The Washington DC Examiner, Editorial, June 20, 2008
WASHINGTON - Rep. Maurice Hinchey clearly knows little about how supply and demand works in free markets, but the New York Democrat gets high marks for candor on the basic assumption underlying his party’s approach to high gas prices: “We [the government] should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market.” Hinchey’s comment should be viewed in the broader context of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s second-guessing of oil industry decisions about where to drill, and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama’s preference for a “more gradual” pace for spiraling gas prices. The Democrats’ fundamental policy is this: Washington politicians and bureaucrats should have the power to ration energy, set energy prices and regulate how energy is used … everywhere. It is a prescription for a vast new government intrusion into everyday American life.
Note the progression in the Democrats’ energy arguments. Step one has been evident since the dark days when Jimmy Carter donned a sweater and appealed to the nation to accept a future of energy scarcity, even as he and the Democratic Congress imposed a windfall profits tax that drove oil production down and gas prices up. They also created a stifling blanket of red tape and environmental litigation that has since been steadily made thicker still. That made it far more expensive to search for and produce oil, and effectively put off-limits more than 90 percent of federal lands and offshore areas thought to hold billions of barrels of new oil reserves and trillions of feet of natural gas.
Step two came into focus more recently as public disgust with $4 a gallon gas has mounted. Its centerpiece was the Democrats’ attempt to revive the windfall profits tax while chanting “we can’t drill our way out of this crisis.” The reality, of course, is Democrats have spent the last 30 years making it as hard as possible to drill for new oil and gas reserves where they are most likely to be found.
Step three is coming into focus because China, India and other rapidly expanding economies ignited the sudden explosion of gas prices in 2007 and 2008 instead of the “more gradual” price increases Democrats hoped to get by steadily restricting energy supplies over the years and forcing people into smaller cars, mass transit and out of the suburbs. So nobody should be surprised that step three is nationalization. More power for government is always the next solution offered by those who put their faith in Washington politicians and bureaucrats to solve problems their policies create. The stark choice now is whether voters will heed those telling them they can’t be trusted with their own energy decisions.
Examiner
Read More......
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Europe's New Pro-American Direction
American Enterprise Institute, May 7, 2008, by John R. Bolton
Excerpt: "But look today at Europe's political leadership: Nicolas Sarkozy in France has replaced the bitterly anti-American Jacques Chirac. In Germany, Angela Merkel has replaced the dyspeptic and anti-Iraq war Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. Prime Minister Gordon Brown in Britain now once again speaks about the US-UK "special relationship." And now, Berlusconi will soon return to the Chigi Palace. How times change."
Silvio Berlusconi's re-election as Italy's Prime Minister is more promising and more important for Italy and the United States, and for trans-Atlantic relations generally, than most commentators have admitted. Although the Bush Administration has just nine months left in office, significant progress is both possible and desirable in enhancing ties between America and Europe.
President Bush's critics have been quick to assign him blame for weakened trans-Atlantic relations, particularly because of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. They argue that public opinion polls show European popular sentiments turning against the United States. They gloat that two of Bush's staunchest personal and political allies--Prime Ministers Tony Blair in Britain and Jose Maria Aznar in Spain--have left office, in large part because of dissatisfaction with their support for the Iraq war.
From the U.S. perspective, the problem is not American unilateralism, but Europe's unwillingness to do much of anything to stand up to external threats, whether from Iran or from a newly resurgent Russia.
But look today at Europe's political leadership: Nicolas Sarkozy in France has replaced the bitterly anti-American Jacques Chirac. In Germany, Angela Merkel has replaced the dyspeptic and anti-Iraq war Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. Prime Minister Gordon Brown in Britain now once again speaks about the US-UK "special relationship." And now, Berlusconi will soon return to the Chigi Palace. How times change.
Europe's new political configuration has already partially manifested itself in NATO's decision in Bucharest to support deployment of U.S. missile defense assets in Poland and the Czech Republic. Even the Bucharest Summit, however, reveals continuing problems, such as Europe's reluctance to start Ukraine and Georgia on the path toward ultimate NATO membership. Pressed by Russia not to open up to these former Soviet republics, Europe bent its collective knee to Moscow. And in Afghanistan, NATO forces are divided between those daily facing difficult combat situations, and those like Italy's and Germany's posted in less dangerous parts of that embattled country.
America's European critics repeatedly disparage its supposed unilateralism, contending that the United States should modify its policies to create a multilateral front against threats such as Iran's nuclear weapons program. From the U.S. perspective, however, the problem is not American unilateralism, but Europe's unwillingness to do much of anything to stand up to external threats, whether from Iran or from a newly resurgent Russia. That is why the NATO missile defense decision is so positive, representing as it does a clear, alliance-wide recognition of the Iranian threat. That is also why the decision on Ukraine and Georgia is so negative, reflecting a European unwillingness to resist Russia's new leverage.
