Who's Really Looking Out For 'The Poor'

By: Shane

Since LBJ first had the idea of a Great Society and began to implement massive socialist reforms, the Left has vastly redefined poverty to further their socialist agenda and welfare policy.

As the Washington think tank The Heritage Foundation points out, a rich man used to own a horse, and a poor man had to walk. These days a rich man owns a BMW and a poor man makes due with a used Buick. The difference between rich and poor in America has become merely aesthetic. When we think of poverty, we imagine people who are homeless and starving to death. This just isn’t the case. Liberals and the media have redefined poverty to include anyone who can’t afford to buy the luxury items that the average working American enjoys.

The Heritage foundation's data shows that “Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.” On top of that, 76% of “poor” households have air-conditioning, 75% own cars, 97% have colored televisions (more than 50% own two or more colored TVs), 78% have VCRs or DVD players, 62% have cable or satellite, 73% have microwaves, more than 50% have stereo systems, and 33% have dishwashers.

Welfare isn’t just going to people who could actually use it - the people who are starving on the streets with no place to sleep at night. A vast majority of it is going to people who are simply too lazy to find work. And why would they want to work when they can have a higher quality of living than the average citizen of Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe without lifting a finger?

The Left thrives on creating class warfare; convincing people that they are victims who need the government’s help. This is how they get votes, basically buying them by promising people who feel a sense of entitlement government paychecks for doing absolutely nothing. While the Left is exploiting the poor to gain power, you and I are paying for it through the countless taxes the Left has placed on practically everything, including sales tax on the things we buy, sin taxes on alcohol and tobacco, taxes on services such as auto repair and movie tickets, and taxes on our income, among many others.

If you want a government handout, you’d better actually need it, and not just be sitting in a nice house with the AC blasting watching your TV or driving to the mall to pick up some new clothes (and grabbing some groceries with your food stamps while your out). When a vast majority of welfare recipients have a better standard of living then most Europeans, you know the system is no longer helping those in need, but has become a means of redistributing wealth that's so sneaky Lennon, Marx and Mao would be impressed.

If the Left really cared about the poor they would stop stifling economic growth in America with their incessant taxes and regulations. Cutting taxes not only increases government revenue, but it allows the private sector to flourish, creating more high paying jobs, effectively reducing poverty. Government enforced minimum wage laws lead to an increase in unemployment, hurting the poor. Instead of making $5 an hour like they would before a minimum wage increase, many low skill workers would be fired by employers who couldn't afford to pay the new higher wages. Then they make no money at all; how does that help them? By attempting to restrain an increasingly intrusive government from hindering the free market, conservatives are the ones who are really looking out for the poor. Liberals have simply locked America's poor in a vicious cycle of poverty, and all so they could get a few more votes. Ask yourself; who's really helping the poor?

Shane is a writer for the conservative news blog UnrestInTheForest.BlogSpot.com. His other articles can be found here.

Can A Catholic Be A Democrat?

By: Shane

I was recently given a book called " Can a Catholic be a Democrat?" To tell you the truth, I probably won't read the book (although I hear good things about it), because it's bound to be 220 pages of "no."

Is this a question that really needs asking, "can a devout Catholic be a faithful Democrat?" I think we all know the answer. The Church has 5 non-negotiable issues. Any candidate that supports these issues cannot be supported or voted for by a Catholic, simple as that. To do so would be a sin. What are these five non-negotiable issues? To list them off sounds like one is reading the Democratic platform: embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia, and human cloning.

Notice the absence of "war for oil," the death penalty, and tax cuts.

The Dems have continued to support embryonic stem cell research, despite the fact that it has yet to show any hint of promise for curing diseases, because it furthers their baby-killing agenda. Life is cheap to liberals, and to create any benefit from the destruction of unborn life is to further prop up their barbaric need for what is ultimately the "right" to promiscuous, risk-free sex (aka, abortion).

The Dems have shown again and again that, against the will of the US public, they will support gay marriage with every ounce of effort they posses. Many feel gay marriage cost John Kerry the 2004 election. Dems have no respect for the institution of marriage and will sell it out to any and every gay, bigamist, or animal lover that will give them a vote.

As far as abortion goes, the Dems have religiously protected this "right" (and that's about the only thing they'll do religiously) since the first woman was "forced" to kill her unborn child with a coat hanger. The Dems put this issue above all else, and will not budge on it. They flat-out support the murder of unborn children.

The Dems showed us all a while back that euthanasia wasn't just a dream of theirs when they had Terri Schiavo starved to death against her mother and father's wishes. Adding to the "can a Democrat be a Catholic" argument, they wouldn't even allow a dieing Schiavo a measly crumb of Holy Eucharist.

