Tuesday, January 31, 2006


Governor Tim Kaine will be giving the Dems response to the Prez's address tonight. That's right, one month in to his first term Virginian Kaine will be giving the speech seen (though I like many I imagine, don't intend on having the sound on) by millions of Americans. Could one ask for a better depiction of the dearth of leadership on the issues most important to the American people offered by the opposition party? What will Kaine speak to? Alleviating traffic on the Beltway?One could willingly get sucked into the faux intrigue I suppose: Is this a way for Dems to highlight former Gov and '08 wannabe Mark Warner? A slight to Hillary? to Kerry? (hey, his fax machine still works from Switzerland) What, exactly, are they up to?
Absolutely nothing. Cindy Sheehan is the face of the Democrats and even they aren't stupid enough to give her a prime time microphone. They are adrift, a few months from being electorally slammed yet again by a second term President that is the personification of Evil one moment, and too stupid to know which fork is for what the next.
And Mr. Justice Alito will be there, seated with his colleagues on the nation's highest court tonight. Sweet stuff.

Re: Goodbye Greenspan

Nick, I know you've read The Economist's take on Alan Greenspan's legacy, which certainly demystifies the man who was Planet Earth's economic guru for nearly two decades. I just wanted to post it to give the blog some more background.

Whatever opinions others may hold of him, I don't believe anyone else could have shepherded America's economy into this era of globalization as smoothly as Alan Greenspan. We live in a world now where threats to economic stability can pop up at a moment's notice. Yet at the same time the opening of brave new frontiers of commerce (China and India for example) can offer growth beyond our wildest dreams. Thanks to Greenspan, we've been able to lay the ground work to prepare for the uncertain road ahead.

Goodbye Greenspan:

At midnight tonight Allan Greenspan will officially end his 19-year reign as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Through both Republican and Democrat administrations he’s done a great job steering us out of recessions and keeping our engine running. If anything, he always gave the markets that psychological comfort that it needs.

LA Times has a great editorial on Greenspan that’s a good read.

Manufacturing a Cronkite Moment

There's no dearth of bad news that is reported from Iraq. Many of the field reporters who give us up-to-the-minute updates are never at a loss to report how many Americans were wounded or killed today, or how many IEDs (improvised explosive device) were blown up, or how many Iraqi civilians were killed. We never see any stories about how many bad guys got bagged this past week, or how a new electrical power station or water treatment plant went online. We're never bothered by those trite little stories about kids going back to school, communities being rebuilt, or the Iraqi economy slowly but surely chugging into motion. In fact, if one didn't know any better, one would think that Iraq is misery and nothing besides. Only good guys die there, and only everything America touches ever turns to pot. Evil flourishes. It is a black hole.

In fact, that is precisely what CNN foreign correspondent Christiane Amanpour said this week. Amanpour is one of a gaggle of correspondents who have taken to referring to Iraq as a quagmire, a hopeless situation, a cauldron of bloodshed with no end.

Why is it that the men and women doing the actual fighting don't see it that way? Could it be because these correspondents are getting caught up in the drama? Most likely, yes. Our reporters are movie stars these days. They're entertainers who wax poetic about the sorry state of affairs, hoping to hit that magic mark that will be recorded for all time, like when Walter Cronkite supposedly single-handedly changed our strategy in Vietnam when he said that the war was unwinable after the Tet Offensive. Of course, the truth was a lot more complicated than that.

And the truth of what is taking place in Iraq is quite underreported. No one ever said it would be easy. No one ever said it would be short. So, why when it turns out to be neither, is the Left so surprised? Could it be because they're impatient for victory? Or is it because they are impatient for failure? Only they truly know.

On your way to SotU Watching

Sort of. If you map it a certain way.

-at the Women's National Republican Club
3 West 51st Street
The Henrietta Wells Livermore School of Politics




6:00 – 7:30pm

"In “War Footing” – perhaps the most important book written since 9/11 -, Frank Gaffney and his colleagues show that we are engaged in nothing less than a War for the Free World.

"War Footing not only clarifies for all Americans who the enemy is and how high the stakes are, but also exactly how America can prevail in a war that we cannot afford to lose.

"Mr. Gaffney is widely recognized as a “go-to” source for timely, informed, and articulate analysis of current defense and foreign policy developments. He is widely sought out by the media for expert analysis on the conduct of the war on terror, both at home and abroad."

Members/Non Members - Free
Cash Bar

Tom Golisano Says No - Cue the Violins

Billionaire entrepreneur and all around political upstart Tom Golisano has decided against chasing after the Republican, Conservative, and Independence party endorsements for NY State Governor in 2006. He ran against George Pataki in '94, '98, and '02, all the while slinging as much mud as he could toward our Governor and the Republican Party.

When Golisano announced back in October that he was considering pursuing the Republican line for Gov, there were many Empire State pachyderms, myself included, who felt that such a move was ill-suited at best. The guy did nothing but trash-mouth Republicans up and down the boards, and then he wants to be taken in by the very same party? People say a lot of things in politics, this is true. But there are ways to do things and ways not to do things.

However, in New York State, nothin' says lovin' like the words "self-financed campaign." So, Golisano was given more attention and respect than he quite frankly deserved. Sure, he has a fat wallet, but it's only half the size of his ego, and a hundred times larger than his political instinct.

But now that he has bowed out, we have nothing to worry about. Well, almost nothing. There's still that Eliot Spitzer guy out there. But we'll work something out.

It’s Official!

Judge Alito has been confirmed to the Supreme Court by a vote of 58-42.

Four Democrats crossed party lines to give Judge Alito a thumps up: Sens. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Kent Conrad of North Dakota. No surprise there, considering those states have become very conservative voting overwhelmingly for Bush in 2004.

None of those guys want to become the next Tom Daschle.

Fred Barnes to Speak at February General Meeting

Fred Barnes, Executive Editor of the Weekly Standard and co-host of FNC's Beltway Boys, will be the featured speaker at the New York Young Republican Club's February general meeting. Barnes is the author of Rebel in Chief: How George W. Bush Is Redefining the Conservative Movement and Transforming America.

The meeting will be held on Thursday, February 16 at the Union League Club, 38 East 37th Street, New York, NY. The meeting will begin promptly at 7pm. Business attire required

Oscar Nominations Announced

A brief look at this year's Oscar nominations helps explain why 2005 was a sub-par year at the box office. There are a couple of gems here and there, but overall it's a pretty paltry selection of nominees. And for the first time ever, a Star Wars film was not nominated for Best Visual Effects. Doubt I'll even watch the bloated, overblown, underfunny Academy Awards show knowing that.

Well at least some Democrats get it:

To the anger of many liberals, an attempt to filibuster the nomination of Judge Alito, led by Ted Kennedy and John Kerry failed miserably as 19 Democrats, including my favorite Joe Lieberman, voted against the filibuster.

Despite Ted Kennedy’s rant about how the future of the world was at stake and that the progression of every group in the country would revert back to the days of the British Empire, a number of Democrats seemed to understand what is really at stake.

Those 19 Democrats were able to understand that though they might not like Judge Alito and probably will vote against him during the up and down vote, President Bush’s overwhelming victory in 2004 was because millions of people, mainly Evangelical Christians, wanted a Republican to pick the next Supreme Court nominee(s). Those Democrats know with the 2006 mid-term election right around the corner, it didn’t make sense to enrage those voters with a filibuster, giving them reason to come out once again in mass against the Democrats. I personally was hoping for the filibuster, to give us the ammunition we need to get the hard right out in November.

Monday, January 30, 2006

The Second Biggest Event in DC This Week

After President Bush gives his State of the Union address Tuesday, the next item of interest coming out of the Swamp will be the House Republican leadership elections. And as good pachyderms, we should all be following this one closely, because it could signify a significant change in the way the GOP caucus operates in Congress's lower chamber for at least the rest of this session.

The contenders for House Majority Leader are Roy Blunt, the current interim leader and Majority Whip, John Boehner, and come-from-behind conservative John Shadegg. Between the three of them, they all claim to have more public supporters than there actually are voting Republicans in the caucus, but that's just details.

What's really important is that despite appearances, there are some very different choices between these men. Personally, I'm pulling for John Shadegg. Unlike Blunt and Boehner, he is a fresh face, untied to the current Republican leadership in the House and, therefore, unassociated with the status quo which has brought the GOP agenda down to a sputter. Shadegg is an avowed fiscal conservative, something that his opponents definitely cannot lay claim to, and he offers the best hope of getting spending under control. It may appear at this point that Blunt has the race locked up, but Shadegg's connection to the Republican Study Committee should not be underestimated when it comes to mustering votes. 2006 is going to be a very interesting year for Republicans, and the fun and games could very well start this Thursday.

Another al-Zawahiri tape:

Well another Al Qaeda favorite is out in the media again calling on the coming destruction of America and how it’s all George Bush’s fault.

What’s funny is at the end of the press release at CNN.com it says “The Egyptian exile (al-Zawahiri) has been indicted for his alleged role in the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998”.

So let me get this straight. He and his crew bombed the WTC in 1993, issued a deceleration of war against the U.S. in 1998 via a fatwa, bombed two embassies and the U.S. Cole all while Bill Clinton was President but it’s George Bush’s fault we’re being threatened because of his war in Iraq in 2003.

