Friday, January 28, 2011

Is President Obama a racist?

What would you think of evidence that suggested Barack Obama is a racist? And what if that evidence indicated his prejudice wasn’t against white people but against blacks? And what if that evidence were supplied by Rev. Kojo Nantambu, President of the Charlotte (NC) NAACP?

Nantambu recently declared Charlotte a bastion of racism and called on parents to hold their children out of school on Martin Luther King Day. According to Kojo, the black community is “appalled and incensed” with the school system’s “disdain and disrespect” toward them. What so upset Kojo and the NAACP?

MLK Day is a scheduled school holiday. Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools held class anyway, needing to make up for snow related closures the week prior. Said one parent who honored the boycott, “I think he (King) would have wanted all of us to protest today. I think this injustice (sic).” Attendance was down on MLK Day and about 100 people shouting “No justice, no peace” marched in uptown Charlotte.

Perhaps, by now, you’re wondering how Kojo’s diatribe paints America’s first black President as hostile to black equality? Take a guess where Obama observed MLK Day. If you answered, “At a school,” take a gold star. Not only did Obama visit Stuart Hobson Middle School in the nation’s capital, he took Michelle and his two daughters with him.

Apparently the President isn’t alone in his “disdain and disrespect” for black Americans. Stuart Hobson is an 86-percent black school in an 87-percent black school district. Should we then conclude that Stuart Hobson students, parents, and the predominately black community are racist against themselves?

In all honesty, MLK Day is a holiday at Stuart Hobson and those who attended school, Obama included, were participating in volunteer projects. But sometimes the absurd is best illustrated by absurdity. This is one of those times.

Just as there was no racism on the part of the Stuart Hobson community or the Obamas in participating in school centered functions on MLK Day, there was no racism involved in the Char-Meck decision to hold class. President’s Day is also a designated Char-Meck make-up day. What’s more, President’s Day isn’t even a school holiday; it just happened to fall on a teacher work day. Memorial Day, too, is a snow make-up day. Charlotte schools will also hold regular class schedules on Lincoln’s, Washington’s and Jefferson’s birthdays. Now, explain to me how MLK Day has been singled out or disrespected due to racism?

Equally incredible is Kojo’s charge that Charlotte is a hotbed of racism. Charlotte-Mecklenburg is 64-percent white. Yet that racist, white population elected a black mayor and black mayor pro tem. Black residents are well-represented on the city council, county commission and school board, too. Oh, and Charlotte employs a black police chief.

Kojo’s outrage may earn him 15 minutes of fame. But beyond that it’s utterly nonsensical. Does anyone think Dr. King would want his legacy honored by keeping black children out of school when one of the changes he sought was greater educational opportunities for black children? Isn’t it more logical to commemorate King’s life by attending classes instead of cutting them? I doubt King would feel honored when kids waste his day rather than seizing its opportunities.

Kojo Nantambu’s racism charges have nothing to do with genuine discrimination. He’s exploiting racism to increase his social standing and relevance. Kojo, and those like him, conveniently find Klansmen around every corner. Yet who demagogues the problems facing black communities--illegitimacy, educational failure, drugs, gangs--while offering no viable solutions? He should recognize these problems as matters of personal behavior, not conditions imposed through systemic racism.

Kojo has manipulated a non-issue and found racism where none exists. He did so for purely selfish reasons. It’s a repugnant tactic that everyone should repudiate regardless of their race, color, or creed.

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Obama’s “say anything” address

The State of the Union address to Congress is a presidential duty per Article II, Section Three of the Constitution. Obama fulfilled that duty Tuesday night in a literal sense; he delivered an address to Congress. But frankly, his speech was dull, uninspiring and said little about the state of the nation. He sounded more like he was on the campaign trail.

His was a politician’s speech meant for an audience of politicians, long on focus group rhetoric and short on vision and honesty. Obama delivered a vapid concoction of talking points and spin. He said nothing that he meant and meant nothing that he said, save the central theme of his oratory, that government growth and national prosperity are synonymous.

We should’ve expected nothing else. Obama won office via a campaign predicated upon change and immediately doubled-down on his predecessor’s worst decisions. He uttered lofty words about transparent government, an end to cronyism and the need for fiscal discipline. Instead we received a boatload of czars with unspecified powers and no public accountability and a healthcare bill that was debated, passed and signed into law without being read. Obama filled his staff with cogs from the Chicago machine, the Federal Reserve and Goldman Sachs. He and the Democrats drove an already unseemly federal budget to levels that make the spendthrift Bush administration seem like the progeny of Ebenezer Scrooge and Jack Benny.

