostitution ring (Democratic "accountability"), blocked the measure, preventing it from succeeding.

* * *

The left will blame capitalism for this debacle. Perhaps this should be a bit worrisome to free-marketeers, as some voters might be persuaded by such stupidity and madness into voting Obama in November.

In other news, the left is going after Sarah Palin for having a tanning bed installed at the governor's mansion in Alaska. However, as usual, the devil is in the details. Sarah Palin paid for that bed out of her own pocket. The stench of desperation is reeking from the leftists in the media, academia, and the Obama campaign. However, the McCain camp must not even acknowledge these attacks, and continue forward with a comparative message, contrasting the records of the McCain/Palin ticket and the Obama/Biden ticket. Their records speak for themselves.

* * *

According to Rasmussen, a trusted and reliable polling institution, Barack Obama is experiencing a shrinking lead in eastern seaboard states such as New Jersey and New York. As a New York-based publication, the Stony Brook Patriot is quite befuddled as to how in the world Obama could be losing his lead in some of the true-blue states of the electoral battlefield. What a turn of events! This is great news for McCain, as Obama will now have to focus more campaigning in those states as they fall into the fold of risk. This extra campaigning, along with the tactical mistake of accepting private funds, might prove to be quite a hindrance for Obama come October. The Obama campaign must work extra hard to earn funds and campaign cash, while the McCain camp is happy as a clam with their public funding, and not having to work for it.

Monday, September 15, 2008

Two SEALs Die on 9/11/2008


""Seven years ago this week, terrorists attacked our nation. SOCS Marcum and SOC Freiwald willing placed themselves in harms way to prosecute our enemies to the farthest corners of the earth," said Rear Admiral Ed Winters, Commander, Naval Special Warfare Command. "We owe them and their families an eternal debt of gratitude for the sacrifices they have made. Their unwavering courage and commitment to protecting our nation will never be forgotten."

There is nothing more to add. We at the Stony Brook Patriot are in eternal gratitude for the actions of these two men. We are debtors to their sacrifices, and will be unable to live up to the sort of honor, courage, and self-sacrificing commitment that these two warriors lived by.

Rest in Peace, SOCS Marcum and SOC Freiwald. We hope you are resting in the sun somewhere out there.

"Retarded Republican Babies for Palin!"

What else is there to say? This should not be a surprise to conservatives, as we constantly have to deal with these sorts of pathetic smears from the left, despite our civilized manner of political discourse.

The Strategy to Win:

Since the announcement of Sarah Palin as John McCain's vice-presidential choice for the 2008 election, there has been a Palin-mania across the country, and a Palin Derangement Syndrome brewing in the media and in leftist circles and think tanks (the jury remains out on the whole "think" part of that phrase). Conservatives of all stripes have seen an ignition of excitement in political activism in the last two weeks. Those who once held defeatist attitudes and silently wept to themselves to the seemingly inevitable Barack Obama presidency have had their hopes inflated, their wishes and prayers now answered. Sarah Palin has injected a healthy dose of enthusiasm and strength into the conservative base. The conservative base is now united around a single ticket, unlike the Democrats who, with a bright smiling face, tell us everything is alright, and that the party is united, even though the turmoil runs deep within their ranks. This is a clear advantage for the Republican party.

The McCain campaign must not squander this enthusiasm and unity advantage over the Democrats. Unfortunately, as of late, the McCain camp has put out ads and statements complaining about the media's sexist treatment of Sarah Palin, and the age discrimination from Democrats directed at John McCain. Of course these allegations are completely well-founded and completely true. However, this should not be a campaign mantra of the McCain camp. They must ignore these attacks and smears, and end the whining about sexism and "ageism." They must step above the atmosphere of desperation that emits from the Obama campaign, and focus on the stark contrasts between the two tickets.

The RNC and the McCain camp must begin focusing on the stories between Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin. They have to draw contrasts between Sarah Palin's rise to power through clearing Alaska of corruption and Barack Obama's rise to power by riding the corrupt waves of the Chicago political machine. The McCain camp must draw the comparison between Joe Biden's years of being in bed with lobbyists, his obsession with earmarks, and McCain's long-standing campaign against wasteful government spending and earmark reform.

In sum, the McCain camp must get to specifics. The POW story, the jet on E-bay, those are all good things, but the American people want to see the entire picture. Draw the contrasts. Draw the lines in the sands. Use the records of your candidates, because they far out-shine the records of your opponents. If they do not do these things properly, it is possible the McCain camp will suffer an unsavory conclusion in this year's election.

