Wednesday, May 31, 2006

Maybe it’s just me but I found this story fascinating:

After spending the week away on vacation enjoying my family I’m back to the daily grind.

While I was away one of the stories that I found fascinating was the news and images of Pope Benedict XVI at Auschwitz. Just the story of the new Pope visiting this sad place was enough to move anyone but the image that followed was enough to affirm my belief in God.

As the Pope finished his prayer, with the timing that a movie couldn’t have reproduced any better, a rainbow appeared in the background. Now the news media covered the story and showed the photos but their reaction was more of a “isn’t that cool” as if they were driving along a highway and saw the same thing.

For me that rainbow meant much more and is not a mere coincidence for two reasons. First the statistical odds of a rainbow appearing at that exact moment in time during that specific event as the pope is finishing his prayer is almost impossible to calculate.

Second is the symbolism of the rainbow itself. If we recall the teaching of the book of Genesis in the Old Testament we remember God’s covenant with Noah and the importance of the rainbow as a symbol between God and man.

Genesis 9

13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.

16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.

Many people might not care. I just find that in an age where the existence of God continuously comes under attack by those on the left it’s nice to have moments like this where you can stop, make the connection and have faith that maybe that statistically improbable rainbow was God letting us know he was listening and heard those that were there praying.

Saturday, May 20, 2006

I didn’t know the New School offered kindergarten classes:

The Observer’s Politicker has been reporting on the embarrassing reception Senator John McCain received during his speech at the New School. According to the Politicker, throughout Senator McCain’s speech students graced him with “catcalls, heckling and jeering”. The Politicker also describes one point in his speech where the graduating class laughed when he spoke of a friend of his that died. Classy!

I think outtakes like this show just how intolerant Liberals are. Are they not the party that constantly accuses Republicans of being bigots and elitists? Remember the definition of a bigot is “one who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race or politics and is intolerant of those who differ”. Sounds like the Liberal’s at the New School to me.

Hopefully this event will finally show America just how difficult it is to be a college student in this country while believing not just in the use of military force but in any conservative idea period. The inability to feel able to speak up in class with differing views out of fear that their professors may punish them has gone on to long and is only getting worse.

The actions of the students at the New School show just how impressionable young minds are and how successful the brainwashing by professors has been and what its effects are.

Friday, May 19, 2006

You would never know living in New York or New Jersey.

It figures that when it comes to Democrats and scandals it would take a European newspaper to inform Americans. Today the Financial Times is reporting that ex New Jersey senator, Robert Torricelli, is facing allegations that he met with Iraqi officials during the late 1990’s to urge them to give an oil contract to a U.S. company.

If you recall Torricelli was forced to drop out of his reelection bid in 2002 after it was discovered he received gifts form a Korean-American businessman who was found guilty for violating federal campaign laws. It’s now four years later but the FT is now reporting that recovered documents and cables in Iraq have implicated Torricelli further. The FT says Torricelli urged Baghdad to give a company by the name Bright and Bright contracts and in return they would help lift sanctions.

The story is very interesting and is worth reading. It will be more interesting to see how long, if ever, it will take the liberal media in the North East to report the story.

As I’ve said in the past if your not reading the FT you might as well not read anything. The FT reported the Dubai port deal a week before the U.S. media picked up on it. Let’s see if they pick up on this one at all.

Thursday, May 18, 2006

Big Spenders:

A couple weeks ago the Senate voted to pass a bill that would bring additional funding to operations in Iraq and reconstruction in Katrina hit areas. If you recall the President threatened to veto the bill if it had passed the $92 billion that he felt was needed. Of course as I had posted on May 5, the Senate decided to make the bill $106 billion.

What was interesting about the Senate version is that the bill didn’t go over $92 billion because they thought President Bush underestimated the cost of Iraq and Katrina. The bill went over because our Senators as usual decided to throw things in there that have nothing to do with it. This is the reason the President has been calling for a line item veto. It’s interesting watching Democrats and even some Republicans attack the President on our fiscal deficits while they do everything in their power to undermine him with spending provisions that don’t reflect the true nature of the bill at hand.

To shed further light on the problem we can look at an amendment by Republican Senator McCain and Senator Ensign. They proposed three amendments to cut spending from the bill that did not relate to Iraq and Katrina. One was amendment No. 3617 that would cut $6 million that was to go to sugarcane growers in Hawaii.

Now what money to sugarcane growers in Hawaii is doing in a bill to fund Iraq and Katrina is beyond me. What’s interesting though is how the amendment was shot down in the Senate as they voted against taking it out of the bill. Though some Republican also voted against McCain and Ensign amendment, pretty much all Democrats voted against it including Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer.

