I'm sure most of my readers are aware of the proposal to build a grand mosque just a few hundred feet away from Ground Zero in New York City. Although this story has been around for awhile, it is back in the news this week with the decision of a New York City panel to allow the building to go forward. Here are the reasons I virulently oppose the building of this mosque.
1. Supporters of the mosque claim this is an issue of religious liberty. Not true. There are over 100 mosques already in New York City, and no one is complaining about another one being built. All we ask is that the mosque not be built on this particular site. Five blocks over is fine. There is already a mosque six blocks away from Ground Zero that has been there since 1970, and no one is complaining about that.
2. Supporters of the mosque claim that their proposal is not illegal. I agree. As long as zoning laws are complied with, technically there is the legal right to build a mosque at Ground Zero. But that doesn't mean the decision is a good idea, or that the public doesn't have a right to loudly express their disapproval in order to try to convince the people behind this mosque to change their mind.
3. The Muslim group that proposed this mosque, the Cordoba Initiative, claims that their purpose is to promote tolerance and understanding. If that is the case, then why do they insist on this location, which is like pouring salt in an open wound for many of the families of the 9/11 victims? This proposed building is not promoting peace and harmony; it is provoking controversy and insult. At this location, just 9 short years ago, the worst attack ever on American soil occurred, resulting in the death of 3,000 Americans. This site is sacred ground for Americans. It should be used for a memorial of the attack and a celebration of our history, not to build a monument to the very religion which inspired the attacks in the first place. Remember, many families of the 9/11 victims have spoken out against this. Over 60% of liberal New York residents, including over half of left-wing New York City residents, oppose it. Shouldn't their feelings, and the feelings of Americans at large, be taken into account? If the Cordoba Initiative were really serious about building bridges between the Muslim world and the West, they would show respect for the wishes of a majority of the residents of New York City and move their project to a different location.
4. In addition to the Cordoba Initiative's indifference to the feelings of Americans on this project (including many of the 9/11 families), there are other strong indications that the real inspiration behind this mosque is far from an intention to promote harmony and understanding. This mosque is the brainchild of an imam named Feisal Abdul Rauf. Shortly after 9/11, Rauf said that he believed that the U.S. was an accessory to the 9/11 murders and that Osama bin Laden was a product of America. He has refused to call Hamas a terrorist organization, even though that organization routinely target innocent civilians, including women and children, in their attacks. He has not even been full-throated in condemning Islamic terrorism, saying calling the issue of terrorism a "very complex question." He has called for the U.S. to become more compliant with sharia law. (Sharia law governs some of the most oppressive regimes in the world and calls for the execution of homosexuals and adulterers and the elimination of many of the most basic rights of women.) He has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, which published his book overseas through two satellite organizations. (The Muslim Brotherhood has provided a great deal of the funding for terrorism in many parts of the world.)
5. Given the radical statements and connections of the leading Islamic cleric behind this project, it would be nice to at least be able to confirm that this mosque will not be funded by Islamic terrorist organizations. Unfortunately, we can't even do that. The mosque is expected to cost $100 million, and Rauf has said that part of that money will come from foreign sources, but he has refused to disclose the names of any specific donors or sources of funds. This is a huge red flag, because given Rauf's connections there is a good chance that some of the money for this mosque may end up actually coming from the very same radical terrorist groups that supported the 9/11 attacks! It is a Muslim tradition to build grand mosques and religious centers on the sites of their greatest military victories. Perhaps this is the real intention of the unknown overseas organizations who are contributing money to this project -- and of the radical cleric who has masterminded it. I'm sure jihadists all around the world will be celebrating if this project succeeds.
To summarize: A radical Islamic cleric who has sympathies with and ties to overseas terrorist groups wants to build a huge mosque right on the site where radical Islamic terrorism killed 3,000 Americans less than a decade ago -- funded with millions of dollars from undisclosed foreign sources. This is an outrage, but it can be stopped if patriotic New Yorkers, as well as all Americans, make their voices heard so loudly that even the tone-deaf mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, can't ignore it. I signed the petition here, which is sponsored by Act for America, a group which exists to monitor and fight back against radical Islam.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Monday, July 19, 2010
Some Good Monday Links
Here are three articles worth reading:
1. This National Review article by Charles Krauthammer warns conservatives that they "underestimate Obama at their peril." Krauthammer notes that in only 18 short months Obama has succeeded in making drastic changes to our country's health care system, financial system, and energy system, while his stimulus spending and changes to the budget structure have put our country on the path to bankruptcy. None of these "accomplishments" will be easily reversed, if at all. But a second term, when Obama would no longer be accountable to voters for future reelection, would be far, far worse. Conservatives should not write his obituary prematurely, and regardless of the outcome of the 2010 elections MUST not rest until he is voted out of office in 2012.
2. Want to know what the most under-represented group is on top-tier U.S. private college & university campuses? Hint: it's not a racial minority group. Find out more in this fascinating op-ed piece in The New York Times.
3. Probably the single left-wing claim that makes me most angry is the oft-repeated slander that the Tea Party movement is racist. This blatantly false claim not only slanders a lot of good, hard-working Americans who love their country, but also drives a racial wedge into the heart of our society and minimizes real racism. I have written extensively on this topic in a previous post, but I wanted to include another great article on this topic from National Review, written by Deroy Murdock in response to the NAACP's condemnation of the Tea Party movement. I think it's important for conservatives to know the facts about the Tea Party movement so we can defend ourselves against this kind of ignorant propaganda.
1. This National Review article by Charles Krauthammer warns conservatives that they "underestimate Obama at their peril." Krauthammer notes that in only 18 short months Obama has succeeded in making drastic changes to our country's health care system, financial system, and energy system, while his stimulus spending and changes to the budget structure have put our country on the path to bankruptcy. None of these "accomplishments" will be easily reversed, if at all. But a second term, when Obama would no longer be accountable to voters for future reelection, would be far, far worse. Conservatives should not write his obituary prematurely, and regardless of the outcome of the 2010 elections MUST not rest until he is voted out of office in 2012.
2. Want to know what the most under-represented group is on top-tier U.S. private college & university campuses? Hint: it's not a racial minority group. Find out more in this fascinating op-ed piece in The New York Times.
3. Probably the single left-wing claim that makes me most angry is the oft-repeated slander that the Tea Party movement is racist. This blatantly false claim not only slanders a lot of good, hard-working Americans who love their country, but also drives a racial wedge into the heart of our society and minimizes real racism. I have written extensively on this topic in a previous post, but I wanted to include another great article on this topic from National Review, written by Deroy Murdock in response to the NAACP's condemnation of the Tea Party movement. I think it's important for conservatives to know the facts about the Tea Party movement so we can defend ourselves against this kind of ignorant propaganda.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Karl Rove's Biggest Mistake While in the White House
Want to find out what Karl Rove considers to be his biggest mistake while working in the White House? Find out here.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Arguing With Idiots (Is Not a Good Idea)
Glenn Beck recently wrote a NY Times bestseller called Arguing With Idiots. I'm sure the book is great, but I don't like the title. I much prefer the title of Ann Coulter's recent book How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must). Arguing with idiots is not only incredibly frustrating, but also generally pointless. As Coulter puts it, "If you can somehow force a liberal into a point-counterpoint argument, his retorts will bear no relation to what you said—unless you were, in fact, talking about your looks, your age, your weight, your personal obsessions, or whether you are a fascist." (Clarification: I do not believe that all liberals are idiots. However, I do believe that many idiots are liberals.)
Mark Joseph has a great opinion piece on the Fox News website about the Arizona immigration law controversy. He writes, "Watching events play out in and around the state of Arizona in the wake of the state's recent immigration law makes me more and more wary of blind allegiance to ideology and wary, too, of the emergence of a whole class of people who strike me as being immune to logic, reason, analogy and thoughtful debate, trapped in a Never Never Land in which conclusions are reached and then held on to, just because. I see this in our attorney general and our head of Homeland Security, both whom, to their credit, have admitted that though they are dead set against the Arizona law, they haven’t actually read it. I see it too, in an e-mail I received recently from a promoter who tells me my artist’s scheduled date on a major music tour in Phoenix has been cancelled because of the law. When I remind him that 17 other states are poised to pass similar laws he writes back “unbelievable.” When I remind him that it’s actually a restatement of federal law and wonder aloud if he’ll be extending the boycott to the rest of the 49 states in the union -- to be consistent -- he falls silent."
