Irons In The Fire

My humblest apologies for the lack of posts this week, but, yet again, a combination of church, social, and party obligations have combined to eat up my schedule pretty thoroughly. I've got a couple of things I've started on, but won't be able to get them up before next week. Keep tuning in, though.

JLH

Doesn't Every Attempt At Humor Have An Element Of Truth?

I see where the noted liberal Bill Press recently had a bout of heart trouble, forcing him to be admitted to George Washington Hospital for treatment. In a bit of an ironic development, he was placed in what is known as the “Dick Cheney Suite,” the “suite” being identified thus due to a substantial donation made by the Vice-President to the hospital. Following his release, Mr. Press commented on his accommodations by noting that, “I suspected it was the Cheney Suite when I walked in and all TV sets were turned to Fox News.”

Okay. Ha, ha, ha. I recognize that Mr. Press’s comment regarding Fox News was said in jest, and I’ll give him that much – although his comment about the shotgun in the closet was funnier. But I do have to say that seeing that comment on the part of someone who openly declares his opposition to most things, if not all things, conservative did prompt some serious thoughts on my part.

First of all, let’s all acknowledge that people on both sides of the aisle have a pretty good idea of which media outlets reflect their personal preferences on how news and events should be portrayed, and which ones do not. Where conservatives are concerned, the list is considerable: ABC, NBC, CBS, Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, etc.

Where liberals are concerned – and this is what I find so interesting – the list seems to begin and end at Fox News. And yet that one outlet alone is enough to drive many a liberal into a frenzy over its “biased reporting,” notably causing some to publicly declare that those who watch the network are “stupid.” (Kind of recalls other comments I have recently made – okay yesterday – on the leftists’ desire to silence any voices that dissent with their own.)

Indeed, there are many, including some conservatives I know, who refer to the Fox News network as a “Republican” network. Frankly, I disagree with that assessment. Sure it looks like a conservative Republican news source to many because it certainly is to the right of most other news outlets.

But if it is a conservative Republican news outlet, why has Democrat Presidential Candidate Wesley Clark recently come onto its payroll? How do we explain the presence of Alan Colmes as one its highest profile personalities? What’s the deal with so many appearances by Susan Estrich, Al Sharpton, Leo Tyrell, Charlie Rangel, and other liberal activists? How is it so easy for hosts and correspondents, like Greta Van Susteran and Paula Zahn, to move between this and other networks?

The fact of the matter is that Fox News is not the exclusive turf of conservative viewpoints. It only appears to be so because it certainly offers more airtime to conservatives than do most other outlets. Indeed, to be perfectly honest, the constant confrontational tone taken in certain of the network’s shows resulting from inviting proponents of conservative and liberal views sometimes makes it difficult for me to stomach said shows (I can only take so many debates that devolve into shouting matches).

The liberal scorn of the Fox News Network, no matter how they try to present it, has less to do with the presence of a conservative bias than it does the lack of a liberal one. Why this is so unpleasant for liberals is that the broad dissemination of viewpoints alternative to their own forces them to acknowledge that such viewpoints do exist and calls on them to make a convincing case as to why their’s is the better one. In the real world, that’s becoming harder and harder for them to do.

The Left Continues Its March Toward The Dark Ages

I continually find it amazing that so many on the left want to refer to conservatives as Nazis. It is amazing, and ironic.

Leaving aside the fact that “Nazi” was an abbreviated term that referred to Germany’s National Socialist party, it is worthwhile to note that one of the tactics of choice regarding dissenters utilized by the Nazis was strikingly similar to tactics used today – by the very leftists who are quick to label others with what has come to be a derogatory term in the eyes of people of all political stripes.

I refer to the simple silencing of opposing voices in government and society. From book-burnings to the imprisonment, or murder, of anyone who would offer public resistance to their goals or means, the Nazis of 1930s Germany simply could not tolerate the possibility of someone offering a viewpoint that might carry any weight with the populace, if it differed from their own.

In today’s America, such an attitude is usually the companion of someone whose position is continually losing credibility while the individual, or group, steadfastly refuses to allow for the fact that they might need to alter their opinions to come more in line with inconvenient facts. Rather than acknowledge truth when undeniable truth is presented, their preference is to resort to emotionalism, often rage, in an attempt to shut up those who have offered said undeniable truth.

It’s bad enough when this attitude is displayed by a simple liberal-off-the-street. It is sinister when it is displayed by those in positions of influence who, ideally, should be cultivating the development of thoughts and ideas in the dynamic atmosphere of rational debate. Yet that is often where the most egregious cases can be found.

