Roger Simon thinks so.
I’m skeptical, at least insofar as there would have been an actual invasion and occupation. I’m not sure that he would have even overthrown the Taliban. He might have bombed the hell out of them, but I’m not convinced that we’d have a democratic government there now had Gore been in charge. I find this support for Roger’s thesis uncompelling:
The Clinton-Gore administration wasn
He’s mentioning the unmentionable, and questioning the notion of citizenship as a birthright.
I think that this is a long overdue discussion (and I’ve thought that for decades, long before the immigration controversy heated up). But in order to discuss it, we have to have a discussion about what citizenship means.
In my opinion, citizenship of this nation is something that should have to be earned, even for those born here (I think that Heinlein was on to something with Starship Troopers, though I don’t necessarily agree that only military service would convey the privilege). But I won’t make the opponents of illegal immigration happy when I also state that I don’t think that one should have to be a citizen to live and work here (and for those born to American citizens, there would be no obvious place to which to deport them, even if they don’t earn citizenship). I think that non-citizens on US soil should enjoy most of the constitutional rights currently accruing to citizens.
Here’s what I don’t think they should get. They shouldn’t be able to vote. They shouldn’t be entitled to welfare benefits. They shouldn’t be entitled to public schooling (though, of course, I don’t think that that’s something that should be inflicted on citizens, either). They could live, and work, and spend their entire lives here, and even bear children, but they shouldn’t be allowed a franchise to be a parasite on the rest of society. And if they work hard, and pay taxes, and/or volunteer for public service of some kind, they should be granted a route to citizenship.
I in fact would rather have as a citizen someone who was willing to walk across miles of desert to be here, than someone born here who thinks that the world owes him a living as a result of that accident of fate.
Note, while I haven’t fleshed this out completely, it’s quite conceivable that I might come up with criteria by which I myself wouldn’t currently be eligible for citizenship. If so, though, because I consider my American citizenship of great value, if that were the case, I would do what I could personally to rectify the situation as soon as possible.
Mark Steyn, on the self-absorption of academia.
Mark Steyn, on the self-absorption of academia.
Mark Steyn, on the self-absorption of academia.
Murtha is going to be deposed in the slander suit against him.
It’s about time that he was held accountable for his vicious demagoguery. Being a Congressman doesn’t give you license to vilify troops in arms without basis.
Global Warmmongers often complain that critics (such as TCSDaily) are funded by Big Oil. But I guess it’s all right when James Hansen is funded by George Soros.
Frankly, I’d rather see arguments based on data, rather than funding sources.
…but somehow, it always seems to land in Europe. And this comment is one that I’ve always thought rung true:
Re: the misuse in current parlance of “fascism”. It is, of course, not Nazism. Fascism was an Italian phenomenon. I believe that the Left has sought to supplant “Nazi” with “fascist” because of the root words for Nazism: National Socialism. Since Stalin et al. practiced International Socialism, one can understand their sensitivity. National Socialism and International Socialism are not opposite ends of some political spectrum: they are subsets of Socialism. And when one counts up the dead, the distinction [between] National and International Socialism is one without a difference.
I’ve heard a lot of silly blather about how Ahmadinejad has a “right” to speak at Columbia University.
No.
This is the problem with positive “rights” such as right to health care, or food, or housing. It’s not possible to grant such a “right” without violating someone else’s.
If you have a “right” to groceries, then someone else has to pay for them, with taxes. If you have a right to housing, then someone else has to pony up to satisfy it. If you have a “right” to earn a minimum wage, and your labor isn’t worth that much, then the employer must subsidize you by paying more than your value on the market.
Everyone has a right to free speech in general, because in doing so, no one else is prevented from speaking.
But no one has a “right” to speak at Columbia University. There are limited opportunities to do so, and to grant it to one is to deprive another of the opportunity.
To speak at Columbia University is a privilege, and it is not one that should have been granted a murderous propagandistic fascist like Ahmedinejad. While Bollinger is to be commended for his harsh introductory comments, that doesn’t excuse his misjudgment in inviting the man to speak. That he was applauded there was a travesty, and a stain on the judgment of the Columbia students (if they were students) in attendance.
[Update in the afternoon]
And who is one of the idiots who thinks that Ahmadinejad has a “right to speak” at Columbia?
I’ve heard a lot of silly blather about how Ahmadinejad has a “right” to speak at Columbia University.
No.
This is the problem with positive “rights” such as right to health care, or food, or housing. It’s not possible to grant such a “right” without violating someone else’s.
If you have a “right” to groceries, then someone else has to pay for them, with taxes. If you have a right to housing, then someone else has to pony up to satisfy it. If you have a “right” to earn a minimum wage, and your labor isn’t worth that much, then the employer must subsidize you by paying more than your value on the market.
Everyone has a right to free speech in general, because in doing so, no one else is prevented from speaking.
But no one has a “right” to speak at Columbia University. There are limited opportunities to do so, and to grant it to one is to deprive another of the opportunity.
To speak at Columbia University is a privilege, and it is not one that should have been granted a murderous propagandistic fascist like Ahmedinejad. While Bollinger is to be commended for his harsh introductory comments, that doesn’t excuse his misjudgment in inviting the man to speak. That he was applauded there was a travesty, and a stain on the judgment of the Columbia students (if they were students) in attendance.
[Update in the afternoon]
And who is one of the idiots who thinks that Ahmadinejad has a “right to speak” at Columbia?