I am willing to debate with someone who wants to defend Obama and his policies using substantive evidence such as facts and logic. I believe that I am honest when I say that I am willing to at least consider their point of view. There have been liberal friends who have commented on this blog and have sought to argue honestly using facts, and I respect that and give their arguments the respect they deserve. Unfortunately, I have also had some very disappointing experiences in arguing with liberals. To have a productive debate with someone, both parties have to be willing to listen to the other side's arguments, consider them thoughtfully, and respond to them factually, point by point. You cannot debate with someone who refuses to consider and respond to your points, or who parrots the same talking points without providing any supporting evidence, or who plays the race card in answer to almost every question, or who answers your questions by completely changing the subject.
My conclusion: It is a straight waste of your time and energy to argue with some people. (The Bible calls it "casting your pearls before swine.") There was a time when I thought that most people could be persuaded or at least enlightened by a good enough argument. I have come to realize that many people come into discussions with their minds so tightly closed to an opposing point of view that they will not even listen to and think about what you have to say, much less be open to persuasion. They are willfully and willingly ignorant. You may not know who those people are at first, but a few conversations will tell you all you need to know. They may be (and often are) kind and friendly people. They may be your friends or family members. But you should never start a serious conversation with them about politics. Arguing with idiots is not a good idea.
Mark Joseph has a great opinion piece on the Fox News website about the Arizona immigration law controversy. He writes, "Watching events play out in and around the state of Arizona in the wake of the state's recent immigration law makes me more and more wary of blind allegiance to ideology and wary, too, of the emergence of a whole class of people who strike me as being immune to logic, reason, analogy and thoughtful debate, trapped in a Never Never Land in which conclusions are reached and then held on to, just because. I see this in our attorney general and our head of Homeland Security, both whom, to their credit, have admitted that though they are dead set against the Arizona law, they haven’t actually read it. I see it too, in an e-mail I received recently from a promoter who tells me my artist’s scheduled date on a major music tour in Phoenix has been cancelled because of the law. When I remind him that 17 other states are poised to pass similar laws he writes back “unbelievable.” When I remind him that it’s actually a restatement of federal law and wonder aloud if he’ll be extending the boycott to the rest of the 49 states in the union -- to be consistent -- he falls silent."
I am willing to debate with someone who wants to defend Obama and his policies using substantive evidence such as facts and logic. I believe that I am honest when I say that I am willing to at least consider their point of view. There have been liberal friends who have commented on this blog and have sought to argue honestly using facts, and I respect that and give their arguments the respect they deserve. Unfortunately, I have also had some very disappointing experiences in arguing with liberals. To have a productive debate with someone, both parties have to be willing to listen to the other side's arguments, consider them thoughtfully, and respond to them factually, point by point. You cannot debate with someone who refuses to consider and respond to your points, or who parrots the same talking points without providing any supporting evidence, or who plays the race card in answer to almost every question, or who answers your questions by completely changing the subject.
My conclusion: It is a straight waste of your time and energy to argue with some people. (The Bible calls it "casting your pearls before swine.") There was a time when I thought that most people could be persuaded or at least enlightened by a good enough argument. I have come to realize that many people come into discussions with their minds so tightly closed to an opposing point of view that they will not even listen to and think about what you have to say, much less be open to persuasion. They are willfully and willingly ignorant. You may not know who those people are at first, but a few conversations will tell you all you need to know. They may be (and often are) kind and friendly people. They may be your friends or family members. But you should never start a serious conversation with them about politics. Arguing with idiots is not a good idea.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Socialist Watch
Here is a summary of some of the recent mischief that Obama and his administration have been up to:
1. Suing Arizona. The Department of Justice claims that Arizona's new illegal immigration law "preempts" the federal government's enforcement of immigration laws. Hmmm. That argument might be a bit more compelling if the federal government actually WERE enforcing immigration laws. As a matter of fact, interior federal enforcement of immigration laws is down 75% since 2008. It's also a fact that the Arizona law was carefully written to be consistent with federal immigration law. States assist the federal government all the time in enforcing federal laws; this is nothing unusual and certainly nothing unconstitutional. I note that Obama made a big deal about how the AZ law amounted to racial profiling, yet there is nothing in the lawsuit about that. He knows that false claim would not stand up in court. This lawsuit is all about playing racial politics to get his base fired up in an election year. If he cared about the immigration problem, he would fulfill his constitutional obligation to secure the border and enforce existing immigration law, as well as working with Congress to come up with an acceptable bi-partisan immigration reform law.
2. Appointing Donald Berwick to Head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. It is disgraceful that Berwick was snuck in under the public's radar through a recess appointment, which enabled him to avoid being confirmed by the Senate. Of course, previous presidents have used recess appointments too, including Bush, but this is the first time that a top Cabinet-level official has been confirmed without even a hearing! No hearings had even been scheduled in the Senate, and 11 weeks after his nomination his Senate paperwork still had not been completed. In other words, he has had no public vetting whatsoever, yet he is going to have power over a portion of the government that is 4% of GDP (and has a bigger budget than the Dept. of Defense)! Obama would make a great third world dictator.
Of course there's a reason why Obama didn't want this guy to face confirmation hearings, even in a very Obama-friendly Senate. Berwick's views would not be very well received by the public. Here are some very revealing quotes about his views:
1. Suing Arizona. The Department of Justice claims that Arizona's new illegal immigration law "preempts" the federal government's enforcement of immigration laws. Hmmm. That argument might be a bit more compelling if the federal government actually WERE enforcing immigration laws. As a matter of fact, interior federal enforcement of immigration laws is down 75% since 2008. It's also a fact that the Arizona law was carefully written to be consistent with federal immigration law. States assist the federal government all the time in enforcing federal laws; this is nothing unusual and certainly nothing unconstitutional. I note that Obama made a big deal about how the AZ law amounted to racial profiling, yet there is nothing in the lawsuit about that. He knows that false claim would not stand up in court. This lawsuit is all about playing racial politics to get his base fired up in an election year. If he cared about the immigration problem, he would fulfill his constitutional obligation to secure the border and enforce existing immigration law, as well as working with Congress to come up with an acceptable bi-partisan immigration reform law.
2. Appointing Donald Berwick to Head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. It is disgraceful that Berwick was snuck in under the public's radar through a recess appointment, which enabled him to avoid being confirmed by the Senate. Of course, previous presidents have used recess appointments too, including Bush, but this is the first time that a top Cabinet-level official has been confirmed without even a hearing! No hearings had even been scheduled in the Senate, and 11 weeks after his nomination his Senate paperwork still had not been completed. In other words, he has had no public vetting whatsoever, yet he is going to have power over a portion of the government that is 4% of GDP (and has a bigger budget than the Dept. of Defense)! Obama would make a great third world dictator.
Of course there's a reason why Obama didn't want this guy to face confirmation hearings, even in a very Obama-friendly Senate. Berwick's views would not be very well received by the public. Here are some very revealing quotes about his views:
"[I am] romantic about the National Health Service" [the government agency
that controls the government-run health care system in Britain]. It is
a "seductress" and a "global treasure."
"The decision is not whether or not we will ration care—the decision is whether
we will ration with our eyes open."
One of the "primary functions" of government health care laws is "to
constrain decentralized, individual decision making" and "to weigh public
welfare against the choices of private consumers."
"Any healthcare funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane
must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and
the less fortunate. Excellent healthcare is by definition redistributional."“As many as 80% of hysterectomies are scientifically unnecessary, so are more
than a quarter of the drugs used for ear infections, most of the ultrasounds
done in normal pregnancies, and half of cesarean sections in the United States.
Isn’t this, with all due respect, some form of assault and battery, however
unintended?”“Don't trust market forces." Trust "leaders with plans."
“One over-demanding service [to be cut] is prevention; annual physicals,
screening tests, and other measures that supposedly help catch disease
early.“Only a minority of patients, families, and clinicians support prolonged use
of life-sustaining procedures and dramatic interventions in the terminal states
of illness, yet substantial use of these procedures continue.”
This all sounds great -- if you want unelected bureaucrats making your health care decisions for you.
3. Politicizing NASA. NASA Administrator Charles Bolden gave an interview with Al-Jazeera. In this interview, Bolden said that Obama himself had instructed Bolden that his "perhaps foremost" requirement was “to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science . . . and math and engineering.” (!) Wow. And all this time I thought NASA was about space exploration. Is there anything that this president touches that he doesn't turn into a vehicle for his radical ideology?
