About Me

Name: Bert Chapman
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Peaceful Woman Ruler Mythology

Hillary Clinton's campaign has resulted in the reappearance of the mythical belief of the peaceful woman ruler.  This delusion basically states that if women ruled countries there would be universal peace because women are nurturing and would seek to resolve differences peacefully.  This basic theme has been expressed in a recently published book by former Clinton Administration Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers.
 
This claim is flat out nonsensical stupidity!  For those of us of Judeo-Christian background, we know that women, like men, are inherently sinful and subject to the same lusts and passions as men..  The Bible documents numerous instances of women engaging in aggressive behavior with Jezebel being just one of many examples.  History is replete with examples of militarily aggresive women rulers including those who engaged in preemptive military assaults.
 
England's Queen Elizabeth I ordered military assaults against Spanish forces throughout many areas of the world to help defeat a militarily aggressive country that was hellbent on restoring Catholicism to England.  Russia's Catherine the Great was an exceptionally voracious pursuer of territorial expansion and military aggrandizement.  Her rule saw the partition and dismemberment of Poland, repeated military assaults against Turkey, and the brutal crushing of domestic uprisings such as the Pugachev peasant rebellion.  The high point of British political and military power under Queen Victoria saw British forces engaged in primarily offensive military operations over enormous quantities of the world including India, Sudan, Southern Africa, and Burma, and numerous other locales.  This historical reality has continued in the 20th century.  Israel, under Prime Minister Golda Meir, conducted repeated military operations against its enemies including the Yom Kippur War.  Development of Israel's nuclear weapons arsenal continued under Meir's leadership.  Recently assassinated former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto allowed her country's nuclear weapons program to proceed and supported Kashmiri separatist forces against India.  Former Indian Prime Minister Indira Ghandi used force against individuals and forces she believed were antithetical to Indian national interests and allowed India's 1974 nuclear weapons test to occur when she was Prime Minister.  British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher waged a successful war in 1982 to liberate the Falkland Islands from Argentinean conquest, decisively crushed a coal miners strike, allowed U.S. forces to use British bases to attack Libya in 1986, ordered the assassination of Irish Republican Army leaders, and allowed IRA terrorist Bobby Sands and many of his comrades to die as a result of hunger strikes.   Mao Zedong's wife Jiang Qing was particularly noted for the violent ferocity of her viewpoints and the policies she advocated.  Philippine Presidents Corazon Aquino and Gloria Macapagal Arroyo had to use military force against violent internal opponents during their rule with Arroyo being particularly willing to use force against what she sees as threats to Philippine national interests.
 
I would welcome readers sending me other examples of women rulers using military force from classical and medieval eras or contemporary examples I'm not aware of.  All of this shows is that the belief that women rulers are inherently more peaceful than men to be absolute stupidity and more reflective of how poorly history is taught in our schools and to liberal feminist pacifist delusions and political correctness.  Any female President of the United States will have to use military force to defend national interests during her presidency.  This need to use such force will be more likely if she gives any impression that she's unwilling to use overwhelming force against national enemies during her political career or presidential campaign.  Conversely, an aspiring female President who demonstrates her willingness to use decisive military force against our enemies earlier in her career or during her presidential campaign and supports policies to augment U.S. military power, is less likely to have to use it once she becomes commander in chief.  This is why the U.S.' first female president is more likely to be a conservative or conservative leaning Republican than Hillary Clinton or any other nationally prominent Democratic woman.
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Happy 60th Birthday Israel!

I want to wish Israel a very happy 60th birthday as it celebrates its independence this week!  The alliance between the U.S. and Israel is a crucial one in the war against Islamist terror as reflected by President Bush's visit there this week.  The common Judeo-Christian religious heritage shared by our countries is also a crucial factor in the ties between our countries.  These bonds are strengthened further by Israel's vibrant, even chaotic, democratic government and political system.  While I have concerns about the proposed two-state solution to the Palestinean problem, I remain confident that our ties with Israel will endure and strengthen.  Israel has a innovative free market economy producing goods and services in high technology and other areas.  It is a leader in developing environmentally beneficial technologies and its democratic governmental structures and free market economy allow law-abiding citizens to receive good quality education and make optimum use of their God-given talents.  These attributes, undoubtedly, are appalling to Islamist zealots and their cohorts who cling to the delusional belief that they can destroy Israel and subject that part of the world to the misery of a totalitarian Islamist regime.  Israel's enemies are also America's enemies.
 