Can a Catholic be a Democrat? Sure. But will that Dem be a Catholic in way other than name? Certainly not. The Democratic party's platform is almost in complete contradiction to the teachings of the Catholic faith (with the exception, perhaps, of Catholic Social Teaching, which fits perfectly due to it's heavy borrowing from Socialism). All five of the Catholic church's non-negotiable issues seem to be taken directly from the Democratic party's platform. To vote Democrat is, in almost all cases, wrong and against Church teachings. "Catholic" politicians such as Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) and Jennifer Granholm (D, MI) should be excommunicated for their support of abortion.

Can a devout Catholic be a faithful Democrat? Absolutely not!

Shane is a writer for the conservative news blog UnrestInTheForest.BlogSpot.com. His other articles can be found here.

Fan Mail? I Wish...

By: Shane

Well, I'll be pretty busy for the next week, and so I don't really have time to write a decent article. So I'm going to use an old trick, and recycle some old material. When I wrote an article tearing apart the federal minimum wage, I got an email from a misguided man claiming to be a conservative. After insulting the article as "simplistic", he said, "Any true member of the 'right wing' as you claim to be at your blog would not take the position that you do. Please refrain from using the term 'right wing' to describe your political affiliation in the future. It gives the rest of us a bad name."

Obviously, I couldn't let this fly. This man was obviously confused as to what a conservative was, and if there's anything I can't stand, it's a misguided conservative. I wrote him back, saying, "I'm sorry, but if you are so enlightened I would like to hear what you believe the 'right wing' stance on a federal minimum wage would be. Just to avoid confusion (on your behalf) I would remind you that 'right wing' does mean 'conservative'." I may have been slightly rude, but I honestly wanted to hear his opinion (not to mention; he called my article "simplistic." The nerve!)

He wrote me back quite a long email listing four points about the government and conservatism. It was obvious that he was confused, and so I wrote him back to refute a few of his points; not for the sake of argument, but because I wanted to set him straight if he was going to be going around claiming to be a conservative. And so, now we come to my response, which is long and will fill space. I wrote back:

...You say that "Conservatives are concerned with kids and families which is why you're no conservative." Unfortunately, and I'm not attacking your intelligence, you need to understand that conservatives follow the mantra of "don't just care, think!" I laid out in my article how minimum wage laws at a federal level do little to help, and in fact hurt the economy.

Conservatism, by definition, is a belief in smaller government, particularly in the economic sphere. Government has no business telling businesses what to do. Whether you agree with this or not, it is the conservative stance.

You also say, "If a man takes a job at the current minimum wage and can't live off the proceeds, then he'll need to collect welfare or some other subsidy probably from the government to survive which will accrue to the benefit of the employer. " This is unfortunately true; our current welfare state hurts the economy drastically and exacerbates many problems, such as teenage pregnancy and illegal immigration. However, the solution is not to abandon our conservative beliefs by involving government in business, but to eliminate the welfare state. You don't fight liberalism with liberalism.

In response to "...if we're still in need of a few more jobs we could raise tariffs on Chinese imports (diminishing the proceeds they have available to expand their military)..." I'd have to point out that free trade is a legitimate point of disagreement between many conservatives; I happen to be a free trade conservative, believing that, like minimum wage, tariffs hurt more people than they help.

Look at steel tariffs, for instance. We put them in place to help the US steel industry. But for every worker in the steel industry, there were 10 in industries that relied on steel. Tariffs raised prices and hurt all of those in industries that relied on steel for the benefit of the few in the steel industry.

I should point out also that, contrary to your statement, "Imports would be cut, the trade deficit would be improved..." tariffs would not help the trade deficit, as never has a tariff been put in place without a retaliatory tariff also being put in place. If we stopped buying Chinese products, they would stop buying what few American products they do...

And there you have it; defense of my article on minimum wage. Sorry I didn't have time to write a full article this week, but I hope this old material was enjoyable and educational. After all; it is a private email and, therefore, should be new to you!

Shane is a writer for the conservative news blog UnrestInTheForest.BlogSpot.com. His other articles can be found here.

Hezbollah's Victory Over Israel

By: Shane

Just days after the UN security council completed its resolution to "end the conflict in Lebanon" Hezbollah was claiming victory over Israel. Hezbollah fighters reportedly hugged each other and celebrated with gunfire and fireworks. Hezbollah's leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah claimed a "strategic, historic victory." Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday that Hezbollah has "hoisted the banner of victory" over Israel. All of the Middle East was in celebration at the "defeat" of the Jews. The UN saw the resolution as a success, probably because they would side with terrorist 9 times out of 10 rather than side with Israel.