It wasn’t partisan bickering that voters rejected last fall. It was Obama and the Democrat agenda; make no mistake about it. Tuesday’s speech was his feeble attempt at image rehabilitation. But why believe him? Why trust him on any subject, even when his words may have sounded plausible?

Oh, he appeared Reaganesque when he spoke of American resilience, ingenuity and determination. Or did he? Actually, Obama sounded distant and unconvinced when addressing the nation’s attributes. He portrayed research, innovation and advancement as impossible dreams without government’s intervention, as if Americans are too lazy and stupid to achieve on their own.

He insinuated that voluntary exchange represented in the free market is insufficient to address the country’s future needs. Obama made it quite clear that we cannot be trusted to make the proper decisions, with “proper” defined as the choices our rulers in Washington prefer that we make. America’s greatness, therefore, is dependent on having an all-encompassing central government at its core.

The President alluded to his preference for “robust” debate. Yet that call rings as hollow as Nancy Pelosi’s cranium. Debate itself is fine, as long as his opponents eventually agree with him. However, there’s little common ground between Obama and conservatism. Obama considers government the answer to most every problem while conservatives find government the cause of most every problem. The two philosophies are polar opposites.

Tuesday evening was a microcosm of the Beltway culture, an evening long on political theatre, posturing and grandstanding. Obama’s speech attempted to employ Ronald Reagan public rapport to promote Lyndon Johnson policies. Instead he appeared hollow and disingenuous. The worst part was he wasn’t acting alone.

The Republican Party was entrusted with halting the Democrat assault on liberty, not taking them out on dates. Yet there they were, giddy as teenagers in a corner booth at the Norman Rockwell Memorial Malt Shop. The entire charade, if charade it be, was appalling. Frankly, I hope the prom night atmosphere was a false pretense; we've endured enough insipid displays of bipartisanship. Republicans were hired to stop the Democrat’s statist governance, not compromise with their collectivist vision.

The entire evening was a fraud, a detestable hoax presented to the American people as unity. The only believable promise was the central theme. Obama pledged government first, government last and government at all points in between. But more government cannot solve the problems government growth has created. Only liberty, tempered with a higher sense of personal morality and responsibility, can ease the burden this country bears.

Politicians are known to say anything, promise anything, and do anything. Obama is a politician, as are his Democrat colleagues and, I fear, too many Republicans. The only theme that can be trusted from Tuesday’s State of the Union Address is the call for greater federal control over our lives. Let us not be deceived by the disingenuous blather fomenting from Washington’s blind guides and demagogues, regardless of their party or position.

A line from a song of the 1970s sums up the situation pretty well: I’m tired of hypocrite freaks, tongues in their cheeks, turning their heads as they speak. They make me sick and tired.

Monday, January 24, 2011

America’s Black Monday

On January 22, 1973 the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a blow to the Constitution and American jurisprudence from which we’ve yet to recover. That was the day when seven black-robed justices overstepped their authority and plucked a right to abortion from the 14th Amendment, where no such right had previously existed.

Wading through judicial opinions is taxing even for those schooled in law and legal precedent. For the rest of us, we have about as much chance to comprehend this maze of legalese and obscure rulings as we do of deciphering faded Egyptian hieroglyphics. The endless references and cross-references confuse with regularity, even if not intentionally meant to do so. Yet even the slightest diligence, research and application of common sense will reveal Roe v. Wade for the fallacy it is.

The plaintiff in Roe v. Wade alleged that Texas’ abortion laws, as they existed in 1971, violated privacy guarantees found in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. While there’s no doubt that Americans enjoy the privacy and freedom to determine their sexual activities--we owe deference not to governments but to Divine Authority or personal conscience for our intimate choices--there’s neither reference nor inference to abortion in the U.S. Constitution. That would necessarily include the cited amendments. The U.S. Constitution therefore grants no authority to the federal government to act on the matter of abortion.

One may attempt to form a case for federal oversight based on the authority to regulate interstate commerce found in the Constitution’s Article One, Section Eight, a clause already bastardized beyond imagination. But in the Roe complaint there was no interstate commerce to regulate, rendering even an oblique application of the commerce clause a moot point.