May God continue to bless and protect Israel and strengthen America's alliance with that wonderful country.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Patronizing Democratic Poltroons

For the past several weeks, we in Indiana have been subjected to an onslaught of Democratic presidential, congressional, and gubernatorial candidates vying for our votes.  The onslaught has been so intense, in fact, that you could say Indiana voters are getting sodomized by the Dems.  The Obamas and Clintons have been in my city of Lafayette/West Lafayette so many times you would think they were paying property taxes.  It's been exceptionally distressing seeing how many people are falling for Clinton and Obama's poisonous class warfare and Jonestown cool aid rhetoric.

Most annoying, though, is the absolutely patronizing nature of the Democrats rhetoric.  A staple of Democratic rhetoric as long as I can remember is caring for "working families."  Well, the traditional two parent nuclear family only constitutes just over half of our society and labor force demographics but you'll never hear the Dems mention this due to the toxic results of LBJ's "Great Society" social policies which have decimated the two-parent family.  Do Democrats ever think about their complicity in enacting tax, legal, and regulatory policies that have increased families dependency on government, downgraded educational institutions, and encouraged individuals to abdicate moral responsibility for their actions and the actions of their  children?

I dissed Clinton and Obama for their selective denunciation of special interests in a recent blog and that criticism also applies to Democratic congressional and gubernatorial candidates in Indiana.  In the 7th district Democratic congressional race in Indianapolis, Democrats Andre Carson, David Orentlicher, Woodrow Meyers, and Caroline Mays have all denounced organizations supporting their opponents that don't meet their sanctified liberal ideological standards.  Orentlicher shows his appalling ignorance of Internet search engines by thinking that a search of "real political change" will result in results referring to his campaign.

The most grievous instance of Democratic patronizing is on gasoline prices.  Both Clinton and Obama show their true class warfare roots by denouncing oil company profits and calling for windfall profits taxes which proved to be abysmal failures when enacted in the late 1970s.  Both of these Democratic retards, seem unable to comprehend that oil companies have been working to develop alternative fuels, that they care about the environmental impact of their work, and that gas prices are rising because of a variety of factors including economic growth in China and India which has increased the demand for oil in these and other countries.  Bird-brained Barack and Half-Baked Hillary apparently don't understand that excessively stringent regulatory policies have prevented the construction of new oil refineries in the U.S. for the past three decades, prevented potential exploration and development of oil reserves in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Rocky Mountains, and off the California and Florida coasts, and that punitive regulatory and tax policies do not give oil companies the incentives to explore new sources for oil or to invest in alternative energy sources.  Neither Clinton nor Obama are willing to tell Americans that the U.S. is to populous and productive a country to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.  Instead, they think we are stupid ignorant rubes who are ignorant of existing scientific, technological, economic, or geopolitical factors shaping the international petroleum and energy markets.

I hope Conservatives will take the time to tell Clinton, Obama, and other Democratic dimwits these realities in the months to come.  I am especially looking forward to reducing an Obama apostle to tears because I am so sick and tired of the infantile religious cult like adoration they hold toward Illinois' junior senator and his false promises of change.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Protectionist Democratic Presidential Candidates

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton demonstrate abysmal ignorance in their understanding of international economics by obsequiously pandering to the basest protectionist elements in their party.  One thing I will give Bill Clinton credit for is his support of free trade agreements such as NAFTA during his presidency.  Unfortunately, Hilary must have been to busy dodging imaginary sniper fire in Bosnia to learn from this lesson.  Free trade gives American consumers more choice in the goods and services they purchase and makes those goods and servics available at lower prices.  Free trade increases American living standards and the living standards of other countries allowing them to achieve economic growth and not need American or other international economic assistance.
 
  If this protectionist rhetoric Obama and Clinton espouse during their campaigns becomes public policy it would have absolutely disastrous effects on our economy and the world economy.  The day has long passed when we can make decisions about our economic policy that will not have ripple effects to the far corners of the world.  If we renegotiate NAFTA, Canada and Mexico will impose retaliatory actions against U.S. exports.  So, in all probablility, will other countries.  Trade disputes between nations also affect other aspects of international relationships as well.  Do Clinton and Obama think that if we whine about other countries trade policies that they will be willing to cooperate with us on environmental, energy, national security or other issues?  Don't hold your breath waiting for an intelligent answer to this question by Clinton or Obama.
 