However, Hezbollah and Iran weren't the only ones claiming victory. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert also claimed victory, saying the offensive eliminated the "state within a state" and restored Lebanon's sovereignty in the south. President Bush also weighed in, claiming that Hezbollah suffered defeat at the hands of Israel. "There's going to be a new power in the south of Lebanon," he said.

So who is right? Israel and the West, or Hezbollah and all of its radical Islamic supporter throughout the Middle East. Sadly, I see little support of the statements that Israel removed the "state within a state" and that "there's going to be a new power in the south of Lebanon." On the contrary, it appears that this "cease-fire" is not a sign of lasting peace in the Middle East, but what every conservative talking head will tell you it is: a chance for Hezbollah and other radical Islamic groups to rearm and regroup.

Just days after the "cease-fire" and shortly after Hezbollah claimed a "historic victory" over Israel, reports came that thousands of "Jihadis" were preparing to leave the "moderate" Islamic state of Indonesia and head for Lebanon to join "a declared Jihad against Israel." The "Jihadis" were reportedly financed by "Muslim businessmen." If this alone isn't evidence enough that the supposed "cease-fire" is a sham, meant to allow Hezbollah to regroup, then I don't know what is.

The day after the "Indonesian Jihadis" story came out, the New York Times did something they had been refusing to do throughout the duration of the Israel-Lebanon/Hezbollah conflict; they acknowledged Hezbollah's presence in southern Lebanon. The New York Times piece praises Hezbollah for all they are doing to help rebuild the "devastated" cities of southern Lebanon. They story says that Iran promised Hezbollah an "unlimited budget" for reconstruction after victory. The story even quotes Hezbollah's leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah as saying, "Completing the victory can come with reconstruction."

I'm sorry, we're supposed to believe that there's "going to be a new power in south Lebanon" and that Hezbollah's power structure has been eliminated there when, according to the New York Times, Hezbollah "is already dominating the efforts to rebuild with a torrent of money from oil-rich Iran?" If anything, this is making Hezbollah more respected in the eyes of the people of southern Lebanon. Hezbollah is no doubt not just rebuilding southern Lebanon as a powerful propaganda tool, but also to restore their cover, amongst civilians, for when they restart their Jihad against Israel.

The "cease-fire" wouldn't work even if everyone obeyed it. How can Israel declare victory when Hezbollah is still in southern Lebanon, they didn't get their kidnapped soldiers back, and they didn't get the terms they requested on a "buffer zone" in southern Lebanon? However, the situation is made worse by the fact that Hezbollah is not following the "cease-fire." Hezbollah has refused to disarm, as the "cease-fire" calls for, and Lebanon has done little about it. Rather than demand that Hezbollah disarm, Lebanon has just asked that the terrorist group keep its arms "off the street." Considering they can launch rockets from the roofs of schools and Mosques, that shouldn't be a problem for them.

So, what does Israel get for giving in to "international demands" from liberals around the world? They certainly didn't get a victory. Hezbollah is rebuilding its strength in southern Lebanon, "Jihadis" are flooding in to southern Lebanon from other Islamic states including Indonesia, Israel achieved few of its goals (if any), Hezbollah is not disarming, and the international community still treats Israel like a group of war criminals.

Let's hope that this "cease-fire" is a learning experience for Israel. Let's hope that they learn that there is nothing to be gained from giving in to "international pressure" from liberals in Europe and the UN. Let's hope that they also learn that there is only one way to rid the world of terrorism, and that is to defeat it. Terrorists do not make treaties, do not obey resolutions, and ignore cease-fires. As long as there are terrorists bent on an Islmo-fascist world regime, and freedom loving democracies, there will be fighting in the world. The question is; which side do you support, that of freedom, or that of tyranny?

Shane is a writer for the conservative news blog UnrestInTheForest.BlogSpot.com. His other articles can be found here.

Liberals Are Still On The Terrorists' Team

By: Shane

One would think that the recently foiled terror plot in the UK would turn the opinion of all of those who oppose fighting Islamic terrorists around the globe. The recent foiled plot in the UK is only one of a number of recent terror related events; we had the Egyptian students visiting on student visas who have gone missing, we have the two Ohio men (both Arab Muslims) arrested with thousands in cash, flight manifests, maps of Wall Marts throughout three states, and disposable cell phones, and now we have dozens of Muslims arrested in the UK with the intention of blowing up ten or so airplanes, mid-flight.

