SouthTennBlog

A Would-Be Obama Voter

2008-09-10T11:14:00.000-07:00

Wow, it certainly made me sit up and take notice when I heard about the British celebrity who referred to President Bush as a "retard" who "wouldn't be trusted with a pair of scissors" in England.

I got curious. I wanted to see who this Russell Brand person who made these statements was:

Ah, I think I understand his "evaluation" better now.

Reagan Day 2007

2007-08-27T06:22:00.000-07:00

The SouthTenn blogger and fam pose with Congressman Marsha Blackburn following the 2007 Lincoln County Republican Party's Reagan Day Dinner. Levi Harwell demonstrates that when it comes to political leadership, it's important to pick wisely.

Perspective

2007-04-18T05:49:00.000-07:00

I wonder if anyone else is struck by how ridiculous those who want to keep the Don Imus controversy alive look in light of Monday's events at Virginia Tech.

After all, as painful as words can be, all that Mr. Imus did in his offense was speak hurtful words. Words which, by the way, probably would not have been heard by those they were directed at had not those invested in the "Victim Culture" decided to repeat them ad infinitum to a much broader listenership/viewership than Mr. Imus could ever hope to reach. It may very well be that many other people have said similar hurtful things about the Rutgers Women's basketball team, and many other teams for that matter, that they will never hear about. Nevertheless, those women all have the opportunity to celebrate a great run in the NCAA tournament and get on with their lives.

On the other hand, what we saw in Virginia on Monday was real hurt inflicted by a disturbed individual. His victims - who didn't go looking for victimhood - have nothing left to celebrate, and will never have the opportunity to see what their lives would have produced if they would have been allowed to move on past April 16, 2007.

My heart breaks for the victims of the Virginia Tech shooting, and their families. And my mind reels back in disgust from the trivial and petty individuals who are calloused enough to still assert victimhood on the part of a group of people who are, after all, still alive.

Not Surprising, But Still Maddening

2007-01-30T12:03:00.000-08:00

Perhaps conservatives should be grateful to the anti-war lunatic left for its behavior this past weekend. It’s doubtful that anything I, or any other conservative, could say could illustrate moral bankruptcy of those for whom law and order are, more often than not, impediments to the achievement of their goals better than what they said themselves by their actions this past Saturday.

During the War of 1812, the British captured and burned the United States Capitol Building. Since that time, I am unaware of any direct assault intended to deface the capitol until this past weekend, when anarchists – Americans – were allowed to march up to the west front of the building and spray paint anti-war graffiti on the Capitol steps.

Please understand, I am not making a direct comparison between the two events. Obviously, the foreign troops, and the government they represented, were a far more formidable enemy, physically and intellectually, than the hippy-holdovers and hippy-wannabes that were allowed to do something that most Americans are simply too decent to even consider. But that both represented enemy assaults on our system of government is, in my mind, beyond question.

The Chief of the Capitol Police offered up the far-too-often-misused “freedom of speech” excuse in defense of his decision to allow the disgraceful activity to take place. But really, if this qualifies as freedom of speech under the First Amendment, what’s to stop people from other forms of “expression” on the Capitol steps – like maybe overt sexual activity, or worse yet, perhaps spray painting the Ten Commandments on the building?

Why is it that the adults among us are having to accommodate these overgrown children by allowing them to exercise their alleged “rights” to the detriment of the rights of those of us who disagree with them? Why are they allowed to deface a piece of public property – moreover, to many, a cherished symbol of the United States – when the vast majority of Americans – with the law on their side, mind you – don’t want such to be done?

The foolish displays usually seen in such leftist demonstrations are generally nothing more than an attempt to force the rest of us to listen to what they have to say – which is not a right that any of us holds. But their significance should not be downplayed. These attempts by the godless fringe left – which holds greater influence over one of our major parties now than probably any time in history – to force-feed their viewpoints while actively seeking to silence any dissent gives us all the chance to see what an America under the thumb of the left would be like. And, as I said, perhaps for that we should be grateful, if only we can take the hint before it is too late.

Truly Deserving

2007-01-10T11:59:00.000-08:00

Kudos to the newest inductees to the Baseball Hall of Fame – Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken, Jr. In recent years, I have become convinced that the membership in the hall has become too large, due to the induction of many who were, while certainly good players in their day, don’t really measure up to clearly being among the absolute greatest to play the game in its 100+ years.

This year, however, both selections were right on the money.

Tony Gwynn, while never providing the nation with the spectacle of a run at .400 like Rod Carew or George Brett, nevertheless had no equal during his playing days as a dominant hitter. The absence of a World Series championship from his resume – he made it to the series twice with the Padres – does nothing to diminish his status as a legend, and a nice guy, to those who follow the game.

Cal Ripken will always be known primarily for “the streak” which saw him play in over 2,600 consecutive games, obliterating a record set by the legendary Lou Gehrig that many thought would never be broken, especially in an era of prima donna players that are comfortable taking the day off for a runny nose, while collecting multi-million dollar salaries. The breaking of this record alone is certainly enough to set Ripken apart from most of the rest who have played in the majors. But the fact is that, even without that item on his resume, his career statistics would have been enough to number him among the greats of the diamond. The only real question surrounding his selection is, why did he only get 98.53 percent of the vote?

Both of these men demonstrated a level of grace and class in addition to their athletic ability and work ethic that made it easy for anyone to take satisfaction in their victories and accomplishments – including this latest one. Many congratulations to Tony and Cal – two of the true giants of baseball history. And may history grant us a few more like them before it’s all over.

Remember?

2006-12-15T09:33:00.000-08:00

I understand that the “Blind Sheik” is near death – by now he may be dead, for all I know.

Anyway, it seems that American intelligence and law enforcement agencies are concerned that Islamic fascist terrorists may try to stage attacks on, and in, the United States if and when he actually dies.

So how does that make things any different than any other day?

Have the five years since the last attack on American soil just been a case of their taking some time off to give us a break?

I know readers of this space have heard me say it time and again, and I recognize that I shouldn’t be too haughty when I point this out – in fact, I fully expect another successful terrorist strike against us at some time in the future – but this whole episode regarding the blind terrorist only serves to remind me of how successful the Bush Administration has been in preventing another attack to take place following the horror of September 11, 2001. For those keeping score at home, that’s five years, three months, and four days since Islamist barbarians have scored a “hit” on American soil.

For all the missteps that may have been made in administering the war and its aftermath in Iraq, fairness demands that everyone acknowledge that the lack of another such attack here at home is no accident or coincidence (of course, I am fully aware that not everyone is fair). And it provides further evidence – though, granted, not conclusive evidence – that engaging the enemy on his “home turf” has been a vital part of keeping him from planning and carrying out operations here. For all the troubles that the bad guys are causing, they are unquestionably on the defensive over there, rather than on the offensive over here.

Of course, I am one who believes that, ironically, the success of President Bush and his administration in returning life to “normalcy” here at home has been a major source of voter dissatisfaction with him. There has never been a serious attempt to fully ingrain in the minds of Americans that we are in a war for survival, other than the President’s occasional reminder that “we are at war.”

This has allowed many non-observant types to come to the conclusion that there is no real war going on and no impending external threat to the nation. After all, life as many see it goes on as it always has. And if there is no war going on, why are there nearly 3,000 new military graves here in the United States? (By the way, can any of you tell me how many of the sub-human terrorists have been killed by our forces? Me neither – the government stopped talking about these numbers publicly a while back – but I know it’s a lot more than 3,000).

George Orwell once said that people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. In a world where evil, and evil men, exists, safety and security don’t just happen. And just because we haven’t had to deal with the horrors, and inconveniences, that people in other nations do on a regular basis for over five years doesn’t mean that it’s for a lack of desire on the part of evil doers.

Our military personnel, and their Commander In Chief, recognize that eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. It concerns me that eternal vigilance is no longer a high priority for many of the people from whence their power derives.

December 7, 1941

2006-12-07T04:54:00.000-08:00

Remember . . .

Losing?

2006-12-05T08:32:00.000-08:00

Sorry for the lack of posts lately. Following the election – which went better for the GOP here in Tennessee than it did in most parts of the country – I’ve been taking some time to decompress and get ready for the holidays, before reverting back to "the routine" next year.

Posts will still be erratic for the remainder of 2006, but I began to rant in my head following a headline I read on the Drudge Report, regarding comments made by the nominee for Defense Secretary on America’s “winning” or “losing” in Iraq. I finally decided to go ahead and get my thoughts down. Here’s hoping they're halfway intelligible.

JLH

Here’s the deal. We went to war with the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. That regime has been overthrown, a new one set up in its place, and Saddam has been sentenced to die for his crimes by that regime. By definition, then, we won the war (which is, in reality, a mere battle as part of a much larger global war).

The questions regarding the current crises in Iraq are not about the U.S. “winning” in Iraq, unless one wants to assert (I know, some do) that we are engaging in an imperial effort to expand our territory with some form of “American Colony” in western Asia. The decision to invade Iraq was not about our getting the Iraqis to accept us as their new leaders. It was about removing the threat posed to America by an outlaw regime with a history of reckless activity.

The difficulties now being faced in Iraq have more to do with the indigenous population’s ability to live in peace with one another, even those with whom they disagree, without resorting to indiscriminate killing to “settle” their differences. We are trying to provide assistance in that regard – granted, one may legitimately ask if that role is an appropriate priority for the U.S. military at this time – but the difficulties and mayhem will not cease until the people we are trying to help demonstrate a willingness to be helped by living in a civilized manner.

With that in mind, I have to say that it’s not the Americans who are blowing it, if anyone is. It’s the Iraqis, and the members of “Arab street,” who are not willing to take the opportunity that is before them and make the most of it. This is all about the aftermath of war, which must be “won” by the Iraqi people themselves – with or without the help of anyone else.

The threat posed by the Saddam regime has been removed. Are there other threats to our safety and freedoms following the war on Iraq? Of course, just as Josef Stalin was still around after Adolph Hitler was eliminated. Is there a possibility that the nation might collapse following the withdrawal of allied troops, making Iraq easy prey for its tyrannical neighbors? One must concede it to be so. But even that would not impute defeat to the United States in the war that it waged on Saddam Hussein, anymore than an American collapse due to an unwillingness to work together in the 1780s would have imputed defeat to the French, who – rightfully – claimed their share of the victory over England in the American Revolution.

It’s nice to think that we might be able to help the Iraqi people get their internal affairs in order following the successful completion of the war on the Hussein regime, but that is not a military objective. The only “loss” that can be suffered by anyone right now is the loss the Iraqi people are looking at.

America’s constitutional regime still stands. Saddam Hussein’s tyrannical regime has collapsed. The threat posed by that regime to American interests has been eliminated. We have won, and it is a victory that cannot be taken away from us by anything short of a return of Saddam to power. But, interestingly enough, the Iraqis may settle that item for us soon.

He Said What He Said

2006-11-02T13:08:00.000-08:00

It seems to me that there is an inherent assumption made about political leaders that states that, while they will from time to time disagree with the Executive Branch’s use of the American military, they never have anything but respect and admiration for the men and women who actually comprise that military.

And it seems to me that that assumption is not necessarily correct.

Why has this assumption become accepted as self-evident truth when there is so much evidence to the contrary? Goodness knows that there are plenty of “average” Americans out there who view the modern military with disdain and contempt, why should certain of their elected representatives be immune from this attitude?

Don’t get me wrong. I happen to be one who believes that Senator John Kerry’s recent remarks – that clearly came out of his mouth as disparaging toward United States Service Members – were certainly not intended to come out the way they did. Apart from anything else I might say about him, I will grant that he has at least enough common sense to not consciously make such a boneheaded comment one week out from a very important election.

And I have no trouble believing that what he wanted to do was insult George Bush. You know, the guy who happens to be the elected President of the United States – a man that John Kerry, as well as most other of the primary movers and shakers within his party – despises on a personal, as well as professional, level, in no small part because the American people chose him over Mr. Kerry.

And while I would assume that most people would start to recognize at some point that the worn-out jokes about the intelligence and academic record of George Bush – who had higher grades at Yale than did Mr. Kerry, before going on to get an MBA from Harvard – would start to wear thin, it is obvious that the sheer hatred of Mr. Bush, resulting from his insistence on actually being the President after winning the election, makes it impossible for them to see that no one but themselves is laughing at the joke anymore. Even those who believe it to be true have heard it far too many times for it to contain the shock value that all good jokes require.

In any event, I say all that to note that, yes, I believe that John Kerry did not intend for his words to come out the way they did.

But the fact is that the words did come out the way they did.

It was not unreasonable for people to take them at face value. And, contrary to his defense, they were not clearly directed at the Bush Administration, as opposed to the troops themselves. The fact is, prior to his “explanation,” he and his fellow liberal elites have given no one any reason to think that what he said was not what he thought. (It is a delicious bit of irony that this incident occurs at roughly the same time that Seymour Hersh gives a speech in which he describes the current U.S. military as the most violent and murderous in history.)

But what of his defense that, “If anyone thinks that a veteran would somehow criticize more than 140,000 troops serving in Iraq and not the president, they’re crazy.”? Sorry, that doesn’t hold any water.

I noted in an earlier piece that being a veteran, even a war hero, does not immunize one from criticism on military matters, or even from becoming an open adversary of his onetime comrades in arms. This nation’s history was born with one of history’s greatest stories of treachery, involving an American war hero who tried to sell out his comrades and his country. So don’t try to convince me of John Kerry’s immunity from being suspected of being at odds with the military’s best interests simply because he once served in that military (You did know he served in Vietnam, didn’t you?).

After all, the young John Kerry made his first national splash three decades ago when he returned home from the war and wasted little time going before Congress to accuse his comrades of any number of war crimes and atrocities.

