 |
What They've Thought
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
What They Thought December 19, 2006 Alan
Caruba Click here for columnist bios |
||||||
When America hit the 300 million mark in October the U.S. Census Bureau held a press conference and their electronic display was on the evening news shows ticking off the numbers of new citizens until it showed…what? It showed there are just way too many people in America if you worry about things like the provision of sufficient energy, dependency on unfriendly nations for our oil imports, overcrowding of cities, uncontrolled immigration, unfunded entitlements, and a whole list of other problems. Hard core ecologists—environmentalists is another name for them—if you get a few drinks in them will tell you we will just have to get rid of a couple of million people every month or so if the Earth is to sustain the six billion taking up space, expecting to be fed every day, driving around in cars or on motorcycles, and making more people. Mark Steyn has written one of the most important books published this year. It’s America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It ($27.95, Regnery Publishing). Steyn deals with demographics, a topic most people in that particular field of scholarly endeavor manage to make so dull you just want to run screaming from the room. It is the study of human population trends. Steyn, however, is a talented writer and therefore knows how to turn statistics into a lively discourse. Demographics have a way of sneaking up on you unnoticed. It’s all those cars and trucks on the road, seemingly driven by maniacs who have no regard for their own lives or yours. I’ll bet you didn’t know that in 2005, traffic deaths reached an all-time high. While the headlines scream about each new U.S. casualty in Iraq, 43,443 people were killed last year, up 1.4 percent from the 42,836 the year before. It was the highest number in any single year since 1990. The ecologists have a virtually unbroken record of getting demographics wrong. As Steyn notes, in 1968 Paul Ehrlich declared in his bestselling book, The Population Bomb, that “In the 1970s the world will undergo famines—hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” Wrong. In 1973, a landmark study by the Club of Rome, The Limits to Growth, announced that the world would run out of gold by 1981, of mercury by 1985, tin by 1987, zinc by 1990, and petroleum by 1992. Wrong. The dumbest man Americans ever elected President, Jimmy Carter, predicted in 1977 that, “we could use up all of the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of next decade.” It is a tribute to the Constitutional system that America actually is able to survive the occasionally stupid or venial man we put in the Oval Office. Former President Clinton is showing up everywhere these days telling anyone who will listen that global warming is going to end life as we know it if we don’t give the United Nations the opportunity to run everything everywhere. Wrong. Meanwhile, most of us toiling away at our daily lives need to focus in on “what really did happen between 1970 and 2000”, says Steyn. “In that period, the developed world declined from just under 30 percent of the global population to just over 20 percent, and the Muslim nations increased from about 15 percent to 20 percent.” Ask the French what that means. They are now into their second year of an all-out Intifada being fought by young Muslims (the press always calls them “youths”) who are burning cars and now buses with people still in them. There are areas in cities throughout Europe where no non-Muslim dares to go these days. “The salient feature of Europe, Canada, Japan, and Russia,” says Steyn, “is that they are running out of babies.” It’s all about fertility rates and, in one developed nation after another the native-born population is not replacing itself as they continue to age and retire, living off the largess of the few young people left to do the work. This is what happens when you create a socialist system that pays for just about everything and promises to take care of you in your old age in case your kids will not. When a nation loses its survival instinct, releasing its native population from the responsibilities of adulthood, someone is going to have to pick up the tab and do the work. Europe imported Muslims. America is ignoring a wholesale invasion of Mexicans. It’s all about the tyranny of numbers. America, we’re told, is the lone superpower in the world. Lord knows we have a mighty military machine. We need it because our major export to the rest of the world is defense or, to put it another way, protection. We’re protecting the Saudi oil fields. We’re protecting the Japanese and South Koreans against a crazy man with nukes. We protect the world’s sea lanes to keep oil and products of every description moving around. We have been protecting Europe since the end of World War II against the Red Menace despite the fact that they have embraced socialism. And do we get any thanks for this? Hell no! That’s because we have lost our talent for waging a really nasty war to reduce our enemy’s cities to rubble and destroy their armies in the field. That’s how wars have always been won in the past. But World War II was a different kind of war you say. You’re right. However, the stakes of the war in which we now find ourselves are no less critical. Thousands of young Muslims led by a fanatical core and funded by those afloat in oil money and religious passion have decided that America does not have the stomach for war. “Our enemies,” Steyn says, “have made a bet—that the West in general and the United States in particular are soft and decadent, and have no attention span.” If your attention span to this brief polemic on demographics and the guts to defend America has begun to wander, Steyn is right. |