Chavez should be careful what he wishes for:

Venezuela’s oil minister stated earlier today that they would support Iran with its nuclear dispute.

Hmm. Considering that Chavez has stated that he would like to develop a nuclear reactor, such an announcement doesn’t seem shocking. Iran gets another voice in the UN, while Chavez gets someone to help build his reactor.

It would be interesting to see how the world would view such a move. Venezuela has signed the NPT but that was before Chavez. You have to assume that Chavez wants nukes to protect his newfound empire and a reactor is always the first step.

Chavez should be careful with who he gets in bed with though. We thought helping the muslims in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union was good for our interests until the Soviet Union fell and the people we helped turned their guns on us. Considering Venezuela is Christian, they’re infidels’ jus as much as we are which means any Venezuela/Iran relationship would be just a short-term matter of convenience until they become enemies.

Does this guy have no shame?

Yesterday I had the joy of registering my son for kindergarten. For you liberals out there it will pain you to hear that I registered him for catholic school, I know the horror. A cute note is that it’s actually the same grammar school my wife and I graduated from.

While there in the gym they had tables with information spread out across them. As I went down the list the last one on the table caused me to laugh. It was an ugly, cheap, orange pamphlet that was titled the Attorney General Elliott Spitzer’s safety tips for parents. Smack in the middle of the cover was his ugly mug with that fake smile. I swear he must have to take an aspirin every time he takes a photo because his smile looks like it hurts. When you open it, it gives you bullet points on different things that as a parent you already know unless you were brain dead.

This pamphlet was an obvious attempt for self-promotion, it might as well had elect Elliott in 06’ on it. His face on the cover was the main focal point of the pamphlet placed smack in the middle making it what you saw first, not the safety tips, which was suppose to be the point of the pamphlet. What I found most amazing is that this is the same guy who came out and questioned Governor Pataki’s call for tax-credits for private school. I don’t know who I’m disappointed in more, his lame attempt for votes or the schools decision to put that piece of junk on the table.

Sunday, January 29, 2006

The True State of New York

A must-read from George Will (most everything he writes is a must-read, by the way) on our fair state and it's current political fortunes, or lack thereof.

I encourage everyone to check it out.

Friday, January 27, 2006

NYYRC Opposes Senate Filibuster of Judge Alito

For Immediate Release, January 27, 2006
Contact: Jen Saunders
Email: pr@nyyrc.com


(New York, NY) The New York Young Republican Club, Inc. (NYYRC) denounces Senator Kerry’s threat for a filibuster and urges New York Senators Schumer and Clinton to allow the vote to proceed.

Judge Alito has received public support from many Republican Senators, as well as several Democrats. NYYRC President Dennis Cariello remarked, “It is clear that Judge Alito will be confirmed if the vote is allowed to come to the Senate floor. Even if Senators Clinton and Schumer are not going to vote yes for Judge Alito, though I believe that with Alito’s credentials there is no reason they should not, they at least need to respect Judge Alito’s right to a fair and timely vote.”

The New York Young Republican Club implores Senators Clinton and Schumer not to stand in the way of the legislative process and to discourage their colleagues from initiating a filibuster. Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA), came out in opposition to the filibuster, "because we have such a full plate of pressing issues before Congress, a filibuster at this time would be, in my view, very counterproductive.”

Cariello commented, “Senator Landrieu makes an excellent point. I call on Senators Clinton and Schumer to make similar statements to that effect, to compel their colleagues to allow the vote without filibuster. Senators Kerry and Kennedy need to stop their grandstanding, so that the Senate to can confirm Judge Alito without delay and move on to other important matters.”

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 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 http://www.nyyrc.com.

NYYRC Policy on Posting on the Record

The New York Young Republican Record Web log welcomes comments from all areas of the ideological spectrum to the posts that are submitted herein by the Executive Board and the Board of Governors of the New York Young Republican Club.

The free exchange of ideas is central to the foundation and continued endurance of our republic, and no one group or individual of any political nature holds a monopoly on that exchange. It is essential to our growth as a nation, and indeed as individuals, to be free to express our views and have those views aired to anyone who is receptive.

Because we want to have the views expressed by the posts and comments of this blog read by the widest possible audience, we developed a policy that will be strictly adhered to from this point forward. Any postings or comments put on the Record Web log, regardless of the source, that contains foul language or vulgar displays will be summarily deleted without exception. The public discourse will not suffer from the loss of such language, and any political or social commentary that is expressed herein will be viewed more broadly because of this policy.

We look forward to continuing as a sounding board for the views of this Club and of all the visitors to our blog now and in the future.

Thank you.
NYYRC Record Administrator

Why I think America needs to keep its farm subsidies:

I know, the title alone probably has some of you falling out of your chair considering it’s coming from me but before I’m accused of being a hypocrite let me make my point.

For several years now a battle has raged around the world on what to do with farm subsidies by rich nations. Developing countries have continuously cried foul on their inability to compete because of cheap farm goods from America and Europe thanks to our subsidies and the tariffs we but on their agricultural products when coming into the country. Many will recall when President Bush first came into office he signed the largest farm subsidy bill in history giving over $170 billion to American farmers over the next decade. Now it can be argued that allot of the reason behind it was to secure votes across the farm states and on that they have a point. However I believe subsidies are much more important to America then votes for politicians.

Currently one of the biggest crises we face is over our dependence on foreign oil. America though the second largest oil produce in the world, still only makes enough to support half our needs. One has to wonder what our policies toward the middle east would be if it weren’t that oil was a matter of national security.

With that said, what would America’s national security be like if we had to all of a sudden depend on foreign countries for our food source like we do with oil. It is safe to say that if the American government didn’t subsidize our farms many would close, shifting production offshore to places like Latin America. Without subsidies the economic rule of Comparative Advantage would takeover, as it would no longer be to someone’s advantage to farm in America.

At that point with the majority of America’s food source in foreign hands the chances of being held hostage to them increases like we are currently with oil producing nations. Worse in every major war since the Roman Empire, natural resources were generally one of the biggest issues in deciding its cause and victory. Just because it’s been 60 years since the last world war, it doesn’t mean another one can’t happen. If it does I want as a nation to be assured that we’re making our own food no matter how much the cost to tax payers. When it comes to national security and free trade, farming off the production of t-shirts is one thing, having someone else make my vegetables is another.

Thursday, January 26, 2006

We won A:

I think we wouldn’t be doing our job if we didn’t take a moment to congratulate the conservative party in Canada for winning the election on January 23rd. The new Prime Minister Stephen Harper has done a great job revitalizing a party that has been out of power since 1993. He ran on the platform of lower taxes and being strong on crime, which was an easy sell to even Canadians.

Actually, the Attack on Google is Part of the Master Plan

I commented on this earlier this month, and I am of the same mind now as I was then.

It is necessary for people to call out companies like Google each and every time they make a decision that placates the communist government in China. Irrespective of what their corporate responsibilities are in that country, it must be consistently and repeatedly pointed out what they are doing.

You say baby steps are what will bring greater freedom to the Chinese people, and I agree with you. However, those baby steps will not be made without people protesting against Google's actions that favor the Chinese government. They are a constant reminder that no one should be satisfied with or settle for the anti-democratic situation that currently exists there. Without these protests, no one will know. And if no one knows, then nobody will care. And if no one cares, then nothing will change.

Is the attack on Google unfair?

Everybody is currently up in arms over Google’s decision to alter its search engine in China, at their request, so that it filters information that the Chinese government thinks is inappropriate.

Now I’m in know way saying China is a great place when it comes to freedom but does Google have a point when it says that "while removing search results is inconsistent with Google's mission, providing no information is more inconsistent with our mission." I think what people are missing here is that considering where China is starting from on the freedom scale, it’s foolish to think that they should just throw the doors open to U.S. style freedom.

Taking the U.S. as an example, today we are spoiled with our freedom with some of it to the point where it can be argued it is out of control. Comparing our movies and TV today versus 40-50 years ago I think is a good way to look at where China is at currently. In 1939 the movie Gone With the Wind stirred an uproar when one of the lines in the movie stated “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a dam”. The line was considered scandalous and the producers of the movie were given a fine of $5,000, a large amount of money for the time. Studios back then believed in censoring anything on TV and the movies that could corrupt America, similar to the position China is currently taking with the Internet.

Over the last 5 decades America has more and more become desensitized to what is shown on TV. I think the same will go for China. As time goes on, China will continue to lower its guard. It was only 10 years ago where the idea of reading anything on the Internet in China would’ve been a no no. Allot of what will progress things in China like in this country is the youth of today will be tomorrows leaders. It is that youth that will get it most. Currently our government is trying to find ways to stop video games like Grand Theft Auto. 15 years from now there will be people running government who probably played it, how will that change any legislation passed today? Most likely by softening it up.

China will get there too and companies like Google are right to recognize that the baby steps are what will do the most good today.

If You Can't Beat Them, Copy Them

CNN has been engaged in a battle for ratings with Fox News for some time now, and in recent weeks they have made some bold programming moves and snapped up some high-profile conservative talent to chip away at FNC's arguably larger audience.