This continuing tension in European thinking underlines the importance of Berlusconi's return to power. He and Italy can now make a critical difference, but only if he is prepared to confront the conventional wisdom about Europe's future. In truth, a larger global role for Europe requires a larger role for individual European nations, not a more powerful European Union. The historical record is clear: the larger the prominence of Brussels in E.U. affairs, the smaller the aggregate role of Europe in the broader world.
Preventing Iran from achieving a nuclear weapons capability could be a decisive test both of trans-Atlantic relations and of Berlusconi's leadership. For more than five years, European diplomacy by Britain, France and Germany ("the EU-3"), supported by the United States, has failed to constrain Iran's nuclear program. One principal reason for this failure has been Europe's collective unwillingness to impose meaningful--i.e., stringent--economic sanctions against Iran. Italy, with its large trade relations with Iran, Germany and several others have opposed strong sanctions, and, as a consequence, Iran continues toward a deliverable nuclear weapons capability. In fact, diplomatic efforts to stop Iran now unfortunately seem to be at a dead end.
Berlusconi will thus face a difficult decision, since the imposition today of even very stringent sanctions will likely be too little too late to disrupt Iran's progress. Moreover, Romano Prodi's outgoing administration has left Berlusconi a weakened Italian economy, which only makes the incoming Prime Minister's choices more complex. Unfortunately, however, weak sanctions--"sanctions without pain"--which have long been Europe's preference, are in reality worse than no sanctions at all. Weak sanctions give the appearance of action, while in fact concealing the reality that they have no effect whatever.
The unmistakable signal that such a policy sends to rogue states like Iran is that they can continue their progress on weapons of mass destruction with impunity. That is precisely what they have been doing. For both America and Europe's leading nations, therefore, the diplomatic chances of preventing Iran from achieving its objectives are rapidly diminishing. Although tough sanctions are at this point almost certainly too late, they would at least demonstrate that Italy and other Europeans are preparing for the even more difficult step that may be required, namely changing the regime in Tehran, or, as a last resort, the targeted use of military force against Iran's nuclear program.
Of course, the United States faces its own election in November, and the outcome could well result in a change in America's own direction on Iran. But under the U.S. constitutional system, a President retains full executive power until the moment he leaves office. Moreover, Bush may well be succeeded by John McCain, who takes an even harder line on Iran than Bush does. Mrs. Clinton, no Republican unilateralist, said just before the Pennsylvania primary that she would "obliterate" Iran if it attacked Israel. The argument to delay decisive action, therefore, misses the critical point that delay works in Iran's favor, as it continues to overcome the scientific and technical challenges in its path to nuclear weapons. Delay almost always works in favor of the proliferators, and that is abundantly clear in Iran's case.
What will Berlusconi do when he takes office? One way to pull Italy out of its current malaise is to help the United States lead the fight against Iran's nuclear ambitions. The EU-3--which intentionally excluded Italy from their ranks--have failed for over five years. Berlusconi can provide a significant alternative, and, even more importantly, do something concrete to derail Iran's threat to the North Atlantic community as a whole.
John R. Bolton, former Ambassador to the United Nations is a Senior Fellow at AEI. Read More......
Excerpt: "But look today at Europe's political leadership: Nicolas Sarkozy in France has replaced the bitterly anti-American Jacques Chirac. In Germany, Angela Merkel has replaced the dyspeptic and anti-Iraq war Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. Prime Minister Gordon Brown in Britain now once again speaks about the US-UK "special relationship." And now, Berlusconi will soon return to the Chigi Palace. How times change."
Silvio Berlusconi's re-election as Italy's Prime Minister is more promising and more important for Italy and the United States, and for trans-Atlantic relations generally, than most commentators have admitted. Although the Bush Administration has just nine months left in office, significant progress is both possible and desirable in enhancing ties between America and Europe.
President Bush's critics have been quick to assign him blame for weakened trans-Atlantic relations, particularly because of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. They argue that public opinion polls show European popular sentiments turning against the United States. They gloat that two of Bush's staunchest personal and political allies--Prime Ministers Tony Blair in Britain and Jose Maria Aznar in Spain--have left office, in large part because of dissatisfaction with their support for the Iraq war.
From the U.S. perspective, the problem is not American unilateralism, but Europe's unwillingness to do much of anything to stand up to external threats, whether from Iran or from a newly resurgent Russia.
But look today at Europe's political leadership: Nicolas Sarkozy in France has replaced the bitterly anti-American Jacques Chirac. In Germany, Angela Merkel has replaced the dyspeptic and anti-Iraq war Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. Prime Minister Gordon Brown in Britain now once again speaks about the US-UK "special relationship." And now, Berlusconi will soon return to the Chigi Palace. How times change.