Abortion is not a subject in which the federal government enjoys authority to speak, regulate, or legislate. The Constitution’s silence becomes each state’s gain. The Tenth Amendment explicitly grants authority to the states or to the people in all areas where the central government is not specifically authorized to act. Therefore Texas, and all other states, reserves the right to regulate abortion to whatever extent represents the ideals, perceptions and morals of their citizens.

Ample precedence existed before the fateful Roe v. Wade decision to support the state’s rights view on abortion regulation. Each state had governed abortion as it saw fit for well over a century before the Supreme Court inserted itself into the equation. As Justice William Rehnquist cited in Section II of his

The fact that a majority of the States reflecting, after all, the majority sentiment in those States, have had restrictions on abortions for at least a century is a strong indication, it seems to me, that the asserted right to an abortion is not "so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental."

There was no longstanding precedence affirming abortion as a fundamental human liberty that would warrant Court action in its defense. A right to abort a pregnancy is not a self-evident truth, as is the right to speak freely, to petition the government, or to bear arms in protection of self, family and liberty. Ironically, these latter liberties--all essential--are under constant assault from the very factions that consider abortion rights an integral part of a document in which no such right appears.

The fact that states had possessed authority over abortion law until the Roe decision further refutes the idea of abortion being a fundamental constitutional liberty. States had exercised regulatory authority over the performance of abortions since prior to the Civil War, which necessarily meant before the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. It cannot be said that the drafters of said Amendment then intended to remove from the states authority over subjects not addressed in its language.

One of the chief arguments Roe supporters present is the need for easy abortion to protect a mother’s life. On the surface this reasoning has validity. There’s no doubt that each person owns their life--at least in relation to their government and fellow man--and cannot be legislated into surrendering that life without due process of law. This is essential to liberty and enshrined in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. However, only pure ignorance on the part of abortion supporters can justify citing the protection of the mother’s life in defense of Roe.

The Texas law that Roe v. Wade overturned did not outlaw abortions under all circumstances. That reality circumvents the most cited argument for abortions, if indeed protecting the mother’s life is the Roe supporters’ prime concern, which is debatable. The overturned Texas statute, enacted in 1857, provided for an abortive remedy when the mother’s life was at risk. Thus the pro-abortion “life of the mother” argument is rendered moot, for no mother’s life was jeopardized by the Texas law. This fact was recognized not in the Rehnquist dissent but in Section 1 of Blackmun’s majority

Another of Blackmun’s rationale seems equally contradictory. In Section VI (4), Blackmun cited English law in evidence for his opinion. The British Parliament had passed legislation in 1967 that greatly liberalized the use of abortion as a medical treatment. In addition to protecting the mother’s life, the British law also took into account the mother’s physical and mental health as well as the prospects of both for the fetus. In other words, the British legislated in favor of abortion on demand. Blackmun basically inserted the British law into the U.S. legal system, subverting state authority and the legislative process.

Abortion remains a divisive issue mainly because of Blackmun’s activism. Notice that the British altered their abortion laws through their elected representatives. The various states comprising the United States saw their abortion laws altered by judicial diktat. The American people had no voice whatsoever in the direction an issue of such moral, personal and religious sensitivity would progress. It was imposed sans the consent of the governed, a fundamental overstep of judicial and federal authority.

The best avenue for addressing the abortion issue to everyone’s satisfaction is to overturn Roe v. Wade in its entirety. The ruling represents a poor application of the Constitution, if indeed the states have sovereign authority over all powers not delegated to the central government nor constitutionally prohibited to the states and the people. And they do, for although the Tenth Amendment is routinely compromised and ignored, it hasn’t been repealed.

Without Roe v. Wade each state enjoys sovereign authority to establish abortion protocols representative of their citizens’ moral and ethical conscience. Under such a scenario people can move to a state where their positions are adequately represented, whether their views on abortion side with the Southern Baptist Convention or the National Organization of Women. Under the current condition, everyone must live under the onerous decision rendered by Blackmun and his six activist colleagues.

Abortion law under Roe v. Wade does not reflect the consent of the governed. It represents the tyranny of the judiciary and it’s wholly at odds with both the concept of a free people and the idea of a representative republic of sovereign states.

Saturday, January 22, 2011

Dr. Hoyer diagnoses the TEA Party

Steny Hoyer’s time as the House’s second in command is complete. But he didn’t accept his demotion quietly. Instead he delivered a psychological evaluation of TEA Party activists. Dr. Hoyer’s diagnosis: “My presumption is they have unhappy families.”

