The inevitable has taken place. Osama bin Laden has been killed by American forces. The details are still limited but as reported by FOX News, bin Laden was killed in a firefight on the ground in Pakistan. It is reported that no Americans were injured during the firefight that took bin Laden’s life. As I type this column I can hear the celebrations outside my window here in the heartland of Kansas. Celebrating the death of bin Laden calls for a short discussion on how Americans should act in the aftermath of the U.S. military operation in which a human life was taken. When it comes to the death of the nation’s number one terrorist, Americans should celebrate, should be happy. Allow me to expand on this line of thinking.
There are no illusions that the death of bin Laden will end attempts by terrorists to attack America. For some time terrorists have been trying, and at times succeeding, in acts of terrorism around the world. Many of these acts have been conducted without any input by bin Laden. The death of bin Laden will not end terrorism. With that said, the symbolic nature of bin Laden to terrorists has been twofold. The first being the successful attack on America he orchestrated on September 11, 2001, and the second being this terrorist’s ability to evade American forces. Bin Laden’s evasion from justice has had consequences on America and other countries as he continued to release periodical threat messages that received world coverage. The message to terrorists today with bin Laden’s death is that when you mess with America, it’s just a matter of time before you will be brought to justice. This is a powerful piece of symbolism in America’s favor that will inevitably outweigh attempts to frame bin Laden as a martyr. Now back to celebrating. read more »
Cuba, America’s little communist island neighbor to the south is doing a little bit of government restructuring. Fidel Castro has just finished the last stage of what has been an incremental step-down from power. In 2006, Fidel Castro handed over temporary power to his brother Raúl while the Communist dictator underwent a series of intestinal surgeries. In 2008, Raúl Castro was appointed as president of Cuba but the process was only recently finalized when Cuban President Raúl Castro selected José Ramón Machado as the second in command.
It’s difficult to be a hard-line communist country these days and with China turning its economic system decidedly capitalistic; Cuba remains one of the last closest holdouts to the old Soviet Union days when communism had that true Stalinist red flare. But like all the other countries that have attempted the Marxist quest for utopia, communism is also dying out in Cuba, and dying fast. The first signs of change come straight from President Raúl Castro. As reported by Randal Archibold in the New York Times, President Castro is publicly recognizing that the Cuban economy has major problems, and he is creating a positive environment for small business expansion. Furthermore, the door has been opened for citizens to buy and sell homes. This is a big deal for communist Cuba.
Outwardly, Cuba still raises the communist banner firmly affixed to the island country following the Fidel Castro revolution that began back in 1959. Machado’s appointment temporarily fortified the old communist guard. But even though Machado is an old revolutionary communist hardliner, his appointment also reflects the fragile state of communism in Cuba. The fact of the matter is that communism in Cuba is an old man’s game. The hard-line revolutionaries are simply aging away. Fidel Castro, 84, is not long for this world and his younger brother Raúl, 79, is no spring chicken. Despite talks of bringing in new blood to the higher echelons of Cuban government, Machado, 80, is Cuba’s current backup plan should President Raúl Castro have to step down. Why not bring in some young successors? The Machado appointment is one of necessity for Castro as years of dictatorial power hoarding have created a Cuba that lacks younger hard-line communist blood. The situation now is that the communist country of Cuba is running on the fleeting fear of Fidel and copious amounts of Geritol. read more »
So where does the Tea Party stand today? If you ask that question in different locations you are going to get many different answers. If you listen to lefties such as columnist Ted Reinstein, you will hear that the Tea Party is a dying dinosaur suffering from what he describes as the terminal illness of being uncompromising. Reinstein blames the recent slow budget compromise on unbending Tea Party-supported Republicans who he asserts would destroy the country to get their way. Of course he also portrayed the GOP’s original $100 billion budget cut proposal as “devastating.” Who is living in reality here? Reinstein repeats the same mantra often chanted by liberals that the political right can only be “right” when they act like the left. The Tea Party and their candidate’s refusal to break from conservative values in exchange for liberals’ acceptance continue to be a painful and puzzling enigma to the left. This has brought about many false descriptions.