Europe's new political configuration has already partially manifested itself in NATO's decision in Bucharest to support deployment of U.S. missile defense assets in Poland and the Czech Republic. Even the Bucharest Summit, however, reveals continuing problems, such as Europe's reluctance to start Ukraine and Georgia on the path toward ultimate NATO membership. Pressed by Russia not to open up to these former Soviet republics, Europe bent its collective knee to Moscow. And in Afghanistan, NATO forces are divided between those daily facing difficult combat situations, and those like Italy's and Germany's posted in less dangerous parts of that embattled country.
America's European critics repeatedly disparage its supposed unilateralism, contending that the United States should modify its policies to create a multilateral front against threats such as Iran's nuclear weapons program. From the U.S. perspective, however, the problem is not American unilateralism, but Europe's unwillingness to do much of anything to stand up to external threats, whether from Iran or from a newly resurgent Russia. That is why the NATO missile defense decision is so positive, representing as it does a clear, alliance-wide recognition of the Iranian threat. That is also why the decision on Ukraine and Georgia is so negative, reflecting a European unwillingness to resist Russia's new leverage.
This continuing tension in European thinking underlines the importance of Berlusconi's return to power. He and Italy can now make a critical difference, but only if he is prepared to confront the conventional wisdom about Europe's future. In truth, a larger global role for Europe requires a larger role for individual European nations, not a more powerful European Union. The historical record is clear: the larger the prominence of Brussels in E.U. affairs, the smaller the aggregate role of Europe in the broader world.
Preventing Iran from achieving a nuclear weapons capability could be a decisive test both of trans-Atlantic relations and of Berlusconi's leadership. For more than five years, European diplomacy by Britain, France and Germany ("the EU-3"), supported by the United States, has failed to constrain Iran's nuclear program. One principal reason for this failure has been Europe's collective unwillingness to impose meaningful--i.e., stringent--economic sanctions against Iran. Italy, with its large trade relations with Iran, Germany and several others have opposed strong sanctions, and, as a consequence, Iran continues toward a deliverable nuclear weapons capability. In fact, diplomatic efforts to stop Iran now unfortunately seem to be at a dead end.
Berlusconi will thus face a difficult decision, since the imposition today of even very stringent sanctions will likely be too little too late to disrupt Iran's progress. Moreover, Romano Prodi's outgoing administration has left Berlusconi a weakened Italian economy, which only makes the incoming Prime Minister's choices more complex. Unfortunately, however, weak sanctions--"sanctions without pain"--which have long been Europe's preference, are in reality worse than no sanctions at all. Weak sanctions give the appearance of action, while in fact concealing the reality that they have no effect whatever.
The unmistakable signal that such a policy sends to rogue states like Iran is that they can continue their progress on weapons of mass destruction with impunity. That is precisely what they have been doing. For both America and Europe's leading nations, therefore, the diplomatic chances of preventing Iran from achieving its objectives are rapidly diminishing. Although tough sanctions are at this point almost certainly too late, they would at least demonstrate that Italy and other Europeans are preparing for the even more difficult step that may be required, namely changing the regime in Tehran, or, as a last resort, the targeted use of military force against Iran's nuclear program.
Of course, the United States faces its own election in November, and the outcome could well result in a change in America's own direction on Iran. But under the U.S. constitutional system, a President retains full executive power until the moment he leaves office. Moreover, Bush may well be succeeded by John McCain, who takes an even harder line on Iran than Bush does. Mrs. Clinton, no Republican unilateralist, said just before the Pennsylvania primary that she would "obliterate" Iran if it attacked Israel. The argument to delay decisive action, therefore, misses the critical point that delay works in Iran's favor, as it continues to overcome the scientific and technical challenges in its path to nuclear weapons. Delay almost always works in favor of the proliferators, and that is abundantly clear in Iran's case.
What will Berlusconi do when he takes office? One way to pull Italy out of its current malaise is to help the United States lead the fight against Iran's nuclear ambitions. The EU-3--which intentionally excluded Italy from their ranks--have failed for over five years. Berlusconi can provide a significant alternative, and, even more importantly, do something concrete to derail Iran's threat to the North Atlantic community as a whole.
John R. Bolton, former Ambassador to the United Nations is a Senior Fellow at AEI. Read More......
U.S. is a suicidal superpower
Glenn Beck (CNN) - "What country that cares about its future would do what the U.S. has to its food and fuel supply, two of the most critical things that any civilization needs to survive?"
NEW YORK -- If you're a poor sap who needs to eat or drive in the near future, then you might want to consider taking out a second mortgage (assuming you could even get one) pretty soon.