Thank you Dr. Hoyer. Your keen insight has revealed the true mental state driving the TEA Party. TEA Partiers hate their mothers. They have low self-esteem due to incessant emotional and physical abuse suffered at the hands of their domineering fathers. Likely as not they want to wed their siblings, or perhaps their family pets. The root causes of their familial dysfunctions are limitless. But obviously TEA Partiers were forced to eat too many Brussels sprouts when they were young.

There’s only flaw (only one?) in Dr. Hoyer’s dysfunctional family theory. Steny Hoyer isn’t a doctor.

résumé includes a substantial list of accomplishments. He holds two degrees, both from prestigious universities. Hoyer has served on numerous boards and caucuses in both the private and public sectors and he’s a career attorney. But nothing in his background qualifies him to render a psychological evaluation on Aunt Matilda’s Miniature Schnauzer, much less on a grassroots political movement comprising millions of individuals.

Someone on the congressman’s staff must’ve realized the nature--and possible repercussions--of his gaffe and made an attempt at damage control. According to an article, his office released this statement:

Mr. Hoyer clearly meant that everyone has to compromise sometimes as part of a family and that compromise is necessary to successfully govern. He obviously was not referring to the personal family life of a large group of people.

Yeah. And then there’s the one about the goose that laid the golden egg. Hoyer’s “clarification” spins like a category five hurricane. And spin is exactly what one might expect from an attorney who is also a left-wing politician.

If Hoyer didn’t intend to snipe at his political opponents, why comment on the TEA Party at all? He certainly wouldn’t have reached into his “Li’l Shrinks Junior Psychologist Kit” for a psychopathic connection between political activism and family contentment. Had he really meant to highlight the TEA Party’s lack of interest in compromising with Democrats he could’ve said so. It’s not like that's a guarded secret or deep revelation. In terms of discovery, uncovering acrimony between the TEA Party and liberalism isn’t exactly Columbus’ landing at San Salvador.

Hoyer’s statement wasn’t meant to question the TEA Party’s willingness to reach across the aisle. He meant to discredit his opposition to the greatest possible degree. That’s how demagogues operate; casting dispersion on threatening opinion is a fundamental tactic of the tyrant. It’s Orwellian in theory and totalitarian in practice.

Well, it appears I’m psychoanalyzing Steny Hoyer’s motives. So what? My qualifications for determining another person’s mental state are at least on par with his. After all, I’m not a doctor.

Jared Loughner: Timothy McVeigh reincarnated

The similarities between the 2010 election results and those in 1994 are evident. In 1994 frustrated voters vented their disgust with a Democrat administration’s leftist direction and gave Republicans control of Congress for the first time in decades. What happened in 2010? The American people again rejected a hard-left push from the Democrat Party and Republicans won overwhelmingly. Within months of each election the Left used an unspeakably violent act to falsely portray conservatives as vicious, unstable cranks.

It was Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995. It’s Jared Loughner and the Arizona shooting in 2011.

Before anyone concludes that I’m launching a conspiracy theory let me state that I don’t believe the Left orchestrated either the Oklahoma City Bombing or the Arizona shooting. But their reactions to both tragedies prove that they’ve learned Rahm Emmanuel’s lesson quite well: a crisis is a terrible thing to waste. Arizona, like Oklahoma City before, has fueled a left-wing crusade the sole intent of which is to denigrate and silence political opposition.

To the Left, human suffering equals political opportunity. It was so with Oklahoma City, and with Hurricane Katrina, and with the Jena Six. They demagogued the massacres in Stockton (CA), Killeen (TX), Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois. Now they’re demagoguing the Arizona shooting. It’s shameless, and it’s time to call the Left on their duplicity.

Democrats and their media allies seized the moment when Timothy McVeigh struck, just like they’re doing now. Before the rubble had cooled at the Alfred Murrah Building they had blamed everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress. Before Arizona’s first victim was eulogized the Left was blaming Sarah Palin, talk radio and the “new media” for pushing Jared Loughner over the edge.

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) went so far as to
blame the Arizona rampage on the First Amendment. He thinks there are just too many media outlets and too much information available to those of us in the great unwashed. We simply lack the intelligence to distinguish his truth from our concocted fantasies. The accusation is perfectly clear. Conservatives are half-cocked knuckle-draggers ready to go off at the slightest provocation. We must be led on a government leash.