What John McCain should do is extoll the positive benefits and absolute necessity of free trade every chance he can.  He needs to explain that when some jobs are lost due to evolving international economic and technological developments, that other jobs (often better ones) are created.  Obama and Clinton's recent protectionist whimperings also demonstrate the need for our educational systems to promote the benefits of free trade to students from primary to collegiate levels.  State economic development departments should work with state education departments, and consult with the Commerce Dept's International Trade Service, to develop curriculum promoting the benefits of free trade and the dangerous consequences of protectionism.  Private sector companies that are heavily dependent on exporting should also work with these aforementioned government agencies to explain why open access to export markets is vital to their success.
 
We also have witnessed the disappointing spectacle of Congress refusing to approve the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement.  Colombian President Alvaro Uribe has been a courageous fighter against the drug traffickers plaguing his country.  Uribe is also a critical regional  ally against the nefarious machinations of Venezuealan demagogue Hugo Chavez.  However, because Nancy Pelosi and congressional Democrats don't like Colombian labor policies and Uribe's resolute stance against Chavez and narco traffickers, they have decided pandering to their unionist and protectionist base is more important than seeking to improve the economic competitiveness of Colombia or defeating that country's drug terrorists.  Both Clinton and Obama's protectionist pandering demonstrates their appalling ignorance of international economics and politics and thunderously demonstrate that neither of them is intellectually equipped to be President or properly understand global trade and economic policy.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Interest Groups and Democratic Hypocrisy and Hillary's Bogus Iran Threat

During this year's Democratic presidential campaign, we've seen Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama denounce interest groups or "special interests" as they euphemistically refer to these organizations.  Both candidates claim that they will listen to the people and "stand up to special interests."  What Clinton and Obama actually mean is that they will only listen to interest groups they approve of and "stand up" to interest groups they don't approve of.  For instance, both Clinton and Obama, as ardent abortionists, will pay particular heed to Planned Parenthood and other members of the abortionist lobby while they will oppose pro-life groups.  They will also pay more attention to entreaties from organized labor groups such as the AFL-CIO and AFSCME while dismissing the viewpoints of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce or other business interests.
 
Clinton and Obama are arrogant enough to think Americans won't see through their self-serving and deceitful rhetoric about interest groups.  They forget that a key feature of the U.S. Constitution is that Americans as individuals and organizations have the right to petition their government for redress.  This applies to individuals and organizations of all ideological perspectives.  Recent years have seen, as the Abramoff scandal demonstrates, abuses in this process.  Such abuses are, however, the failings of individual lobbyists, individual legislators, and the leaders of individual organizations.  They are not reflective of inherent problems with the concept of citizens being able to lobby their elected and appointed represenatives.  Legislation such as last year's ethics reform legislation will not be able to outlaw governmental corruption but may pose onerous reporting requirments on organizations (some of which are quite small)  that desire to advocate their interests before congress.
 
Hillary Clinton has also been audaciously claiming that she will be a tough and decisive commander in chief as opposed to Obama.  This has just been demonstrated in Pennsylvania where Hillary claims she will obliterate Iran if it attacks Israel.  I'd love to hear the Iranian mullahs laughing to this response.  Hillary Clinton voted for launching military operations in Iraq, but claims she's against the conflict now that she's contending for the Democratic presidential nomination.  Talk about shades of John Kerry's rhetoric claiming he voted for the war before he voted against it. If Hillary can't stand up against Code Pink or Moveon.org, how in the world can she stand up against Iran or any other hostile anti-American threat.  Hillary Clinton showed no sign of decisive national security viewpoints during her husband's presidency.  Their is no evidence that she urged Bubba Gump to take a hardline against the perpetrators of the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, the U.S.S. Kohl bombing, the 1998 African embassy bombings, Serb atrocities in the Balkans, Chinese attempts to intimidate Taiwan, Saddam Hussein's defiance of international sanctions, or other national security crises occurring during her husband's "presidency."  I highly doubt the Iranian mullahs, North Korea's Kim Jong Il, Venezuela's Chavez, the Al Qaida leadership, Chinese leaders, Vladimir Putin, or other existing or potential anti-American despots are experiencing sleep deprivation worrying about Hillary's imaginary rhetorical bellicosity.
 
