In today’s polarized society, politicians are increasingly using the term “extremist” to label their opponents. But what is an extremist? Merriam-Webster defines the word as “the quality or state of being extreme,” being the “farthest possible point from the center.”
Now those definitions by themselves are largely subjective; my view of the center and how far something is from it may be entirely different than yours.
But let’s consider an example: you are well within your constitutional rights to peaceably oppose partial-birth abortions. Likewise, someone who peaceably opposes the banning of such abortions would be within their rights. One could argue that this free exchange of ideas, for or against abortion, would be the “center.” Since neither group imposes upon the rights of the other, this is how our civilized society properly functions. Each citizen is entitled to his or her opinion and we empower government to express the will of the majority, provided the majority itself doesn’t interfere with the rights of the minority.
Extremists, those at the furthest possible point from the center, would be people willing to break laws and violate the rights of others in order to enact their goals. Someone willing to blow up a clinic that performs partial-birth abortions would be a perfect example of an extremist, as there is no further point from “the center” than taking the life of another in defense of your cause.
Firefighters know what it is like to risk their lives in order to accomplish something. As a fire chief, you risk the lives of your men in order to rescue the child who is trapped upstairs. The firefighters are willing to run into a burning building because they know how important that child’s life is. All parties involved accept this arrangement, especially the child.
This is not acceptable, however, when others may risk not only your life, but also that of your family in order to accomplish something that you do not find justifiable.
Liberals in government and media are so power hungry that they used our counter-terrorism strategies and tactics as an opportunity to destroy their political opponents.
During the George W. Bush years, liberals undermined our counter-terrorism strategy – during a war against terrorists – in order to weaken the administration. It would be one thing if they reversed Bush’s wartime strategy when the Obama administration took over in 2009. However, after fighting Bush nearly every step of the way, not much actually changed when they took control.
In fact, they actually doubled down on some of the very tactics that they castigated Bush for.
John Lilyea at the This ain’t Hell blog has a good point on comparing Democratic Senate hopeful Richard Blumenthal’s Vietnam deferments to those of Republican politicians:
But let’s look at how the Democrats have traditionally addressed deferments and service in the Reserves, shall we?. Dick Cheney had five deferments and we heard about for eight years. Blumenthal’s deferments were 1965 to 1970 – while we had combat troops in Vietnam. Cheney’s deferments were all before 1965, while there were no ground combat forces in Vietnam.
Dan Quayle got hammered during the GHW Bush years because his Vietnam Era time was spent in the Reserves like Blumenthal. GW Bush was a pilot in the Texas National Guard and we heard about it for eight years.
More recently, I wrote about Gordon Duff’s attack on SC Congressman Joe Wilson who had five deferments and served in the Guard and Reserves.
Now the Washington Post is reporting that the national Democrats are lining up behind Blumenthal…
At least Blumenthal served (Marine Corps Reserve) which is more than we can say for a lot of people. But why lie about fighting in Vietnam, especially in an age where your past can be dredged up in about 0.38 seconds on an internet search?
Being a Marine is honorable enough. Perhaps this is a case of someone who doesn’t know how to stop lying. And in that case, I think he will fit right in as a Senator.
“There ain’t no rules here, we’re trying to accomplish something. . . . All this talk about rules . . . When the deal goes down . . . we make ’em up as we go along.”
– Rep. Alcee Hastings (D – Fla.)
Hastings formerly served as a federal judge before becoming one of six federal judges ever to be impeached in U.S. history (for perjury and corruption). Fittingly, he was elected as a Democrat to the House of Representatives only three years after his impeachment in the Senate.
According to a recent report that analyzes the economic freedoms of countries worldwide, the United States rates a paltry eighth place.
Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Switzerland, and Canada all earned the distinction “Free” and placed higher than the United States, who rated “Mostly Free.” The U.S. finished in eighth place, dropping significantly from last year’s fifth place. In fact, only three of the scores for the top 100 countries fell more than ours – The Bahamas, Barbados, and Mongolia.
Why is the U.S. no longer ‘Free?’
“The U.S. government’s policy responses to the crisis and economic slowdown have been far-reaching and implemented at the cost of curtailing economic freedom,” the Heritage Foundation stated in a press release.
In contrast, the editors wrote, “Canada’s high level of economic freedom, coupled with its sound and prudent banking sector, has enabled its economy to emerge from the global downturn relatively unscathed.”
Indeed, the Canadian dollar, which for years has lagged behind its American counterpart, is on pace to become more valuable than the U.S. dollar.
The report uses ten categories to determine each country’s score: business freedom, trade freedom, fiscal freedom, government size, monetary freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, property rights, freedom from corruption and labor freedom. The U.S. declined sharply from 2009 scores in most categories.
With the Democratic leadership seeking to socialize the healthcare industry, which is estimated to be approximately 17 percent of our economy, a government takeover would considerably decrease our freedom rating.
As economist Adam Smith wrote more than 200 years ago, “When institutions protect the liberty of individuals, greater prosperity results for all.” Perhaps the media should question Democrats—President Barack Obama, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), and Sen. Harry Reid (Nev.) as to why their policies are making the U.S. less free.
How is it that in 2010 more than one-third of U.S. citizens have a positive view of socialism? Socialism has killed almost as many people as war, cancer, and natural causes combined! The next question should have been to name their most favorite socialist. Unsurprisingly, over half of Democrat respondents held a positive view of socialism.
As to the four percent who held a negative view of small business, that would presumably be the four percent of America that now works for the Obama administration.
Saul Alinsky dedicated his book, Rules for Radicals (the playbook for seemingly everyone I oppose) to Satan:
“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: From all our legends, mythology and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”