It was also a young John Kerry who, when running for Congress, stated that he believed an all-volunteer military would end up being comprised of the poor and minorities – the uneducated lower classes.

Later on, it was – and is – Senator John Kerry, who has consistently voted against virtually every major weapons system that has come before the Senate. Of course, in his defense, he may have cast those votes to protect the poor, ignorant soldiers, sailors, and marines who would probably only hurt themselves if they tried to work a piece of twenty-first century military hardware.

Perhaps we, as American voters, need to rethink the assumption that says any politician that disparages the troops has simply gotten his words tangled, especially when all evidence indicates that, at best, such words may simply be a Freudian slip. And before he starts railing against those who, in his words, “misinterpreted” his words as people who never found the time to wear the uniform, Mr. Kerry should stop and ask those who currently wear the uniform how they interpreted his words.

THIS Is Racism?

2006-10-26T11:53:00.000-07:00

Although I live in Tennessee, the nearest major media market to my home is Huntsville, Alabama. Because of this, I normally wouldn’t be able to knowledgeably discuss the furor surrounding the ad recently run by the Republican National Committee focusing on Democrat Harold Ford’s candidacy for the United States Senate.

Fortunately, though, we live in the internet age. So when I heard about a tacky ad with racist overtones being run in support of Republican Bob Corker, I took an immediate interest, and was able to find a link that enabled me to watch the ad on my computer.

Imagine my surprise when the first face I saw on the ad, designed to support the Corker campaign and damage Ford’s, is that of a black woman who is obviously making light of the fact that “Harold Ford looks nice, isn’t that enough?” As ironic as that fact was, I was already aware that that particular part was not what prompted the cries of racism – a term, by the way, that I have been saying for some time has lost its impact due to its overuse.

Finally, the controversial portion of the ad came up – an attractive white woman coos that she met Harold at a Playboy party – a party which, incidentally, Mr. Ford took pains to try to imply he wasn’t at on George Stephanopolous’ television show, before he finally admitted to attending it at a press appearance a few days later. After some comments from a narrator, the ad returns to the woman, who looks into the camera and says, “Harold, call me.”

The first thing I thought when I saw this ad, with the knowledge of racist allegations that have been made over it, was, “Would this portion of the ad have lost any of its effectiveness if they had used a black woman?” I pictured one of the most attractive black women I have ever known – who, by the way, was a highly intelligent Assistant District Attorney that I used to do business with in a previous career – playing the part of the attractive female in this ad.

The impact was the same. As it would be if it were a Tyra Banks or Naomi Campbell playing the part. Because the point of that portion was not to incite racist fears over a black man being with a white woman – the only people who believe that this would incite panic among the citizens of Tennessee are the nimrods who desperately want to believe that the South is still inhabited by two groups of people – racists whites and oppressed minorities. The point of this ad is that, while most Tennesseans are hard-working, family-oriented people, who actually spend most of their lives in Tennessee, Harold Ford is a playboy bachelor who has never held a job outside of politics (inheriting his father’s U.S. House Seat) and has benefited tremendously from his family’s wealth and political clout in Memphis – a city which the Ford family pretty much owns politically.

Lost in all the furor being raised by the left over this ad – probably intentionally – is the fact that the comments made by the young woman, as well as everyone else in the ad, are an accurate reflection of who Harold Ford is, and where he stands on issues that Tennesseans pay attention to. This, of course, explains why the vast majority of Harold Ford’s campaign funds have been raised outside of Tennessee. He would be a good choice for the Senate for the folks from New York or California – from whence comes the lion’s share of his contributions. But his being a “representative” of the interests of the people of Tennessee makes little sense to most attentive folks outside of Memphis’ 9th District.

More Excellence At The Academy

2006-10-12T11:50:00.000-07:00

Attendees at an event on the campus of Columbia University last week got yet another glimpse of what life would be like in American society, were the leaders of the rabid left ever to fully gain control over American government.

According to a CNS News story covering the episode, Jim Gilchrest, founder of the Minuteman Project, had just started to deliver his remarks on the issue of illegal immigration when members of the audience began shouting and “students rushed the stage with fists raised and banners proclaiming, ‘No One Is Illegal.’” Needless to say, Mr. Gilchrest was never given the opportunity to actually make the speech he had been invited and authorized to make before security personnel ended the event a few minutes later.

In defending their actions in denying an American citizen the right to be heard in a forum to which he had been invited, protesters declared, “The Minutemen are not a legitimate voice in the debate on immigration.” Thus, apparently, any objective observer should be satisfied that nothing unseemly took place.

Let’s see, disregard for both law and simple rules of decorum that don’t fit their agenda, shouting down opposing views, and justifying all this by declaring that the opposition is not a legitimate voice and doesn’t deserve the right to be heard anyway. Looks like all that was lacking was a statement impugning the intelligence of conservatives for this to be a classic example of the far left’s approach to debate.

No, it’s still a classic example. After all, nowadays, the ignorance of those on the right should just be assumed by everyone anyway, right?

And it is the party that these lunatics support that may be on the brink of gaining control over Congress?

Republicans and Democrats both have scandals and scandals-in-the-making in their ranks. But I’m guessing there was not a single Republican in the ranks of these youths, who obviously favor free speech only for the “right” kind of people, who hold the “right” positions.

WHO Are The Hypocrites?

2006-10-11T12:59:00.000-07:00

Let me make sure I understand this. A member of Congress engages in activity that is extremely inappropriate and out of place, though not yet shown to have actually violated any laws and didn’t even involve any actual physical acts. That member of Congress is justifiably forced to resign at the urging of, among others, members of his own party. But an additional third party – the Speaker of the House – is also expected to resign?

Am I correct in recalling that this all did take place in the same government where a sitting President once engaged in an actual “inappropriate” physical act with a subordinate, lied about it under oath – in direct violation of the law – as part of a larger plan to use his office to engage in a coverup to avoid prosecution in the courts, lost his law license because of his well-established illegal acts, yet not only was allowed to remain in office, but received the full-throated support of his party through the whole ugly episode?

I know I’m late in weighing in on the Mark Foley scandal, but ever since the facts were revealed, this has been on my mind. This particular ugly episode has certainly revealed Mark Foley to be a creepy weirdo, and some may reasonably argue that it has revealed Republican leadership to be lax in the standards it holds its members to prior to public knowledge of such shenanigans. But one thing it has not proven, contrary to what many liberals and Democrats would have you believe, is that Republicans are hypocrites on issues like this.

The fact is that Republicans’ reaction and subsequent behavior has revealed them to be consistent on the question of elected officials’ inappropriate contact with subordinates. The ones who have been inconsistent – thus making the hypocrite label stick to them more easily – are the Democrat leaders who led an outdoor pep rally the day a President from their party was impeached for his crimes, yet demanded the head of a member of the opposite party who can’t, based on what is known to date, even be prosecuted for what he did.

Actually, as more facts are revealed in the Foley scandal, what is becoming more apparent is that the release of the information that brought down the congressman, and its timing, seems to be more a matter of the unveiling of an “October surprise” in the hopes of swaying the impending election than it is a matter of protecting the high school juniors who probably see as much titillating material in the average movie they see on the weekend as anyone did in the messages Mr. Foley sent out. It calls to mind the twenty-four-year-old drunk driving incident revealed shortly before the 2000 Presidential election.

But even as the Democrats have played their cards in the hope that the election will turn on personalities and scandals – something that both parties have plenty of – evidence is emerging that the election may actually turn on relevant issues of the day – a fact that obviously scares the daylights out of Democrat leaders. For just as the Democrats were handed an October surprise by the hapless Mr. Foley, the Republicans were also handed one in recent days – by the maniacal Kim Jong Il.

We now live in a world where it is very difficult to distract attention from the dangers that surround us for very long. And in that world, it is still simply not safe to entrust our safety to the current crop of Democrat leaders.

I’m not claiming to know who will control Congress come next January. I’m just saying that it’s still premature for Nancy Pelosi to be measuring the Speaker’s office for drapes just yet, even with an able assist from Mark Foley.

What Will This Do To The Legacy?

2006-10-10T05:25:00.000-07:00

The thought just occurred to me this morning that, amid all the hubbub over North Korea’s claim to have conducted its first test of a nuclear weapon – something that, if true, should be of grave concern to any inhabitant of planet earth – there has been a notable dearth of comments from one particular sector of American political life.

Of course, I’m willing to concede that I may have simply missed it – and I will happily read any corrections that anyone wants to send me – but as of yet I’m not hearing a lot of comment on this situation from Clinton Administration officials. I wonder why that might be.

Could it be that, while the test took place on the watch of the Bush Administration – a fact for which the current administration should rightly accept close scrutiny – the technological advances in North Korea that made the test possible were made during, and with the aid of, the Clinton Administration, with significant contributions made by Jimmy Carter in this regard?

The fact is that the Clinton administration was duped into a disastrous deal with the Kim Jong-Il regime by which the Korean dictator never intended to abide. And now that the “mainstream” media – which no longer tries to hide its love for Bill Clinton and disdain for George Bush – is so consumed by its desire to pin every ill in the world on Bush and the Republicans, it simply cannot afford to draw attention to the incompetence in the 1990s that gave the North Koreans a friendly nudge down the road to joining the nuclear club.

I wonder if Chris Wallace might be interested in pursuing some comment from the former President.

Is It Just A Game?

2006-10-06T12:49:00.000-07:00

“Look, if George W. Bush and his Republican cronies walked on water, I’d be the guy out there yelling that they couldn’t swim.”

Those are the words of Democrat operative James Carville, uttered earlier this week, and they say much about the current state of political discourse in America.

It seems more and more obvious that political strategists, operatives, and, yes, even office holders are being driven less by an objective evaluation of what policies will be best for the country and more by a desire to simply oppose and defeat those on the other side of the aisle. And this mindset has finally trickled down to the lowest levels of government and partisan organization.

I have, for some time, tried to come up with an analogy that I am confident most people will be able to relate to, in order to describe my take on this disturbing phenomenon in politics – that has actually been developing for years, but has really come to a head in recent times. So far, the best I have been able to come up with is a comparison to the loyalties that many Americans feel to, for example, a college football team.

At some point, every person who cares about a given team decided that said team would be their team. The reasons may vary: Where they live, where they went to school, where a favorite player went, etc. But whatever the reason, at a given point, that team became their team – the team they would root for through thick and thin.

Regardless of who the coach may be at a given time.

Regardless of what kind of offense is run in a given era.

Regardless of the conduct of the players on that team and the team’s response to that conduct.

The hard core fan of the team will stick with the team as an institution regardless of whatever changes like these may come along. And that’s fine, because in college football, winning – defeating the opposition – is the very purpose behind having the team in the first place.

But such bases for party loyalties in the political realm work against the purpose of our political system itself – the development of policies and governing strategies that will be most beneficial to the nation and its citizens. In theory, it should be much easier for people to get to a point where they feel comfortable changing party affiliations than it is for them to change from, say, rooting for Alabama to rooting for Auburn.

But it’s not. Because loyalty to the team has come, for many, to supersede loyalty to the ideals and principals for which the team was established. Which is why, being the conservative that I am, I am convinced so many people who live in my region remain supportive of a party that may have closely mirrored their world view thirty years ago but no longer does. A party that, in the words of a recent retiree from Congress, cares more about effective politics than it does effective policies.

What I am saying is that, in the atmosphere that I am observing, our eyes have been taken off of the goal of serving the interests of the citizenry – regardless of what individual or organization gets the credit for serving those interests – and set upon the far less noble goal of simply scoring a victory over the other side, regardless of the implications for the nation.

I believe it was Rutherford Hayes who said in his inaugural address, “He serves his party best who serves the country best.” And I wonder how well such words would be received if he were to utter them today, in an atmosphere where, all too often, country has taken a backseat to party.

Was It Really Political?

2006-09-15T12:32:00.000-07:00

So should Abraham Lincoln have been criticized for tastelessly injecting politics into what should have been a memorial event when, at Gettysburg, he concluded his remarks by declaring that the nation should “be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us–that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion” (emphasis mine – JLH)?

Judging by the reaction of leading Democrats to President Bush’s speech on the five-year anniversary of the September 11 attacks, President Lincoln should have been excoriated. After all, he was at Gettysburg to dedicate a cemetery – a place of remembrance of those who died there. Given that the war was not an extremely popular one in the first place, one can only assume that, had Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, and Ted Kennedy been around then, they would have jumped on Mr. Lincoln’s shameless campaigning on behalf of his war policies at a ceremony that should have been dedicated to cultivating a national sense of victimhood.

But Lincoln saw nothing inherently virtuous about being a victim of circumstance, and when the actions of the Southern States brought on the war that virtually no one in the north wanted, he elected to take action to change the circumstances under which he found himself, believing that the cause was worth whatever criticism his contemporaries, or even history, might heap upon him. And he recognized that the very reason that the memorial was being held in the first place was the fact of the war that confronted the nation. How could he not have taken note of the war, and the need to stay the course for the good of future generations?

From the time he took office, George W. Bush has demonstrated that he is not content with simply being president, as was his predecessor. He actually wanted to do something during his time in the White House. On September 11, 2001, circumstances forced him to change his emphasis. And, recognizing the need to put first things first – like protecting the nation and eliminating a clear threat to it – he took aggressive action.

From President Bush’s perspective, the war in Iraq is a part of the larger war on terror, whether you agree with him or not (I do - JLH). As he was the one giving the speech on Monday, it should come as no surprise to note that the mass murder that occurred five years ago – and the need to prevent it from happening again – was presented as the very reason that the fight continues in Iraq. And it should come as no surprise that he emphasized the need to stay the course so that the fate of those who died on that horrible September morning will not be shared by any who follow them.

Learn from the events of the past, and take motivation from them to do better in the future. Isn’t that what memorials are all about?