However, all of this has done very little to change the minds of radical lefties who are too opposed to anything that could be seen as anti-Muslim, pro-Bush to come to the sensible conclusion that, as President Bush said, "...this nation is at war with Islamic Fascists. " One liberal blogger posted his feelings about news of the UK terror plots, saying, "the first thought I had upon reading about a terror plot to blow up 10 or so in-flight planes was: Is this a genuine plot, or is it the Bush admin dictating yet another 'Oh wow, this is serious. Honest. No, really, this time, we mean it. Swear to God.'" This liberal has been so blinded by his own demagoguery that he has come to believe the Bush administration would lie about a terror plot.

I'll admit, it is very odd that the terrorist seem to wait until around election cycles to remind everyone that there is still an Islamic threat out there. It would far better serve their goals to not remind everyone to vote for Republicans, who want to defend the country, rather than Democrats, who want to appease Islamic Fascists. Of course, they probably assume that we'll act cowardly like the Spanish did and elect a cut-and-runner after a terror attack. Unfortunately for them, we're not the Spanish, and we're not cowards.

Well, I should clarify; the majority of Americans, conservative Americans, are not cowards. That's more than I can say for our liberal counterparts, who seem to be willing to do anything to avoid fighting Islamic terrorism "in Baghdad rather than Baltimore," as the saying goes, including outing 18-year incumbent Democrat Joe Lieberman, who voted with the Democrats more than 90% of the time, but made the fatal error of supporting the war on terror - an unforgivable sin in the lefties' eyes.

Liberals everywhere are denying the importance of the thwarted UK terror plot. After all, let's concentrate on what's really important; faked Israeli war crimes! The lefties are also harping that this is all Bush's fault. Says another blogger over at Daily Kos, "Today, we can see again what Britain gets for being a staunch ally of Bush. They get home-grown terrorists, bombings, and more terrorist plots." Once again, the libs revert back to their strategy of appeasement: If the British had left the terrorists alone, then they would be attacking Israel and the US, not the UK! And who do you think they'll attack after they've finished killing all of the Americans and the Jews? Anyone who opposes living under Islamic Fascist rule, which I think would probably include most of the UK.

Liberals have already done their best to cripple law enforcement in their constant hunt for terrorists. They have shot down legislation, claiming it infringes on Constitutional rights that don't even exist. They have attacked policies that they say would "hurt someones feelings." For liberals, political correctness is king. Racial quotas are fine, but racial profiling isn't? More than 20 people have been arrested in connection with the UK terror plots, chances are they were all Muslims.

One sure way to stop the five, possibly ten, who are still on the loose from carrying out terrorist attacks would be to search all Arab men boarding planes. Instead, they're searching everyone, banning carry-on luggage, and banning all liquids. Mothers are being made to drink their baby formula before taking it on a plane, and all so we don't hurt any one's feelings. Political correctness is winning out over common sense; as one author said, "Why search for the needle in the entire barn when you know it's in the hay stack?"

Liberals will never believe in the war on terrorism. They see it as a flawed ideology. They can not go along with it since they lack a belief in right and wrong, good and evil. The recent UK terror plot is nothing more to the lefties than a tactic by the Bush administration to scare Americans. It is not significant to them that almost every major terrorist attack in the last few decades has been carried out by Muslims, just a coincidence. If anything, the left's response to the foiled UK terror plot should serve as a reminder to Americans why they shouldn't give their votes to liberals in November; because liberals will do everything they can to help terrorists destroy America.

Shane is a writer for the conservative news blog UnrestInTheForest.BlogSpot.com. His other articles can be found here.

Plan B: Just Another Abortion Pill

By: Shane

With the possibility of the FDA approving the "morning after pill," or "Plan B" for over the counter sale, I find it important to point out that there is a debate to be made here. Liberals would have the American people think that Plan B is simply a contraceptive, meant to prevent conception, and that conservatives are just being moral bigots who want to force their religious beliefs on poor women in rural areas.

However, Plan B is not just a contraceptive, Plan B has every possibility of causing an abortion, and is therefore an abortion pill.

Liberals go on and on about how conservatives want to take away a woman's right to choose. However, in the Plan B debate, they say that conservatives are just being silly. Plan B isn't even an abortion pill! They say. One user on the liberal blog "The Daily Kos" elegantly stated, "...this fundamentalist bulls--t over Plan B ( which does not even cause an abortion) is of no surprise to me." Another said, "It needs to be screamed to the heavens that Plan B is not the abortion pill. It kills nothing. It harms nothing. No life is lost. It stops abortions. " (emphasis added).