The latest such incident involves a, now former, professor at the Northern Kentucky University. Language and Literature Professor Sally Jacobson was dismissed from her post after admitting that she incited students to destroy an administration-approved pro-life display on campus.

In financial terms, the damage done by Ms. Jacobson and her minions was relatively minor – estimated at $600 by campus police. The damage done to the reputation of the academy, as well as the most rabid leftists in the eyes of impartial Americans, is far greater.

I wrote some time ago about the need for rational debate in our republic, a need that is not being met due to the blinding rage of those on the left, who, more and more, seem to speak for all committed liberals in the country. Ms. Jacobson’s comments on the incident only add further weight to that premise. Speaking of her very un-scholarly approach to the display that was at odds with her belief, she stated, “Any violence perpetrated against that silly display was minor compared to how I felt when I saw it. Some of my students felt the same way, just outraged.” And, yes, she did go on to make the overused Nazi analogy to which this piece has already referred.

This is why so many Americans, be they staunch conservative Republicans, or merely among the “undecideds” in the runup to any election, have a real fear over the prospect of leftists or their sympathizers in the Democrat party coming to power in the current political climate. When destruction and violence is justified on the basis of uncontrollable rage at the presentation of opposing viewpoints, it is then that people start to have visions of the oppressive tactics of a Hitler. And it is not conservatives who are making such attempts at justification.

To try to rationalize such irrational behavior in what is supposed to be a civilized society is offensive under any circumstance. But Ms. Jacobson only further marginalizes herself, and her ilk, by going on to try to couch such misbehavior in constitutionally-protected terms. In admitting to her crime, she stated, “I did, outside of class during the break, invite students to express their freedom-of-speech rights to destroy the display if they wished to.”

This latest iteration of the misuse of the “Free Speech” defense is not the only recent, or prominent, instance in which it has been cited. Some may recall the recent Supreme Court decision that upheld the rule that universities that receive federal funds allow military recruiters on campus. A group of law professors from a highly-regarded institution had opposed the policy on the grounds that the presence of the recruiters on campus somehow violated their First Amendment right to Free Speech, because they are opponents of the war in Iraq.

I can’t help but note that, in both the present case in Kentucky as well as the case before the Supreme Court, it is college professors, who, ideally, should be cultivating a free and open exchange of ideas, who are now making the claim that Freedom of Speech includes the right to silence your opponents. There is no “right” protected by the constitution that gives an individual or group license to deny the same right to another individual or group. Or, in the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes, “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.”

If the speech of some, whatever manifestation it takes, is offensive to someone, that person has a couple of options available to them. They can offer a rational rebuttal in an exercise of their own, legitimate, First Amendment rights. Or they can simply ignore the offensive speech, as the First Amendment makes no guarantee that anyone has to listen to what anyone else has to say. Indeed, these are the options exercised by mature adults. Unfortunately, it often appears that this is a class of people that is difficult to be found among the moonbat left.

Rules Are Not Made To Be Broken

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: One of the biggest disadvantages that conservatives face in the political realm is that we play by the rules, and we expect/hope others will do the same.

Of course, any reasonable person will look at a statement like that and immediately think that playing by the rules shouldn’t be a disadvantage. And they’d be right – it shouldn’t be. But the ongoing resistance offered to measures designed to ensure that everyone else also plays by the rules is evidence enough that it is.

This space has already taken notice of the resistance of Democrats in Georgia to a new law that would require photo identification be presented before a person be allowed to vote. Now I note that the battle over this issue has been joined in Indiana as well.

As noted at CNSNews.com, Democrats in the Hoosier state are upset over a recent ruling in federal court that upheld the state’s requirement that anyone who would vote show a government-issued photo ID before being allowed to cast a ballot. Those who don’t have such an ID can obtain a free one – let me say that again, a free one – from Indiana’s Bureau of Motor Vehicles. In addition to that, those who don’t have an ID on election day can cast a provisional ballot, and follow up with their county’s election board within 13 days to verify that it should be counted.

Nevertheless, in spite of all these efforts made to ensure that everyone who meets all other requirements can still vote on election day, the Democrats are up in arms, all the way up to the top of the Democrat National Committee. DNC Chairman Howard Dean has criticized the law as creating “unfair obstacles” to voting, and has pledged the DNC’s support to Indiana Democrats in an ongoing attempt “to make it easier for all Americans to exercise their right to vote.”

For now, I’ll leave aside all I want to say about the continual movement to make it easier to vote. At this time, I will simply ask the reader to note who it is that opposes virtually every rational attempt to increase the integrity and credibility of the electoral system in the United States, while still trying to be as inclusive as possible.