In that light, there was really nothing political about the President’s discussing Iraq as its danger to the world was awakened by the attacks on New York and Washington. So criticizing his speech as political is off base. If his opponents must criticize something in this context, let it be the war policies he is pursuing. But then, that really would have been injecting politics into a day of remembrance.

A Day Late

2006-09-12T06:02:00.000-07:00

Yesterday was pretty hectic, so I didn't get anything posted, though I did take time for remembrance and reflection, as I hope you did.

Like many of you, I remember where I was the day a group of sub-humans attacked civilians in New York and Washington, and reminded us that, even in the twenty-first century, the idea of civilized humanity has still not taken hold in some areas. Time may have clouded my memory of some of the details, but the events unfolded, as best I remember, as follows.

At that time, in my role as a defense contractor, I was working on a U.S. Military installation in Huntsville, Alabama - an hour behind New York - working closely with the Saudi Arabian government in their procurement of military hardware from the U.S. government. We were actually in the process of planning a series of meetings with some Saudi military personnel, to be held in Huntsville the following month, when I was sitting at my desk and my team leader stopped by.

She asked me, "Did you hear about the World Trade Center?"

I hadn't.

But for some reason, just hearing the name of the place immediately made me think of the 1993 WTC bombing, so I asked, "They didn't bomb it again, did they?"

She said, "Yeah," and then followed up by pointing out that we really weren't sure yet, but that a plane had hit one of the buildings. It could only be an accident.

Of course, a few minutes later the idea of it being an accident was no longer a reasonable thing to think, as we received word that a second plane had hit. We were under attack.

I tried to log onto a website to get the details, but it seemed every server was clogged with traffic. I e-mailed a friend working elsewhere on the base, asking if he had heard anything. All he wrote back was, "Yes, get to a TV or radio." It was then that I remembered to turn on the radio on my desk. Sure enough, the local station was broadcasting ABC's coverage of the event.

About this time, I was called into my Division Chief's office for a previously-scheduled meeting to make plans for the upcoming meetings with the Saudis. He is big on continuing on as normal, holding the panic until we know more information. Fair enough.

But we weren't in his office for long when another member of the team stuck her head in his door to tell us, "The Pentagon's been hit."

Meeting paused.

We had a guy from our Division in Arlington on business that day. He wasn't scheduled to be in the Pentagon, but his proximity to it got our team leader on the phone quickly, trying to make contact. No luck, the phone lines are either clogged or down. His wife called the office to see what we knew. A few minutes later, our man in Arlington was actually able to get a call through to us, much to everyone's relief.

It was about this time that another employee of the contractor I work for came down the hall announcing that one of the Company Vice-Presidents had directed that all employees leave the base as quickly as possible. Naturally, no one was being allowed on the base at this time, and we wondered if we would be able to get off the base. Fortunately, there was no trouble in that regard.

After leaving the base, I went immediately to the company's building in the city. Every television to be found in the building was turned on, and everyone's attention was on the same thing. I went to the office of a worker that I had shared an office with a few years earlier to watch events unfold.

I hadn't been there long when it happened.

First one, then the other tower collapsed into the city in a massive cloud of dust. Everyone present realized that we had just seen a lot of people die, a few hundred miles to our north. After a few minutes, someone quietly said, "It's gone!" Walking the halls, I could detect a combination of high levels of despair and anger over what had been done to us.

Yes, us. Everyone there realized that the attack was designed to kill a portion of us, but to hurt all of us. And it had.

Being a company whose primary customer is the U.S. military, and that is staffed by a large percentage of former, as well as active, military personnel (guards and reserves), we all knew that our business just became a larger part of American life, and that, sleeping or not, the American nation was a giant that was being readied to inflict vengeance for the blood of her children.

When I finally got home that evening, I received calls from friends who wanted to compare notes, as well as one from a friend who lives alone and wanted some company that night. "Come on over," I told him. And he, and I, and my wife watched the ongoing coverage together, including President Bush's address to the nation. In office less than eight months, his presidency was now destined, for better or worse, to be one of the most consequential in history.

President Bush's comments confirmed what everyone already knew - we were now at war, and would be for many years, due to the nature of the enemy we would have to fight. That war continues to this day, and the blood of Americans is still being shed, but now the battle is being fought on our terms. Specifically, it is being fought on the turf of the bad guys, and not on our turf. Young men and women are still stepping up to serve in our all-volunteer military, making their service even more recognizable as the honorable sacrifice that it has always been.

In the days following the attacks of 2001, this nation decided that we should no longer have to live with terrorism as an every day fact of life. No civilized person likes going to war, with all that war involves, but a reasonable person realizes that war is sometimes thrust upon a people. To borrow from Abraham Lincoln, there were those who were ready to go to war to impose their tyranny, and there were those who were ready to accept war rather than let that tyranny succeed. And the war came.

How long will the war go on? No one knows, just as no one knew on December 8, 1941 how long that war would last. I have no doubt that many were frustrated when that war dragged on past the roughly two-years that comprised our involvement in the First World War. But however long we had had to make the sacrifices in previous conflicts, it was recognized that we had to stay in that fight until it was won. One hopes that the powers that be will have that same commitment to the present struggle for life and freedom - that it will last as long as it takes to win.

And lest we lose sight of what's at stake, it is good for us to remember - vividly - what we saw on that day. We saw the best of humanity in the actions of Americans trying to help one another, and the worst of humanity in the actions of our enemies who took pleasure in taking the lives of innocent civilians and then danced in the streets of far away lands in celebration.

Remember New York.

Talk About Insecure

2006-09-08T10:00:00.000-07:00

In a perfect world, the American public would be as outraged by a recent letter drafted by Senate Democrat leaders as those leaders are by the upcoming ABC miniseries that prompted the letter.

The letter – signed by Democrat Senators Harry Reid (the Minority Leader), Richard Durbin, Debbie Stabenow, Charles Schumer, and Byron Dorgan – is written in response to ABC’s production of “The Path to 9/11” – a miniseries that portrays the Clinton Administration as failing to do all in its power to combat terrorism and, possibly, prevent the worst terrorist attack on American soil – which took place a scant eight months after Mr. Clinton left office.

It’s really not so stunning, or even disturbing, that Democrats and other supporters of President Clinton are upset over the verdict on his administration that the film reaches. I would expect them to get upset over anything, be it factual or fictitious, that would call into question their competency or judgment. Most all of us would get upset as well in that position. But what is disturbing, and what distinguishes the liberals’ response to this movie from conservatives’ response to any number of commentaries by Bill Moyers, or inaccurate reports from Dan Rather, is the tactics used by the Democrats to try to intimidate a major media outlet into changing its programming.

Following Mr. Clinton’s angry response and contact with the Disney Company’s Robert Iger, the above-mentioned senators sent a letter dated September 7 to Mr. Iger urging him to “uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program.” (Emphasis mine)

With all the issues that U.S. Senators could be dealing with right now, that the leaders of one of the major parties would take the time to draft such a letter at all lends ironic weight to an idea implied by the film that Democrat national leaders, such as Mr. Clinton are too distracted with trivial matters to deal effectively with major concerns. I’m guessing that President Bush and Senator Bill Frist never drafted a letter to Messrs. Moyers or Rather because they recognized how such an act would belittle men in their position - unlike Mr. Reid and company, who obviously worry excessively how they are viewed by their glamorous friends in Hollywood.

But what’s truly insidious about the letter sent to Mr. Iger may be the idea conveyed by the following excerpt:

“The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.”

Make no mistake about it. This paragraph, contained in a letter written by leaders of a party that aspires to control the U.S. government, is a thinly-veiled threat against the ability of a major media outlet to continue to receive broadcast license renewals. And it smacks of the type of good old-fashioned censorship that people like this are so fond of – incorrectly – accusing conservatives all the time.

I seriously doubt that ABC will cancel the show. As to whether the network will, as Mr. Clinton has demanded, edit the film to change the perception of him it creates, I suppose I will never know (as I haven’t seen the unedited version).

But one thing I do know. Episodes like this only further confirm the fears of many – be they real or simply perceived – that the problem with the Democrat party at the national level goes beyond mere incompetence to oppressiveness. It has been a long-standing tactic of the lunatic fringe left to do all they can to silence opposing voices (remember the pot-clanging rally outside the Capitol during the State of the Union?). As this movement is now the single most powerful faction among the Democrats, it should not be surprising that the tactic becomes standard use. Should the Democrats ever gain total control over the government again while this faction is ascendant, the consequences for American Constitutional freedoms could be severe.

He's One Of Us?

2006-08-31T09:30:00.000-07:00

Long-time readers of this space, if there are any, may recall a piece I did last year regarding Senator Joe Biden’s (D-DC) lust for the White House. In that particular post, I focused primarily on the difficulty someone from either party faces in running as a sitting United States Senator, especially one that has been in the Senate for over three decades.

One other thing I might have added is that he just isn’t likeable enough to be President.

It’s one thing to be able to charm those with whom you come into personal contact, it’s quite another to be able to do it with the millions of voters who will only know you from what you see on TV or read about. And Joe Biden, whether he’s simply extremely self-confident or just plain arrogant and condescending, won’t be able to clear that obstacle.

Case in point, in his recent appearance on “Fox News Sunday,” the senator who is allegedly from Delaware was asked about his chances of winning Democrat primaries in the South, even as several Southern politicos will be in the same elections.

“Better than anybody else,” he replied, going on to declare, “You don’t know my state. My state was a slave state. My state is a border state. My state has the eighth-largest black population in the country. My state is anything from a Northeast liberal state.”

There you go. Biden will win in the south because he will be able to convince Southern voters that he isn’t from a Northeast liberal state like, say, Michael Dukakis. And he’ll do this by reminding them that, “Hey! We had slaves in Delaware, too! And we even had Confederate sympathizers!” Then we can sit back and watch all the good ol’ boys flock to his banner.

The interesting thing about Mr. Biden’s comments is that they reflect a mindset that clearly betrays him as a Northeast liberal who knows little about, and demonstrates little desire to learn about, a region of the country that holds 153 electoral votes, of which his party has managed to win zero in the past two presidential elections – including one in which they ran an alleged Southerner. It is a mindset that is rooted in a view of the south that was forged in the aftermath of a war which, one should remember, ended 141 years ago. Nevertheless, leading Democrat lights can’t seem to accept the fact that very few Southerners really reflect the hillbilly/hayseed image in which the coastal crowds love to believe. At least, no more than people from any other part of the country.

That being said, why should NASA Engineers, Corporate Executives, and the millions of other professionals who make up a portion of people who vote in the South that is certainly equal to the same types in other regions be persuaded to support a man for the nation’s most powerful office who holds such a condescending view toward them? If he doesn’t care enough to learn who they are, why should they believe they would have equal standing before an administration that he would lead?

This all calls to mind the ludicrous 1988 rally in Georgia, which retired Democrat Senator Zell Miller – rightly – ridiculed in his book, A National Party No More, for which the Dukakis campaign decorated the stage with hay bales and corn stalks, making the place look like, in Senator Miller’s words, a Hee Haw set. It was important that they make the good folks of Georgia as comfortable with their surroundings as possible despite all those intimidating electrical lights at the site, you know.

The attitude toward the South that drove the Dukakis campaign in the South is the same that is driving remarks like those made by Joe Biden about the South. And, given the electoral weight of the region, it may be the single biggest obstacle Democrat leaders will have to overcome in the next two years if they hope to return one of their own to the presidency. We can laugh at Jeff Foxworthy's jokes because we know that he, a former engineer himself, knows better. When are the Democrats going to prove to us that they know better?

Encouraging Words Out Of Iraq

2006-08-29T11:48:00.000-07:00

To borrow a statement Ronald Reagan made about a different war, I suspect things are going better over there than what we are being told.

According to a story in the Washington Times, the U.S. military announced that “an Iraqi ground-forces command will activate in early September, giving the U.S.-backed government direct control over army, police, and border units throughout the country.”

With that, we have yet another development that indicates that progress is indeed being made in Iraq, and further hope that the Iraqi government will be able to stand on its own in the not-too-distant future.

Obviously, from thousands of miles away, I’m no expert on what’s going on on the ground in Iraq. And the possibility always exists, in all lands, that things could take a turn for the worse tomorrow. But for some time now, I’ve wondered if the day will come when the U.S. and Iraqi governments will issue a joint statement saying that the Americans have finished their part of the job and the Iraqis will “take it from here,” catching folks in America totally off guard, because they’ve been told nothing but how badly things are going over there.

Sobering

2006-08-24T08:12:00.000-07:00

Thomas Sowell has a good, and sobering, piece on the crisis Western Civilization currently faces.

As I said in my recent piece on this subject, I know there are those of you who disagree with me that we are in a fight for our survival. But, with all due respect, you are wrong. After all, if we face an enemy who has actually issued a declaration of war against us, carried out a massive attack against us on our own soil, and attempted to carry out several more, and you still deny that we are in a war for survival, what would it take for you to acknowledge that this is our situation?

August 24

2006-08-24T06:42:00.000-07:00

Now is as good a time as any to offer my condolences to Rob Huddleston over at VOLuntarily Conservative. I recently read his post regarding the events surrounding his thirtieth birthday, an event which, he stated, marked the end of his youth.

Let me just say that today marks my thirty-ninth birthday, and I remain just as youthful (immature) as ever. I hope Rob will eventually come to realize that one's age is nothing but a number, that has nothing to do with who you are.

Well, at least until you turn forty, like the guy on the right in the picture below. :)

The Living Constitution's Double Standard

2006-08-23T13:39:00.000-07:00

Go here for a great column by Jonah Goldberg on the recent ruling issued by Judge Anna Diggs Taylor. He makes a good point by demonstrating the left's hypocrisy with regard to constitutional flexibility.