Losing Robert Novak to Fox News was a bad blow for Ted Turner's kids, but they didn't seem to have much place for him after he stormed off a live broadcast of Crossfire hurling curses at co-host Paul Begala (I'm so jealous; Novak has all the fun). On the plus side, they did manage to slough off that pantywaist Aaron Brown, whose touch-feely brand of journalism made watching his program feel like a session on a psychiatrist's couch.

But in recent weeks, CNN has picked up radio talk show personality Glenn Beck, former Republican congressman and strategist JC Watts, and just recently author and talk-show host William Bennett.

CNN will probably only succeed in alienating some of its built-in audience. It's doubtful they'll pull away hardcore Fox News viewers by trying to be all things to all people. Ironic; isn't that what the Democrats are doing?

Ed Cox Will Not Jump Back Into Senate Race

Citing that it is too late to jump back into the fray, Ed Cox announced just a short time ago that he will not get back into the race to unseat Hillary Clinton this November. Personally, I think that's a shame, because he would have made a fine candidate. He was a great speaker at our general meeting last week. He's a good friend to the New York Young Republican Club and a great Republican. Wish him well and hope he won't be a stranger.

Cheers to Prince Harry, the New Black Prince!

Yesterday it was confirmed that after several years of talk, Prince Harry would join the Blues and Royal regiment. For some time now Prince Harry has said he would like to serve with other troops no matter how risky the operation. Can you say Iraq?

I say, good for Prince Harry! As a fan of history, his move reminds me of the old days when Kings and Princes rode the front lines giving their men the moral they needed to win the day. What fan of the Middle Ages could forget the impact of men like Edward the Black Prince, son of King Edward III, who led England at the ripe age of 16 to victories over the French at the famous battle of Poitiers and his capture of the French King, John the Good.

There has always been something special when those with position of power, who have more to loose then gain, decide to put themselves in harms way for God and country. What would our nation be like today had George Washington decided not to roam the front lines during the Revolutionary War?

Prince Harry, hats off to you!

Re: Will the Spread of Democracy be Israel's Greatest Risk?

I don't know if I would phrase the question that way. Democracy is only a risk to regimes that are undemocratic. If the new Palestinian government is legitimate and wishes to negotiate in good faith, then the question should be "Can the Spread of Democracy Resolve the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict?" But just by looking at their track record, I have no reason to believe that Hamas will act in good faith even for the sake of their own people let alone for the stability of the region as a whole.

When I read that Hamas was victorious in the elections, I was disheartened. However, if the Palestinian elections turn out to be valid (and the verdict is still out on that), then we have to accept the outcome and deal with the consequences. At any given time in history, people get the government that they deserve, and if the Palestinians truly want a militant terrorist group like Hamas to run their show, then that's what they will get. If they want peace, then they can have that, too. But peace will only happen when everyone, the Palestinians and the Israelis together, want it to happen. It's enough to say that the ball is in somebody's court. This is no game.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Will the spread of Democracy be Israel’s greatest risk?

Right now we’re all reading about the large turnout in the Palestinian elections in favor of Hamas. Many are calling it a victory for Democracy as the violent wing moves toward the political mainstream. The hope is that as official members of government it will open up dialog with Israel and lead toward a diplomatic solution, halting the violence that currently plagues the region. Is this what will happen or will Hamas exploit its new political capital to wage war as a nation? Though not officially a state, since they are recognized by the UN and holding elections, what else more do they need?

The potential problem as I see it, is that for years Hamas has stayed out of the Palestinian Authority which has allowed the authority to act as a continuous buffer between Israel, the western governments that support them and the militant Muslim wing that wants them destroyed. However now as part of that same authority the buffer has been removed but not Hamas’s desire to expel Israel, which means the chance for escalation can only increase.

In Samuel Huntington’s controversial best seller, “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order”, he prophesized in the late 1990’s how the world would shift from an alignment of nations based on ideology (Democracy vs. Communism) to a world aligned based on cultural beliefs. If he is correct, which so far he has, peace between Israel and the new Palestinian government will be difficult. Old hatred’s are hard to remove, especially when both groups have little in common.

Democratic Victory Strategy of the Week

The Democrats will try pretty much anything to regain control of at least one chamber of Congress this Fall. Last month they tried to capitalize on people's disgust over the war in Iraq. Well, unfortunately, people are not as disgusted as Democrats first believed now that Saddam is on trial and a new democratically elected government is in formation.

Two weeks ago it was the "culture of corruption" that the Republicans supposedly created with their buddy Jack Abramoff. But that backfired too when it was revealed that not only are Senate Democrats equally complicit in their dealings with Abramoff, but the public is apathetic enough about corruption in Washington, that this latest scandal is unlikely to affect voter turnout or behavior in November.

Now, the latest kitchen sink the Dems are throwing at the GOP to gain Congressional seats in November focuses on the civil liberties argument. But, as Ron Brownstein argues in today's LA Times, arguing civil liberties in time of war is a risky proposition. Anyone who argues liberty over safety in wartime risks coming off as weak. And let's face it, the Dems can be accused of many things, but being tough will never be one of them.

Personally, I'm looking forward to their winning midterm election strategy for next week. Perhaps it may even involve men from Mars.

I’m not the only one saying it:

I love it when I take the time to write about something only to have a higher authority confirm it. If anyone gets a chance, today’s Financial Times (the one thing other than the Economist that Europe has over America) has a full-page article about how the U.S. has continually outperformed Europe. The article is titled “A productivity prescription: how the U.S. has pulled away from Europe and Japan”.

Here are some quotes:

“The idea that European economies are bad at exploiting new technology is supported by detailed research in productivity between individual U.S. and UK companies.”

“You could call it the productivity myth. It goes like this. European economies trail behind the U.S. because their citizens would rather people-gaze from a pavement café than labor loyally in the corporate salt mines.”

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

You have to love those silly Europeans:

Sticking with the economics theme, hey what else am I going to talk about, I read an article in the Financial Times today about some wrangling that is going on between France and Germany.

The issue at hand is about France’s desire to reduce the value added tax (VAT) that European countries charge their consumers. Jacques Chirac wanted to lower the VAT rate on French restaurant meals. As Americans, to us this sounds like a no-brainer and good way to get people to eat out more helping the French service industry. Germany’s call for Chirac to scrap his idea is because they are concerned that if France lowers their VAT, Germany will be pressured to do the same.

Here in America we call this friendly competition, which is why our companies and states are generally efficient. Could you imagine New Jersey complaining to New York about lowering their tax rates for downtown because it might get companies to move to New York? Isn’t that the point?

They just continuously make it to easy for us to kick their buts.

Monday, January 23, 2006

To NY State Senate: Economics, Anyone...Anyone

It seems some people just never get it, unfortunately allot of the time those people are in charge of running our government. Currently Democrats in the state senate of New York are in the process of introducing a bill that would force stores with 500 or more employees to pay $3 an hour for each employee to cover health care costs for the state.

As I have written countless times on this blog over the last month, such proposals can only lead to disaster for a state like New York. Time and time again, the only thing that has been proven to maximize the amount of people in our labor force, is a free and open system that gives companies the flexibility to price their offering package to employees at the point where they can hire the most people for their money. As I have said before this is known as the Equilibrium Wage point(Chart A) which represents the point where labor supply and demand is equal on a wage and labor chart. Any microeconomics textbook will teach you that pushing wages above the equilibrium level (like forcing companies to pay $3 an hour for each employee) will raise the quantity of labor supplied (those people looking for a job) and lower the quantity of labor demanded (the amount of people that company can now hire because of the increased costs) Chart B. In simpler terms, creating wage floors through the use of minimum wage or special taxes (which is what this is) only ends up increasing unemployment in the state and worse makes other companies think twice about moving into the state or expanding within the state. As I’ve said before this has been the difference between the U.S. and Europe and why our growth rates are higher and our unemployment is lower. (Click on the graph to expand it)

One of the reasons I love economics and business is because numbers and charts don’t lie. People in our government have to get over their emotions and how they feel is the right and fair way to govern and instead govern solely on what has been proven statistically correct for centuries.

Saturday, January 21, 2006

NYYRC Hosts Ed Cox & Claudia Rosett at January General Meeting

For those of you who couldn't make our January 2006 general membership meeting, this is what you missed:

For Immediate Release, January 20, 2006

Contact: Jen Saunders
Email: pr@nyyrc.com


(New York, NY) The New York Young Republican Club, Inc. (NYYRC) was proud to host and number of speakers at their monthly January Meeting of the NYYRC General Membership.

Ed Cox, former Senate Candidate spoke to 100 Members of the Club, telling stories about his days as a Young Republican. He was excited to speak to the "Future of the Republican Party" and delved into the issues the GOP will face in the immediate and distant future.

NYYRC President Dennis Cariello said, "Ed Cox is a great man and we are very proud to have hosted him last night, our first meeting in 2006. Our Young Republicans were impressed by his knowledge of the issues and his passion for the Republican Party." He continued, "With such an extensive background, he would be a great candidate for any office and I hope that he will, one day, revisit that option."

The NYYRC also hosted Claudia Rosett, the Journalist-in-Residence at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, who discussed her extensive and ground-breaking work on the Oil-for-Food Scandal.