4. Politicizing the Justice Department. Christian Adams, a voting-rights lawyer who recently resigned from the Justice Department, recently testified before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission about the New Black Panther voter intimidation case in Philadelphia on Election Day 2008. That case, which was filed by the Justice Department in January 2009, said that two members of the New Black Panther party stood in front of a polling station, wearing military garb and brandishing a nightstick. The two men hurled "racial threats and racial insults at both black and white individuals" and "made menacing and intimidating gestures, statements, and movements directed at individuals who were present to aid voters." No defense was offered by the two individuals or by the New Black Panther party, which means that the case was a guaranteed win for the Justice Department. Yet, the Obama Administration suddenly dropped the case in May 2009, claiming insufficient evidence.
Adams stated in a Washington Times article that "if the actions in Philadelphia do not constitute voter intimidation, it is hard to imagine what would, short of an actual outbreak of violence at the polls." He went on to say that the case was dropped because there is an "open and pervasive hostility within the Justice Department to bringing civil rights cases against nonwhite defendants on behalf of white victims. Equal enforcement of justice is not a priority of this administration. Open contempt is voiced for these types of cases.... Some of my coworkers argued that the law should not be used against black wrongdoers because of the long history of slavery and segregation.... Incredibly, after the case was dismissed, instructions were given that no more cases against racial minorities like the Black Panther case would be brought by the [Justice Department's] Voting Section." Not surprisingly, the Justice Department is stonewalling and has refused to allow attorneys involved in the case to respond even to subpoenas.
When Obama's done with our country, there won't be much left.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
This Is What You Get When You Elect Somebody Who Never Even Ran a Lemonade Stand
“By reaching into virtually every sector of economic life, government is injecting uncertainty into the marketplace and making it harder to raise capital and create new businesses."
That statement didn't come from Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh. It came from Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg, a big supporter of Obama and the president of the Business Roundtable which has been one of Obama's closest allies in the business community. Seidenberg went on to say that he was "troubled" and had to speak out because "the negative effects of [Obama's] policies are simply too significant to ignore." Another pro-Obama business leader, GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt, has also recently spoken out against Obama's policies, saying that Obama doesn't get along with the business community and is not working with them effectively. Of course, it would have been nice if these CEO's had spoken out BEFORE the health care bill passed instead of after it had already become law.
Read more about Obama's anti-business, anti-employment policies here. To paraphrase Reagan, "A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose your job. And recovery is when Obama loses his job."
That statement didn't come from Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh. It came from Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg, a big supporter of Obama and the president of the Business Roundtable which has been one of Obama's closest allies in the business community. Seidenberg went on to say that he was "troubled" and had to speak out because "the negative effects of [Obama's] policies are simply too significant to ignore." Another pro-Obama business leader, GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt, has also recently spoken out against Obama's policies, saying that Obama doesn't get along with the business community and is not working with them effectively. Of course, it would have been nice if these CEO's had spoken out BEFORE the health care bill passed instead of after it had already become law.
Read more about Obama's anti-business, anti-employment policies here. To paraphrase Reagan, "A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose your job. And recovery is when Obama loses his job."
Monday, July 5, 2010
Election 2010 Predictions
I have made predictions for Election 2010 U.S. Senate and governors races using a site called U.S. Election Atlas, and will be periodically updating them throughout the campaign. I will also be adding analysis to go along with the predictions. If you are interested in checking them out, here are the links:
U.S. Senate predictions page
Governors predictions page
U.S. Senate predictions page
Governors predictions page
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
The New York Times Will Show You How Real Journalism Works
Take a look at the following observations from The Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web by James Taranto:
The men who rank first and third in the list of longest-serving U.S. senators, Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, both died this decade. That's not the only thing they had in common. Both began their careers as segregationist Democrats but later repented and supported civil rights legislation. Both had obituaries in the New York Times written by Adam Clymer--but therein lie some differences:
The Thurmond obit, published June 27, 2003, was headlined "Strom Thurmond, Foe of Integration, Dies at 100."
The Byrd obit, published today, is headlined "Robert Byrd, a Pillar of the Senate, Dies at 92." (The early online headline said "Respected Voice" rather than "Pillar.")
The Thurmond obit mentioned the senator's opposition to civil rights in the third paragraph.
The Byrd obit, doesn't get to his opposition to civil rights--and his membership in the Ku Klux Klan--until paragraph 16, the topic sentence of which is, "Mr. Byrd's perspective on the world changed over the years."
Now it is true that Thurmond ran for president in 1948 as a "States' Rights Democrat," so that he was a more important figure in the reaction against civil rights than Byrd was. On the other hand, compare and contrast these details from deep in the two men's obits:
Byrd, paragraphs 17-18: "Mr. Byrd's political life could be traced to his early involvement with the Klan, an association that almost thwarted his career and clouded it intermittently for years afterward. In the early 1940s, he organized a 150-member klavern, or chapter, of the Klan in Sophia, W.Va., and was chosen its leader."
Thurmond, paragraph 16: "In 1940, he called on the grand jury in Greenville to be ready to take action against the Ku Klux Klan, which, he said, represented 'the most abominable type of lawlessness.' "
There was one other big difference between the two superannuated senators: Whereas Byrd remained a Democrat until his death yesterday, Thurmond became a Republican in 1964. That may account for the somewhat different treatment they got from Clymer.
The men who rank first and third in the list of longest-serving U.S. senators, Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, both died this decade. That's not the only thing they had in common. Both began their careers as segregationist Democrats but later repented and supported civil rights legislation. Both had obituaries in the New York Times written by Adam Clymer--but therein lie some differences:
The Thurmond obit, published June 27, 2003, was headlined "Strom Thurmond, Foe of Integration, Dies at 100."
The Byrd obit, published today, is headlined "Robert Byrd, a Pillar of the Senate, Dies at 92." (The early online headline said "Respected Voice" rather than "Pillar.")
The Thurmond obit mentioned the senator's opposition to civil rights in the third paragraph.
The Byrd obit, doesn't get to his opposition to civil rights--and his membership in the Ku Klux Klan--until paragraph 16, the topic sentence of which is, "Mr. Byrd's perspective on the world changed over the years."
Now it is true that Thurmond ran for president in 1948 as a "States' Rights Democrat," so that he was a more important figure in the reaction against civil rights than Byrd was. On the other hand, compare and contrast these details from deep in the two men's obits:
Byrd, paragraphs 17-18: "Mr. Byrd's political life could be traced to his early involvement with the Klan, an association that almost thwarted his career and clouded it intermittently for years afterward. In the early 1940s, he organized a 150-member klavern, or chapter, of the Klan in Sophia, W.Va., and was chosen its leader."
Thurmond, paragraph 16: "In 1940, he called on the grand jury in Greenville to be ready to take action against the Ku Klux Klan, which, he said, represented 'the most abominable type of lawlessness.' "
There was one other big difference between the two superannuated senators: Whereas Byrd remained a Democrat until his death yesterday, Thurmond became a Republican in 1964. That may account for the somewhat different treatment they got from Clymer.
Who Knew That Voluntary Recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in School Is "Controversial"?
Arlington High School in Arlington, MA, has banned the voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, which was requested by Sean Harrington, a student at the school. The school committee deadlocked 3-3 on this "controversial" issue. They expressed concern that it would be hard to find teachers willing to recite the Pledge. You know, because it's so "controversial." Also, the phrase "under God" "violates students' right to practice their own religion." Another school committee member pointed out that "Patriotism is a very personal thing for all of us, but I do not think it is in the School Committee's best interest to mandate that any of our employees recite the pledge." (Patriotism is a very personal thing. You know, some people express their patriotism by saying the Pledge, and others express their patriotism by sitting in their chair, arms folded, with a sullen expression. Who's to say which is more patriotic?)
These stories are becoming more and more common in our country. Just a few weeks ago I commented on the students at a Los Angeles area high school who were suspended for wearing a shirt with an American flag on it. There have been several examples of elementary school kids getting in trouble for religious expression on school property as well (religious drawings, bowing their head to pray in the cafeteria, etc).