This seems to be the predominant line of thinking among most liberals, that Plan B is not and abortion pill. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The FDA, in describing how Plan B works, noted that, "Plan B acts primarily by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary (ovulation). It may prevent the union of sperm and egg (fertilization). If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation). If a fertilized egg is implanted prior to taking Plan B, Plan B will not work." (again, emphasis added).

It makes all the difference here that Plan B can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. Abortion opponents believe that life begins at conception (when the sperm fertilizes the egg) not implantation. Therefore, stating that a fertilized egg is safe once it has implanted is pointless. What matters is the safety of that newly formed life, formed at fertilization, a life that can be ended by Plan B through the prevention of implantation.

Liberals have tried to separate the Plan B debate from the abortion debate by claiming that Plan B does not cause abortions. Unfortunately, this is not true. Many liberals may believe it is true - it has been restated so many times that it has become "conventional wisdom" - others may just be lying, knowing that the knowledge that Plan B can cause the death of an unborn child would greatly lower its chances of approval for over the counter sales.

It is important that the fact that Plan B is an abortion pill be part of the debate. As a conservative, I would argue against Plan B regardless with the standard "promotes promiscuity" debate. However, with the knowledge that Plan B is an abortion pill, the debate shifts from bettering American society, to saving lives. It also makes the issue one that much more of the public cares about. You won't find many people who want to talk about contraception, but abortion is an issue in which few people consider themselves "neutral."

Once the "conventional wisdom" that Plan B is not an abortion pill is done away with, liberals will have to revert from cheap shots about conservatives' "moral bigotry" to the hard task of defending abortion. Liberals have had too easy of a job in claiming that the "religious right" has been doing everything it can to prevent the FDA from allowing Plan B over the counter because they are prudes who don't want people having sex. The fact is that conservatives don't like unborn, helpless children being murdered, and defiantly don't want an easy, over the counter "solution" to pregnancy.

Many pharmacists are starting to come out and say that they would not be willing to hand out Plan B for "moral reasons". One liberal equated this with a vegan grocery store clerk being unwilling to sell meat. While this is a ridiculous argument, it does say something about the left's respect for human life. No doctor can be forced to perform an abortion, and no pharmacist should be forced to hand out a drug that could do the same. These pharmacists aren't making political statements about their beliefs on contraception, they're saying that they will take no part in the killing of an unborn infant. The knowledge that Plan B is an abortion pill clarifies this, and makes it harder for liberals to argue for laws saying that pharmacists and pharmacies should be forced to provide Plan B.

The facts show that Plan B is an abortion pill. It can, and sometimes does, prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg. This is a fact that has been lost from the debate, perhaps intentionally. Conservatives can not let this happen. It must be known and debated that Plan B is an abortion pill because the lives of millions of unborn children are on the line. If liberals want to debate abortion, that is fine. Lying about the facts, however, is not.

Shane is a writer for the conservative news blog UnrestInTheForest.BlogSpot.com. His other articles can be found here.

Minimum Wage Hurts More Than It Helps

By: Shane

Congress is considering a bill that would mean a couple of tax cuts, including one for the heirs of multimillionaires, in exchange for an increase in the minimum wage. Increasing the minimum wage certainly goes against everything conservatives believe about economics, such as not stifling the economy with ridiculous government intervention.

The thinking behind the bill is that conservatives can pass a minimum wage hike now, and prevent liberals from using minimum wage as an issue to energize voters and get them to the polls in November. As stupid as this is, it looks like it may happen, with many "big-name" Republicans supporting the idea. One has to wonder if it is really worth a few extra votes to hurt the economy? And an increase in minimum wage would certainly hurt the economy.

First, let's look at the flip-side of this bill. Along with the minimum wage increase, conservatives have tacked on tax breaks. Tax breaks are almost always good for the economy. Even tax breaks for the "heirs of multimillionaires" are most likely better than the alternative: the government taking the money, spending a large chunk of it on bureaucracy, and then spewing out what's left at random, destroying the free market's ability to provide economic indicators which lead to a healthy, efficient, and vigorous economy with more of the jobs, services, and goods we need.

Not to mention that tax breaks for the "rich" lead to more jobs. When the rich have more money, they not only spend it, but they also invest it. Tax breaks simply lead to more jobs and a healthier economy. Also, cutting taxes generally leads to higher tax revenues, as fewer people try to avoid taxes and more companies and people come to America.

Minimum wage laws, on the other hand, force employers to hire fewer employees than they need or want, and destroy jobs for low skill workers - also known as "the poor." Wages usually increase for many others when there is a minimum wage increase, since most people think "if he got a raise, I want a raise." Unionized workers often have contracts that base wages on a differential above the minimum wage.