President Cariello noted "Ms. Rosett's work has truly been a great public service. In uncovering much of the truth behind the largest financial scandal in the history of the world, she has help shed light on a secretive organization that is increasingly less a tool for peace than a safe-haven for despots and frauds." He continued, "We are all in debt to her and I sincerely hope that she continues her good work and gets to the bottom of this matter in a way that the Volcker Commission did not."

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 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 www.nyyrc.com.

The New York Young Republican Club meets on the third Thursday of every month at the Union League Club at 38 East 37th Street, New York, NY. They are free and open to the public. Be sure to check our calendar for details.

Friday, January 20, 2006

Chirac, Strong on Terrorism?

Some of you might have noticed the markets tumbling during the day. One of the reasons is oil futures in New York closed above $68 a barrel, which is a 20-week high and near the record high of $70. Though it’s been building for several days, today’s capitulation is a result of the Iran confrontation heating up.

The latest development is that Iran’s central bank has started to transfer assets out of European banks for fear that their money might be frozen like after the 1979 Islamic revolution.

To add fuel to the fire, Jacques Chirac of all people yesterday in front of French Naval officers said the French if attacked could respond using conventional or weapons of “another nature”, which everyone took as meaning nuclear.

You can’t blame Iran for pulling their money but what’s the deal with Chirac?

Breaking News - THE TWU SUCKS

The TWU has just voted down the contract or, as the PA puts it:

"The city's transit workers, one month to the day
after they stranded 7 million riders with a crippling three-day
strike, voted Friday to reject their new three-year contract by a
margin of just seven votes."

What a bunch of bums.

Bin Laden Up Against the Ropes?

Osama bin Laden's latest radio show has him giving the typical rants: "America sucks, we're going to bomb you very soon, Iraq is a quagmire (he borrowed that one from Ted Kennedy, I think), etc., etc., blah, blah, blah."

What struck me though was his offer of a truce. That's fresh. A truce - which basically means we won't mess with you if you don't mess with us - between the radicals of Jihadistan and the United States. Just think about that for a moment. Why would bin Laden even tip his hand like that?

Is it some elaborate mind game? That's possible considering that rhetoric and subterfuge are key tools in the terrorist skillset. Perhaps it's an attempt to throw us off our game while he repositions his group for another round of international attacks.

Could it be that he's offering us a way out before he delivers his knockout blow? This can't be the case because we are not even close to being knocked out. If killing terrorists around the world is our business, then business is booming. We've been wiping these guys out left and right. There has not been a domestic terrorist attack since September 11, 2001, and we have firmly cemented our military presence in the Middle East pretty much indefinitely. Bin Laden may have access to vast resources in terms of money and young men willing to blow themselves up, but in the end it comes down to the words of Gen. George S. Patton: "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." 'Nuff said.

The last possible reason for bin Laden's truce option is the one I subscribe to. And that is the fact that Osama bin Laden is boxed in, and he is looking for a way out. You might be thinking that I am overly optimistic. But hear me out. The worldwide jihad that bin Laden had hoped for is clearly not going to happen. He has no state sponsors of any merit (Iran is a problem of its own making, and would be so with or without Al Qaeda). The U.S. war against him literally spans the globe and we are moving on every front all the time. And we have no intention of stopping until we are completely victorious. Five years, ten years, a hundred years; doesn't matter. Bin Laden doesn't have a hundred years. Nor does he have the resources to go toe to toe with us. Even his concept of defeating us by attrition is not working.

Only someone who has a deep fear of losing would offer a truce. That's a lesson we picked up in the school yard. The guy on top never calls for a truce. Why? Because he's on top. If victory is in sight, or if you believe strongly that you will be victorious, why call for a cessation of hostilities? Why settle for half when you know you can have it all?

I'm not saying we're going to wake up tomorrow morning and all will be right with the world. And I'm not saying this is the beginning of the end. But, to quote Winston Churchill, I do believe it is the end of the beginning.

Speaking of Hillary Clinton’s Plantation Comment:

After pondering her plantation comment further, I couldn’t help but wonder if she was referring to the City Council. Thinking about it, it’s actually the best description of the City Council I have ever heard.

MSNBC, What Democrats Love to Watch?

I have to ask, who are these people that watch MSNBC and visit their website? Everyday MSNBC does this thing called the question of the day where they take a poll of the general public on their opinion of various topics. Obviously the poll is not scientific on what the overall country is thinking but it is scientific on telling us the kind of people that watch MSNBC.

For example the question of the day yesterday was “President Bush says the economy is strong: Do you agree?” The vote turned out to be 24% yes and 76% no. Are these people kidding me? You don’t have to be reading my post on the YR blog to know the U.S. economy is the strongest it’s ever been. Yesterday the weekly jobless claims number showed that people filing for unemployment was the lowest its been since 2000 at the height of the dot com boom. Corporate profits are at record numbers and corporate tax receipts to the government are at record numbers. On top of all this, the percentage of Americans who currently own a home is at record levels across all demographics.

I sent a letter into MSNBC pointing all this out while making a prediction that the people clicking “no” were doing it while holding onto a $300 Ipod, snapping away with their digital camera, while talking on their new cell phone, watching their HDTV driving around in their new car. Ok so you’re paying a little more for gas, get over it.

What’s is more insightful into the MSNBC viewer poll is that the day before the question was “are you offended be Sen. Clinton’s plantation comment”? Interestingly enough the results were, 27% yes and 73% no, the complete opposite of the President Bush question.

What’s sad about this whole thing is that MSNBC doesn’t just throw this poll up on their site everyday for giggles. At least three times a day they do a segment on the poll on the air where they show the results and act as if this is the pulse of the American public.

If MSNBC wants to surpass that other news station in viewers, it should look at these poles closely to see where their problem is. The numbers are telling MSNBC something and it’s not the pulse of America.

Thursday, January 19, 2006

Stay out of my Village:

You knew the issue wouldn’t go away and that they would at some point give it another try. Yesterday parents and a consumer group, The Campaign for a Commercial-Free childhood, filed a lawsuit against Viacom and Kellogg. Their aim is to cease marketing junk food to children during shows where over 15% of the audience is under the age of eight.

Now as a parent of a child under the age of eight, I feel I have some authority to speak about the subject. For starters my son is one of those kids who wakes up in the morning and watches Nickelodeon, The Disney Channel, Cartoon Network and every other station while mommy and daddy get dressed for work. When he comes home he does the same thing, in between playing with his toys, while dinner is being prepared.

I will agree that during those shows my son is subject to every marketing ploy possible. Kids having a great time playing with the coolest new toy, kids eating so much candy that they turn into the fruit it represents as well as ads from all the fast food chains and snack makers.

I though don’t care! Yes don’t care! You know why? Because despite all the advertising I’m still the parent who’s in control. Last I checked when I go to the supermarket executives from Viacom and Kellogg aren’t pushing my cart yelling, “pick that one”. I decide what goes in my cart not them and certainly not my son. Sure he might say “daddy can I get that” but you know what I say as the adult? “No, daddy doesn’t want you to eat that because it won’ help you get big". It’s amazing how when the adult says no, it works and the stuff doesn’t enter the house. I would love to visit the parents of this lawsuit homes and see what they have in their cabinets.

I have to ask these people, who pays for the groceries at the checkout? I know my son doesn’t. What child under eight even has money to buy any of this stuff? These people need to start taking some more responsibility for themselves. They should worry more about their kids watching MTV while they’re trying to get ready for work then about store purchases that they have complete control over.

School Choice Heats Up:

Last week I wrote a post, “Trying to keep good kids down”, that mentioned Governor Pataki’s brave and smart idea to give tax credits to families who would like to send their children to private school but can’t afford to do so. At that time Randi Weingarten, head of the UFT, immediately came out attacking the plan because it would obviously create competition for her inefficient teacher system.

Yesterday a new voice threw his hat into the ring and he goes by the name of Elliot Spitzer. Spitzer, as being reported by the New York Sun, commented on the constitutionality of giving tax credits for private school. When he says constitutionality he is referring to the Blaine Amendment that passed the House of Representatives in 1875. Despite falling short in the Senate most states including New York have adopted it for their states constitution. The Blaine Amendment originally was a well-known 19th century attempt to stop the rise of the Roman Catholic Church and their schools. The Amendment stated that no money or land raised by the state could be devoted to a religious sect.

This brings up some interesting questions. How could a liberal state like New York with a Senator like Hillary Clinton, who accuses Republicans of discrimination, allow the Blaine Amendment on their books? Are they not embarrassed that such discriminatory legislation that was proposed during a period of rampant discrimination against many groups is one of the building blocks of their states constitution? Based on what Democrats claim to stand for, I would expect such legislation would be on the books of those hate mongering southern states, not a liberal loving, peace on earth, fighting for the discriminated against, northern state like New York! Here’s a question the Observer could ask Hillary and Elliot the next time they do lunch, “So (fill in name here) do you think an amendment that was passed in the eighteen hundreds to knowingly stop the spread of Catholicism should be overturned?” I won’t hold my breath.