The Republican-controlled legislatures in Georgia and Indiana have not proposed any changes that would tilt the playing field in the favor of either party. They have merely sought measures to keep out of the elections within their states those people who have no right to take part. In other words, they have simply sought to see to it that the rules are enforced.

The problem, where the Democrats are concerned, is that it seems that “voters” who do not meet all eligibility requirements are the people who they have come to count on as vital components of their base. Rather than making serious attempts to realign their policies and positions that continually isolate them from the majority of voting Americans, they have chosen instead to seek ways to widen the voting universe to include people whom the law excludes.

What does it say about a party that views the rules as onerous things to be overcome? What does it suggest about the state of our electoral system when new laws have to be passed in order to ensure that existing ones are not flouted for political advantage?

It is true enough that the continual making of new laws is generally not an encouraging thing for conservatives: Within each new law there is always the, however small, increased threat to personal liberties. But when personal liberties come to be viewed as license to violate the rights of others, it is only reasonable to expect further such restrictions. Or as Paul Harvey has said numerous times, Self-Government won’t work without Self-Discipline. Tyranny waits just around the bend for a people who can no longer bring themselves to comply with the law voluntarily.

No Comparison

“More than four decades ago,” an American citizen led a rally on the Mall in Washington to protest policies and institutions that, in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s principles, made unjust distinctions between one group of citizens and another. This past Monday, an American Senator insulted the memory of that citizen and the movement he led.

When Democrat Senator Edward Kennedy, while speaking to a rally held on the Mall in support of the violation of the nation’s laws regarding immigration, compared the recent spate of such demonstrations to the Civil Rights movement led by Martin Luther King, Jr. in the 1960s, it would have been a surprising insult to the legacy of those who took part in the movement and to the intelligence of the American people, had it not come from his lips. Mind you, it’s still an insult. It’s just not surprising that Ted Kennedy said it.

As a child of the deep South, I am as aware as anyone of the still-tender nerves that can be touched when discussions of the events of the sixties come up. And there may have been different ways for both the protestors of that day and the government to handle the issue before it was resolved. But there is no way to rationally and reasonably argue against the fact that the black American citizens at that time – many of whom had even fought and bled for the nation – had every right to expect that the U.S. government would be as protective of their rights, as citizens, as it would of white citizens. You see, they were citizens, who should be recognized as having all the rights and privileges that American citizenship confers upon the person so blessed. They were demanding that they be recognized as full equals, before the law, among law-abiding citizens.

Those who have gathered in recent weeks for the protest movements that Senator Kennedy has so grossly mischaracterized, by and large, have no such noble intents. Rather, there is little question among anybody that the majority of those engaging in the protests have entered the United States illegally. And, yes, “illegal” is the correct term to identify those who have violated the law. When I drive my car over seventy mile-per-hour on the interstate, I am traveling at an illegal rate of speed – not that I am prone to do that, though, but I digress. Anyway, it's hard to credibly make a claim to being law-abiding, when your very presence somewhere is in violation of the law, and you have no intent to conform your behavior to the law.

Being illegal residents of the United States, they are thus not citizens, and have no claim to the same rights that the marchers of the sixties – who, although they did have claim to those rights – were being denied. Indeed, it’s hard to see what these folks are being denied, short of the right to vote – though there is no doubt that many of them have voted anyway. They can receive public education in America’s schools, they can receive medical treatment on the American taxpayer’s dime, and they can use their money – earned while doing jobs “Americans won’t do” only because their wages are not subject to market forces – to eat in any restaurant or at any lunch counter they so desire. So how on earth can they be compared to the black citizens of the sixties? They can’t, and I suspect that Senator Kennedy knows that.

The attempt on the part of a liberal blowhard like Ted Kennedy to smudge the memory of Americans by this invalid comparison is nothing more than an attempt to put a respectable face on a non-respectable demonstration. And behind it all is simple electoral politics.

Why Are So Many Down On Public Education, You Ask?

Interestingly enough, my wife and I had already begun leaning toward home-schooling years before we actually had children. At the time we initially discussed the subject, early in our marriage, our concern was over the breakdown of discipline among the students in the schools. The simple fact was that teachers didn’t seem to be able to actually provide an education because too much of their time was spent dealing with “problem children” whose parents apparently did not see fit to teach them respect for authority and the need to learn. In other words, teachers couldn’t teach.

Understand, before I go on, that it’s not that I believe that that particular problem in the schools has gone away. But as time has progressed, we have only become more firmly committed to keeping our kids out of the public schools. Because now, on top of the problem already mentioned, all too often where teachers do feel they can teach, what they are teaching is not what most parents put their children in school to learn.