Just something to keep in mind the next time Hillary and Chuck attack the Pres on spending. Also where’s the NY Press on asking Hillary and Chuck why they feel the need to give money to farmers in Hawaii in a bill designed to fund Iraq and Katrina. Hillary should put that much effort into bringing money to New York.

Wednesday, May 17, 2006

Amity Shlaes will second that:

Yesterday I wrote how I felt the immigration debate has arisen not because Americans are concerned about them stealing jobs but because they have become threatened by their refusal to assimilate into American culture. Today one of my favorite columnists, Amity Shlaes, also proposes the same theory in an editorial in today’s New York Sun.

The article titled, “Why Now”, brings up some of the same points I made yesterday while diving into them deeper.

She mentions, like I did, how with unemployment less then 5% the “traditional argument that immigrants are taking jobs from locals simply doesn't make sense”. She also points out how immigrants have been one of the driving forces behind our countries above average growth for a developed nation.

My favorite point she brings up though is related to the second post I made yesterday on how today’s immigrants are not assimilating. She states how historically when it came to immigrants, “The welcome assumed that immigrant families would assimilate in later generations. Most Americans assumed too that English would always be the common language of the public sector”.

She concludes like I do that Washington is in denial over the fact that the failure for today’s immigrants to assimilate is a big part of the problem and how a way to “solve the identity problem is missing in his (President Bush) plan”.

If you have today’s New York Sun, it’s a great read for those interested in the topic.

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

Major William Colon to Speak at May Meeting

For Immediate Release May 16, 2006
Contact: Jen Saunders, Public Relations Chair


New York, NY - The New York Young Republican Club will hold our May monthly meeting on Thursday, May 18. Our featured speaker will be Major William Colon, Operations Officer with the US Army Reserve.

Major Colon will talk to the Club about his service in Iraq as a military advisor to the Iraqi army, where he trained and mentored Iraqi army instructors in military training, validation and certification. Major Colon has served with the army reserves for over 20 years and has earned a number of distinctions, including the Bronze Star. In his civilian life, he has worked for the New York Mercantile Exchange for 16 years, where he currently serves as Software Development Manager.

New York State Assembly Candidate Robert Heim, who is running in the 73rd District, will also address the club.

Please join us at the Union League Club, located at 38 East 37th Street, on Thursday, May 18, 2006, beginning at 7PM.

This event will be open to media that RSVP by 5:00pm May 17th at

Business attire required. Please check your coat at the door and turn off your cell phone.

The New York Young Republican Club, Inc., is a not-for-profit political organization that exists to bring Republicans aged 18-40 together to discuss the Republican Party platform and aid the Republican Party in the education of the public about the Republican agenda and the promotion of Republican candidates for office. To find out more about the New York Young Republican Club, Inc. please visit the Website at

The problem is not immigration but the lack of assimilation:

Many immigrants are currently taking the stance that Americans should stop being hypocrites since immigrants have been coming to this country for two hundred years without a problem. If you read my last post you wouldn’t be surprised to hear that I agree that we shouldn’t stop the flow. What I do think we need to do however is get back to what immigrants past, including my own ancestors, had to do. When immigrants use to come to this country, mainly in the early 20th century, there was an understanding that they would assimilate to American culture and way of life. A patriotic society, one that had no problem releasing the bond of their old land by claiming allegiance to their new home America.

Growing up both my parents were raised with the understanding that their loyalties should be to the U.S.A. They were to lean English and be proud to be an American. This thinking is greatly different from today’s immigrants who choose not to assimilate but instead at the encouragement of our liberal institutions, look to create subcultures where the allegiance is still to their original country. Where the problem grows is in the fact that many second generations are also choosing no to assimilate. You have to scratch your head and wonder how loyal to America someone is when they drive down a New York street with the flag of some other country slapped to the hood of their car. Even the protests, which I sympathized with, had me shaking my head when I saw the protesters standing there with Mexican flags. For me this is the reason immigration is all of a sudden a problem. Americans no longer have faith that new immigrants are coming here with the same passion and loyalty that their ancestors did. If today were 1941, we would have to wonder if today’s immigrants could be mobilized like those of the early 20th century to fight a world war.

Last week my son came home singing the verse to a song I unfortunately haven’t heard for years. He learned it at school by his teacher at the age of 4 who also taught him the Pledge Of Allegiance (thank God for private school)! George M. Cohan wrote the song in 1906 after being inspired by a Civil War veteran. The song is “You’re a Grand Old Flag”. I think if you don’t hear this song and feel a sense of patriotism then you don’t get what it means to be American. I wonder how many immigrants today not only know the song but also have ever heard of it.

