A Nation in Decline?

[Snowden]

A Nation in Decline?
By Bill O'Reilly

Just in time for Independence Day, the bible of the American left, The New York Times, continues to opine that the United States is a "nation in decline." Hoping to see a Democrat in the White House, the newspaper has been hammering home that theme on its editorial pages.

The Times bases its claims on two primary situations: The negative view of America abroad and income inequality at home. So, let's take a look at the supposed "decline."

Overseas, the world is largely a mess. Africa remains a chaotic cauldron of corruption, China continues its authoritarian rule, and there's no letup in the India-Pakistan hatred. Would you like to live in those countries?

Russia continues to lead in the league of corruption, Mexico is fighting a brutal war against its own drug traffickers, and South America remains mired in poverty. Call me crazy, but I don't see many immigrants pounding on those doors.

Of course, many liberal Americans blame the USA for the world's misfortunes and side with those who, for whatever reason, verbally downgrade the United States. However, considering the sad state of a world that will not even unite against a nuclear weapons-seeking Iran, our so-called "decline" is a terrible misreading of the global picture.

Against all odds, U.S. forces have almost single-handedly defeated Islamic fascism in Iraq, one of the most complicated battlefields in history. In Afghanistan, U.S. and NATO troops continue to hammer the vicious Taliban on every front. The only reason those fascists are operating is that Pakistan protects them. If the Pakistanis would ally themselves with NATO, the Taliban would be wiped out.

Back home, the Bush administration has succeeded in making it ultra-difficult for terrorists to kill us. The FBI and other federal agencies have been effectively reorganized, and the nation is much safer for it. That doesn't sound like a decline to me.

But what really has The New York Times furious is the gap between rich and poor Americans; a gulf that is now being exacerbated by escalating gas prices that rob workers of take-home pay. Never mind that it is largely liberal policies that have shut down much U.S. oil exploration and made America even more dependent on foreign oil; the left believes capitalism must now be "tempered" by the federal government. That means income redistribution through higher taxation on wealthy Americans.

In this month's Harvard Magazine, the liberal position is clearly stated: "Americans, on average, have a higher tolerance for income inequality than their European counterparts. American attitudes focus on equality of opportunity, while Europeans tend to see fairness in equal outcomes."

"Equal outcomes," of course, means socialistic entitlements, something many European countries have embraced and a philosophy The New York Times deeply endorses.

So, it comes down to this: The committed left believes America has been too aggressive in fighting the war on terror and not aggressive enough when it comes to government-mandated economic and social engineering. Thus, in their view, the country is in decline.
But that's opinion, not fact. There's no doubt that times are tough right now, but from this vantage point, the American people are still as creative and hardworking as they've always been. Our pinheaded politicians have mucked it up recently, but we are certainly not a nation in decline. With another Independence Day upon us, we remain strong and the world's greatest hope.


Bill O'Reilly

[john mclaughlin]

Our next battlefront seems obvious,but our nation only needs a leader that helps its citizens,treats the world compassionatly,without being so aggressive.You just cant take down every screwed up country and ignore the homefront,HERE is where we need help.Our politicians think they are movie stars that can talk the talk and flip flop when they should be walkin the walk!

[BrianK]

It depends I suppose on what taking care of the home front means. Does it mean maintaining the freedoms we enjoy or does it mean using tax money to provide social services? Can we do both ?

IMO that is a complex question. Considering that taxes pay for both it then becomes a question of sustaining the tax base.

Have we as a country overspent on wants instead of needs? Are people saving money or are things like 13 billion spent annually on pet toys more important? Is arriving at work in a Cadillac Escalade really impressing people?

Is the rest of the world catching up on using materials needed to manufacture and in turn their economy is improving while ours loses jobs to outsourcing to those countries?

I think once we are out of Iraq and that country is stable along with hopefully a more stable mid east we'll get back to being wasteful and causing ourselves future grief. But for now this is a rude awakening as to what life can be like if our Gov. controls our lives and we become a socialist society.

[john mclaughlin]

These are the complexities that drive men mad.All the different money we give away around the world for needy people ends up in someones pocket.without much oversight.our infrastucture here is degrading and stuff needs repaired,they never get the money to fix roads federally because the government wants the state to change a law or something .All they do is bicker.I think i am overtaxed.i,m not rich,i dont even have workers comp.But one thing is sure,pres.bushes stimulis check was right on time!!!we didnt have enough for the mortgage!First time in 20 years.