Case in point: The eighth-grade science teacher at West Limestone High School in Alabama, who also happens to be a candidate – Democrat – for the state House of Representatives. Did I mention that he is a science teacher?

Steve White has been placed on administrative leave following complaints from some parents over his decision to show, in his science class, a filmstrip, set to music, whose sole purpose seems to be to insult and denigrate prominent conservatives in the political sphere. Among others, the film includes images of Ann Coulter, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfield, and, of course, George W. Bush, referring to them with a vulgar term that will not be repeated here. Apparently this same teacher has been known to require students to say “John Kerry rocks” before allowing them to leave his classroom.

Training to recite opinions does not prepare students to deal with reality and facts, because facts aren’t required to form opinions. But all too often, that’s the type of training that students at the nation’s public schools and colleges are receiving in lieu of an actual education. Of course, perhaps in fairness, we should note that that this is probably what Mr. White himself received in lieu of an actual education.

This type of indoctrination – as well as the use of vulgarities, the acceptance of which surely reveals the teacher as a product of public education himself – would be abhorrent if it was a government or civics class that was used to press his agenda. That it was in a class where the students are supposed to be taught science only lends further credence to the argument against letting this intellectual lightweight back into the classroom. I can’t help but wonder what type of excuse this “educator” would offer up, were it revealed in the next round of standardized tests, that his students are grossly sub-par in their science skills.

As an interesting side note, I personally find it fascinating that this very teacher is a candidate for the state legislature. I am intimately familiar with Limestone County, Alabama, having gone to high school there myself, and still living only a few miles away, over the Tennessee line. This is an extremely conservative county, both politically and religiously. George Bush outpolled John Kerry there 67% to 31%. The fact that Mr. White felt comfortable in showing this filmstrip gives the voters of his district a good idea of how in touch they can expect him to be with their values. If they are interested in a Representative who will actually be interested in what they have to say, this episode doesn’t speak very well for his “political ear,” or bode well for his political aspirations.

April LCRP Meeting

Last night, the Lincoln County Republican Party hosted its monthly meeting in the auditorium of the Fayetteville Municipal Building.

The scheduled speaker for the evening was Bob Davis, Chairman of the Tennessee Republican Party. However, Bob had to bow out at the eleventh hour due to a family obligation that conflicted with his attendance at the meeting. Willing to come and speak in his stead was David Leaverton, Director of the Tennessee Republican Party’s 72-Hour Project. But many will remember David as the punter on the University of Tennessee’s 1998 National Championship football team.

As it turns out, David was an excellent replacement speaker for Bob. He began his remarks by commenting on the ongoing drama of the state senate seat from Memphis, pointing out how the 72-Hour Program was used to great effect in Terry Roland’s de facto victory over Ophelia Ford in the election to fill John Ford’s seat. And while Ms. Ford was declared the winner and took the seat, David predicted that she will not occupy that seat much longer, and the rightful winner will be vindicated.

He moved on to discuss the excitement in Nashville over the entry of Senator Jim Bryson into the race for Governor. While Governor Bredesen has tremendous fund-raising abilities, the state party is confident that we will have a candidate in the fall that can make a serious run at unseating a governor whose performance has been a huge disappointment, even to those who voted against him in 2002.

Moving on to speak in more detail regarding his area of expertise, David explained the 72 Hour Project to the assembly. This project involves four major actions by party activists: Voter Registration, Voter Identification, Utilization of Early Voting, and “Get Out The Vote” efforts in the final days before the election. His explanation of exactly what would be required of those who were willing to help in this project seemed to allay a lot of any intimidation over “getting involved” that many may otherwise have, and immediately following the meeting, attendees approached him to volunteer.

Opening up the floor for questions, David addressed some of the means the party has of identifying potential new Republican voters, before being asked about his football experiences at UT and the NFL. When asked about his most thrilling game while at UT, there was no hesitation as he noted that beating Florida State for the National Championship was the high point.

However, he did note that were it not for the fact that that particular game was for the championship – he otherwise bears no ill will toward FSU – then he would probably give that honor to the game in which they beat Florida that year. He noted that that was the only time while he was at UT that they beat the Gators, and it gave him great pleasure to see Steve Spurrier throwing his visor quite a bit that day. Of course, in one of the great ironic twists of fate, the very Steve Spurrier who had been his public enemy number one during his college career would later be his coach during his brief time with the Washington Redskins. Bottom line, David noted that Steve Spurrier is a Republican, so he’ll stand with him on election day. But beyond that, he will always be a Vol, and Steve Spurrier will always be the coach Vols love to - well - dislike intensely.