I would also like to make a point that I believe the whole idea of separation of church and state, has been dramatically exploited by the left. Doesn’t our constitution also call for freedom of religion? How does a country like the U.S. and state like New York, claim freedom of religion when they pass laws like the Blaine Amendment that are obvious attempts to prevent it?

If I’m a parent of a child and cannot afford to exercise my right of freedom of religion by sending my child to catholic school because my money in the form of taxes is being diverted to the public school system, how is that not discrimination? By forcing me to pay for a public school seat the state is not allowing me to exercise my right to send my child to private school.

Democrats argument against school vouchers, tax credits or whatever you want to call them, is not a matter of separation of church and state but a continuous attack on the idea of God playing a part in peoples lives. Democrats need to stop the hypocrisy and start respecting that there are people who don’t want their money to go to a public school seat but a private school one. Lets see what Elliot has to say about that one.

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

From the Horse's Mouth - On the NY Observer

As is my practice, I tend to enter debates at the last minute, to give a Montel Williams-like summary, or, some would say, Jerry's Final Word. Rather than doing so to get the last word, I feel it best to enter after passions have subsided and after all views have been aired. It helps me make better sense of things,

First, I would like to thank Jessica Bruder and the Observer for contacting me regarding the story that everyone seems to be commenting so much about. I can say that I was not misquoted and, considering the allegations of "dwarf-bowling" and the like, I guess I came out as a pretty reasonable person.

I guess the biggest complaint was that their could have been more research done on the article and, I do agree with that point. I think there are a number of people that could have been interviewed about what we do as an organization and given a positive impression. That said, I won't kill Jessica for this, as this was her last day on the job and deadlines are deadlines. To that end, I wish her well and good luck with the book she's writing.

Of course, I would prefer an article that, if it had to discuss the two clubs as factions, would have been titled "Two Young Republican Clubs, Working Separately to the Same Goal" and focused on the positive aspects of the clubs. I would rather have an article mention that we won the award for Best Large Club of 2004-2005 from the Young Republican National Federation, provided members with opportunities to meet Senator Brownback, Congressman Reynolds, Ari Fleischer, Governor Pataki and Mayor Bloomberg, and that we helped multiple campaigns this year and that we keep growing (membership and fundraising are up for the fourth consecutive year). I would have been pleased to see the other club's accomplishments in print as well. It would have set the right mood for the article - albeit one of sadness.

Instead, the article focused on the bizarre -- and more interesting for readers I'm sure -- details about the split. I don't blame anyone for this, although as a party leader and Republican I just want to shake my head. Not about the Observer article, but that this situation exists for the Observer to write about.

I do wish to note for the record that Ms. Bruder asked me for details about the split that occurred in 1991 and that I declined the invitation to discuss it. Of course, my understanding of the facts differs from that reported in the Observer -- which I assume was provided by Mr. Thomas Stevens. In any event, even if I knew that the account of Mr. Stevens would be reported, I still would refuse to air such laundry for the public. We are Republicans and I do not see any gain in publicly disparaging my friends or proclaiming to the world our internal differences.

For the record, though, there is no feud because, at minimum, I have laid down my arms for quite some time. The story is only interesting because of the salacious history from a decade ago. It is now a quirk. Paul Rodriguez and I have resolved our disputes through phone calls not law suits.

I also wish to thank Paul for not ratcheting up the rhetoric. He and I have had a very nice relationship, despite the odd situation we are in, and I look at it as a display of friendship that he chose not to take the easy road and get his name in the paper with a quote disparaging me or this club. I've called him today to tell him that and look forward to conveying the message when he gets back in.

In all, my biggest concern about the piece was the implication from one quote that we are not an activist club. I dispute that, and am willing to put the facts before judge and jury to prove otherwise. Thankfully, I have spoken to the author of the quote and he has graciously agreed to come to our club in the future. I am sure we will be vindicated on this point and that we will win a new friend in the process.

I wish to thank you all for your kind words about how I looked in print (the chair - you look much better on radio!). I don't give interviews much and I guess it pays to be honest and speak what you believe.

Now let's go out there and win some special elections this February!

What Quality of Reporting?

Thanks to Gos for plowing the road on Jessica Bruder's story. She claims that Young Republicans are keeping an old feud alive, but the only thing that I see keeping this so-called feud alive are stories like Bruder's (which I won't bother to link to. I'm afraid you'll have to find it yourself). Her reporting, as Gos pointed out, misses the facts of the present situation by a country mile. And here I thought the phrase "All the news that's printed to fit" only applied to the New York Times.

It makes me realize that politics probably wouldn't have the bad reputation it does with many people if weren't for the media's reporting of it.

As for the feud or schism or conflict, whatever you want to call it - even the Hatfields and the McCoys settled their differences eventually. Republicans are too small a group in this town to be pitted against one another.

Remember what Ben Franklin said:

We must hang together, or we most assuredly will hang separately.

RE: Quality of Reporting:

I could see where that post by Gos could be interpreted in a negative light. However I think anyone reading the article in the Observer and the post below need to understand the heart, sweat and hours that a number of people have put into this club, so like-minded individuals could have a place to go, meet and escape the liberal speak that consumes this city (you don’t know what it’s really like being a Young Republican in this city until you have been spat on in the street, something some of my colleagues have experienced).

Readers of the post below have to understand that all the work that is done on a daily basis by the board of governors of this club is not for personal fame or economic ends. Most don’t even know the name of our membership chair, our events chair, our community outreach chair and others who work everyday to make the club better. These individuals get no compensation except for the satisfaction that maybe their work made a difference to somebody in the club or community.

From my experience, I believe the perceived animosity toward the other club is really just frustration at how our club, despite all its efforts otherwise, somehow have to continually be dragged into this so-called “feud” as if we’re the Hatfield’s and McCoy’s. The frustration on our end is from the fact that whenever the issue comes up it’s always started by a source other then this club. As Dennis mentioned in the article, “he never says a bad word about them” and anyone who ever came to any of our general meetings or events will never hear one either. In fact it is our clubs policy when asked about the other club, to recommend them check out both clubs. I personally can say that the one Hornack club meeting that a friend and I went too; we did hear him make negative comments about our club in an obvious attempt to make it appear to his members that they were being held down by the man. The meeting also included attacks on Governor Pataki and Mayor Bloomberg but I digress.

My point is this club will continue to carry on so it can make a difference in the community and with its members. Unfortunately as part of that mission we will have to just be cognizant that there will be moments like the Observer article where our past differences will be exploited for a story or for a chance for one side to get some gratification. Fortunately for those really involved with our club, they know what our time is spent on, which if I may say, would make a much better story.

Quality of Reporting

By now, I am sure that many of you have read the swan song article by Jessica Bruder in the Observer. Talking about going out on a high note; writing about the NYYRC, Inc. "Feud". I am curious what she does for an encore.

First of all, the article was clearly one-sided with person after person quoted who could not be further in the Hornak sycophantic corner. For purposes of full disclosure, she did contact me over the Holiday Weekend, but when I called her back on Tuesday, she had already submitted it. That being said, where was the reach out to County or State Committee's? Where was the reach out to the various candidates that we help? Where was the reach out to other political bodies that we have developed strong relationships with? There was none of that. The article took things at Robert's words and was shoddy at best.

Secondly, I am sick of this Robert as the victim nonsense. All of us know that the Host Committee for the Convention took everyone and anyone who wanted to volunteer. Unless there was some legal or mental issue with an individual, they took you. Furthermore, its not like the work many of us did for the Convention was glamorous. I don't recall too many YR's sipping drinks in the sky boxes during the Convention.

Also, we put together quality events for YR's who could and could not help out at the Convention with speakers such as Rep. Bob Barr and Amb. Jean Kirkpatrick. Noone outside of the YR's helped us with that. Its not our fault the best they could come up with is a pub in Brooklyn. Maybe they should be more focused on their club activities than sitting around whining about not get hand outs.

Thirdly, we get little to nothing from the State Party. Direction? Marching Orders? Give me a break. If any organization is Borg-like in its construct its Hornak's crew. Isn't Paul the President, but Robert speaks all the time. When will he give up the reigns? He has his club only endorse candidates that Robert gets a salary from. I can't seem to recall his people helping many to any people this last cycle. I also don't seem to recall them flooding the streets with volunteers for those who has hired him. And to make matters more interesting, they seem not to have a problem endorsing Democrats. Some GOP activist group I guess. This does not even begin to mention the questionable legal situations Robert's activity is with State and Federal Election law, but I digress.

At the end of the day, we have a reporter who has written an article about nonsense and taken them at their word while doing little to research our side. His 500 members (a lie and what little they do have are over 40), his activism (endorsing employers and even Democrats) and their quality are all questionable at best and a bit of research would display that. Once again, Robert plays the victim where there are no crimes because he has nothing else better to do.

Unless You’re Lead Dog, the View Never Changes:

Over the last couple of weeks I have spoken how America’s economy is much more resilient than its European counterparts. I pointed out how on average America’s developed economy has outpaced Europe continually in all categories from higher GDP growth to lower unemployment. If you recall one of the reasons I gave was because of the efficiency of our work force and the flexibility our government gives business to react quickly to a changing business environment. I said how Europe continues to struggle because business won’t take the risk in highering more employees when times improve because Europe’s labor laws have created a culture of inefficiency.

