Bloodshed! Violence! Riots! Threats! That’s been the reaction from the race-baiters at La Raza, and a number of other self-proclaimed do-gooders, who claim to be outraged that the good citizens of Arizona have the unmitigated gall to do what their federal government should be doing for them — protecting them from an illegal immigration invasion.
Jay Leno, in his amusing Jay Walking adventures, interviews young Americans whose appalling ignorance of history, geography and other areas of basic knowledge has become the subject of great hilarity. Many of them couldn't tell you who was buried in Grant's tomb.
So the dictatorial Attorney General of a dictatorial administration has opined that keeping the homeland secure requires “modifying” the Miranda warning read to criminal suspects (“You have the right to remain silent…”).
Listening to America's liberals, who now prefer to call themselves progressives, one would think that free markets benefit the rich and harm the poor, but little can be further from the truth. First, let's first say what free markets are. Free markets, or laissez-faire capitalism, refer to an economic system where there is no government interference except to outlaw and prosecute fraud and coercion. It ought to be apparent that our economy cannot be described as free market because there is extensive government interference. We have what might be called a mixed economy, one with both free market and socialistic attributes. If one is poor or of modest means, where does he fare better: in the freer and more open sector of our economy or in the controlled and highly regulated sector? Let's look at it.
Off the teleprompter for a few seconds while stumping for financial reform recently in Illinois, President Obama had this to say about money, incomes and success. “Now, what we’re doing, I want to be clear, we’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that's fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you've made enough money.”
Though President Obama did not actually hurl the “anti-government” epithet in his May 1 Ann Arbor speech, his meaning was unmistakable and the Associated Press was not really wrong in describing it that way. “[Obama] took direct aim at the anti-government language so prevalent today,” said the AP account of the President’s University of Michigan commencement address.
Is Barack Obama a socialist? Ron Paul says he’s not. A lot of you insist he is. The national director of Democratic Socialists of America claims that “the most socialistic candidate in the 2008 election was Sarah Palin.” (Don’t ask me what he’s been smoking.)
If you haven’t stepped inside a college classroom of late, you ought to. There you will see your taxes doing some of their “best” work; there you will discover whence cometh the appellation “rebel” so graciously attached to America’s Founding Fathers.
However small or large a government you consider ideal, whether you’re left, right or center, you probably agree that the military is indispensable and legitimate. You may quibble about its size and purpose (defensive versus policing the world), but almost no one wonders whether we need an army.
The announcement about a year ago by the New York Times that it might close down the venerable Boston Globe, unless the paper could cut costs and begin to make money, came as a shock to many Bostonians. The Times bought the Globe in 1993 for $1.1 billion because it assumed that in an area with Harvard, MIT, Tufts, Boston University, Boston College and other schools of higher leaning, they would have lots of liberal readers and make lots of money. But this much-touted Athens of America, which prides itself on its intellectual history, has become, like the rest of America, a victim of our general literacy decline.