The prevailing
media sings the chorus with equal intensity. Leftist commentators and journalists dissected the influence that conservative discourse played in driving Loughner’s rage. Their conclusion: Anyone espousing conservative thought, debate, or activism shares culpability for Loughner’s massacre. Even after acknowledging that no evidence exists to link Loughner to conservative positions or personalities, the Left continued to promote the connection.

Democrat strategists used the Oklahoma bombing to silence conservatives and quell the support for a smaller federal government that existed in 1994. There was no factual basis for their argument. McVeigh himself was something of a loner and neo-Nazi sympathizer--not a constitutional conservative. But the accusations had an affect. The game plan is the same with the Arizona shootings and Jared Loughner now. The similarities between the Left’s manipulation of Oklahoma City and Arizona cannot be dismissed, nor can they be allowed to flourish.

Little information has been verified concerning Jared Loughner’s political inclinations. The most credible evidence paints Loughner as a mentally unstable recluse motivated more by occult interests than a political agenda of any stripe. And nary shred of evidence has been presented to link Jared Loughner to conservative causes or right-wing rhetoric. Ironically, there is more
hearsay evidence to link Loughner to left-wing radicalism than to right-wing conservatism.

Yet leftists continue to spin the Arizona tragedy for political advantage. It is they who are using incendiary language to divide our nation. It is they who exploit duped followers with blatant lies about political opponents. This time, unlike the spring of 1995, conservatives must hold the line against the Left’s baseless attacks.

Democrats aren’t appalled by the so-called “inflammatory rhetoric” coming from conservative politicians, talk radio hosts, or the TEA Party. They fear the substance behind the arguments. Therefore those voices must be marginalized by whatever means necessary. This time conservatives must stand their ground. History may repeat. But the end result must be changed.

Sunday, January 16, 2011

Reading the Constitution was a worthwhile stunt

Considering Washington’s modus operandi anything that happens in the District warrants a grain of salt. In the last ten years Republicans spent money and expanded federal power in ways that would’ve made previous Democrat leaders green with envy. Their profligacy allowed Democrats to paint the GOP as a party of big spenders, helping Democrats to victory in ‘06 and ‘08.

However, the spendthrift methods the GOP had employed apparently didn’t sit well with the Democrats. Upon regaining government’s reigns they set out to
prove that Republicans remained, by comparison, the party of limited government and fiscal sanity. Thus neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are as good as their rhetoric, making cynicism a proper response to Washington theatrics.

With both parties growing government and its related red ink, it’s perfectly normal to dismiss the House’s reading of the U.S. Constitution as a publicity stunt. Were Republicans simply catering to budget hawks and Tea Party activists while Democrats were trying to prove that they realize the Constitution exists? Both accounts are likely. But if the Constitution’s vocalization was a self-serving political stunt, it was a worthwhile stunt. Let’s look at three reasons why.

Foremost, the Regressive Left’s outright contempt for the supreme doctrine of American government was prominently displayed. Liberal-leaning media commentators referred to supporters of our founding document as possessing a
fetish. Sure, some Democrats participated in the reading. But some found nits to pick or other things to do. And really, there’s little wonder that leftists aren’t enthused about reading the Constitution.

The Constitution, as written, limit’s the central government’s authority, clearly defining the areas where Congress can exercise its due influence and where it cannot. Regressives think big government is good and bigger government is better, thus ignoring the Constitution makes perfect sense for them. Conversely, conservatives believe that the government governs best when it governs least. If that makes for a Constitution fetish then label me a pervert and we’ll continue.

Another reason to applaud the Constitution’s reading is because it forced ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (yes, everyone realizes she’s the ex-Speaker, but I love using the phrase) to acknowledge the document. Last year, following the healthcare debate, a reporter asked then-Speaker Pelosi what part of the Constitution authorized Congress to provide or require healthcare coverage. She became
incredulous. However, the reporter’s question was serious and reflected the views of many Americans. Pelosi learned that lesson last November.

Granted, reading even a small segment of the Constitution is to Pelosi what holy water is to Count Dracula. And merely reading the words will do nothing to reshape her collectivist mind. But at least she’s been forced to publicly recognize the document before her next premeditated subversion.

A third reason this stunt makes sense it because it reminds Congress that it’s a representative body and not the U.S. House of Sovereign Lords. These 435 men and women take an oath to abide by the Constitution. They make no vow to circumvent the amendment process or to ignore the document when it proves inconvenient. Isn’t it then sensible that representatives pay homage to the principles they swear to uphold? A representative Congress does not rule arbitrarily. A representative Congress cannot enact just law while exceeding its granted authority. Again, there’s no guarantee of compliance. But due deference was offered, which is at least a starting point.