Today new economic data continue to prove this point. A global business organization, the Conference Board, reported figures for 2005 that showed the U.S. leading Europe when it comes to productivity growth. The report showed the U.S. had a 1.8% productivity growth rate compared to 0.5% in Europe. More startling is that over the last decade the U.S. has averaged 2.4% versus 1.4% in Europe.

One has to wonder at what point does European governments finally throw in the towel on their labor model and admit the U.S. has it right. Currently there are signs that they are trying like certain attempts to overturn the 35-hour workweek. Despite some voices of reason in their governments the socialist labor movement is still strong with a recent example being yesterdays protests against a move to try and liberalize European docks that would make them more productive. The protest, which turned violent, ended up costing hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages and now looks to be defeated.

Finally if you don’t believe what I have been saying about the benefits of a flexible labor force, just read what the Conference Board stated in their report:

"If Europe can stage an expected economic rebound, it might experience some acceleration in productivity growth. But in the longer run, productivity growth depends more strongly on the structural characteristics of the economy. These include the flexibility of labor and product markets, which foster the reallocation of labor and capital from less to more productive economic activities."

If I didn’t know better I would say the Conference Board has been reading this blog. :)

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

That's What I'm Talking About

"The question is whether you trivialize the suffering that people experienced on plantations by applying that word to a different setting," [Dartmouth College Professor Linda Fowler] said. "It's just really a question of appropriateness - making a connection between the badly treated Democrats in the House of Representatives and people who are enslaved against their will. It just seems like a stretch."
I'll say.
Actually, thanks Hil. A full-court press of several months by your media allies intended to convince America of your centrism, your moderation, your ability to play well with others hits the can after 30 seconds of you opening your friggin mouth and vibrating those lovely vocal chords of yours. I know it doesn't matter much to your supporters, they agree; or to the press, as accurately reporting on your alternatively shrill and soulless comments would require actually listening to you and doesn't fit the template of Bold Spirited Run for '08 by Smartest Woman in America; but to us, your sensible opposition, our resolve stiffens even as the rest of us within earshot cringes.

Unlike the Sharpton-Baron ugliness, I was fortunate enough to attend the CORE King Holiday "Living the Dream" Celebration where citizens gathered to recognise honest progress with an optimistic determination to face existing problems and better our country; booed Belafonte's most recent loathsome comments ; and honored, among others, Ambassador Bolton, Governor Barbour and the citizens of Mississippi (BTW, the Guv currently owns Most Unabashed Accent: I love how he can get "Mississippi" done in two syllables while "flood" requires four!), and Usher (! huge with the Kids I'm told, and looks about 12 himself).

A Woman’s Scorn:

By now we’ve all read or heard the Junior Senator from New York comments about how the house “has been run like a plantation, and you know what I’m talking about”. No actually I don’t and I don’t think any of those in attendance at her speech know either since none of them were ever slaves.

What I found interesting though was not her comment but what she meant by it. She went on to explain how “nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, make an argument, to be heard”. This is where Senator Clinton and the rest of her party get it wrong. If the Senator would recall this nation was founded over a war on the issue of taxation without representation. The purpose of our Congressmen, Senators and even Councilmen is to represent the people of this country. To listen to those people and represent their view, not Hillary Clinton’s view in government.

If the Senator would also recall currently the majority of those citizens, some of whom she supposedly represents, in the last several elections voted by majority to have Republicans run the House, Senate and White House. So Senator though it pains you to admit it, the American people have spoken and said by giving Republicans complete control that they want them to draft the legislation, not you and other Democrats.

The confirmation of Judge Alito is another example why Americans gave Republicans the majority. The 2004 elections was not a referendum on the Iraq War as Democrats made it out to be but instead on the Supreme Court. Conservatives in this country came out in droves to vote to give President Bush over 50% of the vote, something Bill Clinton never got, because they wanted a conservative to pick the next judge if not two. And by President Bush picking Judge Roberts and Alito he is simply representing the 50% that voted him in and their wishes.

So Senator Clinton can complain all she wants about how she and her Democrat friends are in the minority because she’s right. What she’s wrong about is her opinion that it’s not what the American people want because every election since 1998 has shown otherwise.

This war in Iraq doesn’t look like a bad idea after all:

When it comes to foreign policy decisions by any government I tend to be a realist. Most of this stems from my sick infatuation with history, mostly military, where I have come to appreciate the chess moves made by every nation since the invention of the spear. For instance President McKinley annexed Hawaii in 1898 because of the behind the door urging of Admiral Alfred Mahan. Admiral Mahan told President McKinley he believed it necessary to annex Hawaii before the Japanese did, which would create a launching point for an invasion on the United States. At the time Americans and Europeans went crazy calling us imperialist hypocrites. At least we were right hypocrites as World War II would have not been pretty had Japan held Hawaii instead of us. Another one is President James Polk’s decision to start a war with Mexico to obtain California. Polk was an expansionist who saw the value in controlling the whole west coast. It is said he had his people come up with a case for war (sound familiar). The war happened, we won, controlled California turning it into the Liberal hot bed of America. How ironic that the liberals who attack the current administration for misleading the public on the war got their home state through the same methods. Besides getting Hollywood Polk’s decision to control the west coast was brilliant as it assured an invasion against us from the west would have to come by sea and it allowed us to control deep water ports on both sides of the country.

So where am I going with this? To today’s war in Iraq. Since the first days of the war all we have heard is “it’s all about the oil”. Well being the realist I’m going to say there probably right in a sense that it is one of the reason and with today’s events in Iran and Nigeria I’ll say it was a great foreign policy decision right up there with Hawaii and California. The truth is between America and Europe we consume over half the worlds oil. This oil is the blood of every economy in the world allowing everything to move. Unfortunately it’s also controlled by some of the most hostile nations in the world who are unstable politically.

Today the price of oil is moving again as Nigerian oil facilities have come under attack from militia and possible UN sanctions against Iran bring up the idea of a possible oil embargo. Between Nigeria and Iran they have enough oil combined to make them the fourth largest producers. If their oil were to come offline for any reason the effect on the world would be crippling, hence the reason oil traders are currently pricing in additional risk premium.

Is it possible by invading Iraq and installing a friendly democratic government the world has the benefit of increasing its supply of oil so it may act as a cushion if Nigeria, Iran, Venezuela or even Saudi Arabia goes offline? When you have a resource that is important to running the world, making sure it’s in the right hands is not a bad move in the world of foreign policy. Hell if you ever played Sid Meier’s Civilization you would know what I mean. It’s easy for liberals to call America imperialists until one day when Iran and other countries go off line and they’re standing there unable to heat their home. It’s like wondering where would Hollywood be if President Polk hadn’t given them that sunny coast to base their operations.

Monday, January 16, 2006


I ventured out this past weekend to take in Steven Spielberg's film Munich, and I'm still not sure what I think of it. I can't say it was a bad movie. I've always maintained that Spielberg is to motion pictures what Mozart was to music, and he is virtually unrivaled in his ability to stir the emotions of his audience. The movie has more than its fair share of action, suspense, and outright terror, which particularly comes across in the vivid recreation of the capture and murder of the Israeli Olympic team in Munich in 1972.

Unfortunately the further into the film I got, the more I sensed an agenda. There was a real message being communicated through the characters and their dialogue that dared to question the righteousness of the Israeli assassins who were ordered by Golda Meir's government to avenge the cold-blooded murder of their countrymen. It made sense for the characters within the story to question their own motives and whether they were doing the right thing. When the results of your actions mean life and death, your morality is in constant conflict with your sense of duty, or at least it must be if you are to maintain your humanity.

However, as Munich proceeds toward its conclusion, Spielberg seems to be telling his audience that since the actions taken by the Israeli government did not stop the violence and bloodshed, the work itself was futile. And there's a point where you're made to think, "What's the point? If you kill the terrorists, they will only be replaced by men who are more violent, more zealous."

Well, then you will have to kill them too, I guess. It's not the greatest way to go through life, but it's better than being dead. The Palestinian terrorists and their affiliated groups throughout the Middle East deliberately sought attention through bloodshed. They would not be ignored then, and they certainly cannot be ignored now. They are committed to continuing the fight until either they or we are dead. They have forced our hand, and we cannot just turn away and hope the problem will just disappear.

Spielberg apparently doesn't see it that way. He is one of the many liberals who believe they are above both the terrorists and those who fight them, choosing some vague third way that allows them to criticize everyone without getting themselves involved. And he goes so far out of his way to demonstrate this point that he offers up one of the biggest anachronistic gaffes in recent cinema history. In the film's final panning shot of the New York's 1973 skyline, we are treated to a view of the World Trade Center. It is a heavy handed symbolic statement that backs up this message of futility that we are treated to throughout the last half of the film. Of course, the World Trade Center was not completed until 1974. But if you're going to view the world through a surrealistic prism, then you have the power to bend time and space to your wishes. It sometimes makes for good filmmaking, but never for sensible debate.

Friday, January 13, 2006

Charles Schumer is Watching You:

A CNET.com investigation has found that as certain members of Congress sit there and attack President Bush of spying on the American public they too are watching.

