Obama & Pelosi Are the Gift That Keeps On Giving

I noted three interesting pieces of news over the past couple of days:

1. Nancy Pelosi gave an interview in which she stated that she thinks someone, presumably the government, needs to "look into" the sources of funding for those opposing the Ground Zero mosque.

2. A Democratic pollster is claiming that in the battleground House districts that Democrats are trying to defend, Bush is 6 percentage points more popular than Obama.

3. Another Democratic polling organization, Public Policy Polling, discovered that among residents of Obama's home state of Illinois, 40% would be less likely to vote for a candidate endorsed by Obama, while only 26% would be more likely to vote for a candidate endorsed by Obama.

I hope Obama and Pelosi stay the leaders of the Democratic Party for a long, long time. Every time they open their mouth, the prospects for the GOP improve.

Finally, Maureen Dowd Misses Bush!

Most of the time, liberals infuriate me. But every once in a great while, they do something that just cracks me up. This week, no fewer than three left-wing writers -- Maureen Dowd, Eugene Robinson, and Peter Beinart -- are begging George W. Bush to weigh in on the Ground Zero mosque controversy on Obama's behalf! (The Washington Examiner has the story here.) Dowd, who has spent the past 10 years of her life relentlessly ridiculing Bush's stupidity on a weekly basis in her New York Times column, now says that "W. needs to get his bullhorn back out." Robinson, who spends his weekly columns explaining how Republicans support slavery and segregation, says he "would love to hear from former President Bush on this issue." Beinart adds, "Words I never thought I'd write: I pine for George W. Bush." All three of the writers praised Bush's knowledge and sensitivity with regard to the War on Terror and Muslim issues.

Haven't we been hearing for years from these left-wing commentators that Bush was an idiot who couldn't put a coherent sentence together and had one of the worst presidencies in our history? Haven't they claimed for the past three years that Obama's eloquence and understanding of the world were unsurpassed? After doing everything possible to smear President Bush, suddenly they're worried about their beloved president's inability to argue effectively for their precious Ground Zero mosque and they want Bush to ride to the rescue! You just can't make this stuff up.

This is why it is so foolish for politicians to try to curry favor with the media. As long as you seem to be furthering their left-wing agenda, they will heap you with praise. And once they no longer have use for you, they will throw you under the bus. Remember, the press couldn't stop fawning over John McCain as a "principled maverick" back in 2000 when he was challenging Bush from the left. But just a few years later McCain was running against Obama, and they barely seemed capable of doing a positive story on him. Three weeks ago, Bush was the object of universal scorn. Now the left is begging for his eloquence and wisdom. But don't worry. In a few weeks, once the mosque story has blown over, they'll back to blaming him for the lousy economy, the Gulf oil spill, etc.

This is also why I've stopped worrying about what liberals think of me. I take plenty of heat from co-workers for defending Bush, Palin, the Tea Parties, the Arizona law, etc. It would be quite easy for me to try to distance myself from these hated individuals and groups ("I'm a Reagan conservative, not a Palin conservative!"), but I'm done bothering with it. The only conservatives liberals and the media will ever like are the ones that are no longer in power. (They say nice things about Reagan now, but he couldn't get good press to save in his life when he was president.) And the only way to get liberals to approve of your positions is to stop standing for anything.

Obama's Muslim Problem

Jennifer Rubin of Contentions, one of my favorite bloggers, had a couple of excellent posts yesterday regarding what the controversy over the Ground Zero mosque has to say about Obama's worldview. Check them out here and here.

Obama, a Man of the People

The mosque at Ground Zero continues to make headlines. First, New York Governor David Patterson made a good faith effort to defuse the controversy by offering to help Imam Rauf of the Cordoba Initiative find another location for his mosque. This good faith effort was flatly rejected by Rauf, which comes as a shock to exactly no one who has bothered to read about Rauf's background and connections. Then President Obama jumped into the fray, declaring his strong support for building the mosque at Ground Zero in a public speech, another piece of breaking news which should have come as no surprise to keen political observers.