All of the supposed complaints about allowing the Pledge of Allegiance in the school are red herrings. They can't find a single teacher at a public high school who is willing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance? As Harrington put it, "If we cannot have a willing teacher who would want to say it, then this system of ours is cracked." The words "under God" don't violate anyone's right to practice their own religion. They are completely generic and don't endorse any religion. No one can be mandated to say the Pledge if they don't want to. Our Supreme Court has already declared it unconstitutional to force any student or any teacher to recite it. This is not an issue of forcing anyone to say the Pledge. This is an issue of denying students' right to express pride in their country on school property. And patriotism is not a personal, subjective, undefinable thing. Patriotism is very simply loving and taking pride in one's country. Either you have it or you don't. It's not complicated and it's not subjective. And if you hate America so much that you can't even stand to sit by and watch while other people recite a 20 second expression of patriotism, then you probably don't deserve to be living in America.
And the sad thing is this. Many liberals are not patriotic. I hate to say it, but it's true. The people trying to ban the Pledge and the American flag from schools are not conservatives. They are liberals. Liberals are the ones who attack our military and try to ban them from recruiting on college campuses (including our most recent Supreme Court appointment, Elena Kagan). Liberals are the ones who apologize incessantly for our "imperialistic" foreign policy, our "racist" culture, and our "shameful" heritage (including Obama and Jimmy Carter). Many people blamed the 9/11 attacks on the United States, and they were almost all liberals. Academic liberals re-write history to slander presidents like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Liberal authors slam America's capitalistic system and religious culture. Liberal justices show an utter disregard for the U.S. Constitution and the original intent of its authors, inventing "rights" out of thin air, claiming that rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights no longer apply, and making certain Constitutional provisions so broad they could mean anything. Liberal politicians deny American exceptionalism and claim we have no right to be the leader of the free world (think Obama). They claim we are racist to defend our own borders or demand that people who want to be citizens of our country learn our language and our history. They claim they love America, but not the America as it has existed in the past and as it exists now. What they really love is an America of their own imagination that they want to create in the future through their progressive ideology. They don't love our history, our traditions, our flag, our military, our freedoms, our Constitution. Most of the time, they seem downright hostile to all those things.
I'm saying that the above things are true of all liberals. They certainly are not. Some liberals do genuinely love our country as it is now. But there is a large, aggressive wing of liberalism that has nothing but blame, hostility, and contempt for America, and it has a disproportionate influence in many of our most important institutions -- government, schools and universities, and Hollywood. Because of its influence in schools and universities, it is having a big impact on our kids. I don't know if it can be defeated or not, but if it's going to be defeated it will have to be through ordinary citizens -- like parents in Arlington, MA -- standing up and saying "Enough is enough, I'm proud of my country and I'm not afraid to say it."
These stories are becoming more and more common in our country. Just a few weeks ago I commented on the students at a Los Angeles area high school who were suspended for wearing a shirt with an American flag on it. There have been several examples of elementary school kids getting in trouble for religious expression on school property as well (religious drawings, bowing their head to pray in the cafeteria, etc).
All of the supposed complaints about allowing the Pledge of Allegiance in the school are red herrings. They can't find a single teacher at a public high school who is willing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance? As Harrington put it, "If we cannot have a willing teacher who would want to say it, then this system of ours is cracked." The words "under God" don't violate anyone's right to practice their own religion. They are completely generic and don't endorse any religion. No one can be mandated to say the Pledge if they don't want to. Our Supreme Court has already declared it unconstitutional to force any student or any teacher to recite it. This is not an issue of forcing anyone to say the Pledge. This is an issue of denying students' right to express pride in their country on school property. And patriotism is not a personal, subjective, undefinable thing. Patriotism is very simply loving and taking pride in one's country. Either you have it or you don't. It's not complicated and it's not subjective. And if you hate America so much that you can't even stand to sit by and watch while other people recite a 20 second expression of patriotism, then you probably don't deserve to be living in America.
And the sad thing is this. Many liberals are not patriotic. I hate to say it, but it's true. The people trying to ban the Pledge and the American flag from schools are not conservatives. They are liberals. Liberals are the ones who attack our military and try to ban them from recruiting on college campuses (including our most recent Supreme Court appointment, Elena Kagan). Liberals are the ones who apologize incessantly for our "imperialistic" foreign policy, our "racist" culture, and our "shameful" heritage (including Obama and Jimmy Carter). Many people blamed the 9/11 attacks on the United States, and they were almost all liberals. Academic liberals re-write history to slander presidents like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Liberal authors slam America's capitalistic system and religious culture. Liberal justices show an utter disregard for the U.S. Constitution and the original intent of its authors, inventing "rights" out of thin air, claiming that rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights no longer apply, and making certain Constitutional provisions so broad they could mean anything. Liberal politicians deny American exceptionalism and claim we have no right to be the leader of the free world (think Obama). They claim we are racist to defend our own borders or demand that people who want to be citizens of our country learn our language and our history. They claim they love America, but not the America as it has existed in the past and as it exists now. What they really love is an America of their own imagination that they want to create in the future through their progressive ideology. They don't love our history, our traditions, our flag, our military, our freedoms, our Constitution. Most of the time, they seem downright hostile to all those things.
I'm saying that the above things are true of all liberals. They certainly are not. Some liberals do genuinely love our country as it is now. But there is a large, aggressive wing of liberalism that has nothing but blame, hostility, and contempt for America, and it has a disproportionate influence in many of our most important institutions -- government, schools and universities, and Hollywood. Because of its influence in schools and universities, it is having a big impact on our kids. I don't know if it can be defeated or not, but if it's going to be defeated it will have to be through ordinary citizens -- like parents in Arlington, MA -- standing up and saying "Enough is enough, I'm proud of my country and I'm not afraid to say it."
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Opinion Forum: Purist or Pragmatist?
Something I want to start doing on this blog periodically is opening topics of discussion that will (hopefully) invite reader participation. With all the recent and upcoming primary races, one topic that has been on my mind recently has been the issue of purism vs. pragmatism in voting. I would define a purist as someone who refuses to settle for the lesser of two evils, while a pragmatist is willing to settle for an imperfect candidate in order to keep a worse candidate from getting elected. While I think most of us fall somewhere in the middle on the continuum between 100% political purism and 100% political pragmatism, many of us are much closer to one end or the other.
For conservatives, this issue often comes into play in a general election in which the Republican candidate is deemed insufficiently conservative. For example, I have conservative friends who were unhappy with John McCain during the 2008 presidential race and chose to either vote for a third-party candidate (such as the Constitution Party candidate) or to sit out the election altogether. Others, such as myself, chose to settle for McCain because we considered him far, far better than the alternative. (In my opinion, subsequent events have demonstrated just how bad the alternative to McCain truly was!)
This issue also can be significant in deciding which primary candidate to support. Several weeks ago, I was talking politics with a friend from Pennsylvania in advance of his state's U.S. Senate primary. On the GOP side, the race was between Pat Toomey, a well-known former congressman with the entire GOP establishment behind him and a campaign warchest of $5 million, and Peg Luksik, a little-known, poorly-funded pro-life activist with past Constitution Party associations. As a matter of fact, I did not even know Luksik was in the race and assumed Toomey was unopposed. I was surprised when my friend told me that he felt Luksik was the only candidate in the race whose conservative credentials were beyond question and that he was voting for her out of principle. Although Toomey had waffled on the abortion issue back when he was first elected to Congress a decade ago, he compiled a strongly pro-life voting record in Congress, challenged liberal Republican Arlen Specter from the right during the 2004 Senate race, and was a strong advocate for the free market economy and limited government during his tenure as president of the Club for Growth. In my mind, Toomey was clearly conservative and also the only electable candidate in the race, so he was the logical choice. But in my friend's mind, the primary is the place to vote for the absolute best candidate, not to "settle."
Another example of the debate between purism and pragmatism can be found in the upcoming GOP gubernatorial primary in my home state of Maryland. Maryland is a heavily Democratic state that has only elected a Republican ONCE to a top statewide office in my lifetime -- when GOP congressman Bob Ehrlich won an upset victory in the 2002 governor's race. Ehrlich had a reasonably high job approval rating when he ran for re-election in 2006, but was swept out of office due to the anti-Bush Democratic wave that year. Now, he is running again and early polls suggest he is running neck-and-neck in his rematch with liberal Democratic governor Martin O'Malley. However, Ehrlich is a fairly moderate pro-choice Republican, and he is facing a tough, if little-known, conservative challenge in the primary from Brian Murphy. There is little doubt that Murphy's views are more in line with my own than Ehrlich's are, especially on the issue of the sanctity of life, and I have heard he is quite articulate as well. Other conservatives I have talked to (including family members) are enthusiastic about voting for him. While I too like Murphy, I have nagging doubts about whether it would be better to vote for Ehrlich, the only Republican candidate who has been able to win in Maryland in decades and possibly the only Republican with a chance of winning in the general election. While Ehrlich is pro-choice, he has supported certain restrictions on abortion like banning partial-birth abortion and parental notification for minors, which would make him far preferable to his Democratic opponent even on this issue. Ehrlich is not perfect, but he would serve as a much-needed check to our state's radically left-wing legislature. I still haven't decided who to vote for yet in the primary (although Ehrlich would certainly get my vote in the general election if he wins).