If Hillary wants to emulate a decisive female leader, she should study Margaret Thatcher's career in power and service as British Prime Minister between 1979-1990.  Unfortunately, for Hillary, Margaret Thatcher had solid intellectual, political, and moral convictions that making such decisive leadership possible.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Michelle Obama and the Politics of Grievance

The more you hear Michelle Obama the more you realize what a piece of work she is.  Our next potential first lady lives a life of astounding economic privilege.  Besides her husband's senatorial salary, benefits package, and pension, she also garners a comfortable six figure income from her work as a "diversity consultant" for the University of Chicago hospital.  A story in the current National Review reveals she received a $200,000 raise in 2005.  Now if I, or any other normal person, received an annual raise of $200,000 we'd be singing hallelujah and dancing in the streets.
 
Not Michelle Obama, however.  While her husband, until recently, has had some success portraying himself as being post-racial and beyond the politics of racial victimology, Michelle Obama is a hook, line, and sinker member of the leftist school of racial victimization.
Hearing Michelle Obama talk about existing economic difficulties, you would think that the overwhelming majority of Americans are pathetic victims of societal forces beyond their control that only the "benign" intervention of the federal government (preferably directed by Barack Obama) can ameliorate.  I continue to be amused that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, both the products and beneficiaries of astounding societal affluence, presume to think they can identify with my middle class economic aspirations or concerns.  I am infuriated that these egocentric self-indulgent sociopaths think they know what are the best governmental policies for me to pursue to meet the social and economic interests of myself and my marriage.
 
Michelle Obama apparently was not listening in class when they discussed the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act which removed the only statutory barriers to Black Americans participating in the promise of America.  (Of course, since she is a product of an Ivy League education, her leftist victim oriented professors probably didn't tell her that during their agitprop lectures on the U.S. Civil Rights movement.)  Michelle Obama, and her kindred spirits including Al Sharpton and "Rev." Jeremiah Wright, fail to realize that the only things stopping Black Americans from achieving their optimum God-given potential and the promise of the American dream is self-inflicted destructive behavior that prevents them from reaching their promise.  Such self-inflicted destructiveness includes not applying themselves in school, dropping out of school, participating in criminal activity, sexual immorality, public intoxication, not showing sufficient appreciation for the role of God in human affairs,  participating in illicit drug culture, not being part of stable and responsible two-parent families,  and listening to the demagogic, imbecilic, and immoral rantings of charlatans like Michelle Obama, Al Sharpton, and Jeremiah Wright.
 
Call both of the Obamas on this promotion of ethnic victimization as they make their campaign rallies.  Tell them that promoting personal or ethnic victimization does not represent the political and cultural change they rhetorically claim to espouse in Barack Obama's presidential campaign.   
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Czech Wisdom on How Climate Change Histrionics Endanger Freedom

Czech President Vaclav Klaus has played a crucial role in his country's transition from communism to democracy.  He was responsible for implementing many of the free market economic reforms that have helped the Czech Republic become a fairly successful part of central Europe and enabled this country, which was overrun by the Soviets 40 years ago, to become an important member of the NATO community.  He has written a superlative article on how climate change hysteria can jeopardize freedom in the Australian newspaper. You can read this trenchant analysis at http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23358915-5015664,00.html  The highlights of this article include his assertions that climate change hysterics want to stop economic growth, improvements in living standards, and humanity's ability to use expanding wealth, science, and technology to solve world problems; particularly those in developing countries.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Barack's Abominable "Pastor"

We've recently had the experience of seeing the "Revererend" Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's "pastor" spewing his despicable anti-American ideology on tv screens.  The usual formulaic and resigned denunciations of such incendiary rhetoric have been provided by Obama and his apologists but it's doubtful they really mean it.  Was Obama actually present in church when "Pastor" Noam Chomsky was calling on God to eternally damm America, said the 9/11 attacks were morally justified, and praised Palestinean terrorism?  Will Obama actually be willing to move to another church and remove his financial support from Wright and his despicable demagogic doctrine?  It's clear that Wright's infantile diatribes have shot Obama's claims of being an inclusive and "post-racial" political candidate to shreds.  You learn an awful lot about a person from the people they associate with and associating with a charlatan and crybaby like Jeremiah Wright (who also happens to have a high opinion of Louis Farrakahn) does not reflect highly on Obama and the quality of his judgment.  Will Obama's high-strung wife Michelle let him make a complete break with Wright or does Wright enhance her recently found pride in being an American?
 
