Analysis for Critical Thinkers

After the numerous “tea parties” held around the nation yesterday, there are those who are quick to criticize. Although the purpose of the demonstrations was not, as many claim, to be against paying taxes, there are many people, including politicians, who are trying to be offended by it all. It was perhaps a mistake to hold these parties on the April 15 deadline of income tax payments. This leads short-attention span people easily into this false notion that it is anti-tax or anti-Obama. What the tea parties were supposed to do is make a statement against out-of-control spending and the frantic power-grab that the federal government is trying to do. The demonstrations were a way to show the President, Congress and the rest of the country that there are many people who disagree with this trend. But anyway, why would it be so shocking that some people might express disagreement with the policies of the President or Congress? What a difference one election makes in terms of what is considered taboo.

“News reporters” from the liberal media attempted to engage demonstraters in debates rather than ask what is was that the tea parties were about. Politicians, feeling threatened by the demonstrations began to realize that perhaps all was not well with their visions of utopia and their hopes that the unwashed masses will all flock to their side in a fawning display of undying dependence upon big government.

Rep. Schakowsky, a Democrat from Illinois, was but one example of a big government politician who seemed particularly offended by an opposing viewpoint to her own.

“It’s despicable that right-wing Republicans would attempt to cheapen a significant, honorable moment of American history with a shameful political stunt,” said the Democrat. She then went off on a tangent about how this was all promoted by corporations, evil Republicans, Fox News, and other American citizens. What is always mysterious is how the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution is so cherished by these types of people but then so reviled when faced with a cogent opposing argument. It is shameful that a representative of the United States Government attacks her own constituents with such fervor.

“Shameful political stunts” such as these have occured throughout the history of this great nation. Critical thinking and honest discussion is the appropriate method of dealing with the issue. The right to express one’s grievances against the government is one of the foundations of this nation. The tea parties were held in order to express the views of their participants – that bigger government controlling more of your life is not the direction in which to go; that out of control spending, especially on things that the government is not constitutionally authorized to be spending on (corporate bailouts and takeovers, etc.) must be stopped. In short, people paying taxes are saying that they are not happy with how their money is being spent.

Instead of a calm debate though, we are called “despicable” for disagreeing. Instead of an open forum, we get statistics, “yeah but”, “Well, Bush…”, and hate speech against “rich” taxpayers who fail to toe the line. Instead of reporters reporting the tea parties, we get insults and ridicule by the mainstream media. Instead of accepting opposing viewpoints, we get people fighting for the “Fairness” Doctrine to further limit the ability to air our grievances.

Long live the idea behind the tea parties – and long live the Constitution of the United States of America.

A fine well-done goes out to the U.S. Navy for putting a quick and decisive end to a criminal act against United States citizens and U.S. interests. A U.S. citizen was rescued from Somali pirates when snipers aboard a U.S. Navy ship shot and killed a hostage-taker. Also to be thanked is President Obama who is said to have approved the actions of the Navy. This is exactly the way to deal with criminals who threaten innocent lives. You can call them “pirates’ to evoke a sort of romantic nostalgia of movies that we saw as children. You could call them terrorists because they use terror and threat of force and violence to get their way. You can call them common criminals – you can call them freedom fighters if you choose to admire their lawlessness – you can even call the hostage-takers your personal heroes if you wish because you believe that rich people and rich shipping lines deserve to be robbed.

Whatever you call them, they are in fact criminals. We shall not pursue the route toward negotiation with criminals or terrorists. We must plainly declare that this sort of activity will simply not be tolerated. We shall not be threatened by other Somali pirates who now are said to be at war with the U.S. due to the actions of our Navy. Here’s something that may interest the Somali pirates or whatever group or individual chooses to inflict violence against this country or its citizens.

We are already at war with you or anyone who shall attempt to inflict harm upon us. This kind of activity will not be tolerated.

If you choose to threaten the lives of U.S. citizens regardless of how valid you may think that your goals may be, then you may expect a similar response to the actions of the U.S. Navy. Why should this surprise anyone? I cannot imagine any instance where the U.S. should try to make friends with bands of criminals such as these and invite them to some sort of summit to arrive at some sort of compromise. There is no compromise with crime and terrorism. We shall not settle for a certain amount of Americans that can be killed or a certain dollar amount that can be sacrificed in the interest of preserving “fairness” or “world opinion”. We shall not be interested in protecting the criminals “freedom of expression” or worry about their self esteem. We need not and shall not ask what other countries might do in situations such as these. There is no time and no need for a poll to see what the French would do or think. This is no United Nations diplomacy situation.

This piracy is another clear-cut case where taking a stand against aggression and assault on American interests is vital to our safety, security and future of our country.

 What is troubling though, is how often individuals as well as countries who embrace crime and terrorism are tolerated by Americans who try to turn it all into a political issue. How are the criminal acts by Somali pirates different from other criminal groups such as Al Qaeda or the Taliban who attack Americans and their interests? How are they different from the criminals in this country that our police are forever trying to fight?

Why are Presidents and other patriots who try so hard to fight against attacks on our country demonized by the press and in the polls?

Why should it matter if you may think that a particular group of terrorists or criminals had anything to do with 9/11 or not? We shall be against crime and terrorism as a whole, not just for certain instances. This is all a part of being a World Leader – you know what is right and what is wrong.

President Obama, thank you for showing the world that the United States does not tolerate crime and violence against us. We give you our full support in continuing this stance.