These wage increases across the board may seem like a good thing, but they are not. Employers can not simply say, "OK, Mr. Government, we'll start paying our employees more money." It is ridiculous and ignorant to think that companies can or would absorb the extra costs. Companies either need to raise prices on goods to pay for the higher wages, or fire (and hire fewer) people.

And it probably won't be the middle-class worker in the office or the restaurant manager who is hurt by these effects. It will be the low-skill workers loading trucks and flipping burgers who will be fired. Increasing the minimum wage makes it harder for low-skill workers to find work. Minimum wage hurts the poor, it doesn't help them.

Say you're an unemployed single father of two with no education and very few marketable skills. You're struggling to find a job, but none are available. A local restaurant is willing to hire you as a cook for $4 an hour, and you'd be willing to take the job. But since the government wants to help the poor, they've established a minimum wage of $7 an hour. The restaurant just can't afford to pay you that much, and so you don't get the job, you can't pay your bills, you lose your home, and can't feed your children. See how the government hurts when it's trying to help?

Even if you do keep your job, why should you be happy about a few extra bucks an hour? The increased cost to employers means an increase in the price of goods and services. Employees are one of many expenses that go into making a good. If the price of an employee goes up, than the cost of, say, a burger at a fast food restaurant will go up. Just like if the price of beef went up the price of that burger would increase. So, you may end up with a few extra bucks, but the price of everything you pay for will also increase slightly.

So, what are the effects of this bill likely to be? The tax cuts will benefit the economy, making it run better and possibly creating more jobs. However, most of these tax cuts were already in place, so that won't improve the economy, only keep it from getting worse. Increasing the minimum wage will lead to fewer jobs for those who need them most and more expensive goods for everyone, including those who won't get a pay raise. As usual, instead of helping the poor, the government is hurting them.

Shane is a writer for the conservative news blog UnrestInTheForest.BlogSpot.com. His other articles can be found here.

Why Do Liberals Hate Israel?

By: Shane

Why do liberals hate Israel? An interesting question with a simple answer; Israel stands for everything liberals seem to be fighting to destroy: peace, freedom, and democracy. Israel, for a long time, was the only functioning democracy in the Middle East until we ("we" being conservative Americans) blew the crap out of Saddam's regime and the Taliban, planting the seeds of democracy in the Middle East. Soon we had a free Iraq, a free Afghanistan, the people of Lebanon crying for freedom from the occupying Syrians, Egypt holding free but faulty elections, and even the Saudis implementing some semblance of local government, freely elected but without real power.

Liberals have long hated the idea of the United States, or anyone for that matter, battling large, totalitarian, oppressive regimes. Liberals chose to contain rather than combat communism. Liberals chose to ignore rather than combat islamo-fascism. Liberals chose to appease and ignore rather than combat terrorists. Israel, a free society in a sea of oppressive Islamic states, no doubt angers liberals because it stands for freedom.

Liberals hate war, fighting, and violence. However, they see the only reasonable response to terrorism to do nothing at all. Why escalate the violence? Why fight back? If we just sit back and take it, maybe less people will die! Less terrorists maybe, but not less of us! Terrorists will never stop attacking innocents until either all the innocents are dead and gone, or all the terrorists dead and in hell. American conservatives know this, the Israelis know this, and terrorists know this. Liberals might know this, but if they do, they pretend not to.

Liberals probably agree with the old communist way of thinking (as is common of liberals); there will be no more fighting when people stop resisting communism. The same may be true of terrorism, but is that any reason to stop fighting it? No! Absolutely not!

If Israel where to give up its freedom and stop fighting against terrorists, liberals might begin to respect them. However, the point would be moot as Israel would soon be wiped off of the map.

The fight for freedom in the world should not be a political issue. Left and Right should agree that all people deserve to be free. Conservatives believe this, and have shown that they are willing to fight for it. Regardless of liberals' feelings on the issue, they have shown that they believe there is nothing worth fighting for. The majority of Israelis agree with American conservatives that freedom is worth fighting and dying for. Israelis therefore disagree with liberals, and there is the root of liberal hatred of Israel.

Israel has had to put up with constant military and terrorist attacks since its very forming. When Israel was created (or rather, when the Jews where given back the land that God originally bestowed upon them) Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq soon attacked to destroy the nation. The Israelis fought back and fended off the attacks, and have since had to put up with various military campaigns against them, not to mention decades of terrorist attacks.