Food and gas prices have been all over the news lately, and even a big dumb rodeo clown like me can see that it's all connected. Our policies, which try to cater to everyone from oil company executives to environmentalists, end up benefiting no one -- and now we're all paying the price.
I know that real economists probably will say that the causes of these skyrocketing prices are extremely complicated to understand, but the truth is that it's actually pretty simple: We've done this to ourselves.
I don't know if it's because of our arrogance, our stupidity or maybe both, but I believe that history may one day judge America as the most suicidal superpower of all time. After all, what country that cares about its future would do what America has done to its supply of food and fuel, two of the most critical things that any civilization needs to survive?
For example, look at the way we treat our food supply. We've spent decades giving billions of dollars in government subsidies with incentives for the wrong things, we've mandated that huge areas of farmland stay open for "conservation" and we're using grains that could feed tens of millions of people to make a crappy biofuel that you can't even buy anywhere.
That's not arrogance?
Our fuel policy has been even more absurd. We're completely dependent on foreign countries, many of whom hate us, to keep our trucks moving, our planes flying and our homes warm.
That's not arrogance and suicidal stupidity?
Take a look at the top five countries we currently rely on for oil imports. You tell me if these are the five you would choose if you were creating your own world superpower from scratch: Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Nigeria, Venezuela.
Aside from Canada, that's not exactly a "Who's Who" list of stable, America-loving countries.
And if you think I cut off the list at five because the next five are so friendly, think again. Here's the next five: Iraq, Angola, Kuwait, Colombia, Ecuador.
The point is that we don't control our own destiny, foreigners do. Despite bipartisan hatred for high oil prices, they've gone up 49 percent since 2006. If we could've done something, anything, to stop that, we would have. But the sad fact is that we can't.
That's why, instead of offering real solutions, most politicians offer something else: blame. Democrats blame Republicans, Republicans blame Democrats, and nothing ever gets solved. President Bush provided a good example of that last week when he was asked about high oil and gas prices.
"We've had an energy policy that neglected hydrocarbons in the United States for a long period of time, and now we're paying the price. We should have been exploring for oil and gas in ANWR, for example," he said. "But, no ... our Congress kept preventing us from opening up new areas to explore in environmentally friendly ways. And now we're becoming, as a result, more and more dependent on foreign sources of oil."
Personally, I think the president is right; we should be drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In fact, we should've been drilling there a decade ago, but that's not the point anymore. Opening ANWR now would be like stopping at the bathroom on your way to the electric chair; you're only delaying the inevitable.
Should we still do it? Yes. Frankly, we need all the time we can buy ourselves to find a long-term solution; our nation's very survival is at stake. But ANWR is not the answer, it's a Band-Aid, and I worry that our shortsighted politicians would use it as an excuse not to look for viable replacements for oil, which is what we really need.
Fortunately, there is some good news in all of this: Oil prices this high mean that a lot of formerly dismissed alternatives will finally make good economic sense.
For example, back in 1980, Congress passed the Energy Security Act, which led to the creation of something called the Synthetic Fuels Corp. (SFC). Lawmakers provided SFC with up to $88 billion in loans and incentives to get started (the equivalent of about $230 billion in today's dollars) with the goal of creating two million barrels a day of synthetic oil within seven years.
So why aren't you putting SFC oil into your SUV right now? Well, it turns out that members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries didn't appreciate the competition so they started bringing down the price of oil. From 1980, when SFC launched, to 1986, when it was shut down, oil went from more than $39 a barrel to less than $8 a barrel. Suddenly, synthetic oil didn't seem so important anymore.
In announcing the SFC's closure, then-Energy Secretary John Herrington said that oil prices had simply dropped too low to make it a viable business.
But the good news is that those economics don't work anymore. The state of Montana, which is leading the synthetic fuel charge, says we can now make it for somewhere around $55 a barrel. That's more than a 50 percent discount from what it costs to buy the real stuff.
It's the opportunity of a lifetime, a chance to use OPEC's price gouging and monopoly against it.
So let me be the big, dumb rodeo clown once again and ask the obvious question: Why aren't we doing it? Read More......
NEW YORK -- If you're a poor sap who needs to eat or drive in the near future, then you might want to consider taking out a second mortgage (assuming you could even get one) pretty soon.
Food and gas prices have been all over the news lately, and even a big dumb rodeo clown like me can see that it's all connected. Our policies, which try to cater to everyone from oil company executives to environmentalists, end up benefiting no one -- and now we're all paying the price.
I know that real economists probably will say that the causes of these skyrocketing prices are extremely complicated to understand, but the truth is that it's actually pretty simple: We've done this to ourselves.
