MSNBC -Stingy?

MSNBC -

David Shuster, of MSNBC, has joined the ranks of Jan Egeland with his thoughtless comments on the United States contribution to the tsunami victims in Southeast Asia. Shuster claimed this, about a billion dollar donation that he thinks the U.S. should have given, "It would immediately give people across this earth a reason to be thankful for the United States." Where has this guy been for the past 60 years. The United States has always been more than generous when it comes to giving aid to disater victims. Look at Africa. We give 15 billion dollars to fight AIDS in Africa, more than all other nations combined, and this guy has the guts to call us embarassing. On top of that the world still hates us. What's embarassing is Shuster's failed ability to see the big picture. Does he really think the world will stop hating us if we give a billion dollars to tsunami victims? Will the world really be "thankful" for the United States if we give more money? Not likely. Maybe instead of offering a reward for Bin Laden we should offer a billion dollars in aid programs. Then maybe the Islamic terrorist would have a reason to be thankful for the United States. Giving a billion dollars could solve all the U.S. problems. Maybe we could give Paris Hilton a billion dollars and she could go away too!

Throwing gobs of money at a problem seems to be the mantra of the left in this country. It doesn't always solve the problem (I.e. welfare). I would be willing to bet that if we sent a billion dollars to Southeast Asia, a good portion of it would be siphoned off in a sort of "Oil for Tsunami" scandal (probably involving the U.N.) Every news report that I have read still shows the U.S. as giving the most money so far. And on top of cash, we are sending military vehicles and personnel to the region. We don't just write a check and turn our heads away, we send our people in harm's way.

Calling the U.S. stingy looks like another way for the media to criticize President Bush. That may seem far-fetched to some but, my own Star Tribune editorial board had this to say, "The Bush Administration's handling of this crisis has been inept beyond belief." What was the editorial board's solution? You guessed it, Donate a billion dollars! What is it with liberal attack dogs and a billion dollars?

I don't want to seem insensitve to the tragedy but, this whole affair of comparing who gives what (we gave the most in case you hadn't heard) is kind of like watching people put change into a Salvation Army Kettle and complaining when the well dressed people don't put dollar bills in. Lets not forget that this is a donation and therefore voluntary. Every country should be praised for its contribution, not criticized because they have not given enough. Besides I don't remember the French writing us a check when Florida was devastated by four hurricanes. Not many people in Florida died because our government was prepared and, had the proper warning systems. Maybe our country isn't so bad afterall.

Reminder...

That I am not terribly out of date on my postings. I am posting several columns of mine that have appeared in the "Minnesota Daily." I will post on current events in the near future.