Everything I read about this ruling indicates that, even among those who agree with the outcome of the case, the reasoning Judge Taylor used to arrive at it was horrendous. Of course, the Bush Administration is appealing the ruling and, with any luck, the adults will once again step in and make things right in this case.

Now And Then

2006-08-23T08:36:00.000-07:00

I notice that Harper’s Index is reporting that only 30 percent of Republicans say they are excited about voting in this year’s fall elections, as opposed to 46 percent of Democrats. What makes this especially interesting is that the numbers are compared with 1994, when the numbers were almost perfectly reversed (45 percent of Republicans versus 30 percent of Democrats).

Of course, the significance of that comparison is that 1994 was a great sea-change year for the Congress, when a pickup of – if I remember correctly – 52 seats in the House of Representatives gave Republicans control of that body for the first time in forty years, as well as control of the Senate.

The implication of the comparison – and it is one that I agree cannot be dismissed out of hand – is that the stage is being set for another reversal of control on Capitol Hill. Certainly, it is an especially believable possibility when one considers that the Democrats don’t need to pick up nearly as many seats this year to regain control of either – or both – of the chambers – 15 seats in the House and 6 seats in the Senate. But, having acknowledged that fact, I can’t help but take note of some differences between now and then.

In 1994, the country had experienced nearly two years of a government that featured Democrats in control of both political branches for the first time in twelve years. And it was that first two years of the Clinton administration in which the nation got a good glimpse of the types of policies that the Democrats wanted to pursue for the country – most notably the Hillarycare fiasco as well as history’s largest tax increase. And at the first opportunity – 1994 – the country repudiated them. In other words, the country turned away from the Democrats when the Democrats did what they said they would do.

The way we got to this point in 2006, however, is not a perfect match. As we approach the November elections, we have now experienced nearly six years with the Republicans controlling both political branches of government for the first time in decades. Early on in this “cycle,” the nation saw some significant strides made in advancing the conservative agenda – most notably the Bush tax cuts that have resulted in the recent economic growth of the country, as well as the aggressive pursuit of terrorist entities in Afghanistan who were responsible for the murder of thousands of American lives on 9/11. At the first, and second, opportunities to make their voices heard on the GOP control of government, the country reaffirmed its acceptance, even while acknowledging that not as much progress had been made in other areas as hoped for.

As 2006 approaches, rank and file Republicans are coming to realize that their partisan compatriots in Washington have, to a great degree, decided to abandon conservative principles – that core Republicans believe would reduce the size of government, and thus its intrusion into the day to day workings of American life, while pursuing the country’s enemies as aggressively as possible – in favor of policies designed to protect their incumbency and retain their hold on power.

Consequently, while in 1994 Democrats lacked excitement as the result of their party’s leaders, in control of the government, doing what they said they would do – with disastrous results – in 2006 Republicans lack excitement because their party’s leaders, in control of the government, are not doing what they said they would do, and what the people elected them to do.

In both cases, the excitement of the party out of power has to do with the opportunity they see in the dissatisfaction with the party in power. The difference, from my perspective as a conservative, is why the party in power is not excited. In 1994, liberals had their opportunity to try their approach to governing, they exercised it, and the results were not what they hoped. In 2006, Republicans have had their opportunity, and have not exercised it, and many of their supporters are wondering, then, why they need to expend time, money and emotion on supporting candidates in the first place.

Granted, regardless of the differences between the two elections, the results could be the same – a change in the balance of power in Washington. But Republican leaders might do well to consider these differences if, on November 8, they are trying to figure out where they went wrong.

One Percent

2006-08-11T05:55:00.000-07:00

Here is an interesting read by Rich Lowry of National Review.

Venting Over The Latest

2006-08-10T09:22:00.000-07:00

What is the difference between September 11, 2001 and August 10, 2006?

It may well be that the only major difference between those two dates is that today the good guys caught the bad guys before they were able to complete their mission.

Granted, I have not seen anything yet that indicates that today was to be the actual day that the plot to destroy commercial aircraft in mid-flight and commit mass murder – just uncovered and thwarted by a joint MI5 and CIA operation – was to be carried out. But the action taken by British authorities does indicate that the threat was “imminent,” which suggests it was caught shortly before being carried out.

I still continue to be amazed at the fact that there are those out there who refuse to accept the fact that we are in a state of war. Never mind the fact that the administration has made the decision to fight the war with as little disruption to the lives of citizens as possible, thus enabling them to feel comfortable despite the danger. All one has to do is look at the news.

And I don’t mean the news out of Iraq, either. The debate will continue to rage over whether we ought to be there at all, and over whether, being there, the war is being managed as effectively as it could be. Leave all that aside. One need not look to Baghdad and Fallujah to see that war exists throughout the world, regardless of what is going on in Saddam’s old stomping grounds.

As to whether a full-fledged war on the west by Muslim fanatics has been going on for decades is a point for another discussion as well. But certainly since 9/11, with follow-up attacks in Bali, Madrid, and London, as well as plots that were caught before they were carried out leaves no doubt that a war – for survival – is what we’ve got, and have had for the past five years. And it’s time we started acting like it – something we haven’t done yet.

I remember hearing the historian Shelby Foote give his assessment of the hopelessness of the Confederate cause in the American Civil War. He summed it up by saying that the Union fought the war with one hand tied behind its back. Had the outcome come to be too much in doubt, the Union would have simply pulled out its other hand and finished the job.

Fighting with one hand behind our back is what we’ve been doing for the past five years. It’s one thing to treat regional conflicts or uprisings in this way. It’s quite another to do this when the issue is a global war, a World War, for the very survival of our way of life.

I understand that many in the U.S., and some of the dozen or so who read this, do not see it that way. But if you feel that way, with all due respect, you are wrong, if for no other reason than the fact that our enemies see it that way. Listen to the rhetoric and verbiage coming out of the heart of the movement that carries out these attacks. If these people were to achieve their goals, eradication of our way of life, and of us, is exactly what would take place. Besides, since when did having to live with terrorists killing our women, children, and aged become an accepted part of our way of life?

And I understand somewhat the desire on the part of President Bush to keep the disruption of American lives to a minimum. I’ve noted before how that, in earlier wars people were urged to donate their scrap metal and cut back on their use of energy, while in this war Americans have been urged to see a Broadway show. And were it possible to win the war decisively while still enabling the people to go about life as usual, that would certainly be the preferable route. But I fear more and more that such is not possible. Besides, a bomb going off in the heart of Chicago or Philadelphia would be a pretty significant disruption in the lives of citizens as well, don’t you think?

I am not one who believes we are losing the war. I am one who fears the war is settling into a stalemate, with neither side – as they are currently fighting – mustering the strength (or will) to deliver the final crushing blow to the other side. In such a scenario, more lives will be lost than if we were to go ahead and press the matter fully.

Most reasonable people have known for some time that this is a war that would take years to fight. And most reasonable people are okay with that, so long as we demonstrate a commitment to not allow the winning of it to drag out longer than is necessary, so as to prevent needless effusion of blood.

If we mean to have an America at the end of this conflict that resembles the America we had at the beginning, it’s time to take the advice of former U.S. Pacific Fleet Commander James Lyons and take “decisive, resolute action,” and unleash “our full military capabilities.”

The people we are fighting in this war have been produced by a culture that is different from our own. They will not get tired of the fighting, so long as they believe they can ultimately get what they want. They will not lay down their arms until they become convinced that they are soundly defeated. We in the west have the means to deliver such a blow. Postponing the delivering of that blow only means more innocent civilians, in many countries, will die needlessly.

I hate war. I hate the bloodshed. And, yes, I hate the disruption it causes to the normal routines of life. But my hatred of war is all the more reason to support action that will bring it to a conclusion as quickly as possible. Let’s get on with it.

I don’t know how many more successes the terrorists have to have before the west wakes up. I don’t know how many more children will be targeted and taken out by our barbarous enemies before we decide to fight on an all-encompassing scale that demonstrates that we really mean it when we say we want to remove the threat of terrorism as a means for certain cowardly sects to advance their “agenda.” If more such tragedies have to occur for us to get our anatomies in gear, so be it. But I, for one, would rather our government – which was established to protect our “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” – as well as others with the ability to make a difference go ahead and get the job done without waiting for another 9/11, 3/11, or 7/7.

This Is Where We Are

2006-08-08T12:03:00.000-07:00

The one thing attentive people in Tennessee know at this time is that their next Senator will be either Bob Corker or Harold Ford. If you’re a Democrat or a Republican, you know this to be true. If you’re happy with the nominee of your respective party, or not, you know this to be true.

It’s Bob or Harold.

It’s Harold or Bob.

And while I’m at it, I might as well note that, in all likelihood, the winner of this race will hold the senate seat for as long as he desires. I’ve heard the talk on the part of some conservatives about sitting this race out, letting Harold win, and running a “true” or “movement” conservative against him in 2012.

But let’s face facts.

Should Harold Ford win in 2006, whoever runs against him in 2012 will be running against an entrenched incumbent with tremendous financial resources. The Republican with the best chance of defeating Harold Ford in a Senate race for the foreseeable future is Bob Corker in 2006.

It’s Bob or Harold.

It’s Harold or Bob.

This is especially important for many Republicans in the state to keep in mind, as they are coming off of one of the most bitterly fought primary campaigns in memory. There are many nerves and feelings left raw, now that that particular battle has concluded. There are many disappointed activists, now that their candidate has been eliminated.

And that would have been the case, no matter who would have won. Things would be no different in that regard if Ed Bryant or Van Hilleary would have won. And if that were the case, the nominee in question would be desperately hoping that those who had opposed him in the primary campaign would find it in their heart to set aside previous differences in order to ensure that their party still holds the seat come next January.

Which is, of course, what Bob Corker hopes for now. As the front-runner in the closing weeks of the campaign, he was subject to the expected attacks from the other campaigns that hoped to find the chink in his armor that would make him vulnerable on election day. And as hard as it may be for members of those campaigns to change gears and support him in the general election campaign, this is what he needs to defeat Congressman Ford.

As Ed Bryant said consistently during his campaign, the Republicans underestimate Harold Ford, Jr. as a candidate at their own peril. He has the support of Hollywood. He has the support of the Democrats’ most effective fundraisers – the Clintons. He is an attractive young man. He is charismatic. He has the benefit of a powerful political machine operating out of Memphis to propel his candidacy across the state.

And he stands to become the next U.S. Senator from Tennessee, should Republicans fail to unite behind Bob Corker. Once entrenched in Bill Frist’s seat, we can reasonably expect Harold to set aside the conservative persona he will take on during the campaign so that he can satisfy the wishes of his most ardent benefactors – who happen to be located in Hollywood and New York. And if you want to know what type of representation they will expect from him, just look at who they have elected in their own states.

Having said all that, I suppose it comes as no surprise to hear me say that I will be supporting Bob Corker in the general election campaign, though I did not during the primary campaign – a fact that a position I hold made it improper for me to reveal prior to this time.

Certainly, I welcome any input from other conservatives who can provide me with evidence that Bob will prove to be another Lincoln Chafee, but it seems that those who would do so have their work cut out for themselves. The positions he has staked out in the primary campaign certainly place him closer to the “conservative” column than the “liberal” or even “moderate” one. Not that we are in complete agreement on everything, mind you. But, apparently unlike some, there are issues upon which I am willing to allow that reasonable people can come to different conclusions upon.

And, yes, as some have repeatedly pointed out, it may well be that he has arrived “late to the conservative party” on some issues. But I, for one, am willing to grant that a person whose position on an issue has changed from a previously more liberal one can be just as sincere in his current belief as someone who felt the same way all along. It matters less to me what a candidate said about any issue years ago than what he is saying now. Any conservative who disagrees with me on that must be willing to join the chorus of liberals who held Strom Thurmond to be a racist until the end of his days.

We are still much closer to primary election day – five days, at this writing – than we are to general election day – 91 days. There is time to let emotions cool and rationally evaluate where we are in Tennessee. But let me go ahead and add my voice to that of others who would urge my fellow conservatives to no longer fret over what might have been had other candidates – who are personal friends in many cases – won the primary, and start cultivating a good relationship with the candidate who just may prove to be a good friend as well, if we will let him.

One Quick One Before I Head Out For A Long Weekend

2006-07-19T09:08:00.000-07:00

The Los Angeles Times reported on Thursday that the Internal Service is planning to crack down on churches engaging in improper campaigning in the upcoming election season.

I've got no problem with upholding the prohibition on political activity for certain tax-exempt organizations, like churches - more for the sake of the churches than for the sake of the government, but that's the subject for a post when I've got more time to elaborate.

Of course, I need to offer a caveat: While I do not believe it is appropriate for churches to officially endorse a given candidate, or advocate for a particular vote on a referendum, that is not to say that they must keep their mouths shut on certain general issues that touch on items that are of valid interest to churches. For example, it may be inappropriate for a church to actively campaign against a pro-abortion candidate, but that does not preclude the church from making its position clear on a moral issue like abortion just because it happens to be an issue discussed on capitol hill.

But that's really not the main point I want to make out of the LA Times story. My question regarding the IRS crackdown on campaigning is this: Can we now hopefully expect the IRS to penalize those churches that invite candidates in to speak so that they can openly campaign for themselves from the pulpit?

Freedom of Government-Approved Speech

2006-07-14T11:05:00.000-07:00

I saw the AP story – maybe you did too – about Brittany McComb. She is the recently-graduated valedictorian of Foothill High School out in Las Vegas who had her microphone cut off while she was delivering her valedictory address on June 15, and is now suing the school officials believed to be held responsible for abridging her First Amendment Rights of Speech and Religion.

It seems that she wanted to include some comments about how she attributed her academic success to her Christian faith and how it could be helpful to others as well. Of course, as so often is the case today, she had to submit the text of her speech to school officials beforehand for it to be vetted. Edited out of the officially-approved text were those very comments just mentioned.