The RNC and McCain camp must get down to the nitty gritty specifics of these two presidential tickets. If not, all the banners, the fliers, the tears, the energy, the convention bounces, rallies, all of it, all of it will be for nothing.

John McCain, Sarah Palin:
You both have incredible records. Use them.

Sunday, September 14, 2008

Nightmare: Pamela Anderson Not Voting for Palin,2933,421475,00.html

That's it. Pack everything up. Go home. Obama has this election by the family jewels. It is over, and there is no use fighting the inevitable.

"She can suck it." Such grace and eloquence coming from such a high quality political commentator.


I blame the silicone.

Saturday, September 13, 2008

The Wrong Road

Every year just gets worse. The further we get from September 11th, the more numb people seem to feel. I suppose this is to be expected.

However, we've been running down the wrong road for seven long years. We've come to the point where only a tiny minority put Islamic terrorism on their list of electoral priorities. We've come to a point where we cannot finish building a memorial center at Ground Zero because of a small group of multiculturalist extremists. We have become so lethargic, so lazy, so forgetful, I sometimes wonder if the only thing that will wake us up is another September 11th. The thought is totally unpalatable.

We've come to the point where we are recorded everyday. There are 500,000 CCTV's in England. Instead of focusing on the correct demographic of people, we have pointed the finger at ourselves, and our privacy is paying the price for it. This politically correct climate has had us stand accused for the last seven years, because we lack the wherewithal to blame the right people. We blame ourselves, and we fool ourselves into thinking that terrorism can simply come from anywhere.

We are wrong, and we've been running down the wrong road. The jihadists have continued paving their bloodstained road many times over across the globe. People have died at the hands of the Islamists in Iraq, Afghanistan, Britain, Spain, Turkey, Jordan, Pakistan, Egypt, Philippines, Indonesia, Russia, Sweden, Morocco, Algeria, Ethiopia, Somalia, and so many other places. We ignore this. We forget this, and simply, many of us don't care.

We must continually have in our hearts and minds the 2,974 people that were slaughtered in a most brutally way possible. The savages on that day forced our compatriots to jump from 100 stories, or suffer a fiery death. Unfortunately, the far-left, the communists, the socialists, and others have torn us apart, piece by piece, thread by thread since that day. They have divided us with their blame-America-first rhetoric. Their myths have penetrated the psyche of the American people. Their self-hatred has metastasized into widespread thought. "Our fault. Our foreign policy."

I distance myself from that ridiculous train of thought. While some of our far-left citizens prefer to blame the United States on what happened on 9/11, citing supposed foreign policy offences, I subscribe to a different point of view. This view is that America has been a generous nation, surrendering the lives of its young men and women for the freedom and emancipation of millions across the globe, from the beaches of Normandy to the sands of al-Najaf.

I subscribe to the view that in the years leading up to 9/11, we stood on hard ground defending Muslim populations in Afghanistan, Kuwait, Somalia, and the Balkans, only to be on the receiving end of four commercial jetliners and the madness that ensued. But this sort of common sense no longer penetrates the minds of so many self-effacing Americans. Thus we lose ground in our battle.

You see, this is not just a war of bombs, Kalishnakovs, and various methods of bringing death. This is a war of ideas, between the tolerance and freedom of Western Judeo-Christian society, and the pitfalls, hatred, and domination of Islamic society. There is a war of ideas. There is a stealth jihad in our country. The speech censors at the Council on American Islamic Relations continually try to silence people saying these very words. Just words. They try to silence words through lawsuits and threats, accusations of racism and intimidation.

There is a war for your mind. Stand up for your own damn country and tell the nay-sayers to cease. While the jihadists swarm around us and gird us about, we must stand firm in the face of their hatred. While they murder people around the world, we must keep the enemy in our mind. We must appreciate the basis of our own nation, and end the ridiculous self hatred that is so pervasive amongst our people.

They are adapting, and moving with liquidity. While our borders sit wide open, and while we accept collective 9/11 Amnesia, they plan. They make ready the tools of warfare. They make ready the social tidal wave that they have already brought to Europe.

We sleep, but we must wake up. All the ceremonies, the memorials, and the crying is all nothing if we don't stand up and fight. We must fight for ourselves, our children that will be born in years that come quick, and for the very existence of our very way of life. It is under assault by an enemy that is not only numerous, but more determined than we are.