Among the first acts of the 112th Congress was to read the U.S. Constitution on the House floor for the first time in our nation’s history. Perhaps it was simply a stunt, albeit of some value, intended to placate a restless and concerned electorate. Or was it something more, a repentance for Congress’ errant past? We can hope the latter. But keep the cynicism handy and call it an act of eternal vigilance. That is, after all, freedom’s price.

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

The five myths of Regressive politics #5: Conservatives stifle dissent

Whenever conservatives question stale Regressive talking points they are accused of stifling dissent. Of the five myths discussed in this series--racism, poverty, sexism and environmentalism being the first four--this is the greatest myth of all. Once again, apply the slightest common sense to the Regressive’s accusation and it melts like ice on a blistering sidewalk.

What represents today’s most popular conservative media outlet? If you answered talk radio, take a gold star. Talk radio is conservative equal time, offsetting the Regressive dominated media. If Conservatives stifle dissent, the greatest vehicle for promoting limited government vanishes in a flash.

Where would conservatism be if there were no Rush Limbaugh, no Sean Hannity, no Jason Lewis, or no hundreds more conservative radio hosts in local markets from coast to coast? Where would they be without free speech? Conservative talk radio wouldn’t exist and the Reagan Revolution would’ve long since withered away. Free speech kept conservatism viable during Bill Clinton’s early presidency and stoked the 1994 Republican Revolution.

Conservatives want to quell free speech and stifle dissent? Why not just cut off our right arms? Please. Can’t Regressives do better than that?

The left’s accusations about stifling dissent arise from the Conservative’s attitude toward content. The right to free speech compels no one to listen; audiences must be earned. Conservatives recognize this fact. But Regressives adamantly declare that their right to speak includes a right to force others to listen. This is the First Amendment, Regressive style.

Insubordination infuriates Regressives. Thus they despise having free speech employed to challenge their motives and ideologies, such as the Iraq War protests. When those protesters were challenged they accused Conservatives of stifling dissent. Actually, Conservatives were engaging in debate, something most Regressives avoid like the plague.

The left is where censorship exists in its purest form. The university, long a bastion of leftist elitism, has been home to speech codes for more than 20 years. Any discourse that may offend a protected class is summarily banned. “Hate speech” is the code word on campus.

Furthermore, it is the left that fosters the legal love affair with “hate crimes” legislation. Crime is crime, and few crimes there are that are born of a desire to do unto your neighbor as you would have them do unto you. Therefore hate crimes are but another means to the same end, that being the abolishment of speech, thought, opinion, belief, or content that does not follow a Regressive doctrine.

Yet another cause for left-wing resentment toward free speech is their utter failure in exercising it. Air America is exhibit A. The Regressive radio network launched in 2004 to counter conservatism’s talk radio dominance. No problem thus far. However, the network struggled from the womb, went bankrupt in 2006 and ceased operations entirely in 2010. Air America’s leadership blamed the collapse on a stagnant economy. Yet the network never generated a dependable audience or a steady revenue flow, the absence of which is a perfect recipe for bankruptcy. Their flimsy excuse begs the determination that the left’s disdain for talk radio stems from jealousy.

The Regressive playbook is based on blind allegiance to banal talking points. Since such arguments can’t stand scrutiny the left must control the debate. Therefore they accuse conservatives of stifling dissent, the very tactic they deploy at every turn.

Saturday, January 8, 2011

A “gay-friendly” military demands a cultural transformation

Our country is based on individual liberty, meaning people can interact as they will. As long as a chosen act doesn’t compromise our neighbor’s liberty our actions remain our personal choice. That includes what two people may deem proper behind closed doors. Gay activists, seemingly, would welcome such a concept. But that’s seldom the case. Cultural norms must yield to accommodate homosexuality.

Gay activists experience problems with the subject of privacy, for they generally aren’t content to interact privately. Gay activists prefer
flaunting their sexuality and forcing others to accept and support their sexual decisions. Oppose their lifestyle and you’re instantly equated to the white-robbed segregationists from the early 20th Century. However, open homosexuality presents cultural problems extending beyond questions of right and wrong. These issues will come to a head in our military when “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” becomes “Don’t Ask, Do Tell.”

Politicians, bureaucrats and military leaders have
weighed in on both sides of open homosexuality. These high-level dialogues focused primarily on military preparedness and unit cohesiveness under such a policy. While such discussions are valid, they ignored fundamental issues that affect both qualities. Lest we forget amidst the swirl of self-congratulatory open-mindedness, heterosexual and homosexual service members must now interact openly on a daily basis.

Men and women don’t share living quarters, showers and other personal facilities for several reasons, chiefly sexual privacy and cultural morals. Integrating men and women in intimate situations is an invitation to sexual advances, including those of the unwelcome variety. Can anyone believe that similar indiscretions won’t occur between gay or lesbian and straight service members?

Yes, there are methods for dealing with unwanted sexual attention. But such rules can also govern current heterosexual conduct. Therefore, if it’s sensible for straight men to shower and bunk with gay men, and straight women likewise with lesbian women, shouldn’t heterosexual men and women shower and bunk together, too? Isn’t segregating them according to their heterosexuality a form of discrimination? Besides, think of the recruitment campaign we could create.

Integrating straights and gays is a unique dilemma. Can the Pentagon keep everyone free from sexual harassment while simultaneously preserving modesty and privacy? Ordering straight men to room with gay men is equivalent to ordering women to room with men in general. The same holds for rooming straight women with lesbians. Bunking lesbians with straight men won’t work either. Men and women would still be integrated in intimate conditions even though the women, being lesbians, wouldn’t be interested in the men.

Another possible solution is to have gay men shower and bunk with straight women. No, that’s totally unworkable. Women could feel threatened (perhaps aroused?) by the gay men’s presence. Another downside to this proposal is the number of straight servicemen who might suddenly declare their homosexuality so they could join the straight women in the shower. Or, we may have straight women declaring lesbianism so they can shower with the straight men. Each scenario is downright confusing.

Regardless of an individual’s gender or their sexual attraction there invariably exists the possibility of feeling vulnerable, uncomfortable, compromised, intimidated, threatened, or violated from the opposite sex’s presence in personal situations. Every relationship, every interaction, is muddled when time-honored gender and sexual boundaries are erased. And we haven’t even considered the affect bisexual and transgender personnel will have on the aforementioned interactions.

Is there an option that will satisfy everyone? The Pentagon can provide separate facilities for each gender and sexuality. Or, all personnel can exist in one communal environment where accommodations resemble Roman bathhouses. Men, women and transsexuals, heterosexuals, homosexuals and bisexuals can shower to the rhythmic refrain of the Village People’s In the Navy.

Pandora’s Box is open wide. The potential outcome is an abundance of fraternization and sexual harassment charges from and toward all genders and sexual preferences. Only one bet is safe: I’ll wager that gay activists will dismiss any sexual harassment complaint lodged against a gay service member as baseless homophobia on the part of an intolerant heterosexual. Any takers?

Sunday, January 2, 2011

Thoughts and questions on various matters

A large number of Americans believe that less productive people deserve more and that more productive people deserve less. If that weren’t true, politicians like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Charles Schumer and Patrick Leahy couldn’t get elected dog-catcher, much less to Congress.

No matter the dictates of multiculturalism and political correctness, Christmas remains the prime reason for December celebrations. “Prove it,” you say? Alright. How many people would tune in to watch the annual presentation of Dr. Seuss’ How the Grinch Stole Kwanzaa?

Is it possible to sell our fellow citizens on the virtues of individual liberty and personal responsibility when so many have become quite comfortable in the veritable bondage of government dependence?

Whether a person considers a political advertisement a truthful assessment of a candidate’s positions or an unsubstantiated attack on their character rests solely on whether their preferred candidate is the ad’s target or its originator.

A sticker on a bottle of lamp oil reads, “Danger! Do not drink!” What purpose can this warning serve? If someone is so dense as to drink lamp oil, that person isn’t smart enough to read and understand the warning label.

Here is another undeniable truth of Interstate driving. You must travel 75 miles per hour to pass the same car that you were about to run over when traveling at 50 miles per hour.

No matter the trade or profession, and regardless of the employer, each shift claims to do all of the work while the other shifts laze about accomplishing nothing.

Are the people who think Rush Limbaugh and other conservative commentators are dangerous zealots who must be countered by the Fairness Doctrine also the people who consider Keith Olberman a reasonable, logical and balanced reporter? If I were a gambling man, I’d wager yes.

The long-term trend toward greater judicial activism, legislative hostility and public apathy bode poorly for our constitutional republic’s future. The 2010 election results can be a positive step toward correcting the first two problems, but only if it means we have rid ourselves of the third.

Not being big on conspiracy theories, the “birther” movement holds little interest for me. However, I do consider Hawaii’s certificate of live birth a redundancy. Isn’t the fact that someone is standing in front of you proof positive that the person was born alive?

When then-President Bush escalated the entitlement system (Medicare Part D) and stated that he was abandoning capitalism (TARP) in order to save the free-market system he threw open the door to Barack Obama’s presidency. When Obama escalated what Bush began (Stimulus, Healthcare Reform) he set the table for last fall’s Republican gains. Voters are now left to wonder which party will screw-up bad enough to lose in 2012.

Do whitewall tires still exist? And while we’re on the subject of tires, when and why did sporty white-letter tires decline in popularity in favor of the nondescript black wall?

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have made nice livings peddling ordure under the mantle of social justice and civil rights. But have no fear; anything you’ve retained from Sharpton’s or Jackson’s rhetoric can be remedied with a dose of Ex-lax.

The bikini is far more than an eye-catching cultural icon; it is an economic anomaly. Bikinis represent one of the few transactions (lingerie being another) where customers willingly pay more to receive less.

Anyone so naïve as to believe buying carbon offsets from Al Gore’s companies will halt climate change would also buy air from the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India and top soil from Chernobyl.

Why do people tie their shoes together and toss them across electrical power lines? It’s a waste of time and shoes. Plus, it’s done so frequently it can’t even qualify as an original prank.

Congress has investigated numerous baseball players for lying to Congress about steroid use. Why, then, can’t we charge Congress with lying to us about the sub-prime lending fiasco, bailouts, stimulus, healthcare reform and pretty much everything else Congress does?

Saturday, January 1, 2011

The five myths of Regressive politics #4: Conservatives hate the environment

Biased news reports and mindless Regressive propaganda routinely support the notion that conservatives are anti-environment. Can we pause the rhetoric for a moment and think logically? If conservatives intend to destroy the earth, and succeed, where will conservatives live? This Regressive allegation is nonsense, appealing only to the vacuous mind.

It is a conservative principle to use resources wisely, not wastefully. Compare the word “conservation” to “conservatism”. Both are rooted in the preservation and protection of that which exists. Thus it’s natural for conservatives to exercise judgment when managing resources. When environmental debates arise, conservatives will examine the various arguments and produce a viable, rational conclusion. Take climate change for instance. Conservatives see the issue without the green-colored glasses the Regressives favor.

I will say, with full confidence, that conservatives have no intention of cutting down the last tree or poisoning the sole remaining stream. There’s no right-wing plot, latent or overt, designed to foul the lone uncontaminated particle of air or consume the final bite of food with no thought for the future.

Charging conservatives with anti-environmentalism is actually paradoxical. It’s an endorsement of conservatism if we are as destructive to the environment as Regressives claim. Everyone, regardless of political ideology, needs air to breathe and water to drink. If conservatives have learned to live without these necessities then we can certainly devise a more innovative course for America than can the Regressives.

As for the Regressives themselves, are they really concerned with the environment? Or are they simply using environmentalism as a bridge toward greater statism? If enough people become convinced that using natural resources--oil, coal, trees, fish, whatever--is environmentally destructive, then the power of government can be exercised to “protect” those resources from “exploitation.” Property rights then decline in direct proportion to government’s ascent.

The only viable option for protecting natural resources, according to the green activist, is placing them off limits. Thus Regressives oppose environmentally dependent industries with fervor akin to how Nazis opposed Jewish shopkeepers, with the hunting, coal, oil and timber industries centered in their crosshairs. Using a natural resource often means wading through a maze of bureaucratic regulations. These positions render Regressives the worst enemies of the causes they claim to defend.

For instance, sport hunters have a vested interest in protecting wildlife and habitat. Without both there’s no game to hunt or fish to catch. Therefore sportsmen pay excise taxes on their equipment, benefiting both game and non-game species. Timber companies are idle without an abundant supply of mature timber. Thus common sense demands that the timber industry replant the forests they harvest.

Successful environmental dogma depends on a lack of analysis from its disciples. Only a complete idiot would believe that conservatives intend to destroy natural resources and render the earth uninhabitable. Maybe that’s why the notion is so popular among Regressives.