These are but two examples of an issue that most of us, as conservatives, face nearly every election year in our two-party political system: do we settle for imperfect candidates or do we choose to give our vote only to those candidates who are in complete or near-complete agreement with our values? In my opinion, there is no hard-and-fast rule, and decisions of this type must be made on a case-by-case basis.
Let me first say that, for those of us who are Christians, our voting must be done as an act of worship and obedience to Jesus Christ. We are under obligation to use our voting privilege in a way that honors God and does not violate our conscience. For example, it would be hard for me to justify voting for a Republican simply because of his party affiliation if he had a history of corruption, had proven to be blatantly dishonest and untrustworthy, or had demonstrated complete disregard for Constitutional principles, even if his opponent were just as bad or worse. Our highest loyalty must be to principle rather than political party. (For the same reason, I believe we have an obligation to educate ourselves about the candidates and their beliefs before voting. We cannot glorify God if we are uninformed or ignorant.) But of course, the Bible doesn't come with a filled-out voter card attached. We still have to use our minds and think through these issues to determine what voting decisions are most glorifying to God.
Some might argue that voting according to our conscience means we can only vote for candidates that are fully in agreement with our principles and beliefs. I disagree. In certain European countries, for example, where there are a large number of political parties with differing ideologies, it might be much more feasible to vote for a candidate whose beliefs are in nearly complete agreement with our own. But in a two-party system like the U.S., the vast majority of the time we are stuck with a choice between a Democrat and a Republican. For a conservative like myself, the Republican candidate is frequently disappointing and the Democratic candidate is almost always unacceptable for ideological reasons. But the only other options are to vote for a third-party candidate who cannot win or to refuse to vote at all, both of which are in effect forfeiting our right to impact the choice of our elected officials. Sitting out an election or voting for a third-party candidate (essentially the same thing) are only acceptable decisions if both major-party candidates are so truly awful that voting for either of them would be a betrayal of conscience -- and I think this is quite rare. (There are some very rare exceptions when strong third-party candidates emerge with a genuine chance of winning. The 2009 NY-23 special election is an example, but it was caused by the fact that the Republican nominee was so left-wing that she was unacceptable to many Republican voters who flocked en masse to the Conservative nominee. This is an example when voting for a third-party candidate is not a throw-away vote and is also the only real option if we want to stay true to our principles.)
Something important to keep in mind about our two-party system is that legislation can only come up for consideration in Congress -- not to mention become law! -- when it receives support and approval from the leaders of one of the two political parties. The Constitution Party has some great ideas, I readily concede, but it has no influence whatsoever on any real legislation because there are no Constitution Party members of Congress. If we as conservatives want to see our Constitutional vision of justice and morality triumph in the halls of Congress, we have to be willing to work through at least one of the two major political parties. And it seems pretty obvious to me that there is only one political party whose leadership is even the slightest bit open to constitutional conservative ideas.
Let's take the pro-life cause as an example (although it is only one of many that could be used). Suppose you are a pro-life conservative like me and live in a state or district that is liberal and that features a race between a moderately pro-choice Republican and strongly pro-abortion Democrat. Your first impulse might be to say, "Who cares? Politicians are all the same. Neither of the candidates is going to stand up to protect innocent human life, so why should I bother to vote?" But if you dig a little deeper, you will notice first that there is usually a significant difference between pro-choice Republicans and pro-choice Democrats in liberal districts. The overwhelming majority of pro-choice Republicans still support a ban on partial-birth abortion, support parental notification for minors, and oppose taxpayer funding of abortion. The overwhelming majority of pro-choice Democrats are against any regulation or restriction on abortion whatsoever. For example, I believe that every single Republican in the House, including a number of pro-choice ones, voted in favor of the amendment to ban taxpayer funding of abortion in the recent health care bill. A huge majority of Democrats voted against this amendment.
Another thing you will notice is that the pro-choice Republican you elect will cast his/her very first vote to elect the Republican leader to be Speaker of the House or Senate Majority Leader. They will vote to select other leading Republicans as committee chairmen. The overwhelming majority of these Republican leaders are pro-life and will use their influence to permit pro-life legislation to be voted on and to support its passage. By contrast, the very first vote the pro-abortion Democrat will cast will be to make the Democratic leader Speaker of the House or Senate Majority Leader, and they will subsequently support other leading Democrats as committee chairmen. The overwhelming majority of these Democratic leaders are radically pro-abortion and will use their influence to keep pro-life legislation on the shelf, as they have done very effectively in the current session of Congress. You could be doing a lot to protect the lives of the unborn by voting for that pro-choice Republican over that pro-choice Democrat!
Now, what about primary fights? Isn't that the time to vote solely for the candidate you like best and forget about pragmatism? Most of the time I believe that is true. Certainly if you are living in a conservative or swing state or district and you have a choice between a staunch conservative and a squishy moderate, I think it is a no-brainer that you go with the conservative. For example, I strongly supported Pat Toomey over Arlen Specter in the 2004 PA Senate primary, and was very disappointed that President Bush and Senator Rick Santorum chose to do otherwise. However, I think pragmatism may come into play in two types of primary situations. One is when two candidates have generally similar views on the issues, but one is clearly much more electable than the other. The PA primary race between Toomey and Luksik (discussed in paragraph 3) is an example of this. Yes, Luksik is probably a bit more in line with my views and certainly more outspoken about them than Toomey. But they are both clearly conservative, and my guess is that they would vote the same 95% of the time -- so it makes sense to vote for the candidate with the better chance of winning in a Democratic-leaning state to avoid the catastrophe of electing a left-wing activist like Democrat Joe Sestak.
The other primary situation where I think pragmatism may come into play is in a strongly Democratic or liberal state or district, where an outspoken conservative may find it next to impossible to get elected. An example of this situation is this year's gubernatorial primary in Maryland (discussed in paragraph 4). Yes, Murphy is more conservative, but Ehrlich is reasonably acceptable (certainly not in the Arlen Specter/Lincoln Chafee category IMO) and is the ONLY Republican that has won statewide in my lifetime. I'm not saying I will definitely vote for Ehrlich, but I am saying it is a situation when I will at least consider a more pragmatic choice. I would have a hard time voting for a staunchly liberal Republican like Specter or Chafee in the primary in any state, and possibly in the general election too.
The bottom line is that voting decisions are deeply personal, and even people who share the same commitment to conservative values will often vote in very different ways. I have presented my perspective on purism vs. pragmatism in this (much longer than intended) post. I would be curious to know what you think, so please feel free to weigh in with your opinion. I would like to get some dissenting opinions, because I know there are conservatives out there who think I'm too pragmatic!
For conservatives, this issue often comes into play in a general election in which the Republican candidate is deemed insufficiently conservative. For example, I have conservative friends who were unhappy with John McCain during the 2008 presidential race and chose to either vote for a third-party candidate (such as the Constitution Party candidate) or to sit out the election altogether. Others, such as myself, chose to settle for McCain because we considered him far, far better than the alternative. (In my opinion, subsequent events have demonstrated just how bad the alternative to McCain truly was!)
This issue also can be significant in deciding which primary candidate to support. Several weeks ago, I was talking politics with a friend from Pennsylvania in advance of his state's U.S. Senate primary. On the GOP side, the race was between Pat Toomey, a well-known former congressman with the entire GOP establishment behind him and a campaign warchest of $5 million, and Peg Luksik, a little-known, poorly-funded pro-life activist with past Constitution Party associations. As a matter of fact, I did not even know Luksik was in the race and assumed Toomey was unopposed. I was surprised when my friend told me that he felt Luksik was the only candidate in the race whose conservative credentials were beyond question and that he was voting for her out of principle. Although Toomey had waffled on the abortion issue back when he was first elected to Congress a decade ago, he compiled a strongly pro-life voting record in Congress, challenged liberal Republican Arlen Specter from the right during the 2004 Senate race, and was a strong advocate for the free market economy and limited government during his tenure as president of the Club for Growth. In my mind, Toomey was clearly conservative and also the only electable candidate in the race, so he was the logical choice. But in my friend's mind, the primary is the place to vote for the absolute best candidate, not to "settle."