We can't forget. We can't stop, because we might be safe now, but "nothing gold can stay."

We might be safe, for now.

For now, we remember, if only for a day.

Sunday, August 31, 2008

Sarah Palin: A Short Analysis

Most in conservative circles are in love with her. Some are expecting McCain's downfall as a result of this choice.

I tend to think Gov. Sarah Palin is going to work out quite swimmingly for McCain.

Let us establish one simple fact here:
Sarah Palin has more executive experience than both Senator Obama and Senator Biden.

Let us also establish something else:
Sarah Palin rose to prominence because she FOUGHT corruption in her state, and primarily in her own party. Obama rose to power because he WORKED WITH the corrupt Chicago political machine. Quite a difference in character.

What is funny is how the leftist lapdogs in the media, and their owners in the Democratic party have shifted the argument to "expeeeeeerience" now. The phrase a "heartbeat away" keeps popping up all over the lefty media these days. Why?

If we are soooo concerned about sending Sarah Palin to be second in line to the presidency, why THE HELL AREN'T WE WORRIED ABOUT SOMEONE WITH LESS EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE, that is Obama, BEING FIRST IN LINE!!!!??!?!?!?!? How come that never came up? What blatant hypocrisy!

No one EVER questioned Obama's experience in the media, simply because he was so amazing everyone just KNEW he could handle anything thrown his way. Palin does not receive the same reassurance from the dirt bags on the tube and in our failing papers. All she gets is criticism for being a small town girl, having a baby with down syndrome, and being "inexperienced."

Sarah Palin has excited the conservative base. This was a crucial move on John McCain's part, as so many conservatives have been (rightfully so) suspicious of him. He now has them, and the duo must work in conjunction with each other to energize the base even more.

She is a strong candidate. Palin has an EIGHTY percent approval rating in Alaska. She is not afraid to veto spending bills everyday (300 in one year). She has fought the corruption of the GOP in Alaska, and left prominent posts in protest over it. To think that she is going to let Joe Blow Biden stomp all over her in the debates is ludicrous, and to think that she has NO KNOWLEDGE whatsoever about foreign policy is ludicrous as well. I realize Joe Biden is the supposed "foreign policy expert," but perhaps he is a foreign policy expert who was wrong on the war with Islamic terrorism, and the Cold War, as Mark Steyn so eloquently put it.

I suspect she will do wonders for John McCain. She is indeed a risk, but if the two of them play their cards correctly, they will stomp Obama/Biden like the bugs they are.

While Obama speaks of change, the new politic, and other hopeful platitudes, he simultaneously picks a candidate who has spent 35 years inside beltway Washington.

McCain chose the true outsider. The true wild card. Someone with the strength to call those in her own party out. That is something lacking these days. While the Obama campaign talks about changing the world, changing America, changing truffles or what have you, McCain has chosen the candidate that can actually bring change.

Change is fine, as long as there is substance beneath it. Obama/Biden offers nothing. A "bridge to nowhere." McCain/Palin is something substantial. Something reformist. While the McCain camp will put forth ideas about fixing social security, winning the war in Iraq, and cutting spending, the Obama camp will come out with the same..

"I am my brother's keeper" B.S. Barry, your brother in Kenya lives in a hut on a dollar a day. Are you your brother's keeper?

Monday, August 25, 2008

"F*** Fox News!"

Since they cannot defend their beliefs with anything logical (as there is nothing logical behind it), they resort to screaming "Fuck Fox News, Fuck Fox News!"

These people are so aggressive. They are not peaceful. They are angry and filled with hatred. The peace movement is a farce.

Another fine example of "peaceful protesting." I suppose assaulting cameramen is peaceful. These people are so mentally debased.
I have experienced this sort of intimidation, with 50 or more people surrounding you, screaming in your face, and calling you "fascist!"

Isn't it ironic? We conservatives never engage in this sort of bullying. We NEVER engage in assault, or violence, or public insanity. We NEVER surround one or two people and scream at them. However, the above scenarios ALWAYS happen at "peaceful anti-war protests."

I know from experience. They surround you, a crowd of 40, 50 or more, yelling at you, shoving you, calling you names, a neo-nazi, a neo-con, a fascist, a racist, and anything else they can conjure up. They corner you, try to intimidate you, try to hurt you.

