Omnibus 1
A PREVIEW OF POST-ELECTION COVERAGE — THE ISSUES RATHER THAN THE PERSONALITIES
By
Ken Eliasberg
In recent months I have spent a considerable amount of time focusing on either (1) the coming election and the cast of characters involved (or at least one of them, my favorite - HIILLARY, (2) Islamofascism and the War on Terror, and (3) topics pertaining to current events. As a consequence, I have not adequately, if at all, addressed topics of pressing concern to me and the country at large. I intend to deal with them in depth after the election. However, to give you some idea of my thinking on these pressing issues, I offer the following (in this and one or two ensuing columns) greatly condensed summary (the details, as noted, to be fleshed out in detail after the 2008 election).
1. NATIONAL SECURITY — STRONG NATIONAL DEFENSE!! What else is
there to say, unless, of course, you want to listen to the left and turn our defense
over to the U.N. (which is the same as just saying surrender). Think about it —
turning your security over to a body that votes against you 80% of the time (and
for whom you provide over 20% of its financial support — of course, the anti-
American left would say that, by voting against the U.S., the U.N. is doing
absolutely the right thing).
2. IMMIGRATION — SECURE THE BORDERS FIRST — THEN WE’LL
TALK! Again, what else is there to say, unless, of course, you’re still listening to
the left (which hasn’t gotten anything right in the last 70 years). Our sovereignty
depends on our continuing to honor the melting pot concept from which America
has derived its strength, vitality, and prosperity. Multiculturism is a concept,
honored by the left, and one that threatens to destroy us.
3. OUR ENERGY POLICY — FUNDING OUR OWN DESTRUCTION
WITH PETRO DOLLARS. SOLUTION: STOP DOING IT. Why are we
doing it? Because our energy policy is held hostage by a bunch of left-wing
eco nuts. How to stop? First, as long as we are going to need fossil fuels — and
we are going to need them for a long time — tap into our own resources wherever
possible, e.g. Anwar and the Gulf of Mexico. We haven’t even built an oil
refinery in this country in 25 years — we’re too busy bashing oil companies to
even acknowledge, let alone support, the vital role that they play in our survival.
Second, pursue alternate forms of energy in a much more determined manner.
For example, France, which many of us feel has bitten the socialist bullet, is
nonetheless, sufficiently up to date to have gone nuclear. Why can’t we??
And, by the way, this policy is closely tied to our national security. Why?
Because, as noted in the headnote, the sellers from whom we procure our oil are
the single biggest source of funds for the terrorists. Make no mistake about it,
Saudi Arabia is not our friend; they are spiritually more closely aligned with our
enemies, and economically our enemy’s greatest source of funds.
4. SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM — SOLUTION: SIMPLE, PRIVATIZE,
THERE IS NO OTHER SATISFACTORY ANSWER! The problem, of
course, is that the system is going broke. Disbursements will exceed receipts
within a decade, and, within 4 decades, it will be totally tapped out. Our
historical approach has been to kick this political hot potato down the road with
a bunch of temporary measures that allowed our politicians, spurred on by a
bunch of left-wing imbeciles, to sweep the problem under the carpet. Unless,
you privatize, there are only 3 things you can do — all of which will not only not
solve the problem, but will never pass public muster. You can either do one or
more of the following (1) increase the payroll tax, (2) reduce the benefits, and/or
(3) extend the age of eligibility. As noted, the public will not buy any of these;
as also noted, all of them are at best a stop gap measure, only postponing the
system’s eventual bankruptcy. Why isn’t the system working? For a couple of
very good reasons. First, it was never contemplated that many people would
ever collect a dime. Why not? Because life expectancy at the time the system
was put in place was 65, and most people at the time (1935) died before ever
reaching that age, and (2) life expectancy, having greatly exceeded 65 has put a
tremendous financial stress on the system, one that a 1 and