Another example of the debate between purism and pragmatism can be found in the upcoming GOP gubernatorial primary in my home state of Maryland. Maryland is a heavily Democratic state that has only elected a Republican ONCE to a top statewide office in my lifetime -- when GOP congressman Bob Ehrlich won an upset victory in the 2002 governor's race. Ehrlich had a reasonably high job approval rating when he ran for re-election in 2006, but was swept out of office due to the anti-Bush Democratic wave that year. Now, he is running again and early polls suggest he is running neck-and-neck in his rematch with liberal Democratic governor Martin O'Malley. However, Ehrlich is a fairly moderate pro-choice Republican, and he is facing a tough, if little-known, conservative challenge in the primary from Brian Murphy. There is little doubt that Murphy's views are more in line with my own than Ehrlich's are, especially on the issue of the sanctity of life, and I have heard he is quite articulate as well. Other conservatives I have talked to (including family members) are enthusiastic about voting for him. While I too like Murphy, I have nagging doubts about whether it would be better to vote for Ehrlich, the only Republican candidate who has been able to win in Maryland in decades and possibly the only Republican with a chance of winning in the general election. While Ehrlich is pro-choice, he has supported certain restrictions on abortion like banning partial-birth abortion and parental notification for minors, which would make him far preferable to his Democratic opponent even on this issue. Ehrlich is not perfect, but he would serve as a much-needed check to our state's radically left-wing legislature. I still haven't decided who to vote for yet in the primary (although Ehrlich would certainly get my vote in the general election if he wins).
These are but two examples of an issue that most of us, as conservatives, face nearly every election year in our two-party political system: do we settle for imperfect candidates or do we choose to give our vote only to those candidates who are in complete or near-complete agreement with our values? In my opinion, there is no hard-and-fast rule, and decisions of this type must be made on a case-by-case basis.
Let me first say that, for those of us who are Christians, our voting must be done as an act of worship and obedience to Jesus Christ. We are under obligation to use our voting privilege in a way that honors God and does not violate our conscience. For example, it would be hard for me to justify voting for a Republican simply because of his party affiliation if he had a history of corruption, had proven to be blatantly dishonest and untrustworthy, or had demonstrated complete disregard for Constitutional principles, even if his opponent were just as bad or worse. Our highest loyalty must be to principle rather than political party. (For the same reason, I believe we have an obligation to educate ourselves about the candidates and their beliefs before voting. We cannot glorify God if we are uninformed or ignorant.) But of course, the Bible doesn't come with a filled-out voter card attached. We still have to use our minds and think through these issues to determine what voting decisions are most glorifying to God.
Some might argue that voting according to our conscience means we can only vote for candidates that are fully in agreement with our principles and beliefs. I disagree. In certain European countries, for example, where there are a large number of political parties with differing ideologies, it might be much more feasible to vote for a candidate whose beliefs are in nearly complete agreement with our own. But in a two-party system like the U.S., the vast majority of the time we are stuck with a choice between a Democrat and a Republican. For a conservative like myself, the Republican candidate is frequently disappointing and the Democratic candidate is almost always unacceptable for ideological reasons. But the only other options are to vote for a third-party candidate who cannot win or to refuse to vote at all, both of which are in effect forfeiting our right to impact the choice of our elected officials. Sitting out an election or voting for a third-party candidate (essentially the same thing) are only acceptable decisions if both major-party candidates are so truly awful that voting for either of them would be a betrayal of conscience -- and I think this is quite rare. (There are some very rare exceptions when strong third-party candidates emerge with a genuine chance of winning. The 2009 NY-23 special election is an example, but it was caused by the fact that the Republican nominee was so left-wing that she was unacceptable to many Republican voters who flocked en masse to the Conservative nominee. This is an example when voting for a third-party candidate is not a throw-away vote and is also the only real option if we want to stay true to our principles.)
Something important to keep in mind about our two-party system is that legislation can only come up for consideration in Congress -- not to mention become law! -- when it receives support and approval from the leaders of one of the two political parties. The Constitution Party has some great ideas, I readily concede, but it has no influence whatsoever on any real legislation because there are no Constitution Party members of Congress. If we as conservatives want to see our Constitutional vision of justice and morality triumph in the halls of Congress, we have to be willing to work through at least one of the two major political parties. And it seems pretty obvious to me that there is only one political party whose leadership is even the slightest bit open to constitutional conservative ideas.
Let's take the pro-life cause as an example (although it is only one of many that could be used). Suppose you are a pro-life conservative like me and live in a state or district that is liberal and that features a race between a moderately pro-choice Republican and strongly pro-abortion Democrat. Your first impulse might be to say, "Who cares? Politicians are all the same. Neither of the candidates is going to stand up to protect innocent human life, so why should I bother to vote?" But if you dig a little deeper, you will notice first that there is usually a significant difference between pro-choice Republicans and pro-choice Democrats in liberal districts. The overwhelming majority of pro-choice Republicans still support a ban on partial-birth abortion, support parental notification for minors, and oppose taxpayer funding of abortion. The overwhelming majority of pro-choice Democrats are against any regulation or restriction on abortion whatsoever. For example, I believe that every single Republican in the House, including a number of pro-choice ones, voted in favor of the amendment to ban taxpayer funding of abortion in the recent health care bill. A huge majority of Democrats voted against this amendment.
Another thing you will notice is that the pro-choice Republican you elect will cast his/her very first vote to elect the Republican leader to be Speaker of the House or Senate Majority Leader. They will vote to select other leading Republicans as committee chairmen. The overwhelming majority of these Republican leaders are pro-life and will use their influence to permit pro-life legislation to be voted on and to support its passage. By contrast, the very first vote the pro-abortion Democrat will cast will be to make the Democratic leader Speaker of the House or Senate Majority Leader, and they will subsequently support other leading Democrats as committee chairmen. The overwhelming majority of these Democratic leaders are radically pro-abortion and will use their influence to keep pro-life legislation on the shelf, as they have done very effectively in the current session of Congress. You could be doing a lot to protect the lives of the unborn by voting for that pro-choice Republican over that pro-choice Democrat!
Now, what about primary fights? Isn't that the time to vote solely for the candidate you like best and forget about pragmatism? Most of the time I believe that is true. Certainly if you are living in a conservative or swing state or district and you have a choice between a staunch conservative and a squishy moderate, I think it is a no-brainer that you go with the conservative. For example, I strongly supported Pat Toomey over Arlen Specter in the 2004 PA Senate primary, and was very disappointed that President Bush and Senator Rick Santorum chose to do otherwise. However, I think pragmatism may come into play in two types of primary situations. One is when two candidates have generally similar views on the issues, but one is clearly much more electable than the other. The PA primary race between Toomey and Luksik (discussed in paragraph 3) is an example of this. Yes, Luksik is probably a bit more in line with my views and certainly more outspoken about them than Toomey. But they are both clearly conservative, and my guess is that they would vote the same 95% of the time -- so it makes sense to vote for the candidate with the better chance of winning in a Democratic-leaning state to avoid the catastrophe of electing a left-wing activist like Democrat Joe Sestak.
The other primary situation where I think pragmatism may come into play is in a strongly Democratic or liberal state or district, where an outspoken conservative may find it next to impossible to get elected. An example of this situation is this year's gubernatorial primary in Maryland (discussed in paragraph 4). Yes, Murphy is more conservative, but Ehrlich is reasonably acceptable (certainly not in the Arlen Specter/Lincoln Chafee category IMO) and is the ONLY Republican that has won statewide in my lifetime. I'm not saying I will definitely vote for Ehrlich, but I am saying it is a situation when I will at least consider a more pragmatic choice. I would have a hard time voting for a staunchly liberal Republican like Specter or Chafee in the primary in any state, and possibly in the general election too.
The bottom line is that voting decisions are deeply personal, and even people who share the same commitment to conservative values will often vote in very different ways. I have presented my perspective on purism vs. pragmatism in this (much longer than intended) post. I would be curious to know what you think, so please feel free to weigh in with your opinion. I would like to get some dissenting opinions, because I know there are conservatives out there who think I'm too pragmatic!
