FederalRepublic.net

By Matt Towery

The debate about illegal immigration has hit Congress full force. In the end, the real issue in choosing between the president’s proposal to sanction illegal aliens with provisional worker status and the tougher counterproposal by many in Congress, is that in addressing the problem of undocumented workers, we somehow might harm American businesses and the economy.

Moreover, it’s loudly apparent that — as predicted months ago in this column — both the White House and the Republican-led Congress are late to the table in tackling this volatile situation.

I tend to side with those who call for a serious effort to close our borders. Yet, I’m not convinced that Bush’s proposal doesn’t contain some wise provisions that would benefit us all, including the most hardcore conservatives.
 
Consider the results of a recent InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion Research survey, conducted for the Washington, D.C.-based Southern Political Report.

The poll surveyed nine states in the Deep South, where immigration issues are simmering. Forty-one percent of respondents favored cutting off benefits, such as Medicaid, to illegal aliens. Thirty-seven percent preferred that businesses that hire illegals be punished. The rest were undecided.

This was no small survey, with over 4,000 respondents and a margin of error of plus or minus 1.5 percent.

The results tell me that there has been no crystallization of public opinion on this issue, even in a region of the country where the number of illegal aliens has exploded.

This collective ambivalence on the part of Southerners may account for the willingness of the White House to chance a proposal that would offer a “temporary” work program as an essential component to any federal bill.

My inclination is to support the repatriation of illegal aliens to their countries of origin. Most of them work, but they don’t pay taxes, even though many frequent the basic tax-supported institutions of our society, including schools and hospital emergency rooms.

Link

As a country based upon the rule of law, the United States must come to grips with the problem of illegal immigration. While immigrants have always provided a key constituency and an agile workforce, immigrants must come into this country in a LEGAL manner. The question remains, “If someone breaks the law to come into this country, how can I expect them to follow U.S. laws when they begin to live here?”

The United States must enact sound legislation and promote responsibility under law to order to curb illegal immigration. First, a wall must be built on the U.S. - Mexico border in order to provide some type of first line, physical security. Legislation has been in place for some time to start this project. Second, states must produce legislation in order to cut off illegal aliens from taxpayer benefits, including Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, and other entitlements. Third, the government must apprehend and punish those who are responsible for hiring illegals. There must be safeguards in place, including a system used to positively match social security numbers to employees and check immigration status. Fourth, there must be legislation in place to either deport or arrest new illegal aliens.

While a guest worker program could be economically beneficial, there is an inherent problem with the whole mindset of hiring immigrants to work jobs Americans won’t. There is no reason why Americans can’t or won’t do jobs most immigrant workers do. Americans simply won’t take jobs immigrants could do simply because they may not pay enough or Americans feel the job is below them. In a country where everyone must have some type of job to make a decent living, the entitlement mindset of people in this country has contributed to the illegal immigration problem.

We must keep in mind that people in this country are not entitled to any type of standard of living, nor are they entitled to so-called entitlement programs. People are only entitled to pursue happiness. Nowhere does it say Americans are entitled to $10 per hour jobs or big screen TVs.

By Herman Cain

Every good liberal will tell you that low tax rates cause tax revenues to drop, hurt the economy, benefit only the wealthy and cause skyrocketing budget deficits. A Wall Street Journal article last week blew a hole in those liberal lies. The Journal reported that federal tax revenues for the first five months of fiscal year 2006 are up 10.3 percent from the same period a year ago. The 2006 revenue growth adds to a 15 percent tax revenue increase from 2004 to 2005. This good fortune for U.S. Treasury coffers is attributed to the steady and growing economy, which is largely a product of the 2003 cuts in income, dividend and capital gains tax rates.

The parallel growth in the economy and tax revenues is not a fluke and did not occur by chance. History has shown us that every time tax rates are cut, federal tax revenues rise, the economy responds positively and the wealthy pay a larger share of the tax bill.

Presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge significantly cut tax rates in the 1920s, which caused both the national economy and federal revenues to grow. Harding repealed the World War I excess profits tax, dropped the top tax rate on individuals from 73 to 58 percent and set the capital gains tax rate at 12.5 percent. Coolidge further reduced individual tax rates and inheritance taxes. The Harding and Coolidge tax rate cuts caused income tax revenues to rise 61 percent from 1921 to 1929. At the same time, the economy grew by 59 percent. Additionally, the share of taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans grew from just over 44 percent in 1921 to over 78 percent by 1928.

President John F. Kennedy introduced a plan in 1963 to lower the highest individual tax rate of 91 to 70 percent, and the top corporate rate from 52 to 48 percent. The Revenue Act of 1964, passed after Kennedy’s death, containted his proposed rate cuts and sparked considerable economic growth. Federal tax revenues rose 68 percent through 1968, and the economy grew 42 percent. The share of tax revenues paid by the wealthiest in the 1960s dwarfed the amounts paid by the middle class and poor. Tax revenues from those individuals making over $50,000 rose by 57 percent following the Kennedy rate cuts, while revenues from those making under $50,000 rose by just 11 percent.

When President Ronald Reagan came to office in 1981, the economy was mired in high interest rates, high unemployment and stagflation produced by policies of the 1970s. Reagan cut the highest individual tax rate in 1981 from 70 to 50 percent, and cut the lowest rate from 14 to 11 percent. In 1986 he further cut the top rate from 50 to 28 percent.

Reagan’s tax rate cuts helped produce the longest period of peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history. Total tax revenues grew by over 99 percent during the 1980s, and the economy grew by an average of 4 percent each year. As we saw in the 1960s, the wealthiest Americans paid the most taxes following Reagan’s rate cuts. The top 10 percent of income earners went from paying 48 percent of all taxes in 1981, to over 57 percent by 1988.

The other lie liberals perpetually tell is that low tax rates cause budget deficits. History proves just the opposite – that cuts in income, capital gains and dividends tax rates increase the amount of federal revenues available for Congress to spend. The only thing that can cause a budget deficit is when Congress spends in excess of available revenues, and the president at the time signs off on that spending. Members of Congress who blame tax cuts for causing deficits might as well argue that gun manufacturers cause homicides, fast food restaurants cause obesity and cigarette makers cause lung cancer. Surely no one would agree with that flawed logic.

Link

Here we see flawed thinking of the Democratic left when it comes to promoting tax increases, or shall I say, “rolling back the Bush tax cuts.” Time and time again we’ve seen that tax cuts do help to spur economic growth, producing federal revenue gains and expanded economic growth. However, Congress has been unwilling thus far to help the president make his 2003 tax cuts permanent.

By making the President Bush’s tax cuts permanent, the Congress would allow the United States to have the means and capital to expand the economy. Tax cuts help to put the taxpayers in charge of their own money, a responsibility the people can manage much better than the federal government can. Even a Democrat like John F. Kennedy realized this principle.

For Congress to bring about economic prosperity, tax cuts, spending cuts, and reduction of regulations must be key items to take into consideration. Tax cuts will help to promote economic activity, spending cuts will help to curb the budget deficit and needless spending, and reduction of regulations will help to get rid of the economic red tape Americans deal with on a daily basis.

By Andrew Taylor

A $2.8 trillion Republican budget plan approved by a conservative-dominated House panel faces a worrisome hurdle for GOP leaders plotting a floor debate for next week.

A rift between Republican conservatives eager to crack down on agency budgets and party moderates determined to reverse cuts to education and other popular programs could delay floor debate. Republican unity is essential to passing the plan, since none of the House’s Democrats are expected to back it.

“I would say there is a challenge there,” said conservative Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas.

The Budget Committee approved the GOP plan, written by Chairman Jim Nussle, R-Iowa, by a party line 22-17 vote late Wednesday. Bowing to election-year realities, Nussle dropped President Bush’s proposed cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, crop subsidies and other politically sensitive programs but preserved his plan to trim spending by most Cabinet agencies.