You're a grand old flag,
You're a high flying flag
And forever in peace may you wave.
You're the emblem of
The land I love.
The home of the free and the brave.
Ev'ry heart beats true
'neath the Red, White and Blue,
Where there's never a boast or brag.
Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
Keep your eye on the grand old flag.

Why stopping the flow of immigration has the potential to wreck the U.S. economy:

When it comes to immigration it appears a good part of this country just doesn’t get it. They view the immigrants coming into this country as a liability not the asset they are. Here is some realities that Washington and the general public are ignoring with their plan that if successful will hurt the U.S. economy for years to come.

The problem is not immigration but our country’s failure to believe in the power of market labor demand: The reason why we have thousands of immigrants crossing the boarder to come into America is because our labor market needs them. We seem to forget that unemployment in this country is currently less than 5%. To not have these 12 million immigrants working unskilled jobs in this country would be an economic disaster. Without this labor force companies from factories to farmers would be forced to search for labor among an already tight labor pool that consists mainly of workers who don’t want the jobs these companies are looking to employ. It would take a dramatic increase in wages to attract regular Americans to start filling these jobs leading to a dramatic increase in the cost of goods that we use everyday. If you’re upset over oil being $3 now how will you feel when your weekly food bill skyrockets.

What immigration is telling us is that the U.S. market demands these people in order to operate efficiently, giving the U.S. a comparative advantage over the rest of the developed world. This advantage is one of the main reasons our economy currently is growing at close to 4% while the rest of the developed world struggles at just over 1% growth.

Babies, Babies, Babies: The next big asset immigration gives the U.S. that Washington and Americans ignore is the ability to keep our fertility rates above sustainability. On of the most important things for any country is to ensure that its population can sustain itself. Currently the entire developed world has a fertility rate below the sustainability level of 2.1. The number is 2.1 because each women needs to replace herself and one male. The .1 is because unfortunately some people die young and they too need to be replaced. Shrinking populations in the developed world are very concerning and are leading to the potential collapse of nations. Japan last year became the first of all developed nations to see its population have negative growth thanks to fertility rates of 1.3. A smaller population leads to less consumption and an excess of people in the population who are considered seniors. This excess of seniors relies on the State to survive with healthcare and pensions, both which are jeopardized without a younger workforce to takeover its funding.

The issue of having fertility rates below sustainability is wrecking havoc on Europe as countries like Italy are expected to have less than half their population by 2050. Some countries are already trying to save themselves like Portugal who is considering a plan that would force people who have less then two children to pay more into the pension system. Economists have said for years that the countries that accept immigration will be the ones who survive the fertility problem.

With our own social programs like Social Security, Medicare and now the new Prescription Drug Plan growing as a percentage of GDP every year, keeping fertility rates above sustainability will be the difference between being able to afford these programs and watching them go bankrupt. Further the nation will also need a stable population to sustain the home prices we enjoy today. If the population starts to decline the value of homes will drop, as the supply of homes will be more than the population can demand. Immigration currently is what’s keeping us just at sustainable population, as without them our fertility rates would look more like Europe.

These are just some of the reasons why our country is currently looking at the immigration debate all-wrong. The immigrants of today do not jeopardize the employment of the rest of the country and most importantly will be the savior of our nation tomorrow. If the reason truly is a matter of national security then we should definitely protect our boarders but not ignore what the market is telling us at the same time.

Friday, May 12, 2006

More Proof Tax Breaks Work:

Over the last few years we’ve constantly heard from Democrats and the liberal media that tax cuts don’t work. This is in spite of the fact that since President Bush’s tax cuts; tax receipts to the IRS are at record levels. Funny how that works, you cut taxes and IRS tax intake goes up. Two days ago those that fight the idea of tax cuts as a stimulant got more proof that they work, from no other then Mayor Bloomberg and the City Council.

On Wednesday Mayor Bloomberg was proud to announce a $30 million annual increase in financing for the Film Production Tax Credit program. The program gives tax credits to film producers who shoot their movies on location in New York. The Mayor announced the extension of the bill on the set of The Nanny Diaries. On the surface it would be easy to attack the Mayor for such a plan. After all movie studios make billions of dollars on these movies every year. You could argue that if they could afford to pay Jim Carrey $40 million for one film do they really need a tax break? Tax breaks for movie studios could be compared to the tax cuts for the rich that Democrats are always complaining about using their own argument of “they don’t need it”.

What Mayor Bloomberg knows and what President Bush’s tax cuts have shown, is that tax break increase revenue not lower it. As the Mayor stated in his announcement,

"Our Administration originally designed the film and television incentives program and fought for it, and we are delighted it has been so successful in generating approximately $500 million in production spending in 2005, and creating thousands of good jobs.”