(Just an aside: while Imam Rauf most definitely sympathizes with terrorism, not all Muslims share this radical ideology. Two genuinely moderate Muslims, Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah of the Muslim Canadian Congress, wrote an excellent op-ed piece in the Ottawa Citizen last week about the mosque controversy.)

The thing that I love most about Obama is that he is, delightfully, a man of the people. He shares the values, aspirations, and worldview of ordinary Americans, as the following examples demonstrate:

1. While 68% of Americans have grave concerns about a radical Islamic cleric building a mosque at Ground Zero, Obama has enthusiastically endorsed the idea. (Why do the little people still care about 9/11? It's been almost 10 years since the worst attack on our soil, folks, can we just get over it already?)

2. While being disgracefully lax in enforcing federal immigration laws, Obama is busy using taxpayer dollars to sue the state of Arizona (along with lying about the law in public speeches). Obama might be a little out of touch on this: 60% of Americans support the Arizona law, 70% oppose the lawsuit against Arizona, and huge majorities think the federal government needs to do a better job controlling the border.

3. While a significant majority of Americans opposed both the substance of ObamaCare and the corrupt, partisan procedure used to pass it (and similar majorities now support its repeal), Obama considers it a historic achievement. (Once we find out what's in the 2,000+ page bill, we'll let you know. A toast to my legacy!) His Justice Department claims that the government has a right to force people to purchase private health insurance. In a recent referendum, 71% of Missouri voters (including a majority of voters in every single county in the state) disagreed.

4. While polls repeatedly show that Americans are extremely worried about the unsustainable national debt, Obama has merrily proceeded to triple the deficit after a year in office. While polls repeatedly show that Americans believe federal spending is out of control, Obama and his Congressional allies have rammed through numerous huge spending bills costing hundreds of billions of dollars a pop -- the $787 billion stimulus, the trillion dollar health care reform bill, the auto industry bailout, the financial services reform bill, etc. While polls show Americans are worried about the imminent bankruptcy of existing entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, Obama is busy creating new ones that only make the problem worse.

5. Obama supports shutting down Guantanamo Bay and either releasing the military combatants held there or bringing them to the U.S. -- all this against the strong opposition of the public (and many Democrats). Obama supports having a civilian trial for Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, in New York City, despite the fact that his case was already virtually completed in military courts. A mere 2/3 of the public opposes such a trial, probably because they are ignorant bigots.

6. Obama supports cap-and-trade legislation, which by his own admission would dramatically increase production costs and consumer prices for electricity and natural gas. Of course, it's all in the cause of promoting "green" energy and slowing global warming. Polling has indicated the public is highly skeptical that global warming is even primarily caused by human activity, and that the public would prefer not to have their utility bills double to finance the latest breakthroughs in ethanol and windmill technology.

7. Significant majorities of Congress and the voting public have long supported Israel - both its right to exist as a nation and its special status as a close friend and ally of the U.S. Even heavily Democratic Jewish groups in the U.S. have criticized Obama' contemptuous behavior toward Israel, including several public snubs, an unwillingness to stand up to anti-Israel bullying in the U.N., and a refusal to get tough on Iran.

8. Obama registered his opposition to Prop 8 in California which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. This puts him at odds not only with a majority of voters in one of the most left-wing states in the country; it also puts him at odds with a much larger percentage of voters nationwide.

9. Polls have shown that huge majorities of Americans want their elected officials to work together to get things done, and are tired of the excessive partisanship in Washington. Obama's promise to be a post-partisan president was a key part of his appeal. Since getting elected, Obama has accomplished nothing in a bi-partisan fashion. He excluded Republicans from closed-door health care deliberations, and his party muscled all major pieces of legislation through Congress with seriously curtailed debate and with no effort to win over even moderate Republicans. He and his spokesmen have personally ridiculed and attacked news organizations and private citizens by name, repeatedly questioned the motives of his Republican critics, and explicitly played racial politics. His close allies even attacked ordinary townhall protestors exercising their constitutional right to participate in government, calling them Nazis and brownshirts.