The representatives in question have been found to employ tracking cookies on their sites that can follow visitors around the Internet. One of those on the list is Senator Schumer who has been vocal on the issue of spying on Americans.

What, me -- a hypocrite?

The jokes keep coming from good ol' Teddy Kennedy. NewsMax is reporting that Kennedy is still a member of a Harvard social club that was kicked off campus for being discriminatory. But that's just a minor detail....

Some Recent Economic Data to Support Tax-Cuts:

Economic data in the United States continue to prove that the Presidents tax-cuts are working.

Yesterday’s trade data showed that U.S. exports hit a record $109.3 billion. Where’s Lou Dobbs on that one?

Further the U.S. government reported a surplus for the month of December with gross corporate tax receipts hitting a record high! So isn’t that interesting how under Bush and his tax cuts corporate tax receipts are higher now then under the Clinton administration during the roaring 90’s!

Thursday, January 12, 2006

Senate Democrats Are No Saints When it Comes to Abramoff

Consider this a sneak peak into Friday's Federalist Patriot Digest:

We would suggest that DNC Chairman Howard Dean think before he speaks, but since he’s always good for a laugh when he doesn’t, we like him much better as he is now. His latest sound bite states that “every person named in this [Abramoff] scandal is a Republican.” And that would be true if you didn’t count the 40 Democrat Senators who have taken money from Jack Abramoff. Included in the list of Abramoff beneficiaries are Joseph Biden, Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, Jon Corzine (like he needs the money), Byron Dorgan (at least $79,000), John Kerry (at least $98,000), Pat Leahy, rising star Barack Obama, and Chuck Schumer, who already has what may very well be the largest campaign war chest in Washington.

And there are a number of Democratic beneficiaries, like Minority Leader Harry Reid, who have no intention of returning the money they received from Abramoff because they maintain that the contributions were perfectly legal. So, according to the Democrats, the money they received from Abramoff is legal, but the money Republicans received was illegal. It must be tough being so perfect all the time.

The Federalist Patriot is read by over 500,000 subscribers every week. If you would like to read the full Friday Digest, and I heartily recommend you do, zip on over to www.patriotpost.us/subscribe. It's Right and it's Free.

NYYRC Supports President's Wiretap Authorization & Calls for Prosecution of Leaker

For Immediate Release
Contact: Jen Saunders
Email: pr@nyyrc.com


New York, NY (January 11, 2006): The New York Young Republican Club, Inc. (NYYRC) supports the President's decision to allow National Security Agency (NSA) wiretaps of international phone calls involving persons with links to terrorism, in the United States without a court order. Russell Tice, a former NSA employee, admitted to ABC News yesterday that he was the source of the NY Times article, which exposed the NSA wiretaps.

NYYRC President Dennis Cariello said, "For our own protection, we need to allow the government to do what is necessary to track down these terrorists before they can strike again within our borders. If the NSA has the ability to intercept an al Qaeda order to a terror cell in New York and prevent another September 11th, we should allow our Government to exercise that option and protect us."

President Cariello remarked, "Considering all of the calls from the left for an investigation into the Valerie Plame case, I find it interesting that they are now regarding Mr. Tice as a "whistleblower" and a hero. Congress enacted the whistleblower law so that employees, who had concerns of illegal activity, could bring them to Congress. Mr. Tice, however, decided to go to the NY Times instead."

The New York Young Republican Club supports the investigation into the source of the leak and calls on the Justice Department to fully prosecute anyone who illegally leaked information to the media.

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 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 http://www.nyyrc.com.

Jen Saunders
Public Relations Chair
New York Young Republican Club, Inc.

NYYRC Welcomes Journalist Claudia Rosett To Their January 2006 Meeting

For Immediate Release
Contact: Jen Saunders
Email: PR@nyyrc.com


New York, NY (January 11, 2006) The New York Young Republican Club will hold their first general meeting of 2006 on Thursday, January 19. The featured speaker will be Claudia Rosett, Journalist-in-Residence at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and contributor to the Opinion Journal.

During her 22 years as a journalist and editor, Ms. Rosett has covered historic events around the world, including Tiananmen Square, the war in Chechnya and the collapse of the Soviet-installed regime in Kabul. Her column for the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal, "The Real World," examines human rights and tyranny issues.

Ms. Rosett was awarded the Seventh Annual Eric Breindel Award for Excellence in Opinion Journalism for her coverage of the UN Oil-for-Food scandal. She received widespread praise from her colleagues for her reporting of the issue. New York Times columnist William Safire remarked in Nov. 2004 "Thanks to Claudia Rosett, an enterprising reporter, the world now knows that some information put out by Secretary-General Kofi Annan about his son's involvement is untrue."

The January meeting will also feature the annual State of the Club address from President Dennis Cariello.

Please join the New York Young Republican Club, Inc. at the Union League Club, located at 38 East 37th Street, on Thursday, January 19, 2006, beginning at 7PM.

This event will be open to the media that RSVP by January 16th at PR@nyyrc.com.

Business attire required.

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 http://www.nyyrc.com.

Jen Saunders
Public Relations Chair
New York Young Republican Club, Inc.

NYYRC Calls on Sen. Clinton to Denounce Belafonte's Comments

For Immediate Release, January 12, 2006
Contact: Jen Saunders
Email: pr@nyyrc.com


(New York, NY) The New York Young Republican Club, Inc. (NYYRC) calls on Senator Hillary Clinton to denounce singer Harry Belafonte's recent remark that President Bush is "the greatest terrorist in the world."

Senator Clinton is scheduled to appear with Belafonte at a Children's Defense Fund luncheon on January 12 honoring Susan Thomases -a longtime friend of the Clintons' who was investigated in the Whitewater probe.

Clinton has previously offered support to Belafonte's anti-American rhetoric. According to Newsmax.com, on September 22, 2005, Belafonte told the Congressional Black Caucus that "Our foreign policy has made a wreck of this planet." Clinton's response to his outrageous speech: 'What Harry said is so important." At this same event, Rep. Rangel compared President Bush to the racist 'Bull' Connor.

NYYRC President Dennis Cariello stated, "If Senator Clinton is going to make public appearances with Belafonte, she owes it to her constituency to denounce Mr. Belafonte's outrageous statements against the President." He continued, "Otherwise, she should be held to account for such views, as if they were her own."

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 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 http://www.nyyrc.com.

Jen Saunders
Public Relations Chair
New York Young Republican Club, Inc.

An “Unflappable Witness”:

The Financial Times (only the best paper in the world and yes it’s pink) is reporting in an article that “the signs suggest that the sheer weight of his [Judge Alito] worthy if tedious performances will eventually crush the opposition”

It’s a great article and you should check it out before they lock it up to subscribers only.

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

The Jokes Keep Coming

Well, Nick, if you were laughing at Schumer yesterday, you certainly had to continue to laugh today. Teddy Kennedy's idle threats to have votes again and again to subpoena William Rusher's papers at the Library of Congress and Specter's response was classic. I don't know how Specter kept from getting up and smacking him upside the head Homey the Clown-style throughout that exchange. I would have. heh.

Seriously, though, it was nice to see the RINO senator stand up to Baby Huey....my goodness, I think he beat out your son in the "Throwing the Biggest Tantrum" department....

Trying to Keep Good Kids Down:

With Governor Pataki’s reign over New York coming to end, he has shown that he wants to go out with a bang. His most recent plan is to throw his support behind tuition tax breaks for parents who choose to send their children to private school.

As you can imagine the left has already rallied behind the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) Randi Weingarten who has come out swinging against the plan. The lefts complaint is that the Governor’s plan for tax credits is really just another way to pass school vouchers. Now I’m not going to argue with the Queen of the Damned because she’s right.

However instead of fighting with the left and Ms. Weingarten wasting energy on why it’s not a voucher, the Governor should be taking it to the people why vouchers or tax credits are not a religious conspiracy but a chance for children from lower income households to raise their chances of succeeding in the future. Unfortunately there is allot of people living in New York that, may I dare say it, believe in God and would love the opportunity to send their children to a private school but can’t do so because of the cost. With the program that the Governor is looking to implement it will open up the possibility for those inner city kids to get out of the schools that currently damn them to a future of mediocrity and into an environment of discipline, faith and culture of success. These three characteristics are the reasons why the Kennedy’s are the Kennedy’s, the Bush’s are the Bush’s and every other successful wealthy family’s children generally succeed in life. Success breeds success and that is something our public school currently doesn’t do as well as our private. It’s amazing how the party of the left that supposedly is there to champion the upward movement of the lower class fights hard to not allow the one thing that would give their base the best chance of upward social mobility. The Governor needs to go to the people of New York and ask them how come the Democrat party and its instance on the redistribution of the wealth doesn’t support the one time it makes sense. For the left to only allow the upper class the benefit of a private education is discrimination at its finest.

For me the obvious reason why the UFT doesn’t support the program is because they view it as a threat to their monopoly and continuous subsidizing of mediocrity by the taxpayers. A tuition break program would actually give more New Yorkers a choice of where to send their children. As we have experienced in business and politics, choices breed competition and competition breeds efficiency and quality, something the UFT couldn’t handle.