Back in 2009 liberals like Nancy Pelosi erroneously described the Tea Party as “AstroTurf” and said that attendees were funded by the “high end” with the organization being heavily influenced by the Republican Party. Since that time, Tea Party voters have often voted against liberal Republicans with decent results. Time has made it easy to see that Pelosi was wrong in her “AstroTurf” assessment of the Tea Party but was she wrong because she was attempting to deceive the public or because liberals can’t seem to truly fathom everyday people that champion controlled spending, an adherence to the Constitution and traditional American values? To be fair to Pelosi, Reinstein and other liberals, it’s a hefty amount of both. read more »
There is something endearing about conservatives that don’t mince words, who aren’t afraid to take the battle to today’s liberals with almost reckless abandon. When you mention these sterling knights of no-nonsense, you have to include Doug Giles. Giles, a Town Hall columnist and host of Clash Radio is not bashful about taking his beliefs on the road to Americans across the country. In 2009, heartland radio listeners got an opportunity to hear Giles’ unabashed pro-Americanism on my radio program, Conscience of Kansas. The Miami pastor filled the radio studio with a spirit of bold American grit.
Today Giles is addressing an important issue in the country, the value of raising your kids in a way that prepares them for the jackals of this world. In his new book, “Raising Righteous & Rowdy Girls,” the author not only introduces his daughters to anyone that might not know them already, he also talks about how to raise girls that walk with confidence and think for themselves.
If you are not aware of Giles’ offspring, he has two intelligent, bold daughters, Hannah and Regis Giles. The apple doesn’t fall too far from the tree in this case. Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe went undercover, exposed ACORN and took them down. Posing as a pimp and a prostitute, O’Keefe and Giles videotaped employees at the government-funded community group ACORN advising the two how to lie on tax returns, about occupation and income. They also assisted the undercover duo’s attempt to set up a clandestine house of prostitution. Giles not only participated in the sting of the year in 2009, she also weathered a blitzkrieg of retribution from the exposed ACORN organization. What a strong young woman. read more »
As eager colleges students from around the country prepare to leave school for spring break, many ask the question, where is the best place to go to have the most fun? For parents, the questions that are pondered and even discussed with their children as they prepare to leave are usually somewhat different. Many parents attempt and often stumble through those awkward conversations about the potential dangers of traveling abroad. Common parental concerns for their children on holiday cover the spectrum but often include discussions about avoiding the following: being arrested, impregnating or becoming impregnated by a new intoxicated friend whose name tends to escape recall, all the way down to the embarrassing impromptu left or right-cheeked tattoo. I think you know which cheeks I am talking about. Some of America’s spring breaking youngsters will fail to heed their parents’ well-intentioned advice and the ramifications will range from laughable spring break stories to parents getting late-night phone calls for the need of the family lawyer and a bail deposit. Even in these more unfortunate spring break scenarios, parents of American children expect their kids to return home, straighten-up, and get back to work or school.
The idea of an American citizen’s child being abducted, raped, tortured, shot, beheaded or otherwise murdered for the most part still remains outside the typical parent’s pre-vacation precautionary mindset. Unfortunately, an untimely death does potentially await traveling Americans on vacations such as spring break. What does that mean? It means that there is always of element of danger traveling as a tourist abroad. The American public still has fresh in their minds the case of 18-year-old Natalee Holloway, the young girl that went missing on May 30, 2005, during a chaperoned high school graduation trip in Aruba. Most viewers of this travel tragedy were likely to have been absorbed in the Holloway family drama, or the bizarre statements and actions of the suspect Joran van der Sloot. One of the important lessons almost lost within this national story was that all tourists when abroad are potential victims. The best that can be hoped for is that one maximizes the likelihood of survival with the same vigor that is put into plans for fun and entertainment. Then there is the subject of Mexico. read more »
Recently there has been a push by liberals to advance the homosexual agenda into pivotal areas of American life. Barack Obama’s abolition of “don’t ask don’t tell” in the military has replaced silent service for gays with the requirement that the heterosexual majority of our fighting forces now accommodate a new, aggressive homosexual agenda if they wish to continue to defend the country. The foundation of traditional marriage in American culture is also under full assault. In another stunning attempt to force the homosexual agenda on the American people, Fox News reports that Barack Obama has ordered Attorney General Eric Holder to no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act, the law of the land that states marriage as between a man and a woman, as constitutional. Thus we see the lengths liberals will go to achieve their goals, to fundamentally change society. What many might not be aware of is just how many parts of daily lives are being challenged by the gay agenda and the modus operandi of those involved.