As the story reports, young Miss McComb simply memorized the deleted portions, and included them in her address anyway. Having already warned her about departing from the “approved script,” school officials cut off her microphone even as she spoke, in an attempt to silence those comments. Miss McComb, however, simply continued to talk, while the crowd chanted “Let her speak” and gave her a standing ovation.

Now, it’s not my purpose to get into the merits of the legal case here, nor to even discuss any legislation or policies that may have been implemented in recent years that pertain to an incident like this. I mainly just want to share an image that popped into my mind as I read this story. It was about the time I got to the part about Miss McComb’s being warned about straying from the “approved script,” having already read about the microphone being cut.

Being the nut for all forms and periods of history that I am, one of my most prized volumes at home is my copy of the American Heritage Picture History of World War 2. In that book is a picture taken of American General Jonathan Wainwright sitting before a radio microphone announcing the surrender of his forces to the Japanese early on in the war. He is reading from an "approved script," and sitting right next to him is a Japanese officer – who is ready to switch the microphone off should the general stray from that script.

I expect a totalitarian, imperialistic regime like Japan of the 1930s and 40s to engage in practices such as these. As time goes on, disturbingly, I find that I can expect my own government to do the same, because of incidents like this one in Las Vegas.

And let me be clear on an important point – I am not saying that government should cease engaging in censorship of only conservative thoughts. Both conservatives and liberals are free to speak their mind – keeping in mind that no one is under any obligation to listen to them. But it sure seems to me that incidents like the one cited in this AP story seem to disproportionately affect conservatives sharing thoughts concerning traditional conservative cultural values.

July 4, 1776

2006-07-04T06:37:00.000-07:00

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the Good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. – And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Causality? Or Mere Correlation?

2006-06-28T12:14:00.000-07:00

The Associated Press is reporting that a new study out of a Canadian University “adds weight to the idea that sexual orientation has a physical basis.” A professor at Michigan State University quoted in the story goes further, stating that the study “absolutely” confirms a physical basis/cause for homosexuality.

Granted, I have not read the study itself. All I have read is the Associated Press story about the study. But after having read that story, I was left with the inescapable impression that, either the AP writer failed to include all the findings that back up the bold conclusion regarding a physical basis for sexual orientation, or the logic used to arrive at that conclusion is extremely weak, at best.

According to the story, Anthony Bogaert of Brock University in Saint Catherines, Ontario studied a total of 944 persons, taking note of the number and gender of each man’s siblings, and whether the siblings were related by blood or adoption. What he found was that, as opposed to the stated overall rate of homosexuality in men of three percent, men with older biological brothers saw that rate jump to five percent.

Somehow, despite the fact that this still leaves ninety-five percent of the men with older brothers as heterosexual, the always-rational minds of academia – with no agenda-driven motivation, mind you – tell us that this proves that there is a physical prenatal cause.

Never mind the still much larger occurrence of heterosexuality in the group singled out. Never mind that the common factor between the homosexual men studied – older biological brothers – is only one of several that could be cited as possible causes. Never mind that no information is given as to what portion of the overall male homosexual population that this group comprises. There seems to be a basic misunderstanding here of the difference between correlation and causality.

It seems the study shows a correlation between older male biological siblings and homosexuality, albeit a very miniscule one. But even granting that, it falls a long way from establishing causality.

The past several Boston Marathons have been won by black men. There is a correlation there. But it does not prove that success at road racing is determined by skin color. But that is the conclusion that the logic in this story would lead one to.

People who know me know how I feel about homosexuality and, based on what anyone can read at other places on this site, it shouldn’t be too hard for them to surmise. But even if I were to grant that there may be a physical cause that affects a miniscule portion of the population in the way claimed – leaving aside the question of whether that alone would make such behavior justifiable – and that the evidence for it is out there somewhere, what is revealed in this story is most certainly not that piece of evidence.

As I noted, I have not read the study – and likely won’t. So I will happily acknowledge that perhaps there is some vital piece of data revealed in it that the AP story left out, and I’ll be happy to consider it, if anyone cares to provide it. In the meantime, I’ll echo the comment of Professor Digory Kirke – of Chronicles of Narnia fame – in asking what kind of logic are they teaching students in schools nowadays.

More Thorough Recap

2006-06-28T05:13:00.000-07:00

For a more thorough recap of the Lincoln County Reagan Day Dinner, as part of a larger post on the Senate race in general, go here.

You Might Not Like This, But . . .

2006-06-27T11:57:00.000-07:00

I know I’m probably going to get a lot of you mad at me for what I’m about to say, but it’s an issue that’s in the news, and I feel compelled to say it anyway. So let’s get on with it: I am not at all comfortable with the idea of amending the Constitution to allow Congress to ban “flag desecration” – whatever that means.

Of course, in practice, it refers to the desire on the part of many to allow the government to pass laws prohibiting the burning of the American flag as a means of protest or political expression.

Let me go ahead and say up front that I am offended as much as the next man when I see anyone burning an American flag as a means of “expression,” especially when the person in question is an American himself. And I agree with many that appealing to the First Amendment’s protection of Freedom of Speech is a very weak argument in the attempt to justify a means of “expression” that demonstrates such a lack of intellect and creativity on the part of those who choose to employ it.

“Expression” and “Speech” can be two very different things. As noted by the editors of National Review, initiating a brawl can be a means of expression, but no reasonable person would argue that such is protected by the First Amendment. “Freedom of Speech” is, in fact, an errant argument to use against the amendment. But it is not the only one that can be made. There is one that, I believe (failing anyone coming forward to – rationally – convince me otherwise), is rational and conservative.

The fact is that those who express concerns over the proposed amendment on First Amendment grounds are not reading far enough down in the Constitution – not surprising since, for many, the Constitution begins and ends with the First Amendment, but that’s the subject for another day.

The argument that I would make against this amendment – one that I haven’t yet heard anyone in the current iteration of this debate discuss – has more to do with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments than the First. These are amendments that make clear the recognition of the right of American citizens to own private property that, all things being equal, cannot be seized or appropriated by the American government.

Many of my friends and associates have heard me say this, but for those who haven’t, if I burn someone else's flag (which I would never do), prosecute me for theft/destruction of someone else's property.

If I take a flag from public property to burn (which I would never do), prosecute me for destruction of public property.

If I endanger lives by burning a flag (which I would never do), prosecute me for reckless endangerment, or whatever the proper charge.

But if I purchase a flag with my own money, take it to my home, and do whatever damage I want to it, including burning it, within the confines of existing law (which I would never do) I don't see how anyone could make a reasonable case against me. Unless we're willing to say that all U.S. Flags are considered public property. But if that’s the case, why doesn’t the government itself provide every citizen with a flag, rather than our having to lay out our private dollars to procure one? And if government can, with the stroke of a pen, establish control over one piece of property that I own, what’s to stop it from doing the same with any piece of property that I own?

Of course, on a separate level I understand that many see this issue as an opportunity to draw a line in the sand and make a stand against the overreaching of the judiciary that has become so rampant in recent years. But I would argue that the courts’ misinterpretation of the laws and their original intent is not necessarily a reflection of a flaw in the law itself as written, therefore there is not a need to rewrite it. The way to address this particular problem is for the people to elect presidents and senators who will ensure that nominees to the federal bench will not use their position to “establish” case law to satisfy some agenda that they personally feel is necessary.

Is the desecration of such a significant symbol of our nation’s glory a cause to be offended? To be sure. But there is no guarantee or right, constitutional or otherwise, against being offended. Frankly, there’s a lot more things going on in America that I wish more people were offended by. Our culture engages in ongoing attempts to assault/desecrate values and institutions that stand to do far more damage to the republic than the destruction of an individual banner. And the answer to this issue has more to do with persuasion than it does coercion to the detriment of basic American liberties. Yes, this is the slippery slope argument, but some slippery slopes really do pose dangers to those who ignore them.

Reagan Day Dinner

2006-06-26T13:39:00.000-07:00

Thursday, June 22 saw the Lincoln County Republican Party hosting its second Reagan Day Dinner and Silent Auction at the Lincoln County Museum in Fayetteville. Around 50 attended the event – not the largest gathering by any means, but not bad for a small county, that was competing with a gubernatorial campaign kickoff on the same night.

The evening started off with a buffet meal provided by Angie’s Catering, as the Silent Auction was conducted during the first hour. Once again, several local businesses and individuals made quality donations that provided a little extra revenue for the LCRP as the evening went on.

The Republican candidates in attendance to get a little face time in with area Republicans, even as they too availed themselves of the good food that was served. Those candidates who were able to attend – and who spoke later in the evening – included: Gwen Shelton (Candidate for Mayor of Fayetteville), Sarah Black (Candidate for State Republican Executive Committee), Ray Burns (Candidate for Tennessee House of Representatives – 39th District), Alan Pedigo (Candidate for U.S. House of Representatives – Tennessee’s 4th District), Senator Bill Ketron (Candidate for re-election in Tennessee’s 13th Senatorial District), Mark Albertini (Candidate for Governor), Ed Bryant (Candidate for U.S. Senate), and Van Hilleary (Candidate for U.S. Senate). Paul Fassbender was also in attendance on behalf of U.S. Senate Candidate Bob Corker.

At 8:00 P.M., the Silent Auction concluded, and, following a prayer on behalf of the troops currently serving in the War on Terror, introduction of the various speakers began. With the majority of the remainder of the evening reserved for the U.S. Senate candidates, each of the other candidates was given a couple of minutes to introduce themselves and make the case for the voters in attendance to support them.

As the evening neared its conclusion, Mr. Fassbender was given the opportunity to speak on behalf of Bob Corker, while Ed Bryant and Van Hilleary each made personal pleas for the attendees to support their primary campaign, while noting the major issues that they hope to be able to deal with in the next Congress.

Much like the previous year’s version, the Reagan Day Dinner was the source of great stress to the organizers beforehand, and a source of great satisfaction afterwards. Many thanks go out to Farris Beasley for arranging for the nice facility, Laura Mayer for her work in collecting donations of items for the Silent Auction, Duane and Sarah Black for their work in preparing the facility, and Tanya Harwell for her leadership in arranging and decorating the venue.

Busy Time

2006-06-21T05:49:00.000-07:00

Sorry for the lack of recent posts, but this is definitely my busiest time of year with regard to church, family, and party obligations. I'm currently finalizing the plans for tomorrow night's Lincoln County Reagan Day Dinner. Hopefully I'll be able to get back to some normalcy (a relative term, as far as I'm concerned) soon. In the meantime, you can have a look at my recap of the SMTRMC meeting here.

JLH

Here's An Idea

2006-06-07T09:09:00.000-07:00

I see from a story in Tuesday’s Washington Times that Democrats are trying to find a way to improve their image in, and thus their ability to get votes from, the military community.

Apparently a meeting of Democrat staffers was held in the basement of the Capitol Building in which this very topic was discussed. It is no secret that the military vote has favored Republicans for some time now and went overwhelmingly to President Bush in the most recent national election. It is understandable that Democrats would want to try to make inroads in this very important constituency.

But amongst all the discussion that took place in the Capitol’s basement earlier this week, I feel safe in saying that perhaps the most important underlying reason for their travails in this regard was not discussed. That is, the hatred and rage that so many Democrats, even among the leadership, feel toward Republicans generally, and George Bush specifically. I cannot recall a time in my life in which a party was driven by sheer rage to the extent that the Democrats are right now.

It’s in evidence when Democrat National Committee Chairman Howard Dean says he hates Republicans because he knows that’s what his audience wants to hear.

It’s clearly on display when Sean Penn blames George Bush for his return to smoking or when a lawyer in Virginia writes a piece for the Washington Post in which she blames the President for her decision to have an abortion.

It’s unmistakable when New York State Comptroller, and Democrat, Alan Hevesi praises a Democrat Senator for being the kind of guy who would put a bullet between President Bush’s eyes if he could get away with it.

For some time now, the only clear and consistent message that national Democrats have offered in order to try to sell themselves to the populace is that they hate George Bush – I’m just waiting for “I hate George Bush” to turn up as a candidate’s official campaign slogan – and their whole agenda revolves around defeating him at every turn, regardless of what that might mean for the country on a given issue. A defeat for the Republicans is viewed by Democrats as a victory for themselves, even if it is also a defeat for the nation as a whole.

Where the military is concerned during time of war, it means that Democrats stand in opposition to George Bush as the Commander-In-Chief of the military and hope that his policies and deployments of military forces fail. That translates to working to undermine the war effort, and literally hoping the body count of the good guys continues to rise because of hoped-for negative political results for the President and his party.

Think about it, how often in recent weeks have you heard the Democrat-friendly media report on the number of terrorists killed or captured by our guys? That would seem to be a logical thing to report, in order to give a balanced view of the war effort, and allow them to make logical, objective decisions regarding their support for it. The problem is that it would undermine the left’s efforts to undermine Republicans. Thus, the only time we hear about American troops actually doing the killing and capturing are the aberrations at Abu Grhaib and Haditha. To the Democrats, these are the norms and not the exceptions. The message coming from the left is fairly obvious, our guys, commanded by a Republican, mind you, are the bad guys, and thus they probably deserve the licks they’re taking anyway.

As surprising as it may be to many of the elite national Democrat leaders, who view the men and women in uniform, and their families, as ignorant hayseeds who had to turn to the military only because they couldn’t find a real job – like acting – these families can see these efforts to undermine Republicans at the expense of their loved ones for what they are. The left is not going to make serious inroads in the military community as long as the military community sees the left as being hostile to the well-being of their loved ones in harms way. And it’s difficult to see the left shedding that image as long as their whole agenda is driven by a hatred for their political opponents.

Good Stuff

2006-06-07T04:26:00.000-07:00

Allow me to point out, and endorse, the thoughts on the gay marriage debate shared by my buddy Lynn Sebourn. You can find them here.