Georgia, Are You Embarrassed Yet?

I see where the Associated Press is reporting that Representative Cynthia McKinney (D-Tranquility Base) issued an “apology” on the House floor related to the recent episode in which she struck a Capitol Police officer for having the audacity to do his job. But if anyone thinks Ms. McKinney has acknowledged that she was just flat wrong for her actions and attitude, they are sadly mistaken.

According to the story, the Representative of Georgia’s Fourth District stated, “There should not have been any physical contact in this incident,” and went on to say, “I am sorry that this misunderstanding happened at all and I regret its escalation and I apologize” (emphasis mine).

Those of us who have taken notice of her antics in recent years strongly suspected that Ms. McKinney would never allow herself to admit that she acted inappropriately – and she didn’t disappoint us.

To say that you regret that an incident happened is a long way from saying that you recognize that you were the cause of the incident. I regret that my house was broken into a few years ago, but I refuse to admit that the fact that it was broken into is my fault.

What is missing from her sorrow over the “misunderstanding” and regret over its escalation is recognition that all of this was the result of her failure to abide by the rules, as evidenced by her statement that “there should not have been any physical contact in this incident.”

It is that “physical contact” crack that serves as evidence that she still feels that the whole thing is the fault of the “racist” police officer. But the fact is, in view of the circumstances, physical contact is exactly what was called for when Her Majesty McKinney refused to respond to the officer’s calls.

But wait, says Ms. McKinney. He shouldn’t have questioned her right to bypass the security checkpoint to begin with. She’s a member of Congress, and her face should be instantly recognizable as one of the 535 people, among the 30,000 who pass through the capitol complex every day, who can mosey right on in.

The thing is that recognizing over 500 people by their face alone under such circumstances is extremely difficult, even to the skilled and trained eyes of those who serve honorably as protectors of those who work on, and visit, Capitol Hill. For that reason, members of Congress are given lapel pins to wear in order to help the officers in carrying out their duties. But, of course, it has been noted several times that Ms. McKinney refuses to wear her pin.

I have yet to read any explanation of why the Representative doesn’t wear her pin, so I won’t try to speculate – as tempting as that is. But one thing is for sure, by refusing to wear it, she demonstrates that she is not overly concerned with making a difficult job as easy as possible for those charged with her protection.

Of course, she has responded to this fact by stating that the pin could be duplicated. While that is true enough, it is not an argument against her wearing hers, and it is certainly not a convincing defense of her actions. If anything, her statement in this regard could serve as a reason to force even people wearing the pin to go through the metal detectors, rather than allowing people not wearing it to bypass them.

The thing is, in the age of heightened security against terrorist threats, I suspect that most members of Congress wouldn’t have a problem with undergoing tighter security themselves, as most are level-headed enough to see that such is for their own good and protection. Cynthia McKinney’s steadfast refusal to acknowledge that she acted in an irresponsible, and arguably criminal, manner only reduces her stature in the eyes of most Americans, be they Democrats or Republicans. Whether the people of Georgia’s Fourth District are embarrassed by her, I don’t know. But I’m embarrassed enough for them, and I only live in the Fourth District of a state that borders Georgia.

Exciting New Entry Into The Race For Governor

Sorry for the lack of posts over the past few days, but it's been a rather hectic week with church, work, and party obligations seeming to hit, and increase, all at once.

Nevertheless, I did want to take at least a few moments to express my pleasure at hearing of the entry of Senator Jim Bryson into the race for Governor in Tennessee. While the race for the Republican nomination already featured good and honorable men committed to bringing about good changes in Nashville at a time when the confidence of many Tennesseans in their state government has been wavering, Jim brings the unique perspective of someone who has actually been in on the various political and ethical battles since 2002 - consistently coming down on the right side of the issues.

I first met Jim in his Nashville business office in 2005, shortly after our common interests in adoption (we both have adopted children from Russia) and politics (he's a conservative Republican senator, I'm a fan of conservative Republican senators) caused our paths to cross. Since that time, I have had the pleasure of corresponding via telephone and e-mail with him, as well as hosting him in Fayetteville to speak to the local party.

Ever since that first meeting with him, I have been struck by Jim's impressive grasp of the intricacies of the issues facing leaders in both Nashville and Washington, as well as his sincere commitment to conservative principals as holding the key to the solutions to the problems facing the state and nation. Add to this the executive skills that his success with his 20/20 Research company demonstrates, and the result is an impressive addition to the Republican race.

I wish all the best to all those good Republicans now in the hunt for the nomination. But I have to admit, the news of Senator Bryson's entry does have me wondering, have my boys already had their picture made with a governor of Tennessee?