If one looks closely, a repetitious pattern of presentation and action is observable from the liberal left. To start with, some radical change in traditional culture for the greater good is always forwarded, while at the same time the public at large is denied an opportunity to exercise their voices through a vote on the issue. When a people’s vote does slip by the liberal machine, it is later circumvented by a governmental fiat. To liberals, the best societal decisions are best made without society. The issue of how we recognize traditional marriage, the law that Barack Obama is now declaring void without the authority of the courts, as a tyrannical third-world dictator might do, is an issue that has already been decided by the voters. The overwhelming majority of Americans have already voted for traditional marriage as being between a man and a woman. Once again, it would take a complete subversion of the voting majority to attack this Judeo-Christian pillar of American society. Unfortunately, this is not just a Barack Obama problem. The actions of this President are simply a byproduct of a growing problem that has been taking place for some time in this country. In reality, Barack Obama is nothing more than the predictable fruit of the loins of modern-day liberalism, and that fruity fruit has been very fruitful. read more »
As of February 8, 2011, Manhattan, Kansas has created a new mentality for the state. The message is clear: “Christians, beware.” There is a new sheriff in town that goes by the name of LGBT. The acronym “LGBT” stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender and this organization and those that follow under its rainbow banners now wield the power to start a legalized process that could very well shut down local businesses in the city of Manhattan. This new ordinance alteration sends a clear message that the state itself is in an uncertain state of moral decline.
For the gay activist group LGBT, the process for passing a law counter to historical Judeo-Christian values found in the Bible Belt was simple. They just had to keep lobbying and placing pressure on city officials until a liberal voting power block was present that would subvert the majority’s will for the political initiatives of a special interest group. Make no doubt about it, what LGBT and its cohorts are offering Manhattan will be painful and potentially longstanding. The consistently anti-Christian American Civil Liberties Union hosts a page for LGBT and they describe the organization as follows: “The LGBT Project fights discrimination and moves public opinion through the courts, legislatures and public education across five issue areas: Relationships, Youth & Schools, Parenting, Gender Identity and Expression and Discrimination in Employment, Housing and other areas.” read more »
In 1975 advertising executive Gary Dahl had one of the simplest and most rewarding marketing ideas of the decade. He placed a shiny little rock in a box decorated as an animal carrier and offered it to consumers to buy and keep as a “pet.”
Dahl marketed this (unique) product by reminding consumers of the unwanted expense, time and effort that conventional pets take compared to his lovable and low-maintenance “pet rock.” Within a six-month period, the Pet Rock received national fad appeal and Dahl made millions of dollars before market saturation and copycat competitors, in combination with the next line of fanciful fad products greatly diminished the short-lived pet rock craze.
If you asked me if the pet rock changed the world I would say no. However, if you asked me if the Pet Rock, when compared with the colossal Obama health care system that now looms over the country, will be seen as having more of a positive impact over time, I would say absolutely. Liberals will jump out of their skin at such a statement because Obamacare, with all its countless socialistic tentacles, is advertised as a cure-all for so many issues that the list of its potential good deeds is still being written. With all that said, I still pick the rock. Why? While both the Pet Rock and Obamacare fall within the category of goods and services, we have to look deeper to see what they really represent if we really wish to see their impact on the country. read more »
The Democratic Party, if anything, is consistent with their actions. They took advantage of an ideologically weak Republican Party that failed to rein in spending in 2006. Democrats managed to place one of their most liberal politicians into the office of president in 2008 and then proceeded to pass bill after bill that would expand government control by monumental leaps in the hopes of fundamentally transforming the nation.
If we are honest with ourselves, even in this current environment of Obama-buyer’s-remorse, in a best-case scenario only a fraction of the damage this administration has brought upon the country will be nullified. Unfortunately, that is the sunny account at best. Why? Because the Republican Party has become notorious for failing to consistently frame the political landscape that all are asked to play on. Equally as detrimental to the country, when an agenda does exist, Republicans have lacked true convictions that motivate others to join the cause.
Compared to the modern-day Republican Party, Democrats work with great efficiency. Foremost has been their ability to frame the political landscape. Consistently through his administration Obama has used a majority vote to ram his agenda through. Democrats have initiated the most socialistic national restructuring program in American history and claim it is emergency help for the middle class. While pushing their liberal agenda, they have framed Republicans as being the heartless party of “No.” When Democrats have found one of two liberal Republicans to vote their way the story is framed as a Democrat victory with strong bi-partisan support. The recent past has been a repetition of Democrats initiating and Republicans reacting. read more »