I don't know if it's because of our arrogance, our stupidity or maybe both, but I believe that history may one day judge America as the most suicidal superpower of all time. After all, what country that cares about its future would do what America has done to its supply of food and fuel, two of the most critical things that any civilization needs to survive?
For example, look at the way we treat our food supply. We've spent decades giving billions of dollars in government subsidies with incentives for the wrong things, we've mandated that huge areas of farmland stay open for "conservation" and we're using grains that could feed tens of millions of people to make a crappy biofuel that you can't even buy anywhere.
That's not arrogance?
Our fuel policy has been even more absurd. We're completely dependent on foreign countries, many of whom hate us, to keep our trucks moving, our planes flying and our homes warm.
That's not arrogance and suicidal stupidity?
Take a look at the top five countries we currently rely on for oil imports. You tell me if these are the five you would choose if you were creating your own world superpower from scratch: Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Nigeria, Venezuela.
Aside from Canada, that's not exactly a "Who's Who" list of stable, America-loving countries.
And if you think I cut off the list at five because the next five are so friendly, think again. Here's the next five: Iraq, Angola, Kuwait, Colombia, Ecuador.
The point is that we don't control our own destiny, foreigners do. Despite bipartisan hatred for high oil prices, they've gone up 49 percent since 2006. If we could've done something, anything, to stop that, we would have. But the sad fact is that we can't.
That's why, instead of offering real solutions, most politicians offer something else: blame. Democrats blame Republicans, Republicans blame Democrats, and nothing ever gets solved. President Bush provided a good example of that last week when he was asked about high oil and gas prices.
"We've had an energy policy that neglected hydrocarbons in the United States for a long period of time, and now we're paying the price. We should have been exploring for oil and gas in ANWR, for example," he said. "But, no ... our Congress kept preventing us from opening up new areas to explore in environmentally friendly ways. And now we're becoming, as a result, more and more dependent on foreign sources of oil."
Personally, I think the president is right; we should be drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In fact, we should've been drilling there a decade ago, but that's not the point anymore. Opening ANWR now would be like stopping at the bathroom on your way to the electric chair; you're only delaying the inevitable.
Should we still do it? Yes. Frankly, we need all the time we can buy ourselves to find a long-term solution; our nation's very survival is at stake. But ANWR is not the answer, it's a Band-Aid, and I worry that our shortsighted politicians would use it as an excuse not to look for viable replacements for oil, which is what we really need.
Fortunately, there is some good news in all of this: Oil prices this high mean that a lot of formerly dismissed alternatives will finally make good economic sense.
For example, back in 1980, Congress passed the Energy Security Act, which led to the creation of something called the Synthetic Fuels Corp. (SFC). Lawmakers provided SFC with up to $88 billion in loans and incentives to get started (the equivalent of about $230 billion in today's dollars) with the goal of creating two million barrels a day of synthetic oil within seven years.
So why aren't you putting SFC oil into your SUV right now? Well, it turns out that members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries didn't appreciate the competition so they started bringing down the price of oil. From 1980, when SFC launched, to 1986, when it was shut down, oil went from more than $39 a barrel to less than $8 a barrel. Suddenly, synthetic oil didn't seem so important anymore.
In announcing the SFC's closure, then-Energy Secretary John Herrington said that oil prices had simply dropped too low to make it a viable business.
But the good news is that those economics don't work anymore. The state of Montana, which is leading the synthetic fuel charge, says we can now make it for somewhere around $55 a barrel. That's more than a 50 percent discount from what it costs to buy the real stuff.
It's the opportunity of a lifetime, a chance to use OPEC's price gouging and monopoly against it.
So let me be the big, dumb rodeo clown once again and ask the obvious question: Why aren't we doing it? Read More......
Justice Scalia’s Dissent
Boumediene: "The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today."
Read the Bench Memos by Ed Whelan at NRO Read More......
Read the Bench Memos by Ed Whelan at NRO Read More......
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
You’re a Republican???
Published in the Washington Post (as an “Open Letter”)
October 20, 2004, by George Esseff
In today’s America, ask a growing number of high school and college students; their teachers and professors; the self-anointed media elite and/or hard working men and women of all ethnicities, the question, “What is a Republican?”, and you’ll be told “… a rich, greedy, egotistical individual, motivated only by money and the desire to accumulate more and more of it, at the expense of the environment … the working poor ….and all whom they exploit…”
I am a Republican … I am none of those things… and I don’t know any Republicans who are.
WHAT I AM … first and foremost, is a loving husband of some 52 plus years, the father of four and an American who’s proud of his country… and his country’s heritage.
WHAT I AM … is the grandson of immigrants who risked everything, including their lives and those of their children, to escape tyranny in search of freedom.