Wright's outrage also is an effective illustration of how so many black churches have been corrupted by their ties to the Democratic Party and how "pastors" such as Wright have used such ties to enhance their personal political power base and keep their parishoners dependent on government largesse.  These "pastors" should be encouraging their congregation members to live as redeemed individuals who will only practice sex within the boundaries of committed heterosexual marriage, raise children with loving and committed parents, encourage their children to apply themselves at school to take advantage of America's unlimited opportunities, and stand against the pervasive sexualization of American culture.  Instead, Wright and his ilk wallow his self-pity and launch tirades against amorphous racism which has not had any legal power over blacks since passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act.  They coast on the fumes of the civil rights movement and do not engage in prophetic witness denouncing the alarming rise in illegitimate birth rates, the glorification of criminal behavior in hip-hop culture, and the penchant for promoting personal rebellion and mediocrity for fear of being seen as "white" in many sectors of black culture.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hillary's Irish Blarney & Canada Gets Afghanistan Right

St. Patrick's day approaches and the Irish tradition of rhetorical blarney has crossed the Atlantic and imbedded itself in none other than Hillary Clinton.  Hillary claims that she played a big role in the Irish peace process during the 1990s when her husband was blarney commander in chief.    Such claims would be easily accepted by most members of the mainstream media who don't know how to do intelligent political or historical research for the U.S. let alone for other countries.  Fortunately, Hillary's claims have gotten a lot of criticism and ridicule from figures who were actually involved in efforts to achieve peace in Northern Ireland during the 1990s.  Northern Irish Unionist political figure David Trimble has already called Hillary on the carpet for her perjury on this subject and and Irish republican politicos have also said she had no involvement whatsoever in these efforts.  Nothing can stop a rampaging delusional ego from promoting lies, so we can expect no less from Horrible Hillary as she attempts to delude Irish Americans into thinking she actually has substantive accomplishments on Irish matters in her political record.
 
For a effective refutation of Hillary's Irish blarney, I recommend reading the blog of London Daily Telegraph columnist Toby Harnden at http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/tobyharnden/mar08/hillaryiamirish.htm
 
We should also commend the Canadian House of Commons yesterday for voting to extend Canada's commitment to its troops in Afghanistan.  This commitment began a few years ago under Canada's then Liberal Government and it is being continued by Canada's Conservative Government lead by the sagacious and prescient Prime Minister Stephen Harper.  Approximately 80 Canadian soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan and Americans of all political stripes should thank the Canadians for their service and sacrifice in this front of the war against Islamist terror.  Canada does have its yahoos who think they should appease the Islamists by withdrawing from Afghanistan but, fortunately, a broad majority of Conservatives and Liberals voted to continue Canada's commitment to Afghanistan.  Afghanistan's fight against the resurgent Taliban needs more troops from the U.S. and other NATO countries to be successful. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Sanctimonious Steamroller Spitzer Screws Himself

Even though I don't live in New York or desire to live in New York, I have been captivated by the scandal enveloping that state's governor Eliot Spitzer.  Naturally, I'm very sorry for his wife and daughters who should have our deepest sympathies.  However, this is arrogant sanctimonious prick who is getting his justified retribution.  Eliot Spitzer is one of the insolent liberal politicians who think the world should conform to his warped world view.  As New York's Attorney General he proclaimed to the media that he alone could interpret what was ethical corporate practice or governance.  He ruthlessly pursued those who did not genuflect before his vision of business, legal, or governmental rectitude.  He has sought to personally destroy the lives of real criminals, in some cases, but also political or personal rivals who have had the effrontery to disagree with him.  This includes one glaring incident when he told a state legislator that he was a f***ing steamroller who would roll over anyone getting in his way.  Talk about the arrogance of power.
 
Spitzer has been a consistent enemy of conservatives serving as a ardent apologist for abortion and abortionists, seeking to criminalize policy differences with conservatives, being an ally of the Clintons (birds of a feather flock together), and being hailed in some liberal circles as being presidential material.  New Yorkers of all political stripes should be ashamed of themselves for electing such an arrogant and morally degenerate pervert to high political office on a repeated basis!  New York politics and government are known for their notorious corruption and financially free spending ways.  The whole world is laughing at New York politics and government this morning.  I don't know what comedians have been saying about Spitzer's dalliance with a prostitute but I bet it was funny.
 