Unfit for the oval office

In case you weren’t aware, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry served in Vietnam. He also received three purple hearts and several other medals. I applaud him for his service. President George W. Bush also served in the military during Vietnam. Bush flew fighter jets for the Texas Air National Guard. I also applaud his service.
I don’t believe the conspiracy nuts who say Kerry’s wounds were self-inflicted. Just the same, I don’t believe the people who say Bush was absent without leave from the National Guard. But, to tell you the truth, I don’t care what they did 35 years ago. It has no bearing on my decision to vote for either one Nov. 2. I am going to vote based on their accomplishments in their respective positions: Kerry; a senator; and Bush; the president.
Let’s start with Bush. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks Bush and 98 senators, including Kerry, signed the Patriot Act. In 2003, Bush launched Operation Iraqi Freedom, supported by Kerry, which ended the tyrannical rule of Saddam Hussein and subsequently freed millions of people. Also in 2003, he signed the Amber Alert bill to help find kidnapped children. Later that year, Bush signed one of the largest tax cuts in history. To close out the busy year, Bush signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban and the prescription drug benefit. Just last April, Bush signed “Laci’s Law” to protect unborn victims’ rights .
Those are some pretty major pieces of legislation, some of which have not had improvements for quite a while. Now, some people will say the Patriot Act encroaches on our civil rights, or the tax cuts were for the rich. That is partisan rhetoric. The Patriot Act is vital in our fight against terrorism, and the tax cuts were instrumental in reviving the economy. The fact is that Bush has accomplished a lot in his first term.
Now let’s move on to Kerry, who has been in the U.S. Senate for 20 years. Kerry has been the lead sponsor on eight bills that have become laws. In 1991, he sponsored a bill to finance marine research. In 1994, his bill to protect marine mammals from being taken by commercial fisherman was passed. Former President Clinton signed a bill of Kerry’s that provided grants to small businesses owned by women.
The remaining laws of his that were passed were ceremonial: designating Vietnam Veterans Memorial 10th Anniversary Day, National POW-MIA Recognition Day, recognizing World Population Awareness Week and renaming a federal building. As a comparison, our own Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., has been lead or co-sponsor on several bills, including one to pay travel expenses for troops returning home and one to increase Pell Grants. Coleman has done this in only two years in the Senate, compared with Kerry’s 20 years.
Kerry has done other things in his 20-year Senate career. He was also on the Senate Intelligence Committee for eight years but missed 38 of the 49 public hearings. Kerry also missed 87 percent of the Senate roll-call votes in the second session of the 108th Congress. In addition to that, Kerry voted against most of the major weapons that we are now using in the war on terror.
Some of his votes included: a vote to cancel the B-2 bomber (H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #203), a vote against $87 billion in additional funding for our troops (S. 1689, CQ Vote #400) and a vote to cut $6 billion from defense (S.Con.Res.106 CQ vote #73).
Kerry did sponsor several bills, including one in 1995, after the first attack on the World Trade Center, to cut intelligence spending by $1.5 billion over five years (S. 1290), but it never made it to the floor for a vote. Does this sound like someone who should be the leader of our country and military during a war?
Not only is his list of accomplishments short, it also seems he is habitually absent from voting. Now, I know it is important that we recognize World Population Awareness Week and having dolphin-safe tuna is crucial to many people across the nation.
But, Kerry has had 20 years to make important legislation, and he has dropped the ball. Kerry had a chance to show himself as a leader, and he failed. On top of this, Kerry has been ranked the most liberal senator in all the Senate. Does that sound like someone who has the best interest of all Americans in mind?
The reason the Kerry campaign has resorted to attacking Bush is because he has no record to stand on. He must divert voters’ attention from his poor record to something else. And the polls indicate the public is not giving these attacks much of a reception. I encourage all voters to take a long look at Kerry’s Senate record. Once you do, you will see why he is not fit to be president.