WHAT I AM … is a man who grew up during the Depression and witnessed, first hand, the effects of the Stock Market crash and the soup lines that followed. I watched as both my parents and grand parents, who had very little themselves, share what food they had with a half dozen other families, who had even less.
WHAT I AM … is someone who worked his way through college by holding down three and four jobs at a time and then used that education to build a better life.
WHAT I AM … is a husband who, at age 24, started his own business for the “privilege” of working 60, 70 and 80 hours a week, risking everything I had, including my health, in search of a better life for myself and my loved ones.
WHAT I AM … is a businessman whose blood, sweat and tears…. and plenty of them…, made it possible for me to provide a secure living, not only for my family and myself, but also for literally hundreds of my employees throughout the years. Employees, who in turn, were able to buy their own homes, raise their own families and give back to their communities and their country.
WHAT I AM … is a man who believes in God; a God who has blessed this country… and all for which it stands.
WHAT I AM … is someone who knows, if you doubt miracles exist in today’s world, you need only to look into the face of those who received them … and the eyes of those who give them.
WHAT I AM … is an American who’s proud that his President embraces a belief in God; proud of a President who understands, as “politically incorrect” as it may be, there is evil in this world and for the security and safety of all freedom loving people everywhere, it must be confronted… and it must be defeated.
WHAT I AM … is an American who takes comfort in the knowledge that our President refuses to allow decisions concerning the very safety and security of this nation, to be governed by the political whims of foreign governments.
WHAT I AM … is tired of hearing from leading Democrats who see only negativity in America; racism in her people; class warfare in her society and “political incorrectness” in her character.
WHAT I AM … is a former democrat who now understands that it is the soldier and not the reporter that guarantees us our freedoms of press, speech and dissent.
WHAT I AM … is a man who believes in the sanctity of life... a man who is repulsed by the pandering of the political left for votes, at the expense of the unborn.
WHAT I AM … is a husband and father who believes in the sanctity of marriage and the preservation of the family unit.
WHAT I AM … is a movie go-er who is repulsed by those insecure, socially inept, elementary thinking, ego-inflated “entertainers” who have appointed themselves “experts” in the fields of national security and geo-politics and then use their forum to attack this nation, its leaders and its actions… much to the delight and encouragement of our enemies.
WHAT I AM … is an American who understands the difference between “censorship” and “choice”. Evidently, these individuals do not, because when these same “celebrities” receive public ridicule for their offensive actions, the first thing they yell is “Censorship!”. What they seem incapable of understanding is… the right of free speech and dissent is shared equally by those offended… as well as those who offend. I support and will continue to support those films and performers whom I choose to … and refuse to support those I don’t. It is my right as an American … a right I will continue to enthusiastically exercise.
WHAT I AM … is a voter, tired of politicians, who, every time their voting records are subjected to public scrutiny, try to divert attention from their political and legislative failures by accusing their opponents of “attack ads” and “negative campaigning”… and the news media who allow them to get away with it.
WHAT I AM … is a Catholic who loves his God and his Faith… and who’s been taught to respect all religions whose teachings are based in love, peace and charity. As such, I am embarrassed and ashamed of those individuals, in both private and public life, whose decisions and actions are devoid of any sense of character or morals; individuals who are only driven by what’s best for them … rather than what’s right … often times at the expense of many … including our national security.
WHAT I AM … is a realist who understands that the terrorist attack that murdered hundreds of innocent Russian children could have occurred here, in our heartland. That’s why I sincerely believe America needs now, more than ever, a President who sees with a clear and focused vision and who speaks with a voice when heard by both friend and foe alike, is understood, respected and believed.
WHAT I AM … is eternally grateful to Ronald Reagan for having the bravery to speak out against Communism and the courage of his convictions in leading the fight to defeat it; and George W. Bush for the vision, courage, conviction and leadership he has shown in America’s war on terrorism amidst both the constant and vicious, personal and political attacks both he and his family are made to endure.
WHAT I AM … is a human being, full of numerous faults and failures, but a man nonetheless, who, though not always successful, has continually strived to do “what’s right” instead of “what’s easy”. A man who is challenging the religious leaders of all faiths, to not only preach to their congregations the fundamentals of “what’s right” and “what’s wrong”, but to also then hold them accountable for their actions in both the public and private sectors.
WHAT I AM … is disgusted with the Courts who, on one hand, call the murder of a pregnant woman a “double homicide” but then refer to the abortion of her baby as, “pro-choice”.