They are just lucky I didn't have a bat with me back in '06.

Who tries to silence opposition? The left.
Who tries to intimidate others with different opinions at rallies and protests? The left.
Who are the ones tossing molotov cocktails, feces, and other disgusting things at war memorials, veterans, police, and recruitment centers? The left.
Who screams at my 80 year old WW2 veteran buddy, Dominick, flipping him off and yelling "fuck you"? Leftists.
Who pushed me around, calling me a traitor, only to call the police on ME? A leftist.

You tell me who is "peaceful."

I know you hippies feel you're doing the "right thing." You couldn't be more wrong.

Posted by Conor H.

The "Humanity of the Taliban"

"But BBC World News correspondent Doucet claimed the public also want to seeing the kinder side of the Afghan extremists. Asked what was missing in media coverage, she said: “It may sound odd but the humanity of the Taliban, because they are a wide, very diverse group of people.”

Why has the left been on the side of the Islamic terrorists since day one? Why are they supporting a group of people that detonates bombs in markets, filled with women and children in Baghdad? Why do they side with those who have killed thousands of people in our country, bombed weddings in Jordan, killed 150 school kids in Beslan, and beheaded Christian schoolgirls in Indonesia?

The behavior of the left is absolutely sickening and it knows no lows; no bounds. Just when you think you have seen the worst of them, they come out with something even more ridiculous. They are a traitorous bunch, always spitting out moral equivalency between us and the Islamists, always warning us about the evils of Christianity, while praising the goodness of Islam.

We should not care about the "diversity" of the Taliban. We should care about US forces killing the Taliban dead.

Sunday, August 24, 2008

Free Speech, Reserved

As usual, free speech is only reserved for those on the left-wing of the Democratic party. Typically, those on the left tend to use the words "racist," "Islamophobe," and other emotional phrases to silence those who do not agree with them.

Here is another fine example of how those on the left treat those who do not exemplify their beliefs and positions. As George Orwell astutely pointed out:

"Pacifism is objective pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense."

Why is the peace movement the most angry, the most outrageous, and the most aggressive movement in the country? Hard to say. The most simple answer is because they aren't peaceful people. They are filled with hatred.

For further examples, check out these two sites:

WARNING: Some of the content is not work friendly. Seeing as many leftists enjoy protesting naked, or protesting with extremely vulgar slogans on signs, it would be smart to not browse through these at work.

Friday, August 22, 2008

Barry picks Loose Lips for Veep

The Messiah has chosen his leading disciple, and it is Joe Biden, senator from Delaware.

The cable news media have been squawking all day about who Senator Obama was going to pick to be his running mate. I think Chris Matthews had another thrill run up his leg all day thinking about the Messiah's pick.

Bits and pieces of information have been leaking out slowly over the hours in the form of who would not be on the ticket.

When news came out that Hilary Clinton was not going to be Obama's veep, the discussion turned sour as hostile Hilary fans took their final insult. The in-fighting within the Democratic party between the Hilary supporters and the Obama disciples is going to be very interesting, an ultimately, in my opinion, the game breaker. But picking Joe Biden as his running mate only adds to the losing strategy that the Dems are employing. This is the man who gives verbose, ad hoc, Castro-like speeches. And he is the man who said of the Messiah:
I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.
Well, that's swell. It doesn't take much to become Obama's wingman. Just let him know he's a 'clean and nice-looking guy.' Who would have thunk it that loose lips would eventually become Barry's veep.

If for nothing else, Senator Biden will prove to be a rich bank of quotable gaffes in this historic presidential campaign.

Thursday, August 14, 2008

Barack Roll

I apologize for the lack of substantive entries in the past week, but all of us here at The Patriot have been bogged down in trying to get ready for the coming year.

Nevertheless, now is a good time for some laughs before we all get back into the grind of the school year.

So, here, for your entertainment, is Barack Obama to Barack Roll you.

Barack Roll

Friday, August 8, 2008

The Pledge

The other day at a campaign rally, Barack Obama was interrupted midstream by a man in the audience. The man complained that Obama had not recited the pledge of allegiance. Senator Obama, showing himself to be a skilled politician to say the least, invited the man to lead the audience in saying the pledge. And so they did. To the man, Obama said, "Thank you, sir, appreciate it."