Hopefully, he'll resign ASAP but given his arrogance and admiration for Clintonian "ethics", I would not be surprised if he tries to stay in power at any costs, claim that he was discussing corporate governance with "Kristin" and that he didn't have sex with the prostitute, and be so convinced of the purported righteousness of his vision that he will engage in vindictive rhetoric or litigation against those of us daring to show him as the fraud he is.  It's also interesting how few media outlets mention Spitzer is a Democrat.  If Spitzer were a Republican, that fact would be featured very prominently in mainstream media reports.  Even though Spitzer is not an Al Qaida terrorists, perhaps relevant federal authorities could send him to Guantanamo which would, hopefully, produce some long overdue humility from this out of control
degenerate.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Superficial Media Political Reporting Addenda

Another example of superficial mainstream media political reporting is their coverage of liberal students at the University of Texas-Austin and other universities supporting Clinton and Obama.  From the standpoint of the "mainstream media" you would think all university students are part of the Clinton or Obama cults.  That's hardly the case.  A fair number of students have been captivated by the libertarian utopianism of Ron Paul.  More importantly, there are plenty of conservative and Republican students in organization like Young Republicans, Young Americans for Freedom, and other conservative organizations who have worked for candidates like John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee.  Where is the adulatory media coverage of these students working for the candidates who espouse the principles they believe in?  Have you seen Tim Russert or any other mainstream media outlet do any kind of analysis, let alone, substantive analysis of what conservative students are discussing during this year's election cycle?
 
These media outlets are so convinced that the world revolves around liberalism and the deluded belief of its adherents that only they are the ones engaging in politically proper thinking that they are intellectually incapable of conceiving that others do not adhere to a liberal political Weltanschaung and that there are intelligent, articulate, and moral exponents of conservative political viewpoints.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Mainstream Media and Superficial Political Reporting

As conservatives we love to bash, usually justifiably, the mainstream establishment media for its liberally biased political reporting.  The recent Saturday Night live comedy skit satirizing the media's puppy love affair with Barack Obama was an excellent example of this.
 
Mainstream media reports of political campaigning often suffer from basic journalistic and research incompetence and nonexistent referencing as well.  Let me present two recent examples of this.  A lot of attention has been focused on the Clinton-Obama elections in Texas and Ohio.  Something about their coverage (particularly NBC's) of the Texas race has really gotten under my skin.  My first job as a professional librarian was at Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas where I worked five years before moving to Indiana.  Living in Texas during that time I got intimately acquainted with Texas politics, its history, the scholarly literature on the subject, the media coverage, and its diverse multifaceted nature.  A true understanding of Texas politics and political trends requires serious investigation rather than the superficial coverage the media provides.
 
My biggest complaint of the media's coverage of the Obama-Clinton race in Texas is its Austin-centric nature.  Austin is Texas' state capitol and home of the University of Texas so it does play a significant role in Texas political campaigns.  However, what the mainstream media does not tell you is that Austin and UT-Austin are liberal democratic enclaves in a decidedly conservative state.  A lot of TV coverage of this campaign has interviewed columnists from Austin's newspaper the Austin-American Statesman which is decidedly liberal in its ideological tilt.  Consequently, based on mainstream liberal media coverage of the Obama-Clinton race you would think that Texas is going to vote Democratic this fall.  Don't bet on it!  In fact, areas near Austin such as north suburban Williamson County and the adjacent Hill Country, where Lyndon Baines Johnson, began his ascent to political power are decidedly Republican.  Don't expect to hear that from Tim Russert, George Stephanopolous, Cokie Roberts or other mainstream media political commentators.
 
Truly accurate coverage of Texas politics will include perspectives from large metro areas like Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio, Lubbock, and a representative sampling of Texas 254 counties including Texas' many rural regions. 
 
This morning on the Today show, I saw another example of superficial media political reporting by NBC reporter Jamie Gangel.  She was telling how it's possible to find who (particularly celebrities) contributed to various presidential campaigns online.  During her story, Gangel mentioned how addicting this searching is.  Unfortunately, her story had two fatal flaws.  She didn't mention which websites you could use to find this information, let alone their URLs, and she didn't tell you these websites will only include contributions of over $200 during the presidential election cycle.  Do TV networks actually give their reporters substantive training in political research before they send them out on the beat?  Do these reporters actually have any experience looking up reliable political information in their educational careers?  Do they even know how to properly cite their resources and tell viewers who might be interested in looking them up on their own?  Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Questioning Obama's Commitment to Change

Barack Obama's presidential campaign has gotten tremendous mileage from promoting his vision of change.  His campaign produces signs and bumper stickers promoting the soundbite "change we can believe in."  This feel-good  mantra has propelled him into the lead for the Democrats presidential nomination and, if he wins next Tuesday's Texas and Ohio primaries, will essentially give him a stranglehold on his party's nomination.  The media and their leftist cohorts in academe, Hollywood, the liberal mainstream media, and significant chunks of liberal and, frighteningly, non-liberal public opinion are viewing him as a new messiah who will "redeem" America and America's place in world opinion from the purported depredations of the Bush presidency.  Over the next few months we should ask Obama and his sycophantic hordes what kind of change they want to promote.  We should particularly ask Obama and his messianic apostles if they are willing to change Democratic and liberal orthodoxy on a variety of issues.  Here are some sample questions we can ask them.