10. Polls show that large majorities of Americans consider America to be a basically fair and decent society and a model of freedom and justice for the rest of the world. Obama, on the other hand, has made numerous speeches overseas in which he has apologized for American policies and publicly blamed his predecessor for all kinds of supposed injustices. He allowed the Mexican president to publicly attack Arizona without protest, and one of our ambassadors to China to equate U.S. human rights violations with Chinese human rights violations. He always seems to go soft on anti-American regimes like Iran and Venezuela while being harsh against American allies like Britain and Israel. His speech to a Muslim-American audience for Ramadan last week seemed to condemn a majority of his fellow-Americans for being against religious freedom for American Muslims, which is a hateful slur against America, possibly the most religiously tolerant country on earth.

11. Perhaps worst of all, Obama appears out-of-touch and indifferent to the sufferings of ordinary Americans. His administration never bothered to declare a state of emergency earlier this year in Tennessee, a state where more than a dozen people died in terrible flooding. His handling of the Gulf oil spill was pathetic. His administration was painfully slow to acknowledge the problem, painfully slow to approve state proposals to build sand barriers, painfully slow to approve and deploy equipment to the region, painfully slow to issue a public statement, painfully slow to visit the Gulf region. They never did waive the Jones Act to allow foreign oil skimmers to help with the cleanup. The few decisions Obama did make quickly, such a moratorium on deep-sea drilling, were strongly opposed by Gulf residents whose livelihoods depend on the oil industry. While Gulf coast residents were suffering, Obama was partying it up numerous times with celebrities in the White House and golfing for 5 or 6 hours every single weekend. In fact, Obama and his family have made a habit out of hobnobbing with celebrities and vacationing in the most exclusive spots (Bar Harbor, Martha's Vineyard) in the middle of one of the worst recessions in our history. With 10% unemployment, does Michelle Obama really need to be vacationing in Spain and staying in a hotel where each room costs $2,500 per night?

Obama, man of the people!!!

Elitism and the Democratic Party, Part I

If you were to ask me to describe today's Democratic Party in one word, one of the words at the top of my list would be "elitist." The online dictionary describes elitism as "consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group" (often described as a ruling class). My own definition of elitism would be "the arrogance of power." Elitist people think that their superior education and position of authority give them the right to look down their noses at the "little people." Law is simply what they dictate to the common rabble in their infinite wisdom; such ordinary laws, of course, do not apply to them. The little people, not having receiving Ivy League college educations, are generally ignorant, prejudiced, and intolerant; fortunately they are also easily led, which explains why elitists assume the public will let them get away with the most outrageous words and behavior. Because elitists think they know better than the masses, they are constantly trying to take more power and control away from the individual and wield it themselves.

Now, elitism exists in many places. There is a significant amount of elitism in Hollywood, the academic community, and Wall Street, for example. However, I think the modern Democratic Party's elitism is incredibly flagrant, because unlike Hollywood, academic, and Wall Street elites, Democratic politicians are actually holding public office and are serving only at the pleasure of the voters. This means that we have a unique opportunity to end the elitism in Washington by showing up at the polls in November.

Much could be written about the elitism of Democratic ideology. In almost every area of public policy, the Democrats stand for taking rights and control away from individual people and private businesses and centralizing that control in the hands of an increasingly powerful federal government. Here are some examples:

1. Health care. Most Democrats in Congress want government-run, single-payer health care. This inevitably takes power away from individual patients, doctors, and health insurers and centralizes it in the hands of government bureaucrats and agencies. In a true government-run system like the British system, all major decisions about who gets care, who gives care, when they get care, how much the care costs, and what types of care will be approved are made by the government. ObamaCare is a major step in that direction, as it authorized the creation of over 100 new government boards and agencies.