Exceptionalism

Lately Americans have been vigorously attacked by the hate-America crowd. This crowd includes France, Germany and Michael Moore among others. Apparently, some people have bought into this blame-America, unilateral-war rhetoric. I have even heard some Americans, when traveling to Europe, make every attempt to hide they are from the United States. I hope people know that being an American is something to be proud of, not something to hide from the world.
I remember being at a campus bar the Friday after Sept. 11 2001, when out of nowhere, a group of students started singing, “and I’m proud to be an American where at least I know I’m free, and I won’t forget the men who died who gave that right to me.” The next summer, I was at a music festival and heard Toby Keith sing, “We’ll always recognize, when we see Old Glory flying, there’s a lot of men dead, so we can sleep in peace at night when we lay down our head.” The hair on the back of my neck stood up and I had an awareness of what our country is about. This has also happened to me several other times since 9/11, most notably at a Gopher football game during the National Anthem. I can't explain this for sure but, I attribute it to my love for my country.
This feeling took me back to when I was 5 years old at my grandfather’s funeral. He served in the Pacific during World War II and died when I was in kindergarten. I remember being startled by the rifle fire from the 21-gun salute, the flag being folded and given to my grandmother, and the old men in uniform with tears in their eyes. Ever since that day, I have had a deep respect for those who have fought, and the country that sent them to preserve my freedom.
Most Europeans don’t think this way. They think we are stupid, ignorant and evil. This is especially true in France and Germany, where countries that we once considered our friends castigate everything we do. They despise our culture, our military and our president. I wonder if the French felt that way in the early 1940s when our evil military was saving them, again. Or if the Germans felt our culture, with all our freedoms, was detestable after former President Ronald Reagan defeated communism and former President George H.W. Bush tore down the Berlin Wall.
We live in a great country that is always willing to help others, no matter the cost. Many people don’t recognize this. Thomas Jefferson once said, “How little do my countrymen know what precious blessings they are in possession of, and which no other people on earth enjoy.” When there is a flood in India, we send aid. When there is an earthquake in China, we send relief workers. Recently, we committed $15 billion to fight AIDS in Africa. Sounds as if the greedy capitalists are at it again!
No country has sent more soldiers to die and taken less in return than the United States. We fought against aggressor nations in World War I. The United States stayed out of World War II until we were attacked. My grandfather and others didn’t want to go to war, but they did to protect the United States. When the war was over, it was the Americans who lifted the defeated, destroyed nations from the debris and propped up their economies — remember the Marshall Plan.
Part of the problem might lie in the ever-increasing irrelevance of European powers. Their individual economies lag behind the United States’ and Asia’s. Their militaries are far inferior to most countries’, except Canada’s. And when it comes to sporting events they can't even win their own race, thanks Lance. European countries are no longer world powers, and it pisses them off. They have to criticize someone. So obviously, they bash the best and brightest country on Earth. I liken this to 98 percent of baseball fans hating the Yankees. The Yankees are one of, if not the best, team in baseball. They have been for some time and will be for some time to come. All the fans that don’t have a team to watch in October hate the Yankees. They hate the Yankees because the team spends the most money, has the best players and always wins. The Europeans would say the Yankees are greedy or evil. I say it’s good to be a Yankee.
Now, I’m sure there are other reasons the Europeans opposed our war in Iraq. Namely, because they were being bribed by Saddam Hussein in the oil-for-food scandal. It has recently come out that many prominent European businessmen and politicians were getting compensation from Saddam in exchange for political favors. Is it really surprising that Germany and France voted against invading Iraq when they were being paid millions of dollars to keep the United States out of Iraq? These are the same countries that Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry proposes to bring to the table in our war on terror. Do we really want these countries on our side?
The hate-America crowd says our current war in Iraq is an evil, hegemonic quest for oil. Does anyone really believe President George W. Bush would take us to war, risk his career and the lives of soldiers for oil? If he wanted oil, he could have drilled in Alaska — environmentalists don’t fight as hard as terrorists. The United States is on a mission of good. We are fighting terrorism and spreading peace throughout the world, and all we get for it is condemnation. Former President Harry Truman said the world’s hope for peace lies in the growth and expansion of freedom and self-government. We are continuing that expansion in Iraq.
Some people might be voting for the president based on who can bring the Europeans back to our side. I don’t think we need allies who are unable to see the noble cause we are undertaking. I like the president we have, because he is willing to fight for the things we believe in. And I like the allies that we have. They are decent, caring people who value the spread of freedom.
Reagan said during his second inaugural address, “We hear again the echoes of our past: a general falls to his knees in the hard snow of Valley Forge; a lonely president paces the darkened halls and ponders his struggle to preserve the Union; the men of the Alamo call out encouragement to each other; a settler pushes west and sings a song, and the song echoes out forever and fills the unknowing air. It is the American sound. It is hopeful, big-hearted, idealistic, daring, decent and fair. That’s our heritage; that is our song. We sing it still.”
President Bush has not tarnished that image. He has strengthened it