It’s interesting how giving tax breaks to the rich businesses and entrepreneurs of this country leads to increase productivity for the country and in this case the city, as a whole.

It’s a simple program like this by Mayor Bloomberg that should stay in the back of everyone’s mind when they hear tax break opponents cry over breaks for industries and individuals.

Ok. So what don’t you like?

Besides having to hear every week how 60%+ of the people in the Unites States hate President Bush, I now have to hear how 60%+ of the people in New York hate Gov. Pataki. When it comes to President Bush, I could see how people could cave to the constant barrage of negative press. Between Iraq, the CIA and even Katrina I can see how the masses could be manipulated by a press who make it their favorite past time to trash Republicans while Democrats get a slap on the wrist. When Patrick Kennedy, the son of Ted Kennedy, smashed his car in the Capitol and Rep. Cynthia McKinney assaulted a Capitol guard both made headlines for about thirty seconds before the liberal press made sure to bury it to keep the negative opinion of Democrats by the masses to a minimum. It’s easy to say that if both were Republicans we would not only still be hearing about it but the media would be calling for their resignations. What I want to know though is when it comes to Governor Pataki why do New Yorkers dislike him?

Is it because he’s a Republican and therefore he’s getting lumped in with George Bush? I personally can’t think of any other reason. Right after 9/11 Pataki had 80% approval ratings and today he has 36%, despite the remarkable recovery the State has made economically. It’s obvious to me that his misfortunes are simply a result of New Yorkers falling into the Dem. trap and simply saying they don’t like him because he’s a Republican.

I would like anyone who thinks he’s doing a bad job to tell me why, not just that you think he is. I think New Yorkers and the media need to be honest with themselves. How soon we forget Governor Pataki’s 1996 Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act that gave $1.75 billion in funding for a variety of environmental improvements that most importantly has allowed us to continue to have clean drinking water. Before New Yorkers say they disapprove of the Governor they should turn on their faucet and take a sip.

Most importantly what the Governor has been is a true devils advocate in a State where everything is run by either Democrats or Republicans who think they need to act like one. Every year Pataki has fought hard to keep the City and State honest. It’s easy to say that if Democrats were in control, there would be no control as the children would be in complete charge of the candy store. Come November if Spitzer does win, New Yorkers will be quick to see what I mean as he will give away the store and then raise your taxes to pay for it. Then maybe we’ll be wishing we had Gove Pataki back. New Yorkers are currently saying they want Gov. Pataki out; they should be careful what they wish for.

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

I don’t care what Murdoch says. I’m not voting for Hillary:

The news that Rupert Murdoch has decided to host a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton is still front-page news. The fact that even the Financial Times has decided to pickup the story tells you it’s a move that will not leave us without implications on either Hillary or Murdoch and his conservative empire.

It’s easy to say that conservatives around New York feel betrayed. Many are still trying to reach behind their back to pull out the knife that Murdoch left. For conservatives Murdoch and his Fox News Channel and papers like the New York Post have been a savior in a world where liberal media reigns supreme. The growth in circulation and ratings of his conservative news outlets has shown, people in this country have longed for a voice other then the leftwing bias that has for years come from channels like CNN, MSNBC and papers like the New York Times. For conservative New Yorkers the Post was the only place to read a story written to fit their view in a city where they are constantly carpet bombed with liberal bias from the Daily News, News Day, New York Times and channels like New York 1. As an exercise the first thing I did was call my dad who is a loyal post reader for the reason I mentioned above. When I asked him what he thought his response was one word, “devastated”. He then said that if the Post endorsed Hillary comes November he would cancel his subscription to the paper.

I understand why Murdoch is crossing lines. He’s a businessman and when it comes to business you can’t play favorites. He’s making what he thinks is a calculated move by supporting someone he thinks stands no chance of loosing and may one day be President. What hopefully Murdoch considered before his decision to host Hillary is the potential backlash from people like my dad, who will stop reading the paper if they feel betrayed. The benefits he gets from having a friend in Hillary might not be enough to save a paper where his readers abandon him like he did to them.