The plan, for the 2007 budget year beginning Oct. 1, adopts Bush’s $873 billion cap on agency budgets renewed by Congress each year. But it also assumes just $50 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, less than one-half of expected spending for the current year.

The plan endorses Bush’s call for a 7 percent increase in the core defense budget - which doesn’t include Iraq war costs - for next year. That increase comes at the expense of domestic programs like education, health research and grants to local governments and relief agencies.

The plan also assumes $226 billion in additional tax cuts over five years, more than half of which would go for extending Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, most of which are set to expire in 2010. But the committee didn’t take the necessary steps under Congress’ arcane budget process to facilitate speedy action on a tax bill.

Nussle credited earlier tax cuts with reviving an economy that was in recession when Bush took office.

“As a result of giving Americans more control over their money, we’ve seen more investment, more jobs and greater opportunities in this country,” Nussle said.

Democrats blasted the Republican blueprint, which would produce a deficit of $348 billion in 2007 and deficits totaling more than $1 trillion through 2011 if Congress enacts its policies.

And they doubted it would even meet these deficit goals, since it doesn’t account for the costs of the war in Iraq after 2007 or for shielding middle- to upper-income taxpayers from being hit by the alternative minimum tax.

Rep. John Spratt Jr., D-S.C., said the national debt would almost double to more than $9 trillion under Bush’s tenure in office, a natural result “from a fiscal policy that says you can have guns, butter, tax cuts too and never mind the deficit. … It holds no real plan or prospect of balancing the budget.”

Link

There seems to be a very active split in the GOP when it comes to the budget. I for one am tired of liberal Republicans being generous when it comes to pork-filled legislation or overspending for entitlement programs we don’t really need. In fact, there is no reason why the United States budget should even reach some $2.8 trillion dollars.

If America is to have continued prosperity over the next few decades, there must be fiscal restraint in Washington. While the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 helped to get the economy rolling again after the Clinton recession, the government must match the commitment to tax cutting with the commitment to cut government spending to balance out the budget. This only makes sense, as it is the fiscally conservative thing to do, not to mention millions of families must live their lives in this manner.

Americans must realize that a ballooning debt ceiling and budget deficits could produce an anxiety in world markets, cutting back foreign investment and the purchasing of treasury bonds, which is so vital to the economic well-being of the United States.

By Patrick Hynes

In a recent USA Today op-ed, Tom Krattenmaker argues that “playing the God card” has backfired on President George W. Bush. The president’s favorability has fallen through the floor, Krattenmaker argues. And surely God would never side with unpopular presidents. “The God’s-on-our-side rhetoric is looking even less credible now, after more than a year of frequently bad news for the president and his administration,” he writes.

As for the actual “God’s-on-our-side” rhetoric, Mr. Krattenmaker’s examples are pretty lame. He quotes an obscure alternate delegate to the 2004 Republican National Convention and New York Governor George Pataki (no favorite of the religious Right, to be sure) as proof that the GOP considers itself “God’s Official Party.” He then chides the president himself for calling freedom “God’s gift to every man and woman in this world”; a florid idea every president since George Washington has expressed in one manner or another.

To be fair, Krattenmaker cites equally lame examples to show Democrats take the Lord’s name in vain, too.  But nowhere in his piece does Krattenmaker make reference to the Left’s recent extraordinary claims to divine endorsement.  Since their 2004 drubbing at the hands of roughly 30 million conservative Christians, Democrats have invoked the Lord’s name in such ways and with such frequency; it would make the Rev. Pat Robertson blush.

“God is a liberal,” declare Jim Carville and Paul Begala in their latest book Take It Back. “Jesus is not a Republican,” demands Clint Wallis, editor of, among other tomes, the very un-Christian sounding The I Hate Republicans Reader. “Jesus is a progressive.” 

“When did Jesus become pro-rich?” asks liberal evangelical author and activist Jim Wallis. “Jesus cared for the poor/so do we,” reads a South Dakota Democratic Party bumper sticker. “The role of government is to protect its people and work for the common good. This is not the time for a budget reconciliation process. To do so is not only unjust, it’s a sin,” echoed the Leftist National Council of Churches USA. 