2004 Election Highlights

The 2004 presidential election is now over. President George W. Bush was the clear winner with 286 electoral votes. He received more than 50 percent of the popular vote, something former President Bill Clinton never did. But, I don’t want to concentrate on who won the election. I want to concentrate on who lost.
The obvious loser was Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. He failed to win a single state in the South and only took five states west of the Mississippi River. His lack of shared values with voters was the major cause of his defeat. Although he was the biggest loser in this election, he wasn’t the only loser.
Michael Moore also lost. Moore said the reason for making “Fahrenheit 9/11” was to get Bush thrown out of office. He failed. What can he do for a sequel — distort the truth even more? It won’t matter. He lied his pants off and the only people who fell for it were the far-left wackos who were already voting for Kerry. After the election, Moore called Bush a “Radical Christian fanatic … who invented a war on terror.” As long as liberals have people like Moore, who claim to be representing the mainstream, they have no chance of winning a southern state. Maybe Moore will win an Oscar for his propaganda, but the only people who will care are the Hollywood elite.
Speaking of the Hollywood elite, they lost big time. Leonardo DiCaprio, Whoopi Goldberg, Ben Affleck and the rest should stick to what they are good at, making crappy movies. Don’t get me wrong, they have the right to speak out, but so does Average Joe down the street. Why should these movie stars get to go on “The Oprah Winfrey Show” or speak at the Democratic National Convention? Because they are famous, because they are pretty, because they made “Gigli”? I don’t think so. Kerry calling these people the “heart and soul of America,” is just another example of how the left does not connect with Middle America.
Next on the list of losers: George Soros and Moveon.org. They spent millions of dollars playing dirty politics and lying about the president. What did they get for, among other things, creating TV spots comparing Bush to Adolf Hitler? Nothing!
The public took those unscrupulous ads and tossed them in the political trash bin where they belong. Did they really believe mainstream America thought Bush and Hitler were one and the same? Come on, the least they could have done was get the backing of 200-plus veterans, like the swift boat vets did. Did anyone really believe those fallacious MoveOn ads?
If you’re read a major newspaper or watched the network news in the last year, you would think the economy was on the verge of collapse, U.S. troops were indiscriminately killing Iraqi civilians and the Gophers were going to win the Big Ten. They were wrong in all three cases.
The elite media have had a banner year. Dan Rather blatantly attempted to smear the president with obviously forged documents. ABC news political director Mark Halperin issued a memo just before the second presidential debate saying ABC does not need to treat the candidates equally, meaning, "give Kerry the edge."
The liberal media painted a bleak picture of the economy and an even worse picture of the war in Iraq. In their quest to destroy the President, they failed to notice the United States had freed millions of people from a tyrannical dictator. They failed to notice Afghanistan held free elections. They failed to notice the United Nations was bribed in the oil-for-food scandal. Good thing the voters didn’t fail to notice these events.
The final losers on Election Day were P. Diddy, MTV and their phony Choose or Lose campaign. They had segments on the candidates, drugs, abortion and other issues. The segments were obnoxiously biased in favor of Kerry. On top of that, MTV let such political geniuses as Drew Barrymore and Christina Aguilera host these segments.
They also played on young voters’ fears by making it seem as if a draft were possible. MTV forgot to mention the President and Secretary of Defense opposed a draft, and it was Democrats who introduced a military draft resolution (it was defeated 402-2). Their efforts to scare up the youth vote didn’t work.
Ever since Kerry’s concession speech, I have read numerous columns saying how the ignorant, the homophobes and the Bible-bangers were responsible for Bush’s re-election.
The liberal elite think they are smarter and more moralistic than the rest of the country. Myself and 59 million other voters are fed up with the liberals’ assault on traditional values. I was happy to see that the people rejected the media’s attempt to influence the election by playing to our worst fears.
With their ballots, voters have shown they believe in tax cuts, traditional values and fighting terrorism abroad instead of at home. Unless liberals make drastic changes, they will have about as much chance of winning the 2008 election as Glen Mason does of winning a Rose Bowl

I have been busy...

finishing up college and doing other non-productive things with my time. In the future this blog will have continued posts with wonderful insight and important thoughts. Now that I have nearly completed my seven year journey for an undergraduate degree (I'll explain later) I have more time to think, and therefore, more time to write in this blog. To get started I am posting several of my columns that have appeared in the University of Minnesota's newspaper, The Minnesota Daily. Soon I will include some of the comments that I received for my columns and the back-and-forth emails I had with some people who sent comments to me. Then, hopefully, I will have continual posts to this blog.