WHAT I AM … is someone deeply troubled by a political party which embraces a candidate whose primary “leadership” qualities center around his protesting of the Vietnam war and his labeling the honorable men and women who fought in it, (50,000 of whom gave their lives in that action), as rapists, and war criminals. That same political party then stepped forward this year to block the appearance of a true Vietnam war hero, retired Admiral and former United States Senator, Jeremiah Denton, (a man who spent seven years and seven torturous months in a North Vietnam prison), from speaking before an open session of the California legislature as part of that state’s 4th of July celebration. The reason Democrats gave for refusing to allow this American hero to speak before their state legislature was because of the “conservative” nature of his views. As an American, that troubles me deeply … as well it should you.
WHAT I AM … is a man who feels the need to spend, $104, 655.60, (tax paid) of his own money, to purchase this advertisement, in order to set the story straight. Some may say this money would have been better spent feeding the world’s poor. At the risk of sounding self-serving, as an American and as a Republican, for the last six decades of my life, I have done exactly that… and more. Following the examples of my parents and grand parents, I have used my earnings to feed the poor, shelter the homeless, provide housing for the elderly and medical care for the sick… and continue to do so… and I’m not alone in that work.
WHAT I AM … is someone who is paying for this announcement, at my sole expense, in hopes of opening the eyes of those led blindly by ill-informed elements of our great nation, who, through either ignorance, or malicious intent, repeatedly attack and belittle those of us who belong to a political party that holds true to the belief, “… the rights of the governed, exceed the power of the government”. For those interested, I am speaking only as a tax-paying individual who is in no way associated with The Republican National Committee, nor with any of its directors, or delegates.
WHAT I AM … is a man who understands, “the American way of life” is a message of self-empowerment for all.
WHAT I AM … is an American who is grateful that our nation gives each of us the opportunity of self-determination and the right to benefit from the fruits of self achievement.
WHAT I AM … is an American who wants to preserve that way of life for all who seek it.
WHAT I AM … is blessed to be an American…. and proud to be Republican.
George J. Esseff, Sr.
george@esseff-foundation.org
For reprint at: www.whatiam.net
Confirmed by Snopes.com
Note: A the time of publication (2004) Mr. Esseff, 74, resided in Westlake Village, California.
Read More......
October 20, 2004, by George Esseff
In today’s America, ask a growing number of high school and college students; their teachers and professors; the self-anointed media elite and/or hard working men and women of all ethnicities, the question, “What is a Republican?”, and you’ll be told “… a rich, greedy, egotistical individual, motivated only by money and the desire to accumulate more and more of it, at the expense of the environment … the working poor ….and all whom they exploit…”
I am a Republican … I am none of those things… and I don’t know any Republicans who are.
WHAT I AM … first and foremost, is a loving husband of some 52 plus years, the father of four and an American who’s proud of his country… and his country’s heritage.
WHAT I AM … is the grandson of immigrants who risked everything, including their lives and those of their children, to escape tyranny in search of freedom.
WHAT I AM … is a man who grew up during the Depression and witnessed, first hand, the effects of the Stock Market crash and the soup lines that followed. I watched as both my parents and grand parents, who had very little themselves, share what food they had with a half dozen other families, who had even less.
WHAT I AM … is someone who worked his way through college by holding down three and four jobs at a time and then used that education to build a better life.
WHAT I AM … is a husband who, at age 24, started his own business for the “privilege” of working 60, 70 and 80 hours a week, risking everything I had, including my health, in search of a better life for myself and my loved ones.
WHAT I AM … is a businessman whose blood, sweat and tears…. and plenty of them…, made it possible for me to provide a secure living, not only for my family and myself, but also for literally hundreds of my employees throughout the years. Employees, who in turn, were able to buy their own homes, raise their own families and give back to their communities and their country.
WHAT I AM … is a man who believes in God; a God who has blessed this country… and all for which it stands.
WHAT I AM … is someone who knows, if you doubt miracles exist in today’s world, you need only to look into the face of those who received them … and the eyes of those who give them.
WHAT I AM … is an American who’s proud that his President embraces a belief in God; proud of a President who understands, as “politically incorrect” as it may be, there is evil in this world and for the security and safety of all freedom loving people everywhere, it must be confronted… and it must be defeated.
WHAT I AM … is an American who takes comfort in the knowledge that our President refuses to allow decisions concerning the very safety and security of this nation, to be governed by the political whims of foreign governments.
WHAT I AM … is tired of hearing from leading Democrats who see only negativity in America; racism in her people; class warfare in her society and “political incorrectness” in her character.
WHAT I AM … is a former democrat who now understands that it is the soldier and not the reporter that guarantees us our freedoms of press, speech and dissent.
WHAT I AM … is a man who believes in the sanctity of life... a man who is repulsed by the pandering of the political left for votes, at the expense of the unborn.
WHAT I AM … is a husband and father who believes in the sanctity of marriage and the preservation of the family unit.