Obama & Human Rights
Here's a great summary of Obama's pathetic record on human rights by Jennifer Rubin. And she quotes from another excellent article from The Weekly Standard which brilliantly contrasts George W. Bush's view of human rights with the Obama Administration's view of human rights. These articles help to explain why I feel so utterly alienated from Obama that I doubt that we share even the most basic values with regard to human rights, individual liberties, democracy, etc. I don't feel like he's on my team, and I haven't seen much evidence he's on America's team -- at least not the America I know and love.
In Washington, "Disclose" Means Stifle
Check out this great article by Debra Saunders about the latest unconstitutional piece of legislation to pass the House: the DISCLOSE Act. The Democrats are counting on the fact that they will be able to rig the November elections without anybody noticing. For the sake of free speech and the integrity of our democracy, let's pray they don't succeed.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Breaking News: Obama Plays Politics With National Security
These days, it's an outrage a day from the Obama Administration. The latest news is that Senator Jon Kyl had a meeting with Obama in which Obama told him, ‘The problem is, . . . if we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support 'comprehensive immigration reform.'" Never mind that it happens to be his constitutional responsibility to enforce immigration laws and protect our country's sovereignty and security. He would rather play politics with the issue to get his agenda passed. Read more here.
Useless Thuggery
Michael Barone has a great article today about Obama's "useless thuggery." Well worth reading. Barone points out that while Obama talks a tough game with regard to the Gulf spill, there has been virtually no real leadership or action taken by his administration even up to this moment.
What has Obama done so far with regard to the spill? First, he placed a moratorium on offshore oil drilling. This moratorium will cause the loss of many high-paying American jobs, adding an additional strain to an already bad economy. It penalizes the oil companies that have compiled much better safety records than BP. It will lead to further unhealthy dependence on foreign oil. And surprisingly, it is most strongly opposed by the very people that have suffered the most from the oil spill - Louisiana residents. I recently watched a focus group discussion moderated by pollster Frank Luntz consisting of Louisiana voters. This group consisted of Democrats and Republicans, blacks and whites, supporters and opponents of Obama -- but every single person in the group without exception opposed the moratorium. Governor Jindal pleaded with Obama not to institute the moratorium as well. They know that Louisiana depends on oil production revenue, and that this moratorium will only increase the economic suffering of their state. Too bad for them that Obama couldn't care less.
Second, we now know that Obama refused --and continues to refuse -- help from foreign vessels to clean up the oil in the Gulf. It's my understanding that up to a dozen countries have offered help, but most notably the Dutch, Belgians, and Norwegians contacted the Obama Administration within three or four days of the initial oil spill and offered to send several of their highly advanced oil skimmers that were capable of cleaning up hundreds of thousands of tons of water each day. Obama used the Jones Act as justification for his refusal. The Jones Act is an outdated law requiring all ships in U.S. waters to be built and crewed by Americans -- but it has been routinely waived by previous presidents in times of crisis, and was promptly waived by Bush after Katrina in 2005. By the way, the unions vigorously support the Jones Act, and the unions gave $400 million to Obama's 2008 campaign. Think there could be a connection? To please the labor unions, Obama refused help that could have drastically reduced the damaging effects of the spill.
Third, Obama gave a weak speech from the Oval Office nearly TWO MONTHS after the spill started. After giving a few generalities about the cleanup and pretending like the government had been on top of the situation from Day One, Obama proceeded to use the spill as an excuse to push for "green energy" and the passage of his cap-and-trade bill. It is very sad to see Obama playing politics with this tragedy, especially since the oil spill has no connection to cap-and-trade at all. Cap-and-trade is a terrible legislative idea that will dramatically increase energy costs for Americans with no appreciable environmental benefit. However, it will create an additional stream of revenue for the federal government while increasing their control over energy companies -- exactly what Obama wants. Of course "green energy" sounds great, and if alternative energy sources could efficiently power my car, not to mention our factories and our overall economy, then Americans would happily use them. Unfortunately, there is no current renewable energy source that even comes close to being able to do what fossil fuels do every day. Obama admitted as much in his speech, but still wants us to tax the heck out of oil and gas producers and throw away billions of tax dollars to fund inferior sources of energy like ethanol that are incapable of being profitable without huge government subsidies. Obama lyingly claimed that we are running out of places to drill. The truth is that we have enough known oil deposits on our soil and in our waters to power our economy for hundreds of years into the future -- and that is just the deposits we know about. The Gulf spill is an immediate crisis, but our country's reliance on fossil fuels is not.
Fourth, Obama has focused relentlessly on covering himself politically by blaming BP. We elected a president to lead and find solutions, not to shift blame and engage in political attacks. Instead of focusing first on working with BP to stop the leak, Obama's Justice Department has already opened a criminal investigation into BP -- while the oil is still gushing out. This is without a doubt hindering the attempts to stop the spill, because BP has to focus on hiring lawyers and defending themselves instead of putting all their resources and focus into stopping the spill. Perhaps a criminal investigation is in order, but shouldn't it wait until the leak is stopped and the situation is somewhat under control? And Obama has forced BP to create a $20 billion escrow fund. This is an unconstitutional power grab by our federal government in transferring private property from party to another without due process of law. Congress has been playing along very effectively, hauling oil executives before their committees for political grandstanding purposes but failing to investigate the government parties responsible for allowing BP to drill without proper permits, safety procedures, and emergency plans.
There's more that could be said, but this sums up some of the more important points. I don't think Obama could have done a worse job handling the Gulf spill, and his dramatic failure underscores his utter lack of experience, leadership skills, and character.
What has Obama done so far with regard to the spill? First, he placed a moratorium on offshore oil drilling. This moratorium will cause the loss of many high-paying American jobs, adding an additional strain to an already bad economy. It penalizes the oil companies that have compiled much better safety records than BP. It will lead to further unhealthy dependence on foreign oil. And surprisingly, it is most strongly opposed by the very people that have suffered the most from the oil spill - Louisiana residents. I recently watched a focus group discussion moderated by pollster Frank Luntz consisting of Louisiana voters. This group consisted of Democrats and Republicans, blacks and whites, supporters and opponents of Obama -- but every single person in the group without exception opposed the moratorium. Governor Jindal pleaded with Obama not to institute the moratorium as well. They know that Louisiana depends on oil production revenue, and that this moratorium will only increase the economic suffering of their state. Too bad for them that Obama couldn't care less.
Second, we now know that Obama refused --and continues to refuse -- help from foreign vessels to clean up the oil in the Gulf. It's my understanding that up to a dozen countries have offered help, but most notably the Dutch, Belgians, and Norwegians contacted the Obama Administration within three or four days of the initial oil spill and offered to send several of their highly advanced oil skimmers that were capable of cleaning up hundreds of thousands of tons of water each day. Obama used the Jones Act as justification for his refusal. The Jones Act is an outdated law requiring all ships in U.S. waters to be built and crewed by Americans -- but it has been routinely waived by previous presidents in times of crisis, and was promptly waived by Bush after Katrina in 2005. By the way, the unions vigorously support the Jones Act, and the unions gave $400 million to Obama's 2008 campaign. Think there could be a connection? To please the labor unions, Obama refused help that could have drastically reduced the damaging effects of the spill.
Third, Obama gave a weak speech from the Oval Office nearly TWO MONTHS after the spill started. After giving a few generalities about the cleanup and pretending like the government had been on top of the situation from Day One, Obama proceeded to use the spill as an excuse to push for "green energy" and the passage of his cap-and-trade bill. It is very sad to see Obama playing politics with this tragedy, especially since the oil spill has no connection to cap-and-trade at all. Cap-and-trade is a terrible legislative idea that will dramatically increase energy costs for Americans with no appreciable environmental benefit. However, it will create an additional stream of revenue for the federal government while increasing their control over energy companies -- exactly what Obama wants. Of course "green energy" sounds great, and if alternative energy sources could efficiently power my car, not to mention our factories and our overall economy, then Americans would happily use them. Unfortunately, there is no current renewable energy source that even comes close to being able to do what fossil fuels do every day. Obama admitted as much in his speech, but still wants us to tax the heck out of oil and gas producers and throw away billions of tax dollars to fund inferior sources of energy like ethanol that are incapable of being profitable without huge government subsidies. Obama lyingly claimed that we are running out of places to drill. The truth is that we have enough known oil deposits on our soil and in our waters to power our economy for hundreds of years into the future -- and that is just the deposits we know about. The Gulf spill is an immediate crisis, but our country's reliance on fossil fuels is not.