JLH

Local Notes

2006-06-02T05:26:00.000-07:00

The Lincoln County Republican Party held its monthly meeting the evening of June 1 in the Auditorium of the Fayetteville Municipal Building. The featured speaker for the evening was Bill Ketron, Senator from Tennessee’s 13th district, who was accompanied by his daughter Kelsey.

Mr. Ketron began his remarks with a recap of legislative work that was recently wrapped up in the recently-concluded session of the General Assembly. Special note was taken of ethics legislation that came out of the special session, although the Senator noted that merely passing a new law will not necessarily change the behavior of someone who is unethical anyway. In that vein, he noted the ongoing trial of former State Senator Roscoe Dixon, as well as the status of other members of the General Assembly who were implicated in last year’s “Tennessee Waltz” FBI sting.

Regarding legislation in general, Senator Ketron noted that there were over 4,000 bills introduced in the General Assembly in the past session. He is thus looking into the possibility of introducing a bill that would cap the number of bills that can be introduced, currently researching similar legislation in other states.

Among the other legislative issues he took note of were the General Assembly’s dealing with the recent Kelo decision – regarding Eminent Domain – by the U.S. Supreme Court, Minimum wage legislation that Democrats failed to push through despite efforts to demagogue, and legislation dealing with public employees’ pensions. Additionally, Mr. Ketron would note how Democrats branded his English-only Driver’s Test bill as racist, and that more of the same can be expected as Tennessee considers toughening voter ID requirements in the near future.

The Senator also took note of the surplus budget that Tennessee’s government ran for the past fiscal year. He noted that projections for the next couple of years point to surpluses as well, and made the point that this should put to rest any talk of the need for a state income tax as the state is obviously not short on revenues. Part of this year’s surplus was used to put more money in Pre-K programs, Higher Education, and the state’s “Rainy Day” fund.

Regarding his re-election campaign, Mr. Ketron noted that he is one of three Republican Senators specifically targeted by the State Democrat Party, the others being Mae Beavers and Don McLeary – who switched parties to become a Republican in the wake of the Ophelia Ford scandal. State Democrats are going to fully fund Senator Ketron’s opponent, making his need for contributors and workers more acute.

When the floor was opened for questions, the Senator took note of the controversial election bill that was amended by the Democrats at the last minute and passed in the closing days of the session. Noting that he would vote differently if he had to do it over again, Mr. Ketron pointed out that outgoing House Democrat Leader Kim MacMillan introduced the controversial amendment to the bill – toughening the requirements for write-in candidates to get on the November ballot – as all legislators were trying to wrap up work before the session ended. This meant that legislators didn’t have time to study the bill in detail. Upon discussion of the bill with Assistant Floor Leader Diane Black, having been informed that the Democrats were going to kill one of his bills if the election bill didn’t pass, he voted for the bill. In hindsight, he now wishes he hadn’t, and is supporting the State Republican Party’s call for Governor Bredesen to veto the bill.

Stating that he looked forward to seeing the folks in Lincoln County again in three weeks – at the Lincoln County Reagan Day Dinner, the Senator concluded his remarks, and mingled with the crowd following the adjournment of the meeting.

2006-06-01T10:29:00.000-07:00

The Lincoln County Republican Party Announces its
2nd Annual

Reagan Day Dinner

Thursday, June 22, 2006
The Lincoln County Museum
Fayetteville, Tennessee
Featured Speakers:
Ed Bryant and Van Hilleary
Republican Candidates for U.S. Senate

Tickets - $30

Call (931)425-6943

For Now

2006-05-26T06:34:00.000-07:00

I don't have time at this moment to say all I want to say about the "Rewarding Illegal Aliens Act" passed by the Senate yesterday. However, I do note that several Senators who have either stated their aspirations to the presidency, or are at least known to be contemplating a run for the nation's highest office, were numbered among those who voted in favor of this abomination. I thought you might be interested in knowing who those presidential wannabes are, you know, in case it might help you determine who to support, or not to support:

Evan Bayh - Democrat - Indiana
Joseph Biden - Democrat - Delaware
Sam Brownback - Republican - Kansas
Hillary Clinton - Democrat - New York
Christopher Dodd - Democrat - Connecticut
Russ Feingold - Democrat - Wisconsin
Bill Frist - Republican - Tennessee
Lindsey Graham - Republican - South Carolina
John Kerry - Democrat - Massachusetts
Joseph Lieberman - Democrat - Connecticut
John McCain - Republican - Arizona

A Lot Of Catching Up To Do

2006-05-26T06:31:00.000-07:00

Been a very busy past couple of weeks. I hope to catch up with posting some thoughts over the long weekend. Things on my radar screen include the House's questionable assertion of the separation of powers in protesting the FBI's raid of one its members offices, as well as the travesty of an immigration bill passed yesterday. Keep checking in.

JLH

Armed Forces Day Recap

2006-05-26T06:30:00.000-07:00

If you're interested in reading about the Lincoln County Armed Forces Day Picnic, go here.

A Pleasant Problem? Maybe, But Still A Problem.

2006-05-23T12:22:00.000-07:00

News out of Nashville once again brings up the question of whose money it is that the government collects and disburses.

As reported in the Tennessean, as the June 30 end of the state’s fiscal year approaches, it is a virtual certainty that Tennessee’s government will see a budget surplus of at least 37 million dollars, although it could be as high as 88 million.

So can we set aside any further talk of a state income tax?

Of course, I’m hoping that, come next January, the Volunteer State will be swearing in a first-term governor and, as has been oft-cited, first-term governors never support a state income tax. Rather, they hold that idea in their pocket until they are safely elected a second time, knowing they won’t have to fear the voters again.

But regardless of who occupies the governor’s office next year, can we not see that the state is quite capable of collecting enough revenue to meet its obligations without the income tax? Well, most of us can.

Nevertheless, there are always those who see the state’s obligations as including things not on the budget that they desperately want to put on the budget as they constantly look for new ways to take money away from the people. And these always see surplus money as something to be spent, or at least held until something can be found to spend it on.

Granted, there is the possibility that some new legitimate budget item does exist that there has been insufficient revenue to cover prior to now, but fairness to the taxpayer demands that 2006 revenues be spent on items that were understood to be state’s obligations when the 2006 budget was formulated. It may be that the new, rosy revenue picture may enable forecasters to increase the amount of revenue the state can expect in coming years, allowing for new items, but some form of tax relief that the excess 2006 funds could make possible is only right – before any new items are added to the budget.

At present, both of the most visible candidates for Governor – incumbent Democrat Phil Bredesen and Republican State Senator Jim Bryson – favor placing the surplus revenue into the state’s “rainy day” fund. And while that is not as objectionable as immediately adding new programs to the budget, it still leaves unresolved the problem that surplus budgets always present: That the government has taken more money from the people who earned it than it needed to.

My personal preference is for at least a significant portion of the surplus revenue to be returned to the people. But at the very least, the state’s tax structure should be re-evaluated to determine how, in future years, the state can do a better job of taking as little money as possible out of the pockets of wage-earners while still meeting its legitimate obligations.

The process determining of the right tax-and-budget structure is one that never ends, as situations like this reveal that adjustments need to be made. The fact is that providing meaningful relief to the taxpayer will most likely only increase the state’s revenues further. But at least that approach will allow those who want new programs to push for them in an environment of increasing individual prosperity.

Where Have I Been?

2006-05-16T12:45:00.000-07:00

Chattanooga, actually.

The Lovely and Gracious Tanya and Myself were in the historic city last week, enjoying our first vacation with our little bloglings - Levi and Aaron. Maybe I'll share some pictures soon.

Thanks for your patience.

JLH

By Any Other Name

2006-05-16T12:42:00.000-07:00

Today, I am inclined to once again turn your attention to a story that is told about Abraham Lincoln during his administration’s struggles with how to deal with the issue of slavery.

As the discussions among his cabinet proceeded over whether or not blacks should be afforded the same rights and privileges that the nation’s founding documents declared to be the God-given birthright of all men, President Lincoln posed the question, “How many legs does a sheep have?” Of course, all agreed that a sheep has four legs.

Mr. Lincoln then asked, “Suppose we call its tail a leg, how many legs does it have then?” When someone answered “Five,” Mr. Lincoln corrected him: “No, he still only has four legs, calling his tail a leg doesn’t change what it is.”

Folks who have talked politics with me very much know how I like to use that story to make a point about abortion and the nature of the unborn child. But there is also a broader message in this story about the unchanging nature of what anything is, no matter what we might choose to call it.

“Amnesty” is a term that leaders in Washington have been going out of their way to distance themselves from in the debate over what to do about the millions of illegal immigrants currently in the United States. But before we go any further, we should note why that is. It is not because the government doesn’t have the authority to grant amnesty to whomever it pleases. It most definitely does have that authority.

Rather, the reason so many elected officials want to avoid using that term to describe any “immigration reform” bill that comes out of Congress is the simple fact that the notion of amnesty is hugely unpopular with the American people. There are laws currently on the books regarding the crime of entering this nation illegally, and what is to be done with those who have done so. Americans expect those laws to be enforced – at least as well as the nation’s tax laws, or laws against driving a car too fast are enforced.

The Washingtonian crowd, on the other hand, has something different in mind. Various national leaders, including the President, are advocating variations on legislation to “reform” the nation’s immigration laws – in what, by the way, to these eyes, looks very much like an ex post facto kind of way. But what they all feature is some kind of provision by which those who are already here illegally will not face the penalties required by the law as it currently stands.

Granted, they will have to pay fines and meet certain other new requirements to stay in the country, but they will not be subject to the punishments prescribed in the law as it was written at the time they violated it – and as it is currently written. And it is true, that may not be a “blanket pardon” releasing them from any obligations to face any music because of their illegal activity. But does that mean it is not some form of amnesty?

President Bush certainly thinks so, at least based on what he says. In his address to the nation last night, the President said, “Some in this country argue that the solution is to deport every illegal immigrant and that any proposal short of that amounts to amnesty.” Of course, his position is that any position short of that cannot be considered amnesty.

But if he, as well as other Washington leaders, is advocating changing the rules so that a large group of people don’t have to play by the rules that were in place at the time they made the choice to cross our border in violation of our laws, by definition it must be regarded as a form of amnesty.

And, again, it’s not that the authority doesn’t exist for our government to grant it, it’s that the (voting) public is unambiguously opposed to it. So the assumption in Washington is that this “reform” must be called something other than what it is in order to try to convince the public that there is no disconnect between the voters and their elected leaders. Of course, there is another way to convince the public of this – actually listen to what the public is saying.

And it wouldn’t hurt to cast a passing glance at the Constitution as well. For the question of the popularity of amnesty is a purely political one. But the question of passing an ex post facto law is a constitutional one. One that I haven’t heard discussed much in the debate over this issue. (Side Note: This makes me wonder if the only way to allow the current illegal immigrants to remain is to grant amnesty, based on the Constitution’s ex post facto provision. But that’s a subject for a separate post. And I would welcome other thoughts on that matter.)

But apart from the constitutional questions that can be raised, it is distressing to see that so many, both Democrats and Republicans, are willing to blind themselves to the facts, and hope that they can blind us at the same time. It may be that many of them may be forced to face a harsh reality come November – the reality that Americans prefer that their leaders deal openly and honestly with them.

We Can Handle The Truth

2006-05-03T11:52:00.000-07:00

Prices for everything in an expanding economy are going to go up. That’s just an indisputable economic fact of life as prosperity increases. This effect is only going to be multiplied if demand for a particular item increases at a never-before-seen rate. If we add to this mix the factor that supply is hindered by unreasonable restrictions on the production of the commodity in question, then no one should be surprised if the price for that commodity starts climbing faster than what many expect.

In view of what I have just noted, it’s really remarkable that gasoline is as inexpensive as it is right now. The reality of the twenty-first century is that there are a lot more consumers of petroleum than there were twenty five years ago – most notably in China and India, whose populations dwarf our own. These nations are now demanding this same resource that we have taken for granted for so long at a much higher rate than ever seen before. The law of supply and demand says that in such a situation, where supply is not expanding to keep up with the new demand, prices are to be expected to increase. And we can just go ahead and set aside the notion that demand is going to somehow decrease in the future.

So why not increase the supply? Well, where foreign sources of oil are concerned, we have little control what the governments of oil-producing countries (most of which are dictatorial) do with the resources in their control. And where domestic sources are concerned, there is little to indicate that the people with the ability to open up production yet feel any motivation to do so.

And I’m not talking about the oil companies here. The fact is that oil companies would love to be able to engage in more domestic oil exploration. Oil executives are businessmen, and it would be illogical for a good businessman to not want to exploit new sources of a product that is in such high demand. But they do not have the ability to ease the restrictions that hinder domestic production.

No, those with the ability to change the status quo in this regard are the lawmakers in Washington, enough of whom are beholden to the anti-capitalist environmental lobby that screams bloody murder at any hint that we might need to explore for oil, drill for oil, or even increase refinery capacity within the United States.

And heaven forbid that these politicos should actually consider giving up the revenue they make off of the sale of gasoline in anything more than a token move. The next time you hear any lawmaker, Democrat or Republican, talk about oil companies gouging the consumer at the gas pump, remember that the government’s take off of a gallon dwarfs the take of the oil companies, and then consider where the real gouging is taking place.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist says, “We’ve got to help those who are feeling pain . . . as quickly as possible” (For a good conservative like myself, this calls to mind Ronald Reagan’s comment about the most feared words in the English language). But the best thing that government can do in this situation is get out of the way – as in easing the restrictions and requirements on production that make it virtually impossible to solve the “problem” of gas prices in the current circumstances.