Here’s how The Hill described a Nancy Pelosi floor speech on the budget process in 2005, “In the final Democratic speech before the vote, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said a vote in favor of the bill amounted to a ’sin.’”

Link

It’s funny to see the Democrats pulling toward the right every election year, and especially interesting to see them when they quote Bible verses. For some reason, when I see a Democrat quote a verse from the Bible, they never seem sincere.

However, sincerity is not the issue I’d like to discuss today, though Democrats give sincerity a bad reputation. I’d like to explore the issue of God in politics, and more specifically, whether Jesus would’ve been liberal or conservative.

To understand whether Jesus would’ve even cared about government, we must first explore what the Bible says about government. Paul, in Romans 13, explains what the role of government is and how God feels about it:

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

Here, we can clearly see that God has created government for the good of mankind and to promote the rule of law. And as the Bible says it is to our advantage to follow God’s commandments, it is likewise to our advantage to do what is lawfully right, or follow what rules our government has given us.

In the book of Matthew, chapter 22, Jesus is asked by Pharisees if it is right to pay taxes to Caesar:

Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”
 
But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?” “Caesar’s,” they replied. Then he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

This passage clearly shows that Jesus  respected the rule of law in Isreal at the time. Because Jesus would know that God instituted government for the good of mankind, it would be wise, if not prudent, for him to pay taxes to help uphold the institution of government.

Now let us move back to the issue whether Jesus could’ve been considered liberal or conservative. The inherent problem with this argument is that we must move beyond the partisan bickering and ask ourselves “What is the real difference between liberals and conservatives?” Simply, conservatives and liberals hold different beliefs about the role of government in American life.

Jesus, in all his wisdom, did not tell us what role government should have, except that government should be an authority to be followed. He also layed down specific guidelines for his followers and promoted moral values like generosity, integrity, honesty, and servanthood. It would only make sense for government officials to uphold these values. Jesus did not promote the values simply for his followers, but for everyone on Earth.

So the basic argument of Democrats or Republicans stating Jesus would be on their side is simply inaccurate. In my opinion, Jesus did not tell us what type of government to have, whether conservative or liberal, but instead demonstrated what kind of people we should be. This thought includes all people, and even those who work in, and create government. Therefore, I conclude, Jesus was neither a conservative or liberal, but instead, someone who thought government and the people following its laws, should be moral and demonstrate the love of God.

By Jeffrey Gangemi

University of Wisconsin Business School senior Joe Jennings is kicking back, enjoying his last few months of college life. And why shouldn’t he? Jennings received four job offers by the end of the fall semester and accepted a position at PriceWaterhouseCoopers in Chicago in late November.

Jennings says he was surprised by how easy it was to land a job. “It was awesome,” he says. “I got offers from companies I’d never even heard of — extremely painless.” The 23-year-old, who will earn a starting salary of $53,500 with a $2,000 bonus, is not alone. This year’s job market for undergraduates is the strongest since 2000. These job-market improvements are the most dramatic — and in some cases extreme — in years.

“There were a few employers that reported some pretty large increases, and I even called a few to see if there were mistakes,” says Andrea Koncz, employment information manager for the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE), a group of recruiters and university career services officials that researches workforce trends. Recruiters, some of whom had been missing on campus in recent years, have returned — and they’re seriously competing for top talent.

Link

I think this article shows the great job market Americans have available in today’s economy. Despite all the negative press about the economy and near 59% of random Americans believe the economy is in a recession, jobless claims and the national unemployment rate continue to decline. Since 2003, the economy has created some 5 million new jobs, all while the population is continually growing and the unemployment rate is reduced to 4.8%.

Americans are spending more money than ever, thanks to the Bush tax cuts and reduced business regulation as passed in 2003. However, there is much more this President and Congress could do. Congress could make the Bush tax cuts permanent, increasing the amount of money in people’s pockets. Congress could also get rid of needless regulation that hinders economic growth and step away from protectionist economic tactics, allowing free trade to take a hold in other areas of the world. President Bush could use his veto power against pork-laden legislation or bills in which federal spending rises past current needs. The administration and Congress must be smart if they want to allow the United States economy to continuously grow as it has the past few years.