Fourth, Obama has focused relentlessly on covering himself politically by blaming BP. We elected a president to lead and find solutions, not to shift blame and engage in political attacks. Instead of focusing first on working with BP to stop the leak, Obama's Justice Department has already opened a criminal investigation into BP -- while the oil is still gushing out. This is without a doubt hindering the attempts to stop the spill, because BP has to focus on hiring lawyers and defending themselves instead of putting all their resources and focus into stopping the spill. Perhaps a criminal investigation is in order, but shouldn't it wait until the leak is stopped and the situation is somewhat under control? And Obama has forced BP to create a $20 billion escrow fund. This is an unconstitutional power grab by our federal government in transferring private property from party to another without due process of law. Congress has been playing along very effectively, hauling oil executives before their committees for political grandstanding purposes but failing to investigate the government parties responsible for allowing BP to drill without proper permits, safety procedures, and emergency plans.
There's more that could be said, but this sums up some of the more important points. I don't think Obama could have done a worse job handling the Gulf spill, and his dramatic failure underscores his utter lack of experience, leadership skills, and character.
Friday, June 18, 2010
The Anti-Obama
What if voters elected an honest chief executive, somebody who was willing to tell them the truth about the government's budget crisis and looming insolvency instead of spending like there was no tomorrow? What if that politician was willing to take on the powerful special interests that have controlled the government for decades instead of appeasing them? What if that politician cared more about our future and the future of our children and grandchildren than he did about his own political future? What if that politician made himself accessible to the people through townhall meetings AFTER he was elected? It's not a pipe dream. It's really happening -- and in New Jersey of all places. Meet Governor Chris Christie, the anti-Obama. Christie is everything Obama is not: honest, tough, independent, accessible, a leader in a crisis, focused on finding solutions.
Take a look at this guy in action. These videos will make you want to stand up and cheer -- or at least engage in some exuberant fist-pumping!
--His speech just after taking office declaring New Jersey in a state of fiscal crisis.
--A townhall meeting speech about school funding and the NJ supreme court.
--Speeches taking on the powerful teachers' unions in NJ here and here.
--A townhall meeting speech about government accountability to the people.
It goes without saying that we need a leader like this in Washington as well as Trenton.
Take a look at this guy in action. These videos will make you want to stand up and cheer -- or at least engage in some exuberant fist-pumping!
--His speech just after taking office declaring New Jersey in a state of fiscal crisis.
--A townhall meeting speech about school funding and the NJ supreme court.
--Speeches taking on the powerful teachers' unions in NJ here and here.
--A townhall meeting speech about government accountability to the people.
It goes without saying that we need a leader like this in Washington as well as Trenton.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
A Blog I Really Like...
...is Commentary Magazine's Contentions, a politics blog with a foreign policy focus. I have been starting to read it regularly over the past couple of weeks and really like it. There are several writers who post on Contentions that I enjoy reading, including John Podhoretz and Peter Wehner, but by far my favorite is Jennifer Rubin. Check it out sometime!
Monday, June 14, 2010
Year of the (Pro-Life) Woman
Ramesh Ponnuru has a great article in the New York Times about the large number of high-profile pro-life women running for political office this year and what it means for the pro-life movement. Check it out here.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
The Buck Stops...Well...Somewhere Else
I couldn't believe my ears. I was listening to the radio this morning on my way in to work, and I heard an excerpt from Obama's commencement address at a high school in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Obama told the kids not to blame others for their own mistakes and urged them to take responsibility instead of making excuses.
Seriously? I wish I could have seen the video to see if Obama kept a straight face. You know, the same Obama who has been viciously attacking BP instead of making his highest priority to work in cooperation with them to stop the spill (the president of BP has not spoken with Obama since the spill occurred in April). The same Obama who just said in an interview that he was talking with the brightest minds about the oil spill, not to figure out how to stop the spill and clean up the mess, but to determine "whose ass to kick." (At least he sounds presidential when he's engaging in political blame-shifting!) One could be forgiven for thinking that Obama's highest priority regarding the Gulf spill was covering himself politically.
It's instructive to compare Obama's handling of the Gulf oil spill with Bush's handling of Katrina. Bush acknowledged his administration's responsibility for dealing with the hurricane fallout (even though his administration had far less to do with the hurricane than the Obama administration had to do with the oil spill). He never once attacked or blamed anyone outside of his administration, even though he could have easily done so (the mayor of New Orleans and the governor of Louisiana both proved to be pathetically incompetent). He constantly thanked and praised the volunteers working around the clock to clean up the mess, which Obama has not once done to my knowledge. Don't get me wrong. The federal government's response to Katrina was slow and inefficient, but at least Bush demonstrated his leadership qualities by his response.
I was surprised when Obama harshly attacked Bush in his inaugural address. I thought he was supposed to be a different kind of president who was going to bring our country together, and frankly it's pretty unprecedented for a new president to attack the outgoing president at the inauguration ceremony. A year later, in his first State of the Union address, Obama once again blamed Bush for our country's economic woes. In October, Charles Krauthammer said this regarding Obama:
Is there anything he hasn't blamed George W. Bush for? The economy, global warming, the credit crisis, Middle East stalemate, the deficit, anti-Americanism abroad -- everything but swine flu. It's as if Obama's presidency hasn't really started. He's still taking inventory of the Bush years. Just this Monday, he referred to "long years of drift" in Afghanistan in order to, I suppose, explain away his own, well, yearlong drift on Afghanistan.
I hope the kids at that Kalamazoo high school will prove to be men and women of character and leadership who take responsibility instead of shifting blame. If they do, they will have learned it from someone other than Barack Obama.
Seriously? I wish I could have seen the video to see if Obama kept a straight face. You know, the same Obama who has been viciously attacking BP instead of making his highest priority to work in cooperation with them to stop the spill (the president of BP has not spoken with Obama since the spill occurred in April). The same Obama who just said in an interview that he was talking with the brightest minds about the oil spill, not to figure out how to stop the spill and clean up the mess, but to determine "whose ass to kick." (At least he sounds presidential when he's engaging in political blame-shifting!) One could be forgiven for thinking that Obama's highest priority regarding the Gulf spill was covering himself politically.
It's instructive to compare Obama's handling of the Gulf oil spill with Bush's handling of Katrina. Bush acknowledged his administration's responsibility for dealing with the hurricane fallout (even though his administration had far less to do with the hurricane than the Obama administration had to do with the oil spill). He never once attacked or blamed anyone outside of his administration, even though he could have easily done so (the mayor of New Orleans and the governor of Louisiana both proved to be pathetically incompetent). He constantly thanked and praised the volunteers working around the clock to clean up the mess, which Obama has not once done to my knowledge. Don't get me wrong. The federal government's response to Katrina was slow and inefficient, but at least Bush demonstrated his leadership qualities by his response.
I was surprised when Obama harshly attacked Bush in his inaugural address. I thought he was supposed to be a different kind of president who was going to bring our country together, and frankly it's pretty unprecedented for a new president to attack the outgoing president at the inauguration ceremony. A year later, in his first State of the Union address, Obama once again blamed Bush for our country's economic woes. In October, Charles Krauthammer said this regarding Obama:
Is there anything he hasn't blamed George W. Bush for? The economy, global warming, the credit crisis, Middle East stalemate, the deficit, anti-Americanism abroad -- everything but swine flu. It's as if Obama's presidency hasn't really started. He's still taking inventory of the Bush years. Just this Monday, he referred to "long years of drift" in Afghanistan in order to, I suppose, explain away his own, well, yearlong drift on Afghanistan.
I hope the kids at that Kalamazoo high school will prove to be men and women of character and leadership who take responsibility instead of shifting blame. If they do, they will have learned it from someone other than Barack Obama.
Friday, June 4, 2010
The True Cost of ObamaCare
When The New York Times is publishing articles critical of ObamaCare, you know it must be bad. This summary in The Weekly Standard points out that the Dartmouth study that the White House is relying on for its health care facts and figures does not even take into account quality of patient care or the survival rate of patients when determining what constitutes wasteful health spending. In another words, under the Dartmouth formula good health care equals cheap health care, regardless of results. This is obviously counter-intuitive -- it makes no sense that spending less on health care would result in better health care. Now Obama has nominated Donald Berwick, a champion of the Dartmouth health care model and of the disastrous British medical system, to run Medicare and Medicaid. Our country's top-quality health care system is about to vanish before our eyes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)