WHAT I AM … is a movie go-er who is repulsed by those insecure, socially inept, elementary thinking, ego-inflated “entertainers” who have appointed themselves “experts” in the fields of national security and geo-politics and then use their forum to attack this nation, its leaders and its actions… much to the delight and encouragement of our enemies.
WHAT I AM … is an American who understands the difference between “censorship” and “choice”. Evidently, these individuals do not, because when these same “celebrities” receive public ridicule for their offensive actions, the first thing they yell is “Censorship!”. What they seem incapable of understanding is… the right of free speech and dissent is shared equally by those offended… as well as those who offend. I support and will continue to support those films and performers whom I choose to … and refuse to support those I don’t. It is my right as an American … a right I will continue to enthusiastically exercise.
WHAT I AM … is a voter, tired of politicians, who, every time their voting records are subjected to public scrutiny, try to divert attention from their political and legislative failures by accusing their opponents of “attack ads” and “negative campaigning”… and the news media who allow them to get away with it.
WHAT I AM … is a Catholic who loves his God and his Faith… and who’s been taught to respect all religions whose teachings are based in love, peace and charity. As such, I am embarrassed and ashamed of those individuals, in both private and public life, whose decisions and actions are devoid of any sense of character or morals; individuals who are only driven by what’s best for them … rather than what’s right … often times at the expense of many … including our national security.
WHAT I AM … is a realist who understands that the terrorist attack that murdered hundreds of innocent Russian children could have occurred here, in our heartland. That’s why I sincerely believe America needs now, more than ever, a President who sees with a clear and focused vision and who speaks with a voice when heard by both friend and foe alike, is understood, respected and believed.
WHAT I AM … is eternally grateful to Ronald Reagan for having the bravery to speak out against Communism and the courage of his convictions in leading the fight to defeat it; and George W. Bush for the vision, courage, conviction and leadership he has shown in America’s war on terrorism amidst both the constant and vicious, personal and political attacks both he and his family are made to endure.
WHAT I AM … is a human being, full of numerous faults and failures, but a man nonetheless, who, though not always successful, has continually strived to do “what’s right” instead of “what’s easy”. A man who is challenging the religious leaders of all faiths, to not only preach to their congregations the fundamentals of “what’s right” and “what’s wrong”, but to also then hold them accountable for their actions in both the public and private sectors.
WHAT I AM … is disgusted with the Courts who, on one hand, call the murder of a pregnant woman a “double homicide” but then refer to the abortion of her baby as, “pro-choice”.
WHAT I AM … is someone deeply troubled by a political party which embraces a candidate whose primary “leadership” qualities center around his protesting of the Vietnam war and his labeling the honorable men and women who fought in it, (50,000 of whom gave their lives in that action), as rapists, and war criminals. That same political party then stepped forward this year to block the appearance of a true Vietnam war hero, retired Admiral and former United States Senator, Jeremiah Denton, (a man who spent seven years and seven torturous months in a North Vietnam prison), from speaking before an open session of the California legislature as part of that state’s 4th of July celebration. The reason Democrats gave for refusing to allow this American hero to speak before their state legislature was because of the “conservative” nature of his views. As an American, that troubles me deeply … as well it should you.
WHAT I AM … is a man who feels the need to spend, $104, 655.60, (tax paid) of his own money, to purchase this advertisement, in order to set the story straight. Some may say this money would have been better spent feeding the world’s poor. At the risk of sounding self-serving, as an American and as a Republican, for the last six decades of my life, I have done exactly that… and more. Following the examples of my parents and grand parents, I have used my earnings to feed the poor, shelter the homeless, provide housing for the elderly and medical care for the sick… and continue to do so… and I’m not alone in that work.
WHAT I AM … is someone who is paying for this announcement, at my sole expense, in hopes of opening the eyes of those led blindly by ill-informed elements of our great nation, who, through either ignorance, or malicious intent, repeatedly attack and belittle those of us who belong to a political party that holds true to the belief, “… the rights of the governed, exceed the power of the government”. For those interested, I am speaking only as a tax-paying individual who is in no way associated with The Republican National Committee, nor with any of its directors, or delegates.
WHAT I AM … is a man who understands, “the American way of life” is a message of self-empowerment for all.
WHAT I AM … is an American who is grateful that our nation gives each of us the opportunity of self-determination and the right to benefit from the fruits of self achievement.
WHAT I AM … is an American who wants to preserve that way of life for all who seek it.
WHAT I AM … is blessed to be an American…. and proud to be Republican.
George J. Esseff, Sr.
george@esseff-foundation.org
For reprint at: www.whatiam.net
Confirmed by Snopes.com
Note: A the time of publication (2004) Mr. Esseff, 74, resided in Westlake Village, California.
Read More......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