Remember, it is not the job of the government to create jobs, but it is the job of government to create an atmosphere promoting job creation.

By Will Lester

The Democratic committee that handles races for the U.S. Senate holds more than a 2-1 financial advantage over its GOP counterpart at the start of this midterm election year.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has $25 million in the bank and raised $44 million in 2005. The National Republican Senatorial Committee has $10.5 million in the bank after raising $35.5 million last year. Neither committee reported any outstanding debt.

Democrats said it’s the first time in their memory they have had such an edge over the GOP in cash on hand.

“Americans don’t like what they’re seeing in Washington and know that Democrats are the party of change,” said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., chairman of the Democratic campaign committee.

The stakes for the two parties are high in the Senate contests. The GOP now holds a 55-44 advantage in the chamber, with one Democratic-leaning independent. Both Democrats and Republicans say about a dozen seats may be closely contested this year, including open seats and those that one party hopes to wrest from the other.

Link

Those who follow politics, and especially conservative happenings, know Democrats always pull to the right every election year. Bottom line - conservativism sells. That is why you’ll see Hillary Clinton, for example, try to promote so-called moderate legislation in regards to illegal immigration, defense funding, and domestic issues.

I see problems in the GOP, and the problems don’t just relate to funding. Moderate Republicans, including liberals like Arlen Specter, have lost their base. In reality, it is the people who want, need I say demand, limited government, low taxes, and a strong defense who vote for conservative candidates. However, it seems the Republican Party is giving conservative voters an excuse to look elsewhere this November.

My feeling is the GOP simply does not have much to run on this election year. Their collective fiscal record is dismal, with federal spending up some 43% over the last few years. Pork-laden legislation and partisan bickering have not rendered any better results. Whatever happened to the 1994 Republicans who promoted the “Contract With America?” Conservatives basically control all branches of government, yet they refuse to cut out the pork and produce sound, fiscally conservative, spending appropriations or veto any pork-filled legislation (where is your veto Mr. President?).

In summary, the Republican Party and conservatives in general, must return to conservative ideals. This means getting back to being fiscally conservative, cutting spending where appropriate, not selling out to the special interests, promoting limited government and tax cuts, and demonstrating why they call themselves conservatives in the first place. If conservatives do not heed this advice, I fear another party may control Congress in January.

Opinion Journal - From the Wall Street Journal

The third anniversary of U.S. military action to liberate Iraq has brought with it a relentless stream of media and political pessimism that is unwarranted by the facts and threatens to become a self-fulfilling prophesy if it goes unchallenged.

Yes, sectarian tensions are running high and the politicians of Iraq’s newly elected parliament are taking a long time forming a government. But the attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra several weeks back has not provoked the spiral into “civil war” that so many keep predicting. U.S. casualties are down over the past month, in part because Iraqi security forces are performing better all the time.

More fundamentally, the coalition remains solidly allied with the majority of Iraqis who want neither Saddam’s Hussein’s return nor the country’s descent into a Taliban-like hellhole. There is no widespread agitation for U.S. troops to depart, and if anything the Iraqi fear is that we’ll leave too soon.

Yet there’s no denying the polls showing that most Americans are increasingly weary of the daily news of car bombs and Iraqi squabbling and are wishing it would all just go away. Their pessimism is fed by elites who should know better but can’t restrain their domestic political calculations long enough to consider the damage that would accompany U.S. failure. A conventional military defeat is inconceivable in Iraq, but a premature U.S. withdrawal is becoming all too possible.

Link

This is an interesting article in that it explains the realities of the conflict in Iraq. While coalition deaths have declined dramatically and the Iraqi government will have a broad, diverse, coalition government in place in less than a month, the press continues to pour bad news into America.

The truth is, the United States Armed Forces were never created to keep a peace between factions of the Muslim religion, nor were they created to occupy countries years at a time. The U.S. Armed Forces were created to fight and win wars; that’s the bottom line. In other words, the title of this article is misleading, because we have won the conflict and ultimately, the war. However, peacekeeping is definately something entirely different.