||||||
One of the issues the liberals have harped on since the start of the war is the possibility of having to bring back the draft. Then there are those totally awesome whack jobs Kucinich and Kerry. I have to take a moment to comment on Kerry’s military record. Let’s see…. four and a half months in Vietnam and three Purple Hearts. Yeah that’s what I thought. He should not chew gum. One of those Purple Hearts was from a scratch he received after he hit a nearby rock with a rifle grenade. As with all of his subsequent wounds, it was self inflicted. Kucinich is talking about de-funding the war in Iraq. That must be a French name or something. I bet he would have gone for a Purple Heart when he got himself in the eye with that freedom fry if he could have. The liberals will have a very difficult time supporting the war in Iraq because the war was caused by Saddam’s support of anything terrorist related, as well as started by Bush. If it had been Clinton who had started the war the liberals would have no problem and would still be using their old talking points to support it. But the fact remains that these people will now feel obligated to kiss the collective keesters of the collective collectivists (peace activists, or surrender activists if you’re a realist). I remember quite well what the military was starting to look like after Bill Clinton launched them on numerous pointless boondoggles. It was starting to look a lot like one of Cindy Sheehan’s book signings. Those who had a clue about what the military was supposed to do were leaving in droves. They had grown weary of doing things that did not benefit this country in any way other than to make Bill Clinton look good. But the party of John Kerry is now in charge in both the Senate and in the House. I remember well what they did to Vietnam and they will do the exact same thing in Iraq. This will start the emptying out of our military. As the American voters decided to listen to the party of appeasement and demagoguery they began to think that maybe we shouldn’t actually be there in the first place. Hamas, Al-Qaeda, Al-NYT and many other terrorist supporters and terrorist organizations voiced their support for the democrats. America responded by voting out the one party that was actually willing to try to fix a problem that really kicked into overdrive at the start of Bill Clinton’s administration. We had our very first terrorist attack on American soil by a bunch of radical Islamists and he only paid it lip service. He was more interested in Monica Lewinski and disarming the American populace. I guess the American swing voters decided to follow the wisdom of the leaders in the Philippines and Indonesia who realized their error in taking part in the invasion of Iraq. When they removed their troops from Iraq the attacks finally stopped. What genius that was. Cut and run works. It’s really a shame that none of that ever took place. Neither one of those countries were, or ever will be, a part of such an operation. But they are riddled with radical Islamists attacking them from the inside. And that’s the point. That’s just one of the many ways in which it spreads. It spreads from internal strife such as that promoted by Pelosi and her bunch. Worldnetdaily.com ran an excellent article on her. That link is provided at the end of this commentary. But what I’m driving at here is that the swing voters, or mouth breathers as I often call them, have sent a strong message of cowardice. The message has been sent to those who are tasked to defend this country and it might well lead to the draft having to be reinstituted. Another message was sent as well. That quite simply is that America does not have the stomach for doing the right thing. I bet the Chinese government is loving that message. Those people over there who are or were hoping we might just be able to help them have been told no. We’re more interested in shopping for cheap goods provided for by Laogi labor. (Read: slave labor) So prepare to hear that it is Bush’s fault when the military starts to empty out. But you make sure you’re aware that if you voted for this foolishness, it is your fault. May only your children be taken for the stupid missions of the left. For your sake I hope that Pelosi and the rest of them are as arrogant as always and make a mess but are gone before they bring us ruin. Reference
Link: R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||
Dear Conventional Wisdom, So the GOP lost both houses of Congress. What do you make of this? Was the midterm election a rebuke of George Bush’s disastrous Iraq War policies? Sincerely, Dear Stanley in Omaha, The GOP didn’t lose both houses of Congress. That’s just what the media want you to believe. Look, I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: You can’t trust political polling. Especially when the polls use a lever and take place in a booth. You think it’s just a coincidence the Democrats “won”? The pollsters skewed the results by giving voters a choice between the parties. That doesn’t sound like baiting the question to you? • • • Dear Conventional Wisdom, I see Donald Rumsfeld stopped squinting long enough to resign as Defense Secretary. What’s he going to do with his spare time now? We have a job for him here at Burger King. Sincerely, Dear Dejected Lowlife Sentenced to a Lifetime of Burger Flipping, Donald Rumsfeld is going to do the same thing Donald Rumsfeld has always done. He’s going to put his pants on two legs at a time. He’s going to count his chickens weeks before they hatch. If Donald Rumsfeld were an airplane, he would be cleared for a safe landing. I have no concerns about Donald Rumsfeld. You should worry about yourself. • • • Dear Conventional Wisdom, Knock-knock. Who is there? Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney who? I don’t know. Wanna go “lame duck” hunting? Ha ha ha ha ha! Sincerely, Dear Dan Quail, If I were a gun, I would aim for your heart. • • • Dear Conventional Wisdom, There’s been a lot of speculation over Hillary Clinton running for president. What do you think? Will she or won’t she? Sincerely, Dear Miss Lewinsky, Running “for” president? More like she’s running from it. This woman has been stalling to answer this question for years now. There’s a good reason for this. Hillary Clinton understands the name Hillary Clinton is divisive. She stands a much better chance of winning the White House if she waits till after she wins to announce her candidacy. We can’t let her get away with this. • • • Dear Conventional Wisdom, Settle a bet. My brother and I think George Bush is gonna start a new war out of anger. I say North Korea; my brother says Vietnam. Sincerely, Dear Mr. Senator, You and your brother are equally retarded. Why does everyone assume George Bush is ducking Russia and China? The heavyweight title has been fractured for too many years now, and George Bush is the only champion with the cojones to challenge them both to unify the belts. You’ll see. George Bush is the Lennox Lewis of our generation. Except without the dreadlocks. Oh, and the pawing jab. • • • Dear Conventional Wisdom, How comes the new James Bond has blonde hair? Sincerely, Dear Double O’Seven, Let me put it this way. Before you were born, there was a television program known as Bewitched. In it, a guy named Dick York played a character named Darrin. Then Dick York left the show and Dick Sargent played the character. Two guys played Darrin, and both of them were Dicks. Does this answer your question? Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||
The Government Accountability Office, or GAO, is an investigative arm of Congress charged with the thankless task of accounting for the money received and spent by the federal government. As you might imagine, people who spend all day examining the nitty-gritty realities of federal spending and deficits might not share the voters' enthusiasm for grand campaign promises. David Walker, Comptroller General at GAO, has been on a speaking tour of the U.S recently — and he pulls no punches when explaining just how precarious our nation's entitlement system really is. He explains that Social Security and Medicare are headed for a train wreck because of demographic trends and rising health care costs. The number of younger taxpayers for each older retiree will continue to decline. The demand for "free" prescription drugs under Medicare will explode. If present trends continue, by 2040 the entire federal budget will be consumed by Social Security and Medicare. The only options for balancing the budget would be cutting total federal spending by about 60%, or doubling federal taxes. Furthermore, Walker asserts, we cannot grow our way out of this problem. Faster economic growth can only delay the inevitable hard choices. To close the long-term entitlement gap, the U.S. economy would have to grow by double digits every year for the next 75 years. In short, Mr. Walker is telling the political class that the status quo cannot be maintained. He is to be commended for his refreshing honesty and unwillingness to provide excuses for the two political parties, the administration, or the even the entitlement-minded American public. I urge everyone interested to visit the GAO website at www.gao.gov, where you can view a report entitled: "Our Nation's Fiscal Outlook: The Federal Government's Long-Term Budget Imbalance." This report should be required reading for every politician in Washington. Are ever growing entitlement and military expenditures really consistent with a free country? Do these expenditures, and the resulting deficits, make us more free or less free? Should the government or the marketplace provide medical care? Should younger taxpayers be expected to provide retirement security and health care even for affluent retirees? Should the U.S. military be used to remake whole nations? Are the programs, agencies, and departments funded by Congress each year constitutional? Are they effective? Could they operate with a smaller budget? Would the public even notice if certain programs were eliminated altogether? These are the kinds of questions the American people must ask, even though Congress lacks the courage to do so. If we hope to avoid a calamitous financial future for our nation, we must address the hardest question of all: What is the proper role for government in our society? The answer to this question will determine how prosperous and free we remain in the decades to come. Rep. Ron Paul Web Site Back to Top |
||||||
|
No column this week. Nancy
Salvato
Web Site Contact
Back to Top
|
||||||
©2004-2006 by their respective authors. Reprinted by permission. |
||||||
|
news | constitution | bill of rights | our view | your view | their view awards to win | awards we've won | resources | goodie shoppe our mission | about us | contact us | privacy policy | site map | home This page last updated on Tuesday, November 21, 2006 2:33 AM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
||||||
|
site content ©2002-2006 site design by |
||||||