The Israelis have finally grown tired of the ridiculous concept of a "proportional response." For decades, every time a terrorist blew up a restaurant or checkpoint, the Israelis responded with puny, "proportional" retaliatory attacks. These "proportional" attacks really did nothing but kill a small portion of the terrorists, kill some civilians, and forever vilify Israel in the eyes of American liberals.

Israel has finally decided to go all out on the terrorist organizations of Hezbollah and Hamas, two of their oldest and worst attackers. Now the very liberals who treated Israelis like war criminals for their decades-long policy of "proportional responses," are begging them to return to the policy. But Israel has decided it is time to put a serious dent in the terrorist organizations.

Israel has begun a very large military campaign against terrorist, including Hezbollah, who currently occupy Lebanon, and Hamas, who is in the "territory" of "Palestine." Word has it that Israel is prepared to stop the attacks in exchange for a two-kilometer "security" buffer between their nation and Lebanon. But the damage is done.

Israel has shown the world, including liberals, that it is willing to fight for freedom, even if it means killing thousands of terrorists and causing possible civilian causalities. There is no forgiveness from liberals for the great "sin" of defending one's self through the mechanism of war. Let's be honest, liberals never liked Israel because they were a beacon of freedom in the Middle East and were willing to fight for freedom. Now that they've shown they are still willing to fight for the right to be free, they aren't going to be winning any popularity contests with liberals anytime soon.

Shane is a writer for the conservative news blog UnrestInTheForest.BlogSpot.com. His other articles can be found here.

Missing The Point In The Stem Cell Debate

By: Shane

There are many good arguments against embryonic stem cell research - from the fact that it has never yielded any promising results, to the fact that it turns human beings into commodities to be used for spare parts. However, liberals are missing the point. Conservatives' number one reason for opposing stem cell research is that it involves the destruction of human life.

You don't hear liberals arguing this point because there's really no way to argue it. What can they say? Are liberals really so far from natural law that they believe a judge has the right to decide at what point life begins? Putting thousands of years of religion and morality aside, isn't the obvious answer that life begins at conception? First liberals tried saying that life began at birth. When that wouldn't fly, they claimed that life begins when the embryo (AKA, "the unborn child") is "viable," or capable of survival outside of the womb.

But what moronic a point to pin the start of life at! For one thing, the age at which the unborn is "viable" is constantly getting smaller. Also, there have been children born at the point that they could have been aborted (AKA, "brutally murdered"). What makes liberals think that they have a right to decide at what age a child can be murdered? These are the same people who think that humans don't have a right to kill baby seals for their fur, but it's alright to kill and unborn child for one's convenience?

Embryonic stem cells are taken from embryos, which are unborn children, the result of sperm fertilizing an egg. In other words, the embryo is created by conception, the obvious point at which something goes from biological material to human life. Now, liberals have no problem killing an unformed fetus, because it is not cute. But then, when is the last time you saw a cute California Condor, and yet we're not allowed killing them.

The study of embryonic stem cells involves the development and destruction of embryos. Many liberals will say We have thousands of unused embryos as it is from abortions and "test tube babies"! (apparently forgetting that we conservatives also oppose abortion and "test tube babies"). However, this is an intentional misguidance on the behalf of liberals, because they know full well that if the study of embryonic stem cells were not only allowed but funded, scientists would desire many millions of embryos. They would begin marketing women for their unborn, telling them that "they could be part of the fight against disease!"

We've already seen it happen in California, where a scientist from South Korea attempted to open a clinic at which to harvest embryos to ship back to South Korea for scientific study. Conservatives would oppose embryonic stem cell research regardless, however, it is just foolish to say that there wouldn't be an increase in the destruction of life were embryonic stem cell research allowed in the US.

And why would conservatives oppose embryonic stem cell research, even if it didn't increase the number of embryos destroyed and even if it did show some medical promise? Because conservatives, unlike liberals, believe in right an wrong. It is wrong to destroy life, and therefore no good can come from it. Allowing embryonic stem cell research would be like saying, "abortion is alright, as long as the destroyed life is used to heal those humans who have already been born."

But this logic absolutely confuses liberals. They just can't grasp why someone would not want to destroy life if it means a better life for those of us who are born and alive. After all, it's not like fetuses can vote! Liberals' selfish hedonism leads them to use the "survival of the fittest" mentality that is supposedly programmed into their animal brains from millions of years of evolution. I'm going to kill that unborn baby so that I can live longer and have more fun before I die and cease to exist. I don't know what all this talk about Democrats being the "party of the little guy" is all about, considering they've killed and thrown out about a hundred million "little guys."

