Global Warming: What's the Problem?

I really don't understand why liberals like Al Gore and the Hollywood intelligensia are making such a big deal about global warming. I mean, really, think about it now.

In Winter, where do people want to travel? Someplace WARM!

During Spring Break, where do students flock? FLORIDA!

And in Summer, where do people love to visit? HAWAII!

Global warming is all about the democratization of the world that is now being promoted by the farsighted and underappreciated Bush administration. Iraq and global warming are both born of the same political ideals. Just as all people everywhere should have an equal opportunity to live in a democratic state, so should everyone all over the earth have a chance to get a fair share of the warmth.

Warm weather is not just for Southern California as overly tanned Democrats and the Hollywood elite would have you believe. No, thanks to the neo-conservative wing of the Republican party, warm weather will someday be equally available all year round in unbearably chilly places like North Dakota, Minnesota, Norway, Greenland, and the Ukraine.

The biased media should stop presenting global warming as if it were a "problem," because in all honesty global warming is really a solution--one that allows for the fair and democratic distribution of warmth to all parts of the world.

What's Wrong in America

Now this is exactly what's wrong in America. Here we have an American President who's willing to do the kinds of things that Clinton never did, as well as the kinds of things that Gore never would have, and the only thing smarty-pants liberals can do is make fun of him. I include this merely for the edification of all, but it is simply not amusing:

Merry Christmas

I can't believe how many stores and businesses are wishing their customers "Happy Holidays!" What the heck is that supposed to mean? They want us to be happy? They want us to enjoy the holidays? It's enough to make a Christian want to smack somebody. Don't they realize how rude and discourteous they are being? They're taking the Christ right out of Christmas. No one should ever mask the faith in Christ and God that brings us this glorious season.

If they want to offer an appropriate greeting this time of year, clearly it's "Merry Christmas," as in Christ's Mass. In fact, that's what people should really be saying: "Merry Christ's Mass." And if they don't want to wish people a Merry Christ's Mass, then people should take their money elsewhere and spend it at a sufficiently Christian place of business. Because that's really what Christ's Mass is all about: spending our money in the right places. So go out an celebrate the birth of Jesus, our Lord and Savior, by shopping in all the right places.

And, regardless of where you shop, remember that no one should ever obscure the Christian faith with euphemisms or trite phrases. Doing so is just a violation of faith--unless, of course, we're talking about intelligent design.

One Voice is All that Matters

Americans should not criticize the President in this difficult time of war. And criticizing him for that war itself should perhaps be considered especially un-American.

Here we are, trying to bring democracy to the world, and all people can do is criticize the efforts of the man responsible for putting us in Iraq. Such voices expressing different opinions are ultimately discordant, and detract from having a single voice ringing in democracy around the world. We should, above all else, be unified as a nation in support of our troops, and in support of the type of democracy being promoted in Iraq.

If Democrats and other liberals dissent and engage in open debate of our democratic efforts in the Middle East, what kind of a signal does that send to our troops and to Iraqis? One message and one perspective will make it simpler for our troops to understand the nature of the democracy for which they are fighting. One voice and one view will make it easier for Iraqis to embrace the democracy for which they are dying. As far as democracy is concerned, we should all have one opinion, and George W. Bush has articulated that opinion for us.

Perhaps we should all remember that this President's aims are first and foremost simple ones. They need not be made over-complicated by debate, and we need not hear from the many voices that represent America. After all, this is about freedom and democracy.

What's All the Fuss About the CIA Leak?

I can't understand what all the fuss is about regarding the leak of a CIA undercover operative along with her cover business and the operatives attached thereto. When there's a larger cause at stake, everyone should be prepared to take one for the team.

To begin with let's try granting the most egregious scenario possible from a liberal perspective. Let's say that someone like Rove or Libby leaked the CIA identity of Plame in order to slam Wilson, take attention away from Wilson's criticism of the push for war, and discredit the notion that no Weapons of Mass Destruction (henceforth, WMDs) existed in Iraq.

Well, aren't CIA operatives like Plame and her co-workers prepared to make a sacrifice? Because that's exactly what happened. Our President was heading toward a war, and Wilson's going around and spreading his findings about Nigeria was just proving to be a distraction to the successful prosecution of that war. So, really, the exposure of Plame and any colleagues who shared her cover enabled them to play a crucial role in America's war effort, serving as a sacrifice so that the war could proceed unhindered.

If you look at it from this perspective, rather than viewing herself as a victim of a vindictive administration, Plame should be thanking whoever leaked her identity to the press because doing so really makes her a hero: the first American sacrifice in the war with Iraq.

And so what if there aren't any WMDs in Iraq? It should be obvious from the above model that that's just a matter of truth making a sacrifice for the greater good. And if truth is willing to take one for the team, gee-whiz, liberals should just back off.

When Did Taking an Interest Become a Negative Thing?

If you're like me, you've been following the Bill Frist story and shaking your head in disgust. Here's a man devoted to all aspects of medicine, and the press is making a mockery of him by accusing him of having a conflict of interest..

Frist is not only a doctor, but a surgeon. And not only does he shape our country's laws in relation to healthcare, but he also owns stock in the healthcare industry. Now I don't really see how there's a conflict of interest. I mean, think about it--and think clearly, not through some scandal hungry media filter. Doesn't it seem logical that as a practitioner, a lawmaker, and a stockholder, Frist would want to see the health care industry succeed and be profitable? It would seem to me that such a man would make for one really motivated lawmaker.

Now don't we want our lawmakers to be interested in what they are doing? Don't we want lawmakers who are motivated to see America succeed? Rather than tearing the man down, the media should hold him up as a shining example of what politics can truly represent in out great nation. After all, is not Frist of the same mold as our administrative leadership, Bush and Cheney. Here we have oil men pursuing oil interests, and look at everything such interests have produced.

What would liberals have us do? Elect divested, disinterested, and dispassionate politicians who adhere to ethics and objectivity? Wouldn't you prefer to elect a lawmaker who has a vested financial stake in the running of our country and the shaping of our laws?

The correct choice should be clear.

Who Can Say Anything Bad About Friendship?

In America, friendship means something. By nominating Harriet Miers for a seat on the Supreme Court, Bush shows America that he cares, and that he can be a true friend.

Who did President Clinton nominate to the Supreme Court? First time around, Clinton selected Ruth Bader Ginsberg. They didn't even know each other, much less grow up in the same state. And the second time around, our William Jefferson Clinton chose Stephen Breyer--another stranger, and one who grew up as far away as California no less. Clinton showed himself to be a President of distance and disconnection by choosing people with whom he didn't even have a personal relationship. What's that about?

By contrast, Bush has once again selected an ally and a friend for an office of high responsibility. I say, brownie points for him. He takes care of his friends. And it's not just Bush the man either. His whole adminstration offers a warm and glowing example for the entire nation to follow. Why just look at how well Richard Cheney's former associates are represented in contracts for Iraq and New Orleans.

Republicans understand that you have to go to people you know and trust.

What would Democrats have us do? Be cold? Be distant? Choose someone or some company on some kind of objective basis? Choose the most "qualified" person out there? Make companies bid for contracts? What next, make nominees bid for a seat on the Supreme Court?

As Bush shows, no bid is needed. Just be a buddy and he'll be a buddy right back.

Now as Americans, isn't that the world in which we all want to live?