Do you favor restricting abortion?  Do you think homosexuality is a desirable behavior for society to encourage?  Do you think marriage should remain between a man or woman or do you think homosexuals should be allowed to marry?  If so, what economic and social costs do you see this expanded form of "marriage" creating?

What concrete policies do you propose to implement to reduce illegitimate births in our society?

Do you favor eliminating affirmative action and quotas in hiring and university admissions?  Why or why not?

Do you favor placing increasing reliance on nuclear power as a means to deal with climate change and America's energy problems?

Are you willing to take preemptive military action to defend the American people and vital national security interests even if such actions are unpopular within you party or in significant sectors of international public opinion?

Do you really think we can negotiate with terrorists like Osama bin Laden or with hostile foreign dictators like Kim Jong-Il, Iran's Ahmadinejad, Cuba's Raul Castro, or Venezuela's Hugo Chavez who have no desire to genuinely resolve or mediate differences with the United States?

Who do you think should have greater freedom and legal protection in fighting Islamist terrorists:  U.S. soldiers and intelligence agents or Al Qaida or Taliban terrorists?  Explain your answer in detail.

Do you think English should be the official language of the United States?  Explain why or why not.  If not, do you think bilingual societies are desirable and do you think they promote greater national unity or discord?

What government agencies and programs will you eliminate or reduce in size to lessen the federal budget deficit? Especially non-military programs.

What specific steps will you take to reform Social Security and Medicare whose rising costs are a major reason for our federal budgetary problems?

What concrete steps will you take to reduce the national debt?

Do you favor school choice?  Why or why not?

Do you favor improving the quality of health care by promoting greater individual responsibility and by allowing for greater competition in medical services?  Why or why not?

Are you willing to consider the possibility that global warming is not as acute a danger as climate change alarmists have predicted and that it could have positive benefits?  Does this week's report that the size of the Arctic icefield has expanded considerably cause you to  critically question the views of  global warming histrionics such as Al Gore?

What steps will you take to reduce farm subsidies?  Will you allow Americans to import commodities such as sugar which cannot be imported due to laws written by protectionist sugar producers?

Do you believe it's possible that ethanol is not a viable solution to America's dependence on foreign oil and that the rush to produce more ethanol has resulted in unnecessary grocery price increases for Americans?

Will you appoint strict constructionists to federal courts who do not seek to implement their views into law or will you appoint rampaging liberal judicial activists such as those on the 9th circuit court?

I'm sure readers could contribute additional questions as well.  Let's try these questions out on Obama and his apostles and watch their faces turn into anguish.

 



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

William Buckley Appreciation

Conservatism has lost a stalwart intellect and courageous warrior today with William Buckley's death.  His influence on American political discourse is enormous thanks to his staggering corpus books, lectures, oped columns, television appearances, and National Review magazine.  Buckley played a crucial role in sculpting American conservatism into a credible political movement that could win the White House, gain control of Congress, and state governments.  His intellectual approach to political activity has had an enormous influence on my own political development and this approach demonstrated that conservatism is the only intellectually and morally credible way to govern the United States and the American people.

In our age of vocational specialization, Buckley was a refreshingly renaissance man.  Besides politics, his interests encompassed sailing, the arts, book culture, education, religious and moral development, history, dogs, and numerous areas of public policy.  His book God and Man at Yale was a courageous assault against the secularism which has destroyed so many once superlative academic institutions and whose woeful effects are felt in countries all over Europe and even in many aspects of American life.  Buckley's ability to make and retain friendships with a wide variety of people, even those who were political antagonists, is a superlative demonstration of his generous personal character.

The flourishing of conservative opinion journals such as National Review, the American Spectator, Weekly Standard, the proliferation of conservative oriented blogs, the role of conservatives in recent presidential administrations and congresses, and a growing body of scholarly literature on American conservatism during the second half of the 20th century, all testify to Buckley's enduring intellectual and political influence.  Buckley has left a legacy that intellectually honest historians and political scientists can constructively analyze for decades to come.