This story of the encounter between Obama and the plaintive heckler reminded me of perhaps the most glorious moment of my high school career. I was not particularly cognizant of my own politic beliefs at the time, but even in those early years, I had an instinctive appreciation for our country and our way of life. Accordingly, even before I understood the broader implications of saying or not saying the pledge, I never resented the fact that every day in school we would express our commitment to this wonderful nation in a simple little pledge.

It struck me as odd, then, that in my senior year, a few of the 'rebels' would not stand with us while we all said the pledge. Not coincidently, but not apparent to me at the time, these students were all self-identified liberals. And, as it were, they were the ones who identified themselves as the 'intellectuals' in our little home room.

At first I wasn't too disturbed by their not taking part in the pledge. Their loss. But as the year went on, I began to realize the irony of their gesture. Their motivations were probably varied, but I'm pretty certain that these defiant homeroom protesters were trying to show their disapproval of the fact that the pledge included the phrase, 'One nation under God,' or they were just carrying on in the same knee-jerk anti-authoritarian tradition that their parents -products of the 60's and 70's - passed on to them. Likely, they were united in some way or another by an antipathy or outright hatred for the United States, a feeling not uncommon among those on the left.

One day, right before the end of senior year, the daily routine dissolved. One of the girls in the room said to one of our homeroom rebels, "Why do you have to be different than everyone else? Can't you just say the pledge like the rest of us? What's your problem?"

As the leader of the anti-pledge gang began to utter his retort, citing 'freedom of speech', I cut him off.

I said, "Ben, I know you all think you're being very cool by not standing for the pledge, and you think you're showing us how much you disapprove of the pledge and the country it represents, but do realize that by staying seated while the rest of us stand, you're actually doing the most American thing you can possibly do: you're exercising a right to not speak against your will, a right that is quintessentially American. Do you think you'd be shown the same kind of tolerance for your defiance in the countries you and your group openly admire? So, although it is your right to not stand for the pledge, you have to laugh at the fact that at the same time that you are trying to express your contempt for our country, you're actually exemplifying it's unparalleled goodness and freedom. Good job!"

I didn't mean to say any of this, but my disgust with this group had built up for so many months that I had to say something. And I was not alone in feeling this way. Almost like a scene from out of a teen movie, I received the applause from the whole class, including my teacher. I had no clue I'd get that kind of response, but that was probably one of the most memorable moments of my high school career. I hope my classmates understood my message, and that for them, the moment was equally memorable.

Thursday, August 7, 2008

Paris for President... That's Hot!

Apparently Barack Obama wasn't the only person to get his panties in a knot over the recent 'Celebrity' Ad from the McCain camp. Paris Hilton, the omnipresent bimbo socialite, is used in the ad to suggest that Monsieur Obama is of the same ilk - uberfamous, but for no good reason other than the incessant fawning of his media disciples. Well, Paris didn't like that too much, so she took to the net to blast both candidates and to offer her own plan for America.

That's Hot!

Tuesday, August 5, 2008

Essential Reading

Here is a quick list of 'must-reads' for all of you who wish to expand your understanding of conservatism and libertarianism. These are the sorts of books that will deeply affect you and force you to reconsider the stances you've taken up to now. More importantly, studying the rich intellectual heritage of American conservative and libertarian ideas will arm you with the necessary knowledge to push back those who assail them. If you've never heard of or read any of these works before, then you're in for a real treat. Cliche as it sounds, most of these books have been life-changing for millions of people who identify with the fundamental principles of a free society. So, here they are. I'll categorize them by author. You see that some of these authors are contemporary, while others are quite old, but it is great

F.A. Hayek
1. The Road to Serfdom
2. The Constitution of Liberty
3. The Fatal Conceit

Thomas Sowell
1. The Vision of the Anointed
2. Conflict of Visions: the ideological origins of political struggles.
3. Basic Economics
4. Knowledge and Decisions
5. Cosmic Justice

Milton Friedman
1. Free to Choose
2. Capitalism and Freedom

Russell Kirk
1. The Conservative Mind

Adam Smith
1. Wealth of Nations

Barry Goldwater
1. Conscience of a Conservative

Alfred Regnery
1. Upstream

William F. Buckley
1. God and Man at Yale

John Locke
1. Two Treatises on Government

Edmund Burke
1. Reflections on the French Revolution

John Jay, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton
1. The Federalist Papers

Thomas Jefferson
1. Declaration of Independence

James Madison (mostly)
1. The Constitution of the United States of America

George Nash
1. The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America since 1945

Bernard Bailyn
1. The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution

David Boaz
1. Libertarianism: A Primer

Ludwig von Mises
1. Human Action

Dinesh D'Souza
1. Letters to a Young Conservative

Allan Bloom
1. The Closing of the American Mind

Clarence Thomas
1. My Grandfather's Son

Ronald Reagan
The Reagan Diaries

This is a short list that I've taken off the top of my head. Please do comment and add to the list.

Addenda: Here are other similar lists compiled by groups such as the Young America Foundation.

1. YAF Reading List
2. Jonah Goldberg's Picks

Flip-Flop For Obama

With the focus of national politics this week on energy policies, Barack Obama has gone back on his original plan to not tap the national strategic oil reserve. He instead suggested selling 70 million barrels of oil for, "less expensive crude." Obama said that the measure has been used in the past to lower gasoline prices in a matter of only two weeks.

Less than a month ago, Obama said that the oil reserve should not be exploited as a means to lower energy costs. He backed a congressional resolution that intended to suspend adding to the strategic oil reserves.

Obama also said that the U.S. should tap the National Petrolium Reserve in Alaska to increase oil and gasoline production.

Obama's 180 is surely the first occurrence of what is to be many new energy stretegies employed by the two presidential candidates this week. Energy is at the fore-front of political news and, as gas prices continue to drop, this week could prove to be a make-or-break time for the two presidential hopefuls.

Thursday, July 31, 2008

Jonah Goldberg on Capitalism

Capitalism... Biting the hand that feeds you.

Adam Sandler Loves the Troops

Hearing the typical rabid, anti-American dribble that comes from Hollywood, you'd think that everybody feels that way. Not so! The celebs who don't feel antipathy to our country keep their opinions to themselves, so as to avoid conflict with their colleagues I suppose.

I was touched to learn that Adam Sandler, the same goof ball who never ceases to amuse on the big screen, has much love for the troops. Here are some of his messages from his website. I wish there were more like him. Maybe I'll go see Zohan now.. show my support for Sandler.

Sandler loves the troops

Things are looking up...

Here's an update to the post I made the other day, 'Prevarication'

An Inconvenient Fact

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Trans fat Terminator

Last week, Governor Schwarzenegger of California signed a bill that will ban restaurants from using trans fats. This bill comes after a strategic, decentralized campaign waged by various groups over the last few years to raise awareness about the deleterious effects of trans fats (a kind of fat found in hydrogenated oils, vegetable shortening and the like). California's ban of these damaging lipids follows the example set by New York City when in 2007 legislation passed to ban trans fats in all restaurants.

When I lamented about this new law to my little brother, he said, "But Alex, isn't this a good thing? Aren't people better off now? There are lots of people who don't know that trans fats are bad for them, so this will help them."

I admit, it is very difficult to defend opposition to a bill like this given that trans fats have been demonstrated to be quite damaging. Prohibiting their use in foodstuffs will likely lead to benefits for consumers. However, it is the implicit principle on which legislation like this is passed that is so vexing to me. Bills such as this assume that the role of government is to protect people from themselves as much as it is to protect people from each other. It confers powers onto do-goody bureaucrats that none of us would ever want to give. In this case, there is no outcry or indignation because there is nobody (at least who I know of) who defends these dangerous fats. So, legislation like the bill in California gets passed with almost no obstructions.

But one has to ask, was this bill even necessary? For the last few years, as the fact that trans fats are damaging to our health has become pretty common knowledge, consumers have been demanding trans fat-free foods. Producers, pressed to meet the demands of their customers, have willfully removed the trans fats in so many of their products, and they advertise it proudly on the packaging to attract health-conscious shoppers. This is the way the market takes care of things. Sooner or later, the makers of foodstuffs would all elect to make products without trans fats, as the early experimentation with trans fat-free production would likely lead to innovative alternatives, improved methods, and lowered costs. Firms that then resisted the move to trans-fat free products because of costs incurred would now find it profitable and feasible to offer the same trans fat-free products as their competitors. In other words, the market works dummy.

Still, what is most concerning to me is the precedent that this kind of legislation sets. If the government deems that something is harmful to you, it has the right to tax it, regulate it, and in the extreme case, ban it altogether. In the case of trans fats, no one cares. It is a victory for public health advocates and politicians, and likely, in the long run, for consumers. But what if this were something to which people are more attached? Say starbucks coffee? Imagine if some scientist publishes a study saying starbucks coffee is damaging to public health. Should the government then impose its will on us and ban it? Or, should we trust individuals to judge what is best for them, and to take their chances in light of the risks?

My concern is, where does the power to prohibit end? How could you stop the legislature from banning anything it deems dangerous? What justification would you have? What makes trans fats any different from cigarettes and alcohol besides the fact that these last two are things people actually crave, while trans fats are tasteless and unattractive? There is no difference really, and so, it's really a matter of leaving ourselves open to the whims and wishes of our politicians.

Practice What You Preach

To advocates of redistributive justice, fairness means taking from those who have and giving to those who do not have (as much). The implicit assumption here is that individuals would not provide material assistance to the less fortunate by their own accord. The idea of philanthropy and goodwill never comes into the equation. Moreover, it assumes that government bureaucrats have bigger hearts and bigger brains than the rest of us, for only they know how to direct the assistance to where it's truly needed. The idea that individuals, who go into their own pockets to fund a charity that they think worthy, could bring about the best use of their alms does not even cross the minds of those who wish to show their compassion with government largesse.

Perhaps these advocates of redistribution - people coming almost exclusively from the left - advance such a doctrine because they know all too well that their own disposition is to keeping instead of giving. So, the same people who tell the rest that we must be taxed by the government on behalf of the less fortunate are unwilling to dig into their own pockets to effect that end. Don't believe me?

This chart, taken from the Catologue for Philanthrophy website (via Michelle Malkin's site) ranks the 50 states based on how much they donate to charity per annum. One can't help but notice a clear trend. The red states dominate the first half of the chart.

Mississippi? Arkansas? Oklahoma? Aren't these the same thumb-sucking, brain-dead, bigoted rednecks that liberals love to mock? Aren't these the gun-toting, homophobic, xenophobic, simpletons that Monsieur Obama (French is so much more elegant than English) meets in the small towns he visits while he crosses the country? So much for the idea that the more educated, more wealthy, intellectual elites in New York, California, and Massachusetts have a monopoly on compassion. Rather, it's these 'backwards' bumpkin states that show the greatest generosity. Do these facts matter at all to the people who call conservatism an ideology of greed and avarice? Perhaps the people who clamor for the rich to bear the burden of lifting up the little people ought to look in the mirror before they keep making such claims and demands.

The Presumptuous Nominee

Premature Self-adulation

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Sports Induced Coma

It is so nice in this coach bus. The air conditioning is on, and I need it. We all just got done sweating a few pounds off at the Yankee vs. Orioles baseball game.

I do a lot of thinking at these sporting events. I think about people, places, and ideas, but always come back to the same question:
“Why are people so knowledgable about sports, but have no idea who the vice president is?”

It seems as if our nation is in a perpetual sports induced coma. People can rattle off statistics, great moments, and histories of any sporting athlete. However, when asked to place Iraq on a map, they shoot blanks. Obviously sports is something to be admired and enjoyed. It should be for everyone, so people can stay in shape as well, but it is the total imbalance between sports knowledge and current events knowledge that is worrisome.

In a world filled with Muslim jihadists hell bent on destroying western civilization, with liberals and their Republican cooperatives aching at the thought of opening Americans’ wallets, and with increased moral depravity and decadence, it is important to stay on the up and up on daily events and happenings, so people can make better daily decisions.

Is this all a coincidence, that we are constantly bombarded with music, ads, sports, and movies? Is it any coincidence that we have been bred to be walking encyclopedias of sporting knowledge, and nothing but cavernous abysses when it comes to political, social, and economic issues? I think not.

There is no excuse. In a world of blazing terabytes and easily acessible infomation, it is simply astonishing that so many in our country are so ignorant that they are fooled by the populist doublespeak that the Democrats spawn from their forked tongues.

The brave new world has been upon us. It should have never been a question of when, but of how bad it currently is. We are taking our soma with willing mouths. Instead of gnashing our teeth and refusing to accept the administered dose, we let ourselves be drugged by sports, music, clothing, and movies. Things that are to be enjoyed are used with extreme excess. These things are all the product of a free market, but we need a free mental market as well.

While the government picks our pockets, and expands, we are glued to the game.

While the Muslim terrorists detonate bombs in cities around the world, we are glued to the game.

While the world burns, we are glued to the game, in a sports induced coma.

-Posted by Conor Harrigan