Instead, what is being offered by the Senate Leadership, on both sides of the aisle are what has been accurately described by House Majority Leader John Boehner as “insulting” measures. Republicans briefly floated the idea of a $100 “Gas Rebate,” as though buying Americans what amounts to two tanks, or less, would convince the public that government is doing all it can.

For their part, Democrats, while predictably criticizing Republicans for doing the bidding of oil executives, have offered up their own version of insult: Eliminating the federal tax on gasoline – for sixty days. You see, as opposed to the Republicans offer to make things better for two weeks, the Democrats offer to make things better for two months.

Both these moves beg the question: What on earth are the long term benefits/solutions to this present distress that these proposals hold out? The answer, of course, is that there aren’t any long term benefits/solutions. Both these are merely cosmetic moves intended to pacify the wrath of the slow-witted American consumer/voter (think “I feel your pain”) while requiring Uncle Sam to make no real sacrifices of his own cash cow. But the average American who takes the time to rationally think through the origin, and solution, to this “problem” can see that all the politicians are offering is a snow job (with apologies to the new White House Press Secretary).

Just once I wish the suits in Washington would appeal to our intelligence rather than our fears and ignorance. If they would be true leaders and statesmen, set aside the obfuscations driven by political motives and explain/admit to the American people what the problem really is – as gas prices are merely the most visible symptom of the real problem. Then take real action to provide real solutions: Open up domestic exploration and production, bring more refineries online, ease the financial burden placed on gasoline through federal taxes, and, yes, look for other ways – including alternative fuels and vehicles – to reduce the impact that the actions of people in other nations have on our need for energy sources.

None of these things will bring the cost of operating a car, or heating a house, down next week. But it’s time to stop looking at immediate political gain and look to real long-term answers to the needs of Americans. It’s time to stop acting like politicians, and start acting like statesmen.

No Pleasant Explanation

2006-05-02T09:03:00.000-07:00

In trying to grasp what is driving the actions of our national leadership with regard to the immigration issue, I have tried to fall back on a basic premise that I teach my political science students at the local community college. Unfortunately, this does little to offer a rational explanation. But it does illustrate a problem just as serious for freedom-loving Americans.

Beginning with the understanding that American government is accurately termed a republic, or representative democracy, rather than a direct democracy, I note that the people of the United States elect men and women to carry out the nation’s business for them. These elected officials, once in office, will act in one of two ways.

Some elected officials can be expected to see themselves as trustees for the people. That is, they view their elected position as one in which the people have entrusted them to use their own best judgment of what is right and what is wrong when working toward establishing public policy. Others may be expected to view themselves as delegates of the people. That is, their job is to keep their fingers on the pulse of their constituency and base their actions on what they perceive “the voice of the people” is saying.

Of course, it is doubtful that any elected official falls neatly into either of these two categories. Rather, one can expect a politico to give varying weights to the value of public opinion and personal judgment, depending on the specific issue being considered, or the circumstances surrounding it. But what is maddening about the response of our leaders in Washington is that it’s difficult to see how either of these classifications describe their actions in a way that would calm the nerves of many people like me.

The American people – and by that, I mean the actual citizens of the United States who live and work here lawfully, vote in elections, and who are supposed to enjoy all the rights and protections guaranteed by the United States Constitution – have not been ambiguous on how they feel about the problem of our government allowing people who demonstrate no regard for our laws to enter the country, impair our market-based economy, and even take to the streets demanding that no one dare question their “right” to be here in defiance of the law.

Over and over again, the people of the United States can be heard to declare the need to secure our borders – particularly the southern one – and enforce an orderly system of legal immigration. And over and over again, Washington – from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other – turns a deaf ear. So much for the “delegate” theory as a means to grasp what is going on in the halls of power.

This leaves the “trustee” possibility – that the leaders have taken it upon themselves to do what they feel is right, regardless of what their constituencies say. Of course, this begs the question of what it is that defines “right” for them.

Obviously, “right” on this issue is not determined by what the people of America want. And any serious student of history – both American and world – and human nature, who is concerned with preserving the nation and its government in a recognizable form for his or her children, would have to acknowledge that “right” is not determined by the long-term interests of the United States either.

The “right” that it seems our nation’s leaders have determined to pursue in this instance is what they feel is “right” politically. In other words, it is a decision that is based on what members of either party – with exceptions, of course – believe will provide short term benefits to them and their party in their attempt to obtain, or hold onto, power – through the “opening up” of a new constituency or the appeasement of financial contributors – regardless for what it means for the day-to-day lives of working Americans, or the long-term security of our way of life. If this is not the explanation, then I invite anyone to rationally explain to me what is the explanation.

Failing the receipt of such an explanation, I have to wonder what 21st Century Washington’s reaction to this issue has to say about the form of government we have taken pride in for so long. “Government of the people, by the people, for the people” – can we honestly say this is what we’re seeing demonstrated on this issue?

Irons In The Fire

2006-04-28T08:57:00.000-07:00

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?

2006-04-20T09:58:00.000-07:00

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

2006-04-19T11:36:00.000-07:00

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

2006-04-18T09:20:00.000-07:00

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

2006-04-13T11:52:00.000-07:00

“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?

2006-04-12T12:26:00.000-07:00

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

2006-04-07T06:38:00.000-07:00

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?

2006-04-06T12:48:00.000-07:00

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

2006-04-05T06:44:00.000-07:00

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?

Choose Your Battles - Carefully

2006-03-30T12:55:00.000-08:00

Sometimes it’s best to choose your battles carefully. There are some battles that really aren’t worth the stress of fighting, no matter how strong your case may be. And there are some battles that really aren’t winnable. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has chosen a battle that would best be left alone for both of these reasons.

As noted in the Tennessean earlier this week, Democrats have decided to respond to the National Republican Senatorial Committee’s Fancy Ford website – that shines the light on the Memphis Representative’s lavish lifestyle (To read my earlier piece on this, go here) – with a website of their own. Only their’s shines the light on the lifestyle lived by retiring Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, whose seat Ford hopes to occupy come next January.

Designed to look very much like the Fancy Ford website, Very Fancy Frist is obviously an attempt on the part of the minority party’s campaign leadership to “take the battle” to those nasty Republicans who had the temerity to reveal how “in touch” Mr. Ford could be expected to be with the average Tennessean, by virtue of his very “un-Tennessean-ish” lifestyle. Unfortunately for the Democrats, this site is at best a waste of their time, and at worst, a fight they can’t win.

While it is true that Bill Frist eats, sleeps, and travels in a manner more luxurious than most Americans, few would find this fact surprising in view of the fact that he is arguably one of the five most powerful elected officials in the nation. And the fact is that we all tend to live as well as we can, given our means – Who among us is going to stay in a one-star hotel when he can stay in a three-star?

It so happens that even before his 1994 election to the Senate, Bill Frist, by virtue of his training, skills, and entrepreneurial prowess could afford everything he now enjoys. The fact is that he took a major pay cut to become a senator. And Harold Ford can boast of no charitable endeavors to compare with Bill Frist’s frequent trips to Africa to provide medical care for people there at no charge – often flying the plane into the villages in question himself.

Besides, it’s unlikely that eating and traveling habits are what’s going to make the biggest impression on people who are trying to decide who can relate to them better. Such questions are more likely to be raised by the company one keeps and the way in which one relaxes. And interestingly enough, unlike Representative Ford, Senator Frist has no pedicures or parties with Playboy Playmates to “expose” (sorry). Trying to compare the lifestyle of a father of three who made his way in both the medical and corporate worlds with that of a swinging bachelor who has lived in a political bubble his whole life is simply a fight from which Democrats would be well-advised to stay away.

But even if this were an argument that was winnable for the pro-Ford forces, so what? Bill Frist isn’t going to be on the ballot in November. Facing off against Harold Ford in the general election will be one of three men who have demonstrated willingness to serve in the armed forces, prove themselves in the business world, and actually spend a significant portion of their time with their families (all are fathers) and the citizens of the state they desire to serve.

Of course, the only alternative to this silliness for the Ford advocates is to actually debate the respective positions of their candidate and his party against those of the Republicans in the race and convince the voters that his positions are best for Tennessee and the nation. But then, that’s a battle that wouldn’t be too pleasant for them either.

The Most Basic Underpinning

2006-03-28T12:30:00.000-08:00

When teaching government classes at the community college where I serve as an Adjunct Instructor, one of the first discussions I have with my students at the beginning of the semester has to do with the unique level of success that the United States has enjoyed with regard to its democratic form of government. Why is it that America’s government and society has enjoyed so much more stability over time than many other nations’ attempts at various forms of democratic self-rule?

The answer that is hashed out in the course of the discussion invariably comes down to the fact that Americans play by the rules – voluntarily. It is the difference between George H.W. Bush and Manuel Noriega when each lost a presidential election in his respective country. It is the difference between the citizen who doesn’t steal the loaf of bread by the shop door because it would be wrong, and the one who does steal it because he can.

It’s not that coercive enforcement of the laws is not a factor, mind you. Obviously there are many thousands of men and women across the nation who serve honorably in various vital law-enforcement roles. But the success and stability of American culture has been attributable in large part to the fact that regard for the laws by coercion has not been the primary means of enforcement of the rules. The primary means has been for citizens and inhabitants to enforce the rules upon themselves.

And this “self-policing” in which good citizens engage is borne of that most basic underpinning of American culture: a respect for the rule of law. In other words, a recognition that in America the law rules. Americans, by and large, can be expected to abide by the established laws – even those they find silly or inconvenient – because they respect the law for the law’s sake. They recognize the self-evident truth that compliance with only those laws one likes, while refusing to comply with the one he dislikes, demonstrates a disrespect for all the laws. That is the difference between complying with a law because it is the law, and complying with the law because it meets your approval. The former is conducive to the rule of law, in which all men are equal. The latter leads to the tyrannical rule of men in which the strong can impose their will upon the week.

This is what I think of when I read about the huge demonstrations taking place across the country in response to legislation being considered by Congress that would toughen the laws against illegal immigration. Who among the nation’s founders would have ever dreamed that so many people who acknowledge their willful violation of the nation’s laws would be emboldened enough to take to the streets and demand that their lack of respect for the law be not punished, but rather rewarded and praised?

Apart from any economic and national security (as pertains to the ongoing war on terror) arguments against the rather flippant attitude of our government toward the illegal immigration issue, I am concerned about the implications that the de facto institutional acceptance – illegals can receive many benefits distributed by the government – of certain criminal acts has for the future stability of the United States.

Perhaps the single most vital component of assimilating new arrivals into American culture is requiring a respect for the rule of law within America’s borders. But what message are we sending out in this regard when the first thing that eleven-million current inhabitants of the United States did in coming here was to break the law – and then get rewarded for being successful at it?

It’s not that I’m against immigrants coming to our nation. Frankly, I’m a big fan of those folks who come here in accordance with the law so that they can try to build a good life for themselves here. I sincerely root for their success and applaud them when they are successful. But, again, these are people who first demonstrated a respect for the laws of the land in which they wanted to live. Many of these people recognize, as do I, that the culture being cultivated by the current attitudes toward America’s immigration laws is one that will eventually, and ironically, lead to an America that is no longer attractive to people from other nations.

The Falling Man

2006-03-24T09:24:00.000-08:00

I am convinced that one of the reasons that support for the war has dropped off in recent weeks and months is that the American people no longer see the threat to their lives and way of life like they did on that dark day in September of 2001. The memory of that terrible day, and who caused it to happen, has faded for many, due in no small part to the fact that major news outlets have refused to show the horrific scenes we all saw in New York.

(Personally, when I got to my house that day, I immediately started recording what was coming out of my television. I haven't watched it much since then, as I have remained keenly aware that the danger hasn't lessened. But I like having it handy in case I ever start to feel "wobbly.")

With all this in mind, I want to offer my kudos to London's Mirror for giving readers the opportunity to be reminded of the horrible end met by one of the victims of that barbaric attack. Read the story here, and remember that those who killed him also want to kill me and you.

Regarding South Dakota

2006-03-24T09:14:00.000-08:00

Jonathan Last at the Weekly Standard has an interesting take on the recently-passed-and-signed abortion law in South Dakota. You can find it here.

Last's take on this is similar to mine. I recently told a friend that, if I was a member of the South Dakota legislature, I would have voted for this law once it was introduced, because it would be the right vote to cast. If I was the governor of South Dakota, I would have signed the law once it was passed, because it would be the right thing to do.

But I legitimately fear that the timing of all this is not the best, and the results of the court challenge could actually result in a setback for the Pro-Life movement as the possibility of another damaging precedent does exist. Remember, even with the recent additions to the court, there are only four reliable conservative votes out of nine.

But like all of my fellow-conservatives, I will hope for the best and continue to engage our opponents in the arena of ideas while we anticipate the inevitable public downfall of the Pro-Abortion movement's "logic."

Trent's Latest Trash Talk

2006-03-22T12:37:00.000-08:00

It appears that the much-vaunted “collegiality” of the members of the United States Senate extends only so far. As the Washingtonian Senator Trent Lott – who allegedly has some ties to Mississippi – continues to demonstrate, collegial behavior among members, even among party colleagues, is prone to fly out the window whenever a given member perceives a loss of personal prestige as the result of the actions of another member.

Trent Lott, as many recall, became the Senate’s majority leader in 1996, upon the retirement of Bob Dole as the latter ran for President. His position as the Senate’s most powerful member was one that he obviously relished until his downfall in 2002, following his regrettable choice of words at a birthday party for Strom Thurmond.

I have noted before that, while I believe that the particular incident that resulted in Trent Lott being replaced as Majority Leader was one that was blown way out of proportion, I have never once been sorry that he is no longer in that position. Frankly, even while he remained “in power” I believed him to have performed poorly as the Republican Leader and demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice the interest of the American people whenever it was necessary to protect himself and his fellow-members of the “World’s Most Exclusive Gentlemen’s Club.” Perhaps, then, it shouldn’t be surprising that he was the Leader in power who oversaw the transformation of a 55-45 Republican advantage in the Senate into a 50-50 stalemate.