He helped conservatism become a critically important factor in American political life by weeding idiotic anti-Semites and John Birchers from the embryonic conservative movement.  Such actions enabled conservatism to confront and, in many cases, defeat liberalism whose intellectual and moral fallacies were becoming more apparent as the 1950s passed into the 1960s.  As will all humans, not everything Buckley said was correct.  For instance, National Review's decision to embrace marijuana decriminalization  is a highly imprudent public policy position because it will further the personally destructive addictive behaviors which weaken individual freedom and autonomy and give the state the chance to exert greater control over our lives.

Our prayers and sympathies go out to his family as they mourn his death.  All of us can comfort ourselves with and be inspired by what William Buckley has accomplished with his life, how well he lived out his faith, and with the Christian promise of eternal life to spur us on to our own accomplishments in whatever arena of life God calls us to.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Democratic Hyprocrisy on Transparency and Openness

Democrats often enjoy lambasting what they see as the obsessive secrecy and "overreaching power" of the George W. Bush Administration.  They frequently proclaim how they favor openness and transparency in governmental activity and political discourse.  In actuality, though, Democrats can be as secretive as the most paranoid dictator in seeking to conceal from the public writings or actions that reveal their often ugly beliefs.
 
A recent example of this is Michelle Robinson Vaughn who is now known as Michelle Obama-Barack's wife.  She received her undergraduate degree in sociology at Princeton University in 1985.  At least some Ivy League universities require their undergraduates to write a senior thesis as a condition of meeting requirements for receiving their degree.  Michelle Obama's thesis is called "Princeton Educated Blacks and the Black Community" which is available in Princeton's Mudd Library.  Normally, such theses are available to Princeton and other users who wish to read them in the library.  The senior thesis of Princeton undergraduate and Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on the Italian Constitutional Court is actually freely available on the Internet.  However, if you pull up the catalog record for Michelle Vaughn Robinson's thesis at http://libweb5.princeton.edu/theses/thesesid.asp?ID=9867 you will get an entry telling you that this document is restricted until November 5, 2008 which just happens to be the day after the presidential election.
 
It would be nice to read what our potential first lady was thinking about at this time in her life.  What were her views on the situation of blacks at Princeton in the mid 1980s?  Public access to some theses and dissertations is restricted because of intellectual property reasons.
Those surely do not apply here.  On the other hand, is Michelle Obama trying to hide something from us?  Does this thesis contain incendiary rhetoric that might be politically radioactive to Barack Obama's presidential aspirations?  Could they be injurious to his "audacity of hope" political rhetoric?   There are some claims that Michelle Obama's thesis has decried "endemic racism" in American society and other victimology rhetoric of the radical left.  If so, does she still adhere to such viewpoints today?  Her husband proclaims that he wants to move beyond past racial politics and create a "post-racial America."  Does Michelle feel the same way as he purportedly does?  This is a woman who just recently proclaimed she only recently began to feel proud to be an American.  Is there any relationship between her newfound patriotic pride and the success of her husband's presidential candidacy?  Michelle Obama should make her undergraduate thesis publicly available in print and electronic format so all Americans can read it on the Internet.
 
This same lack of transparency also plagues Hillary Clinton.  Public access to records about her participation in the Clinton Administration's health care reform task force remain sealed in the Clinton Presidential Library and are publicly inaccessible.  Why is this so?  Why don't the American Library Association, ACLU, and other press and political organizations who claim they are for public access to information denounce Hillary Clinton's secrecy? What is Hillary trying to hide since health care is an important public policy issue and she  has stressed its importance to her throughout her political career?  Hillary's undergraduate thesis at Wellesley College "There is Only the Fight:  An Analysis of the Alinsky Model" can, apparently be viewed at this institution's library but is not available on the Internet.  This work is her hagiographic analysis of the radical leftist "community organizer" Saul Alinsky.  Does Clinton still adhere to her radical chic views she is believed to have espoused in this work and in her early legal career?  Has she really evolved into a more centrist Democratic?  Wellesley College should make this report freely available on the Internet so Americans can have a more complete understanding of our first potential female president's youthful intellectual thinking.
 
Americans should be very cautious when either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton claim they favor transparent and open government.  The examples I've mentioned above demonstrate that both of these individuals have a penchant for secrecy and deception that makes a mockery of their claims of favoring political honesty or openness.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive