Neal Boortz~~~~FREEDOM? NO THANKS
Friday -- January 21, 2005
boortz.com
If you can believe this, President Bush's Inaugural speech is catching flack from some quarters, particularly American leftists and Euro-weenies, because he used the "F" word 27 times. This is an "F" word that is even more offensive to the left than the "F" word. Yup ... Bush said "Freedom" at least 27 times during the speech.
Evidently Bush didn't get the booklet of instructions for Presidents making State of the Union or Inaugural speeches. You're supposed to talk about security, not freedom. Bush was talking about spreading freedom around the world, and much of the world was having none of it.
What is the problem with freedom? I think that the biggest problem is that people realize that along with personal freedom comes personal responsibility. To be sure, Americans will say nice things about freedom ... right up until the time that personal responsibility rears its ugly head. Freedom of speech? Sure, that takes no real effort. Freedom of religion? No problem there. It doesn't really require you to actually do anything. Introduce responsibility and consequences for irresponsibility, and the love of freedom suddenly wanes.
I saw a good example of the limited American love affair with freedom yesterday on CNN. Three women from three generations were being interviewed; grandmother, mother and daughter. They were being questioned on President Bush's privatization plans for Social Security. The grandmother was against it. She said that this would be like the government teaching people to gamble. She equates investing in the stock market to gambling, and has decided that it is wrong. Let the government take your money, and then dole it out to you later. Now that's just fine.
The daughter was particularly troubling. On the one hand she said that she had no confidence at all that there were going to be any Social Security benefits for her when she reached retirement age, whatever that retirement age might be. On the other hand she said that she wasn't in favor of privatization because she didn't want to have to go to the trouble of making decisions on how her retirement money should be invested. She would just rather have the government do it for her.
More examples? They're not difficult to find. Just go to the basic levels of our society. Should you be free to negotiate with an employer on the basis of salary? No ... we need a minimum wage. Should you be free to buy a health insurance policy that doesn't include pregnancy benefits? No .. the government stands in the way. Should you be free to chose who is going to come into your home and tell you what drapery fabric would look good with your throw pillows? No. The government tells you who you can and can't hire for that job. Do people complain? Do they protest? Not a bit. Just accept the government controls and regulations and move on.
There is another troubling aspect of our lost love for freedom. When freedom isn't cherished people are opposed to paying a price to make freedom secure. The United States is trying to introduce freedom into the heart of the tyrannical Arab World. As in the past, people are dying in the effort. Now we have people saying that it's peace, not freedom that matters. That might sound good until you realize that by "peace" they simply mean the absence of armed conflict. Tyranny? Fine. Not even the most basic of freedoms? No problem ... as long as there's peace. Today an astounding number of people, principally on the left, believe that peace without freedom is just fine, thank you very much.
I've been watching Inauguration and State of the Union speeches for years. I've read almost every State of the Union speech ever delivered. Over the decades there were some obvious changes. Take the word "democracy," for instance. You never saw that word in a State of the Union speech until sometime around the 1930's. The idea of "democracy" suddenly became popular when politicians sought to expand the power of the state beyond anything imagined by our Constitution. To do this they needed to cite the "will of the people." Majority rule moved the rule of law aside, and our modern "democracy" was born. Along with the arrival of the "D" word came disappearing references to freedom and more emphasis on security ... government provided security. George Bush's speech yesterday was a marked difference from this trend. Too bad it fell on so many deaf and unwilling ears.
THE INAUGURAL PROTESTERS
Yesterday there were numerous groups of people protesting President Bush's inauguration to a second term. (By the way....if you want to see a leftist faint, remind them that Bush will be in office until January 20, 2009.) Anyway, back to the protesters. They were all either dressed up in some way or manner so as to mock the president, or they were carrying signs. Let's take a look at a few of the most common ones.
Remember Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo/No Torture - How quaint. The only problem with this sign is that so far, no real torture has come to light in these two places. Mishandling of detainees? Sure. Those responsible are being prosecuted. Torture? Nah. Try again.
Bush Lied/People Died. This one goes back a long way. The 'Bush Lied' line refers to no WMD being found in Iraq. Well, if Bush lied, then so did Kerry, because he voted for the war based on the same intelligence. Sorry, but the only way you can lie about something is if you know it to be false when you state it. In the WMD case, Bush did not lie. Sorry liberals...but it's a catchy phrase, but it's not true, not that you really care.
He's Not My President. This has to be the dumbest of the dumb. George W. Bush is the legitimately elected President of the United States just like Bill Clinton was. He's everyone's president, whether they like it or not. Too bad. If the left wants "their" president in office, then maybe they'll be a little bit more careful about who they nominate next time.
And on and on. You get the idea. By the way, did you see the protesters that got it with the pepper spray for throwing things at Bush's motorcade? Ouch.
Oh .. and don't forget, the principal organizers of yesterday's demonstrations were socialists, communists and assorted leftist fellow travelers. These are people who don't believe that you should be allowed to take your money and invest it, or take your money and use it to start a business ... hire people .. and make money. Too bad the press doesn't do more to identify these morons for who they really are.
More photos here.
BUSH IS GOING TO LOSE THE SOCIAL SECURITY FIGHT
And this means that America loses. It's becoming increasing clear that Republicans just don't have any heart for the fight.
Here's an obscenity for you: Democrats are trying to defend this hideous program on the basis of freedom. They say that Social Security gives old people freedom from want. They also say that the benefits are guaranteed. They are not. All Social Security benefits are subject to the whim of the Congress. That is not a guarantee.
Democrats are telling Social Security recipients "Don't' be scared. We can fix this problem." Yeah .. they can fix the problem. They can fix the problem the way Democrats always fix problems. Raise taxes. Seize more money. Transfer more income.
The AARP declared war on the young people of this country. The younger generations put up little or no fight, Republicans are defecting, and the AARP is getting a victory. By the time this whole Social Security Ponzi scheme collapses I'll be laughing at the rest of you from a boat cruising the Florida inter-coastal waterways. Knock yourselves out, you cowards. Remember .. the government will take care of you.
THE HILDABEAST CHANGES HER SPOTS
Hillary Clinton is running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008. She wants to be the president of the United States, but she knows her very liberal positions on the issues won't be very popular in the red states she will have to win to be successful. So since she can see the writing on the wall, she is going to have to essentially become somebody else politically in order to get elected. So the extreme makeover has begun.
First up was illegal immigration. Suddenly, The Hildabeast is most concerned about illegal aliens in this country. It's about time somebody is. This is a carefully calculated move at getting votes from the right. It will work, because much of the Republican party is not in favor of cracking down on the illegals. So that was step 1.
Now Hillary has figured out that American voters are generally a religious bunch. Looking over the results of the last election, she sees that this mattered to people. So Wednesday night she gave a speech at a fund-raising dinner for an organization that promotes faith-based solutions to social problems. Among her remarks: "There is no contradiction between support for faith-based initiatives and upholding our constitutional principles." She also said religious people should be allowed to "live out their faith in the public square."
What's next...Hillary Clinton proposing tax cuts? Just like her husband, she'll do whatever it takes to acquire power. Then watch out.
YOU GOTTA WONDER ....
A woman in Los Angeles has made an allegation that Bill Cosby groped her. It happened a year ago, and she's just now coming forward with her groping charge. Maybe so, maybe not. But you have to wonder if this charge may have anything to do with Cosby's courageous statements about black culture in America. Cosby has been speaking a truth that stings ... maybe a little retribution was in order. I'm sure that there are more than a few people who would like to see him discredited.
WAY TO GO ABC!
I heard about this on Brit Hume's Fox News Channel program last night, and got the rest of the information from Drudge. It seems that on Wednesday morning, the day before the Inauguration, ABC News posted a little announcement on its website. Here is what that announcement said:
For a possible Inauguration Day story on ABC News, we are trying to find out if there any military funerals for Iraq war casualties scheduled for Thursday, Jan. 20. If you know of a funeral and whether the family might be willing to talk to ABC News, please fill out the form below.
The blogger who first brought this bit to the blogosphere made an interesting comment. He said "that only the families of Iraqi war dead need apply. If a soldier died in Afghanistan, or aiding tsunami victims in Indonesia or Sri Lanka, or in a training exercise, never mind. That isn't the 'balance' ABC is looking for."
As soon as ABC realized that their little request was getting some publicity, it was pulled from their website. The intent was clear. ABC wanted to rain on Bush's parade with a gut-wrenching story about a soldier being buried on the day Bush was sworn in for his second term. Tell me there's no bias in the media.
READING ASSIGNMENTS
In case you missed it, here is the full text of President Bush's inauguration speech. If you've got a high-speed Internet connection and 22 minutes to spare, you can watch it here.
Peggy Noonan says that the speech left her with a bad feeling.
Of Bush's speech, The Wall Street Journal says: "Not since JFK in 1960 has an American President provided such an ambitious and unabashed case for the promotion of liberty at home and abroad."
In a review of the president's speech, The Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes says Bush knocked down the wall between idealists and realists.
Because Bush's views fall out of the liberal mainstream, he is being considered a revolutionary. Jonah Goldberg says Bush is one in a long, distinguished line.
Even that liberal Clinton Democrat Lanny Davis likes George Bush. But did he vote for him? Probably not. Interesting column, for the most part.
The black community is splintering and can no longer be counted as an automatic in the Democratic column. Stanley Crouch says you need look no further than Bush's appointment of Condoleezza Rice.
The media seems to be most upset that President Bush's approval rating is lower than Richard Nixon's was at re-election. Of course, all of this masks the real disappointment by the media, and that's that Bush was re-elected. The Media Research Center reports.
What a difference 4 years makes. Jeff Jacoby points out that when President Bush was sworn in originally, he was most concerned with domestic priorities and changing the tone in Washington. Then came September 11th, as Jeff Jacoby points out.
Now that we are several years into the war on terror, Charles Krauthammer pauses to look at the scorecard. He points out that democracy is indeed spreading around the world and notes the successes.
Democrats just a few years ago were running around telling us that Social Security was in a state of crisis and needed to be fixed right away. What's' changed? Other than the occupant of the Oval Office, David Limbaugh says nothing. |