2. Environment. Most Democrats in Congress support cap-and-trade legislation, which essentially subsidizes unprofitable alternative energy sources by increasing costs (and thus consumer prices) on traditional energy sources. The effect of such legislation vastly increases government control over the energy producing sector of our economy at the expense of businesses and consumers. Democrats also favor many other types of environmental legislation, most of which involves increased regulation of the private sector, harsh and unnecessary mandates on businesses, and decreased individual property rights.

3. Judicial System. Most Democrats favor bringing about social change by nominating activist judges who declare laws unconstitutional based on their opinions about justice rather than the actual words of the Constitution (essentially legislating from the bench). Obama's recent nominees to the Supreme Court follow this philosophy. This approach to the courts takes power away from the people to enact laws through their elected representatives and centralizes power in a few judges who are appointed for life and have no accountability to the people for their decisions. It also diminishes the rule of law in our society by allowing judges to ignore the original intent and the plain meaning of the Constitution and interpret certain clauses so broadly that they become meaningless.

4. Taxes and Spending. By and large, Democrats tend to favor increased taxation and higher spending. Generally, these two things go together, as increased spending requires increased taxation in order to pay for it. Since Obama took office, he and his allies in Congress spent $800 billion on an economic stimulus bill that had more to do with earmarks and payoffs to special interests than it did with stimulating the economy. They also spent nearly a trillion on a new health care entitlement, and billions and billions more in various bailout packages and "reforms" of various industries. This spending tripled our deficit in Obama's first year alone, and adds to our already crippling national debt which is projected to reach almost unsustainable levels in just a few years. Of course, these bills also included many new taxes, fees, and mandates for individuals and businesses, and the Democrats have also proposed eliminating the Bush tax cuts. The upshot of these tax-and-spend economic policies is to move control over more and more of the dollars in our economy out of the hands of individuals and into the hands of the federal government. More taxation and spending by the government means less spending, decisions, and freedoms for individuals and private businesses.

5. Education. Most Democratic politicians oppose commonsense education ideas like merit pay for teachers and school vouchers. Although such policies would likely improve the quality of education and increase the power of parents to make choices about their children's education, they are opposed by teacher's unions which oppose any challenge to the government monopoly on education.

6. Gun Control. Many Democratic politicians want increased government restrictions on gun ownership and gun rights, with some liberal cities going as far as banning handguns altogether. Such policies restrict individual rights and increase government power (not to mention violating the Constitution).

These are just a few examples of how the elitism of the Democratic Party manifests itself through legislation. However, perhaps the thing that is most striking to me is how vocal many Democratic politicians are in expressing their contempt for the little people and the rule of law. That will be the subject of Part II of this post, coming soon.

The Constitutional "Right" of Gay Marriage

I expect all of my readers know that federal judge Vaughn Walker issued an opinion this past week overturning California's Proposition 8, an amendment to the state's constitution defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman which was passed by the state's voters in 2008. There are two important questions here that should be distinguished. The first is whether this ruling by Judge Walker is constitutionally sound, and the second is whether gay marriage should be permitted under the law.

With regard to the first question, the evidence is overwhelming that the Walker ruling was neither impartial nor constitutionally sound. Judge Walker is not only gay, but also has a long-term male domestic partner whom he would presumably be eligible to marry under his own ruling. This shows a personal involvement in the case which should have led him to recuse himself. The judge's conduct during the entire trial was so blatantly prejudiced against the defense that the outcome was a surprise to no one. Ed Whelan, a constitutional law expert who writes for National Review, has listed the numerous actions Judge Walker took throughout the trial that show his extreme bias (click on the links in the article for more detail about each point.) Less than 30 pages of the 135-page ruling have anything remotely resembling a legal argument; most of the ruling is devoted to "findings of fact" and a summary of the trial proceedings. Most of those supposed "findings of fact" are not facts at all, but simply express the judge's opinion that Proposition 8 stigmatizes homosexuality. Whelan also lists out the key legal arguments in the thin "conclusions of law" section, which mostly consist of sweeping and highly controversial claims about the nature of marriage with no supporting evidence or historical precedent to back them up. Whelan's brief parenthetical commentary demonstrates how utterly flimsy those arguments really are.

Essentially, the ruling boils down to the central claim that it is discriminatory for same-sex couples to not be able to marry. While I disagree with this argument, I can understand how it could be used to justify a law permitting same-sex marriage. But it can't be used to justify imposing such a law through the court system. The court isn't permitted to make law; it's only permitted to strike down laws that are unconstitutional. Therefore, to make this ruling, the court is at least implicitly inventing a constitutional civil right for gay marriage. And we all know the Constitution does not guarantee such a right. If we are going to consistently follow this line of reasoning (anybody who wants to marry has a constitutional right to do so) then I don't see how the courts can avoid imposing legalized polygamy, incest, pedophilia, and bestiality as well. To me, this ruling is less about gay marriage than it is about unelected judges making law from the bench. Liberals believe that because the Constitution is a living document, judges can invent new provisions to the Constitution whenever they feel it serves their definition of justice. Roe v. Wade was the same thing. There's no constitutional right to abortion, but the courts invented it because they didn't like existing law. It is very dangerous for courts to write laws because they are unelected and appointed for life and thus are unaccountable to the people.

The second key question is whether gay marriage should be legalized. To me, this issue is not really about equality, despite the claims of supporters. Gay couples already have full rights and freedom to pursue whatever lifestyle they want. No one is keeping them from having sex or buying a house together or having a commitment ceremony. A lot of states (including California) have civil unions or domestic partnership laws, which provide these couples with virtually every financial benefit that a married couple has. I am generally supportive of such laws. No, the issue here is not equality. The issue is forcing society to give their stamp of approval to the gay lifestyle. Gay rights activists want to force society to accept and approve of what they are doing, and in so doing to fundamentally redefine the institution of marriage that has existed in virtually every culture from time immemorial as the union between a man and a woman. Judge Walker's opinion is a frontal assault on the entire family structure, not just marriage. He claims that it is "beyond any doubt that parents’ genders are irrelevant to children’s developmental outcomes" and slams gender distinctions as outdated "artifacts."

Princeton professor and legal scholar Robert George recently wrote an editorial in the Wall Street Journal on the topic of same-sex marriage. While the major point of Dr. George's article is to argue that the legislature and not the courts should settle the question of gay marriage, he also makes some excellent points about the nature of marriage itself which I will quote from at length:

"Lawyers challenging traditional marriage laws liken their cause to Loving v. Virginia (which invalidated laws against interracial marriages), insinuating that conjugal-marriage supporters are bigots. This is ludicrous and offensive, and no one should hesitate to say so.

"The definition of marriage was not at stake in Loving. Everyone agreed that interracial marriages were marriages. Racists just wanted to ban them as part of the evil regime of white supremacy that the equal protection clause was designed to destroy.

"Opponents of racist laws in Loving did not question the idea, deeply embodied in our law and its shaping philosophical tradition, of marriage as a union that takes its distinctive character from being founded, unlike other friendships, on bodily unity of the kind that sometimes generates new life. This unity is why marriage, in our legal tradition, is consummated only by acts that are generative in kind. Such acts unite husband and wife at the most fundamental level and thus legally consummate marriage whether or not they are generative in effect, and even when conception is not sought.

"Of course, marital intercourse often does produce babies, and marriage is the form of relationship that is uniquely apt for childrearing (which is why, unlike baptisms and bar mitzvahs, it is a matter of vital public concern). But as a comprehensive sharing of life—an emotional and biological union—marriage has value in itself and not merely as a means to procreation. This explains why our law has historically permitted annulment of marriage for non-consummation, but not for infertility; and why acts of sodomy, even between legally wed spouses, have never been recognized as consummating marriages.

"Only this understanding makes sense of all the norms—annulability for non-consummation, the pledge of permanence, monogamy, sexual exclusivity—that shape marriage as we know it and that our law reflects. And only this view can explain why the state should regulate marriage (as opposed to ordinary friendships) at all—to make it more likely that, wherever possible, children are reared in the context of the bond between the parents whose sexual union gave them life.

"If marriage is redefined, its connection to organic bodily union—and thus to procreation—will be undermined. It will increasingly be understood as an emotional union for the sake of adult satisfaction that is served by mutually agreeable sexual play. But there is no reason that primarily emotional unions like friendships should be permanent, exclusive, limited to two, or legally regulated at all. Thus, there will remain no principled basis for upholding marital norms like monogamy.

"A veneer of sentiment may prevent these norms from collapsing—but only temporarily. The marriage culture, already wounded by widespread divorce, nonmarital cohabitation and out-of-wedlock childbearing will fare no better than it has in those European societies that were in the vanguard of sexual “enlightenment.” And the primary victims of a weakened marriage culture are always children and those in the poorest, most vulnerable sectors of society.

"Candid and clear-thinking advocates of redefining marriage recognize that doing so entails abandoning norms such as monogamy. In a 2006 statement entitled “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage,” over 300 lesbian, gay, and allied activists, educators, lawyers, and community organizers—including Gloria Steinem, Barbara Ehrenreich, and prominent Yale, Columbia and Georgetown professors—call for legally recognizing multiple sex partner (“polyamorous”) relationships. Their logic is unassailable once the historic definition of marriage is overthrown."

As a Christian, I believe that marriage was instituted by God at creation, and therefore is holy and sacred. However, as Dr. George points out above, I think it's important to note that marriage has great societal benefits above and beyond its religious significance. Most societies outside of our country's Judeo-Christian heritage have also recognized marriage as a valuable institution throughout history. Even if you are not a Christian, you should be able to appreciate the positive effects marriage has had on our culture -- protecting women through commitment vows, protecting children by providing a stable family structure with a mother and a father, encouraging responsibility and discouraging promiscuity, etc. Our country's strong marriage culture and traditional family values have provided the moral framework for a healthy, free, productive, and prosperous society.

It's important to understand that gay rights activists, who have been pushing for gay marriage for decades, hate Judeo-Christian values because they stand for traditional marriage and a traditional family. If you don't believe this, just read Judge Walker's opinion, which claims that opponents of gay marriage are "irrational bigots." If same-sex marriage becomes law, then it's only a matter of time before people who believe in the traditional definition of marriage and the family (you know, that it is actually healthy for kids to grow up with a mom and a dad) will be persecuted for hatred and discrimination. It already happened in California in the wake of the Prop 8 vote, when newspapers published the names and addresses of people who donated money to Prop 8 and those people's families, homes, and businesses were targeted and threatened. It has already happened in Washington, DC, where Catholic adoption agencies have been forced to shut down because of their refusal to place children into gay adopting families. It has already happened in Canada, where religious ministers can be fined or jailed for committing a hate crime if they preach from the Bible that homosexuality is a sin. If gay marriage is legalized, then justices of the peace or ministers who refuse to officiate gay marriages will likely face severe legal penalties for discrimination, as will anyone who refuses to recognize or acknowledge the legitimacy of same-sex marriages.

Thus, in the name of tolerance, the government is redefining an institution that existed thousands of years before said government even came into being, and is forcing all Americans to accept and acknowledge this redefinition or face accusations (and possible criminal charges) of bigotry and discrimination. If Judge Walker's ruling stands and his claims about the family become widely accepted, they spell the end of traditional marriage and the traditional family as we know it. Marriage and the family have been a key foundation of our country ever since its inception, and if that foundation crumbles I don't see how our society as we know it can long survive. Major cracks have already developed in that foundation as divorce rates have skyrocketed and out-of-wedlock births have soared, but if Judge Walker has his way, it's only going to get worse.

Insult in the Name of Tolerance

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

"[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.

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."

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

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.

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."

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!

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.

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.