Peacekeeping is never something a country has to do in a post-war period. However, it is to the advantage of countries to provide security and access to healthcare, shelter, and clothing to those affected by the conflict. As we’ve seen in history, the United States has helped those who needed help in rebuilding their countries after war. For example, the Marshall Plan, enacted in the 1940’s helped to rebuild war-torn Europe. After the United States bombed Japan and ended WW2, the U.S. military helped to establish a democratic government in Japan. Both Japan and Germany are now strong allies of the United States, not to mention economic powers the world over.

It is to our advantage to continue peacekeeping in Iraq, though it will take time for our military to adapt to changes in insurgent tactics and political situations on the ground. It will also take time to train a new Iraqi military, whose soldiers may not be used to disciplined conduct like the U.S. military routinely teaches new recruits. However, the reality is that our troops may still be in the region for decades. Germany, England, Japan, Korea - these countries have housed U.S. troops, some as long as 60 years. We may have to face the facts, Iraq may soon be added to the list.

By Michael Barone

Three weeks ago, I wrote about George W. Bush’s September 2002 National Security Strategy and examined how it has stood up over time. Last week, the White House released an updated version of the National Security Strategy — almost twice as long, and with much more specific material on many issues.

Those who are looking for a confession of error or a change of course will be disappointed. The March 2006 National Security Strategy — call it NSS 2.0 — reiterates much of the earlier document. NSS 2.0 repeats the doctrine of pre-emption: The United States “will, if necessary, act pre-emptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense.”

But NSS 1.0 also called for working with other countries and international institutions when possible, and NSS 2.0 provides much more detail on how this has been done — the May 2003 Proliferations Security Initiative, supported by more than 70 nations; the AIDS initiative in Africa; the Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate with Australia, China, Japan and South Korea. Note that here the administration is not limiting itself to working through pre-existing multinational organizations, where action may be blocked by others and whose bureaucracies are often hostile to the United States. Instead, it has been building coalitions of the willing to address particular problems.

Even more than NSS 1.0, NSS 2.0 emphasizes the importance of democracy. “The advance of freedom and human dignity through democracy is the long-term solution to the transnational terrorism of today.” It notes carefully that democracy means more than just elections, and that elections do not always turn out as we like. It accepts the victory of Hamas as legitimate, but adds that it also has consequences: So long as Hamas sponsors terrorism and rejects Israel’s right to exit, the United States will not pressure Israel to reach a settlement with the Palestinians

“We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran,” reads NSS 2.0. Seemingly caught in mid-stride, the document cites the negotiations of the European Union three and Russia with Iran and states, “This diplomatic effort must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided.” Military confrontation? You might infer that from other sections of the document. But the emphasis in this part is on the undemocratic character of the mullahs’ regime. “Our strategy is to block the threats posed by the regime while expanding our engagement and outreach to the people the regime is oppressing.”

Link

The Bush doctine as stated in the National Security Strategy is the largest mindset change in foreign policy in American history, behind the Monroe Doctrine of being neutral to European wars and the policy of Soviet containment brought by the Truman doctrine. The newest National Security Strategy shows us just how flexible the Bush doctrine is when it comes to the conditions of the Middle and Far East.

Again, as always, diplomacy is the first and best policy in diminishing conflict. If countries can solve problems by diplomatic negotiations or deal making (not including appeasement), the world may definately be a better place. However, the threat of force is always on the table, as President Bush believes in “peace through strength” principles and pre-emption. The argument goes, if we take care of problems before they materialize, our country would be safer than if we waited for the threat to actually become a danger.

I totally agree with this president on having a strong defense posture. As Ben Franklin once said, “If you fail to plan, you are preparing to fail.”

By Megan Basham - Townhall.com Film Critic

I have seen the terrorist, and he is me. And you. And all of us. So says Evey (Natalie Portman), an acolyte of V (Hugh Weaving), the swashbuckling savior of future England who disguises himself as Guy Fawkes.

But don’t worry, because being a terrorist is now a good thing. As we’ve been told by the media, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter…or masked superhero as the case may be.
 
In fact, according to The New York Daily News’ critic, Jaimi Bernard, even the term “suicide bombing” is now relative. “One person’s idea of social liberation through symbolic fireworks is another person’s suicide bombing,” she insists in her review of V for Vendetta.
 
So even though V threatens to detonate a load of explosives strapped to his chest, killing dozens of innocent people at the BBC (oh, excuse me, BFC) if they don’t give him air-time, just think of him as Batman — a little overly-dramatic and conflicted perhaps, but also sexy and an undeniable force for good.

I can see him this way because of all the Wachowski Brothers have taught me. My eyes have been opened, and I am no longer an automaton of the Right-wing religious-military-industrial complex.

Thanks to this “parable about terrorism and totalitarianism” (Roger Ebert) I have been “prodded to think” (The San Francisco Chronicle). And I now think that the Bush administration blew up the twin towers and tried to blow up two other U.S. targets on 9/11 in order to scare Americans into giving them more power. I think that conservatives hate art, literature, and music—especially jazz music—and want to lock it all away because, well, they’re just mean like that.
 
I think that Catholics are in league with Republicans, and that together it is they, and not radical Islamists, who would like to exterminate all homosexuals and execute anyone that produces material critical of the Church-State. I think it is Christians who persecute people for reading the Koran and not Muslims who persecute people for reading the Bible.

I think that the West’s military personnel are the ones who place hoods over innocent people’s heads then mercilessly torture and kill them, and that broadcasts of Islamo-fascists doing so are so much laughable propaganda.
 
But most of all, in true V style, I think that documents, like buildings, are only symbols, and that burning them can change the world. Therefore, I propose that we storm the National Archives and torch the Constitution—the document responsible for unleashing the Great Evil that is America.

After all, that’s what the Wachowskis want, isn’t it? When [spoiler alert] the English masses gather and cheer as Parliament, that British symbol of representative government burns, aren’t we too supposed to cheer? Aren’t we supposed to want to run out of theater ready to don our Osama Bin Laden masks, ready to confront the world’s biggest terrorist mastermind on the White House lawn?

Oh, but wait, the movie is “dystopian” and therefore has nothing to do with current events. The “yellow-alerts” the vile dictator employs are a coincidence. The campy television show in which vaudevillian Al Qaeda operatives torture busty blondes, suggesting that the threat of terror is as fictional as it is ridiculous, means nothing.  The balding talk show host with a pill-popping problem isn’t intended to smear a real person.
 
And the fact that the script takes glee in constantly referring to the “former United States of America” and “their war” that left them “the world’s leper colony?” Umm, okay, that’s a little hard to explain…let’s just call that comic justice.

I could go into more detail, but really, there is no point. The fact the film’s release had to be postponed when V’s final heroic act of loading explosives onto a subway car in the London underground proved too realistic illustrates how in-sync the Wachowski’s are with actual terrorists. Forget not being worth the price of admission, this ode to Al Zarqawi and his ilk certainly wasn’t worth the price of pretty Miss Portman’s flowing mane of chestnut hair.

Link

I highly, highly disagree with everything this author says about the new movie “V for Vendetta.” As one who recently watched the movie and one who is a right-wing conservative, I have to denounce this whole article.

First, I’d like to explain away the comment about the “…glee in constantly referring to the former United States of America.” The growing conflict in the movie had to have a beginning, whether most people like that beginning or not. It is a logical beginning, having the War on Terrorism get out of hand and Britain cracking down on outlaws in what seems to be a new, dictatorship or police state. This in only a logical scenario, as mass bombing or nuclear explosions in any country would yield marshall law.

Second, I’d like to argue against the sarcastic comments: “But most of all, in true V style, I think that documents, like buildings, are only symbols, and that burning them can change the world. Therefore, I propose that we storm the National Archives and torch the Constitution—the document responsible for unleashing the Great Evil that is America.” The author again, takes the movie out of context in this instance, believing “V” is leading us to a mindset of destroying national symbols in an effort to make change. This scenario is real, and it has happened before. For example, colonists dropped large shipments of tea into Boston Harbor to protest tax policies and injustice of Great Britain in the 1770’s. Why did the colonists choose tea to drop overboard? Because tea was a great symbol of British economic strength. I have no doubt if someone destroyed the White House on national TV, it would definately make some sort of statement.

Third, I would like to argue away with what this author is communicating about how “V” was glorifying terrorism. In my opinion, “V” did not glorify terrorism one bit. First, Britain was portrayed as a fascist regime. Second, the people had no rights, including the right to free speech (a comedian was arrested, beaten, and killed for making fun of the dictator). The government also demonstrated the following characteristics: widespread abuse of power by government officials, thought control, the torture of prisoners, the lack of lawful due process, chemical testing on their own people, and many other types of abuse. These abuses are not right and violate the human rights of individuals. Therefore, it was in the best interest of “V” and anyone who joined him to take up arms against their government.

The Declaration of Independence states:

But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.

This duty, to provide a new guard for the future security of Britian, was what “V” was trying to do in the movie. If the author of the above article could’ve looked at the context of the movie in a logical manner, the author might have come to a different conclusion. However, they did not look at history, nor the context in which the screenplay was written. In my opinion, the author of the above article was dead wrong about the new movie “V for Vendetta.”

If my country would massively violate all rights of the citizenry, denounce our constitution, arrest and kill all gays and muslims, suppress my right to free speech, burn and destroy books and music, and do all the other things the British government did in the movie, I would gladly take up arms against those abuses.

By Rowan Scarborough

Senate Democrats have mapped a political battle plan for the March congressional recess that calls on lawmakers to stage press events with active duty military personnel, veterans and emergency responders to bash President Bush on virtually every one of his national security policies.
 
The game plan, devised by the office of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, is contained in a six-page memo distributed to Democratic senators on Thursday at a closed-door meeting at the Capitol and provided to The Washington Times by a congressional staffer.
 
Titled “Real Security,” the political document calls for staged town hall events at military bases, weapons factories, National Guard units, fire stations and veterans posts.
 
“Ensure that you have the proper U.S. and state flags at the event, and consider finding someone to sing the national anthem and lead the group in the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of the event,” the battle plan states.
 
However, the Defense Department prohibits political events on military bases. The rule states, “commanders will not permit the use of installation facilities by any candidate for political campaign or election events, including public assemblies or town hall meetings. …”

Jim Manley, Mr. Reid’s spokesman, said yesterday the planned events are not part of a political campaign. They would involve only incumbent Democratic senators, some of whom are up for re-election, but not Democratic Senate challengers, he said. Democrats hope to capture Senate control in November’s election.
 
“These are events to highlight the need for increased funding for the troops,” Mr. Manley said. “It’s an effort to paint the White House and the Republican Congress as having a failed effort on national security issues, which is a direct result of their misplaced priorities and mismanagement.”
 
The Senate plan urges holding town hall events to “draw attention to the security vulnerabilities caused by the Bush budget and explain how Democrats fought to restore programs that keep America safe.”
  
The plan is the latest attempt by Democrats to criticize Mr. Bush on national security issues in the aftermath of the Dubai ports deal dust-up, which Republicans conceded was mishandled by the administration. One of the few areas where Republicans continue to poll well versus Democrats is on fighting terrorists.

Link 

I have a real problem at this point with the political plans of the current Democratic Party. From the look of it, they plan to undermine the president and bash him at events in which there are troops and other federal employees and first responders. This is not only compromising the political neutrality of the Department of Defense, but it is a slap in the face to military and emergency personnel, as they will be used as political props in an effort to discredit their Commander-in-Chief or their government employers.

It seems the liberal left will stop at nothing to discredit President Bush, even willing to discuss clearly partisan political issues with military personnel. It’s interesting to read an article like this because I thought most Democrats would support the troops, but I guess everything is free game when it comes to denouncing President Bush.