Liberals are missing the point on this issue. They're so busy with their "Bush doesn't want to heal diseases" demagoguery that they fail to even see the argument conservatives are making. Liberals can pull out all of the botched statistics and poorly researched graphs they want, but when it comes to debate, conservatives will still be saying the same thing: It is not alright to take a human life, especially that of an unborn infant and we will not treat people like a commodity to be sold for spare parts.

And so I say to liberals, if you want a debate on this issue, than at least try to grasp the point we're making. It doesn't matter if embryonic stem cell research were to cure every disease (it probably wouldn't cure any), the destruction of human life is never alright, even if it can get you more votes.

Shane is a writer for the conservative news blog UnrestInTheForest.BlogSpot.com. His other articles can be found here.

Liberals: Afraid Of Honest Debate

By: Shane

Liberals have shown their incredible skills of debate in response to Ann Coulter's latest best-selling book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism. Instead of addressing the issues raised in the book, they began their attack by pointing out one of the many frank comments that Coulter made; her reference to a group of liberal-activist 9/11 widows as "harpies." Although this statement made many people angry, it mostly only bothered those who didn't bother to read her book.

Liberals tried to use Coulter's refusal to adhere to the ridiculous laws of political correctness to shroud the points made in her book. In-fact, by attacking Coulter's criticism of the liberal-activist 9/11 widows, liberals have proved her point that the left hides behind widows, war heroes, mothers of fallen soldiers, and other victims whom they deem immune to criticism. Many people refuse to read Coulter's book, since the only hype the media has given it was to criticize Coulter as a brutal, rude demagogue attacking poor helpless widows (a move Coulter probably saw coming).

This tactic worked for a few weeks to distract from Coulter's damaging remarks on liberalism, but when the media firestorm over the "harpies" comment started to subside liberals panicked. They had to think of a new attack on Coulter, or people might start realizing what she was saying. And so now we have news stories with titles like "Company that syndicates Coulter probing plagiarism" and "Blind eye to Coulter plagiarism."

A sure bet that Coulter was proved innocent of the accusation is that the media has said nothing of it. Had Coulter been guilty we all know that the liberal media would be jumping all over her. No news from the liberal media is usually good news for conservatives.

Now, it doesn't take much thought to realize why liberals constantly attack conservatives rather than argue a point. It is much easier for liberals to say Coulter is mean than it is for them to defend, say, killing a partially born baby, just as it is easier for them to say You can't criticize her! Her son died in Iraq! than it is for them to defend leaving millions of recently liberated Iraqis at the mercy of foreign Islamic terrorists.

FDR said, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." Well, this is one point where liberals deviate from their favorite communist. Liberals have nothing to fear but honest political debate. Nothing would be more detrimental to Democratic power (come to think of it, do Democrats have any power left?) than if voters stopped and considered facts and listened to arguments instead of giving in to liberal demagoguery. Liberals tell the American people that George Bush is shipping jobs overseas and Conservatives want to take away your right to choose, when it is liberals' high taxes and harsh business regulations that send most jobs overseas, and liberals who refuse to let people decide what energy to use or which school to send their children to.

Liberals attack and attack conservatives because they are afraid to defend their beliefs. Try and find any diehard conservative who doesn't honestly believe that if someone just sat down and reviewed the facts, they would side with them on almost any issue. Now try and find a diehard liberal who will actually engage in open debate rather than throwing pies or calling their opponents "racists." You couldn't, because conservatives actually believe what they say, and liberals are either in it for power or out of sheer ignorance.

Life would be so easy if we were all liberals (that is, until the world ended and we all went to hell). It must be a complete shock to liberals that they have lost power in America. They have the easy job of defending political ideas such as let's feed the hungry and let's make the world a cleaner place. Meanwhile, conservatives are busy keeping the economy alive and keeping everyone in America from being blown up by Islamic terrorists.

When a liberal says something like, "Let's ban SUVs and stop global warming!" Conservatives respond with "Why? There is no proof that human emitted 'Green House Gasses' have any effect on the environment." To which liberals respond, "You must be beholden to the oil companies!" The fact that America doesn't fall for tactics like these is a complete mystery to liberals, who believe that Americans are a bunch of morons.

As long as liberals are liberals, and therefore "believe" in indefensible ideas, we will never get honest debate out of them. We will have to get used to their vicious personal attacks, their shameless demagoguery, and their ignorance to criticism. And frankly, we should be glad that the other end of the political spectrum underestimates Americans as morons, because as any conservative knows, Americans are not morons, and they won't fall for liberals' dirty tricks.

Shane is a writer for the conservative news blog UnrestInTheForest.BlogSpot.com. His other articles can be found here.