When it comes to Hillary as Senator of New York my problem is not with her but New Yorkers. I don’t know about you but I’m embarrassed as a lifelong New Yorker, born and raised, to have to have an outsider come and represent us in Washington. This is New York, home of some of the brightest minds. Are you telling me that there is not one New Yorker capable of representing us? Am I suppose to be thankful that she has come to New York and saved the day because New Yorkers are to incompetent to pick someone among us. I have more faith in New Yorkers then that. I would vote for Christine Quinn for Senator before an outsider like Hillary, especially when that outsider is only using us as stepstool. Democrats and Republicans in New York should be embarrassed that we had to have Hillary come and run our affairs. Lets face it; if she weren’t married to Bill she’d be nobody. What does it say when we as New Yorkers can’t find anyone, Democrat or Republican, among us to have represent us and end up picking someone who’s claim to fame is being the First Lady.

Everyday Hillary is Senator of New York makes Democrats look bad. Their endorsement of this carpetbagger basically told all New Yorkers that not one Democrat who represent New Yorkers in the House, State Senate, State Assembly or City Council are capable of doing the job and needed Hillary to do it for them. This is just something for New Yorkers to remember when Hillary abandons us for greater days and New Yorkers are forced to find someone new. Maybe Murdoch will have someone in mind.

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

“We are in a perilous time”

Those were the words this morning by John Faso at a Crain’s business breakfast. Crain’s gave Faso the chance to speak in front of a live audience and media to discuss his plans if elected governor and what he thought some of the most pressing problems the State currently faced were.

Overall I personally continue to be impressed with John Faso. He knows the issues and has good solutions. He presents his argument in a way that ordinary New Yorkers can understand focusing on topics that will force all voters in New York to listen, making Spitzer vulnerable should he get the Republican nomination.

During the breakfast Faso made dozens of excellent points and clearly painted a picture that shows a State in need of dramatic reform. Most of his points are things we have been hearing about for a long time, like Medicare reform, school budget reform and tax reform. The difference is he just doesn’t say it; he backs it up with facts that New Yorkers can visualize and understand.

For example he reiterated the news reports from a couple weeks ago that stated how New York is losing 200,000 people a year to other states. He followed it up by explaining how New York is loosing its power in Washington because of it, as the number of representatives for New York has dropped from 42 to 29 and after the next census in 2010 will fall further to 27. He went on to explain how those leaving are the ones the State most desperately needs to stay, the most affluent. Because of New York’s high death tax wealthy retired people are leaving the state to go down south where estate taxes are friendlier. John Faso backed it up with conversations he has had with estate attorneys in New York. As someone who manages money for wealthy families and deals with estate attorney I can say that John Faso’s comments are not made up and right on.

John Faso also made sure not to loose the opportunity to go after Spitzer. He asked people to think of all of Spitzer’s comments so far. He noted if you’ve been paying attention you would know Elliot has already promised 100 of millions of dollars is new spending to all sorts of groups, including building two new train lines. John then went on to point out how Spitzer’s camp has refused to comment and rule out raising taxes. As Faso notes this would make sense since how else will he be able to pay for all his promises. John Faso has it right when he says a candidate who doesn’t rule out raising taxes prior to getting elected always raises taxes.

Finally I think if today’s breakfast proved anything, it’s not to fall prey to the polls. If Faso can continue to explain the issues as well as he has done so far, Spitzer will have his job cut out for him. Without Spitzer’s normal tools of lawsuits and courts to beat his opponent, his victory is far from certain.

Friday, May 05, 2006

Veto that bill!

Just last week, President Bush said Washington needed to stop unnecessary spending and that he would veto any bill that didn’t meet his specifications. One bill he warned Congress on is a bill approved yesterday by the Senate to fund operations in Iraq and hurricane relief. The President told Congress that he didn’t want this bill to go over $92 billion. Of course that has never scared them before. Considering the President has been all talk when it comes to vetoing bills, you can’t blame Congress for challenging him again.

It’s imperative that President Bush vetoes this bill. Part of the Presidents problem with the American people, even conservatives, is that nobody believes he’s in control. The majority of the American people believe that he’s just limping along and continuous defiance from Congress like this bill help confirm that message. If the President wants to start to get the upper hand and regain some respectability he needs to start by vetoing this bill. It wont solve all his woes but it will at least make some deposits in the emotional bank account of the conservative base that has kept Republicans in office. The same base that will stay home in November if they feel disgusted with our government as they did in 2000.

Thursday, May 04, 2006

Insult to injury:

Well the jury in charge of the Moussaoui case has decided what we have known all along, that he is guilty. Where the surprise came was on their decision to not give him the death penalty but instead life in prison.

For me this is insult to injury. Not only did he have his hand in the death of 3,000 people and the emotional scarring of countless others, he now gets to spend the rest of his life (most likely decades) alive on our taxpayer dollars. He’ll get to taste food, breath air and though unlikely have the hope of one day seeing the outside again. Am I the only one disgusted that my hard earned money, that the government has confiscated from me is going to keep this guy alive?