For the Democrat party their objection is just a result of their understanding that as people in society become successful they tend to become conservative as they now have something to conserve. A tuition break program would make lower income children successful in the future and as a result hurt the Democrat base. By keeping them chained to the current system they can predict those children will remain low on the ladder and dependent on the party.

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

re: The Great Cable TV Debate

[I think I wrote too much in the response area earlier and it never published...the window froze...so here are my thoughts....]

I don't know....being the TV junkie that I am, I like the fact that I have a bundled basic package with the option to add any of the premium channels at an extra cost. Yes, there are a lot of unnecessary channels -- most of which I don't watch -- but on the other hand, there are many channels that I've discovered because they're there and I stumbled upon them while channel surfing. They're the ones that I normally don't watch but every so often they'll have a show or a movie I'm interested in, like We or National Geographic or Spike (and now there's the new Sleuth TV that airs the old Knight Rider; hours of Hoffy!!)

Concern #1: I have about 20 or so favorite channels. How much, on an ala carte basis, is TimeWarner going to charge me? If they're ripping me off now, is it going to cost me a gazillion dollars to just have those channels? Is Congress going to step in and set a pricing guideline to 'protect' me from getting ripped off? Oh, I just love the sound of that.

Concern #2: I have a roommate. So, on an ala carte basis, we're going to have to sit down and figure out who wants what channels and that can lead to stupid arguments like, "Well, I would kill myself before paying for the Fox News Channel, so if you want that, you're going to have to pay for it." And then I'd come back with, "Well, I'm not paying for VH1, MTV and Sundance Channel, so you pay for that." Heaven forbid one of gets caught watching someone else's channel.

I understand parents with young children don't want to pay for smut, but there are other ways to prevent kids from watching certain channels....and, let's face it, when we were kids we all had friends whose houses you knew you could go to to watch the stuff you weren't allowed to at your home, so who's kidding who.

At the end of the day, this America -- land of excess, where we have more channels than we know what to do with and waste most of what we're paying for. That's what we do, that's what makes us great. Do we want to sit there, like in England, with ABC1, ABC2, ABC3, ABC4? Bo-ring....(and far more smutty than most of what we've got on tv)

The better solution is some good, healthy competition. No government intervention or regulation. Look at the mess that was made of the telecoms.....

At least here in Manhattan, some people have a choice of TimeWarner or RCN. Most people don't have that and that's why Cablevision, Comcast, TimeWarner, etc., etc., can rip you off. Government shouldn't be involved. All government should do is mandate that all markets are open and let the consumer decide which service he wants. Let the cable companies compete by offering packages or ala carte options, or both, and let the consumer decide which company will provide him with the service he wants. This is America. Let the consumer decide what's best for him, not the cable companies and certainly not the government.

The Great Cable TV Debate

An argument is fast approaching in Congress about what to do with cable and satellite television pricing. As eloquently described in the Christian Science Monitor, there are two schools of thought:

whether paying for TV channels should be like shopping at the supermarket, where customers choose the products they purchase, or like buying a newspaper, which comes packaged with the same sports, business, and comics sections regardless of whether readers want them all.

And since we're all slaves to the Tube, this is a pretty darn important argument. So if you don't think you have an opinion on this, you better get one.

Personally I hate the idea of paying for something I don't use. Like for instance, cable TV in general. I'm rarely home, and when I am, it's generally in front of a computer. I get my news and information from the Internet, I get my movies from Netflix, and I get my TV from whatever I can tune in with a pair of rabbit ears and a roll of tin foil. Time Warner, Cablevision, and their dastardly posse of overpriced pawn brokers can go pound sand for all I care.

When I did subscribe to cable, I always felt that I was getting the shaft for having to pay for some 65 to 70 channels when I only really watched nine or ten. For years I pined for a subscriber service that allowed me to pay for only the channels I wanted to watch.

Now, the opponents of the pay-for-what-you-watch idea have a number of reasons why people should continue to pay more to watch less. Among them, the cable companies claim you will actually pay a higher bill if they switch from the current bundled pricing system to the a la carte model. But they'll find any excuse they can to raise rates.

Supporters of minority programming claim that Latino and African-American programming will suffer because they will not be able to reach enough viewers. Basically, what they're telling us is if white households aren't getting Tavis Smiley, then he'll be kicked off the air. This is a specious argument. Engaging programming and willing audiences will always find each other in the entertainment marketplace.

Thanks to technology we live in an age when we can tailor our entertainment options down to the finest detail. We can creat our own music mixes of our favorite artists. We can DVR our favorite TV programs without commercials. We can train our satellite radios to play only our favorite songs. Why shouldn't we be allowed to pick and choose the cable stations we want on our dial?

Chuck Schumer: The Champion of all…Democrats:

Listening to Senator Schumer attack Judge Alito, I have to laugh. Does anyone really take anything Democrats say during this hearing serious? You have to be from another planet to look at these hearings and not think that the questioning of Judge Alito is nothing more then a left-wing attack. I would give Schumer some credit for champion the concerns of the left against a conservative judge if he showed those same concerns for the conservative New Yorkers who didn’t vote for him who feel with his election they are not being represented the way liberals are concerned that they won’t be represented if Judge Altio is appointed.

Finally what’s with Ted Kennedy bringing up a search case that Jude Alito ruled on where officers were accused of using excessive force on a family? How can Ted Kennedy sit there and talk about the “scars of a child”. Who is this guy to judge; last I checked Judge Alito never drove off a bridge with a suspended license leaving a young girl to drown while he saved his own life.

Preaching to the Choir:

The New York Sun is reporting today that the City Council’s new speaker Christine Quinn is serious about having active debate return to the council in regards to new legislation. Her comments are a result of all 206 bills that were brought to floor since 2001 being passed and only 5 being passed without veto proof margins.

Though on the surface debate sounds good, the reason there’s no debate is because the whole council belongs to the same political thought. What is this council under Quinn going to debate over? To debate there needs to be either disagreement or you need to have someone willing to play devils advocate, something I don’t expect some liberal council member to do. Hell if they could think like a rational person and play devils advocate, they wouldn’t be a liberal.

Monday, January 09, 2006

Is This Game 2 of a Doubleheader??

I missed most of the steam coming out of Chuckie Cheese Schumer's blowhole; I'm trying to eat (and enjoy) my lunch. But, did I just hear him make a baseball analogy?? Um, excuse me, that was the analogy-du-jour beaten to death during the Roberts hearings. Dude, this is a whole different ballgame! Live in the now, man!!

Please, tell me the over-crunchiness of my bagel prevented me from hearing correctly. At least tell me the Clever Senator From NY was making a soccer or other sport analogy.

Heroes, past and present

Today's quick must-reads:

Germany proving, yet again, that when War is global, she's on the wrong side.

Our continued prayers to Matt Long and his family.

Forget Richard

Who needs Richard Dawson when we've got Joe "Guy Smiley" Biden??

Alito Hearing Update 1

I've turned off the heater under my desk because there's more than enough hot air coming out of the hearing coverage on CNN. (yes, still stuck w/ CNN , and only CNN, at work.) Sen. Kennedy just said, "Judge Alioto".

My personal take so far -- I had the volume on during the beginning of the hearing, while Judge Alito was introducing his family, and I couldn't help but think that any minute Richard Dawson was going to appear to start The Family Feud. "Richard, I brought here with me today...."

Question 1, top 5 answers are on the board. We asked 100 people: What does today's trendy, hot button political issue ("spying") have to do with one's ability to interpret the Constitution? Can't they think beyond modern headlines and look at the bigger picture? (Okay, rhetorical question.)


The Alito Scuffle Begins

The confirmation hearings for Samuel Alito begin today, and his opponents will be doing their best to belittle his qualifications and experience in the most partisan way they know how. So, if you feel a rush of hot air during your commute to and from work, it's not because of an unusually warm January day, it's the Democratic blowhards on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Alito's been given a "well qualified" rating by the American Bar Association. Of course it doesn't mean squat to the Dems when the ABA gives its highest rating to a conservative. Patrick Leahy, Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, and their buddies plan to grill Alito on issues of privacy (abortion) and the intended reach of executive power (NSA wiretapping) in an attempt to paint him as an enemy of the Constitution. Actually, I think they're really just sore because Alito's actually read and understood the document. After all, is there really any reason for Senator Schumer to ask, "do you personally believe very strongly that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion?" Now, I'm no Constitutional scholar, but why would a document that had to be amended to allow women to even vote have imbedded in it a right for a woman to obtain an abortion? That just doesn't pass the smell test.

But look at who we're dealing with here. The anti-Bushies and the liberal Senators who were lucky enough to have their opinions solicited in the first place were against Samuel Alito before he was even nominated. I truly believe that all those press releases denouncing him and his "ultra-conservative" views were drafted and ready for circulation weeks before the president even called him. A typical screed from these lefty groups probably went something like:

"We have studied this nominee and we believe that (INSERT NAME HERE) is not qualified to serve on the Supreme Court because of his ultra-conservative values."

My point being that their opinions are foreordained, which makes the whole confirmation process a bit comical. Leahy, Schumer, and Kennedy know the answers to the questions they are going to ask. And they know how they are going to vote. Basically, all we'll get out of this is a lot of grandstanding from the Democrats and further proof that Sam Alito will make a good Supreme Court Justice.