Ever since his replacement as Majority Leader, Senator Lott has not been bashful about expressing his bitterness over losing his position. I fully believe that the brunt of much of his criticism would have been whoever replaced him. As it turns out, that person happens to be Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee.

Over the weekend, Senator Lott engaged in only his latest episode of “Frist-bashing” at a local gathering in Galveston County, Mississippi. Noting that, among Majority Leaders, he didn’t think Senator Frist would “go down in history as one of the greats, Mr. Lott went on to state that his replacement didn’t have the “political experience” necessary to lead the Senate.

Of course, what Senator Lott means when he refers to Senator Frist’s lack of political experience is the Tennesseean’s inability (Or is it his unwillingness?) to “play the game” of Inside-The-Beltway politics. This calls to mind a criticism that Lott voiced a couple of years ago of Senator Frist’s handling of the unconstitutional judicial filibusters conducted by the minority Senate Democrats. In questioning Frist’s insistence on holding firm to his demand for an up or down vote (as the Constitution calls for) of all of President Bush’s judicial nominees, Lott noted that, were he still in charge, he would have already “cut a deal” with the Democrats and moved on.

Translation: He would have sacrificed principle and several qualified nominees in order to maintain the lethargic peace in the Senate. For, you see, nothing upsets an entrenched Washingtonian Senator like Trent Lott more than having to actually roll up his sleeves work at an unpleasant task when he could be hosting contributors or attending high-brow cocktail parties. In his view, Bill Frist simply hasn’t been in Washington long enough to act like a good Washingtonian Senator.

Of course, to the average American who spends the vast majority of his life in the world that is outside, but very much affected by what goes on inside, the Beltway, a lack of the “Washington mentality” is exactly what makes a Senator like Bill Frist so appealing. And to avoid becoming a Washingtonian like Senator Lott seems to have always been Bill Frist’s intent, as he stated during his first senate run that he would not serve more than two terms, a pledge he is making good on with his retirement from the Senate this year.

I have long had little patience for those who disparage the “qualifications” of someone who meets the constitutional requirements for a given office, but who doesn’t have much experience at “working the system,” as Mr. Lott says about Mr. Frist. Frankly, it is these extra-constitutional “qualifications” that have been imposed that have resulted in the Federal government in becoming the bloated giant it has become. And, if truth be told, “outsiders” like Bill Frist – and, yes, George Bush – who haven’t been brainwashed into believing the Washington way is the only way, and are willing to “buck the system” or “think outside the box” are exactly what the highest levels of the nation’s government could use more of, as opposed to the ongoing antics of “Potomac-Two-Steppers” like Trent Lott.

Nuts And Bolts

2006-03-21T14:14:00.000-08:00

Just Let The Truth Get Out

Kudos to Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, who has issued a statement saying she will sign into law a bill that requires abortion providers to give pregnant women the option, again, the option, to see ultrasound images of their unborn children before performing an abortion.

This is significant, in no small part, because Governor Granholm is a Democrat with a record for opposing legislation that regulates abortion. Apparently, she felt she could sign this bill after language was removed that would have required pregnant women to see the ultrasound images. Of course, criticism is coming from the usual sources, who call the law a “further erosion of ‘women’s rights’.”

Right.

Who but left-wing liberals could see giving someone an option – again, not a requirement – to do something as an erosion of rights.

Of course, I suspect you can see as clearly as I do what their real concern is – that women who see what is actually in their womb, who see just what is being “chosen” when they exercise “freedom of choice,” will opt to actually – gasp! – have their children instead of killing them. Their baseless cries of “erosion of rights” only further demonstrates the uphill battle they face in arguing against facts.

Up To 9 Trillion

On a darker note, I see where President Bush has signed a bill raising the ceiling on the national debt to $8.965 trillion. The reason? It’s the only way the government can avoid defaulting on Treasury notes and pay for the war in Iraq “without raising taxes or cutting popular domestic programs.”

There are many loyal conservatives and supporters of President Bush, like myself, who view his willingness to sign off on unprecedented federal spending increases as one of his greatest, if not greatest, failures as President of the United States.

Why is it that “cutting popular domestic programs” or at least drastically slowing their rate of growth, is an option not worthy to be considered, by either the president or the congress? Why not prioritize spending on various items, paying for those that truly are required first, and then spending on others if any revenues are left over, without increasing the debt? That’s what you have to do with your own money, isn’t it?

Oh, yeah. The leaders in Washington aren’t spending their own money, are they?

(By the way, when you came to this site today, did you imagine in your wildest dreams I would have a post criticizing President Bush right on the heels of a post praising a Democrat governor?)

Naturally, She Supports Hillary For President

Maybe you’ve already heard about Erica Jong’s appearance on the Today Show yesterday.

Who is Erica Jong? Don’t feel bad if you don’t know. I didn’t either. Suffice to say that she’s an author, and member of the artsy Manhattan crowd that is smarter and more well-rounded than the rest of us hayseeds who are ignorant enough to vote for Republicans.

Anyway, after being asked by David Gregory about references she makes to fantasizing about Bill Clinton in her new book, she acknowledged that “my job is to release fantasy.” She went on to note how she had shared with her “shrink” her fantasies about the man from Harlem, to which her “shrink” replied, “Get in line.”

Why is this even noteworthy to me, a guy who has sworn off getting caught up in the culture that obsesses over celebrities and artsy types? Because of a subject she touches on shortly after relating her Bubba fantasy.

Noting that she is involved with fundraising for Hillary Clinton, she stated that, “I want her to be president. I think she’s a great woman.”

Regular readers of this space know that I have asked more than once what it is that makes Hillary qualified to be president. I have asked why she is even the best woman out there for the job. Now I may be understanding the support that many have for her a little bit better.

Here is a woman whose self-proclaimed “job” is to release fantasy and who apparently requires regular therapy to help her deal with the line between fantasy and reality. And she believes Hillary to be a great woman worthy of the presidency. Might it be that Ms. Jong is releasing a little bit more fantasy here?

I’ve said it before. Liberals and Conservatives may have many of the same ideals as to how the world should be. The difference is that Liberals want to actually deal with the world as though it really is the way they wish it was, while Conservatives deal with the world as it actually is. In that light, aided by Ms. Jong’s comments, I at least understand the support for Hillary a little bit better, though I’m still waiting for actual evidence that she is the best person, or even the best woman, for the job of President of the United States.

Let me just round this out by noting the company she keeps. Make no mistake about it, she’s a Democrat.

Couldn’t Get A Job?

Speaking of the artsy type, Richard Belzer, who I read is an actor on “Law and Order,” recently did the left proud with his take on the men and women who are serving us in the war on terror.

Appearing on Bill Maher’s show on HBO (Where else would a kook like this have a forum to talk about his political views?)

Now, I have no idea why a Republican would care to even step on the set of Bill Maher’s show, but Congresswoman Ileanna Ros-Lehtinen appeared on the show to defend the war and praise those currently fighting it. In a nutshell, aided by the show’s host, Mr. Belzer’s response to the Congresswoman’s comments was to criticize the troops for being uneducated (“They don’t ready twenty newspapers a day.” “Doesn’t mean he’s a brilliant scholar because he’s there.” “They’re not scholars, they’re not war experts.) dupes who are only in the army because they had no other choice (“They’re 19 and 20-year-old kids who couldn’t get a job.”).

It’s rare even for liberals to publicly demonstrate this much arrogance and contempt for the very citizens who preserve the freedoms they enjoy. It reminds me of the George Orwell quote: “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”

And to paraphrase Ronald Reagan: A liberal is someone who sees something work in the real world, and then wonders if it will work on paper. This explains how Mr. Belzer can sincerely believe that he knows about the war better than those fighting it.

Let me just round this out by noting the company he keeps. He’ll be voting Democrat.

There’s more items I’d like to write about. But my time for getting this out is growing short. I’ll just keep trying to work through the “stack of stuff” next time.

SMTRMC Banquet

2006-03-20T08:34:00.000-08:00

On Saturday night, the South Middle Tennessee Republican Men’s club hosted its First Annual Banquet at the Coffee County Convention Center. After some opening comments by Club President Jack Daniel, the floor was turned over to WTN Morning Talk Show Host Steve Gill, who introduced Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn as the evening’s keynote speaker.

In her remarks, Mrs. Blackburn offered her thanks to the grassroots operatives gathered for the banquet and then offered her assessment of the current election cycle, as well as the issues that will take center stage.

Noting that social issues are once again one of the Republican Party’s strong points among the general populace, the Representative from Brentwood emphasized in particular how important the issue of marriage and its definition will be for, really, the foreseeable future.

With regard to fiscal issues, Mrs. Blackburn noted what almost everyone in the audience would be inclined to agree with – that federal spending has gotten out of control and needs to be reined in. While in this vein, she also cited facts concerning economic policies that point inevitably that tax reductions work effectively to stimulate the American economy.

The talk then turned to National Security, as Mrs. Blackburn noted the progress that is being made in Iraq, as well as the fact that there is much work still to be done to make America more secure – both in Iraq and the United States. Referring to the ongoing threat that illegal immigration poses to the U.S., she affirmed that more needs to be done by the administration and the congress to deal with it and noted the work that is being done to address it in the national legislature.

From this point, Mrs. Blackburn transitioned to her concluding remarks, noting how all that she had spoken of pointed to the need for the good stewardship of American liberty, both against major onslaughts, as well as against subtle and incremental infringements.

As she wrapped up her comments, Representative Blackburn then turned the floor back over to Mr. Gill, as she took her leave of the gathering to attend another event later in the evening. Mr. Gill then took a few minutes to add his own thoughts about the upcoming elections and where the Republican Party stands eight months out. He then introduced all the candidates who were present, giving each an opportunity to make some brief comments to the assembly.

The final event of the evening was the announcement of the results of a straw poll that had been conducted by Dr. Lynn Sebourn during the serving of the meal earlier in the evening to gauge support for the candidates for Bill Frist’s U.S. Senate seat. Noting that voters from South Florida were disqualified from taking part, as well as voters with a funeral home address, Lynn announced Van Hilleary as the winner of the poll, with Ed Bryant in a close second, and Bob Corker in third. SMTRMC President Jack Daniel then took the floor once again to offer some closing comments and conclude the event.

Hats off to Jack and the organizing committee for the event for an outstanding first effort. The SMTRMC is still very much in the early stages of its development, and to conduct such a well-run and productive event is certainly a feather in the organization’s cap that should bode well for the future.

I Just Couldn't Let This Go

2006-03-16T12:54:00.000-08:00

I know, I know. You’ve heard me rant about the substitution of reporting polls for reporting actual facts more than once. And since I had written about the general subject fairly recently, I was inclined to let the recent CBS poll go. But the more I think – or stew – about it, the more I feel like something needs to be said.

The poll to which I refer is the one CBS touted on its Monday evening news show. Of course, the headline to this story was the fact that 66 percent of those polled believe President Bush has been describing things in Iraq as “better than they are.” As is the case with most of the polls now being reported as news stories by an ever-more lazy media, this poll is absolutely meaningless.

You see, in order to make an accurate assessment of the question of whether the president is describing things in Iraq as better than they actually are, a person needs to know two things: What President Bush is saying about Iraq, and what is actually going on in Iraq. The first is fairly easy to learn, the second is well-nigh impossible for the average citizen who, one would assume, was the focus of the poll.

There is only one way to know how things are in Iraq – to actually go to Iraq and see for oneself, or talk to someone who has been there. And the simple fact of the matter is that most Americans – including yours truly – have not had the opportunity to do either.

Once again, there was a question not included in the poll results, and probably not in the poll itself. That question is “Why do you feel this way?” I understand, of course, that this is an open-ended question which makes it unattractive to pollsters, but at the very least, it is a question that the viewer of this report should keep in the back of his mind has he ponders this poll.

The simple fact of the matter is that most Americans have developed their assessment of the situation in Iraq by what they have seen reported in the news media. And interestingly enough, there have been several members of the media who have actually acknowledged that the tragic stories coming out of Iraq make for “better news” than the stories about new schools being built or power grids coming on line. So it is not surprising that much more of the former is reported than the latter. Should it be surprising, then, that people will feel that the expression of an optimistic viewpoint – like that of the president – is at odds with what they “know” about the situation, given what they’ve been told? In their desire to push public opinion in favor of their agenda, the media has managed to assure the results of this poll before it was ever conducted.

This is just another way for the liberal media elite to push the fable that President Bush is an immoral leader who is willing to lie to the American people in order to get what he wants. And the twist that seems to give this idea greater credibility in this instance is that through clever manipulation they have managed to get the American people to say it for them.

Fancy Ford

2006-03-15T13:12:00.000-08:00

I’ve noted several times before that the charge of “racism” no longer resonates at all with me. Granted, at one time it would have, meaning that I would have recognized a person labeled as a “racist” as someone who thought of and treated people of a race different than his own with unfair disdain.

But the charge of racism has been stripped of its power to invoke shame on those so accused anymore, by virtue of its overuse, as well as its misuse. Nowadays, if a person of one race says anything remotely critical of a person of another race – for whatever reason – that person is subject to being charged with racism. In other words, the term has become a means for some to deal with – often legitimate – issues raised by another without having to exert the intellectual effort of actually engaging in rational debate.

I thought of that as I read about the reaction on the part of some, who support Harold Ford’s U.S. Senate bid, to the website about Congressman Ford recently unveiled by the National Republican Senatorial Committee. In a nutshell, the “Fancy Ford” website is designed to let the folks back in Tennessee know about the lifestyle of the would-be Senator, paid for by his campaign contributors.

Mind you, it is not alleging any illegalities on Mr. Ford’s part, as far as I know. It is simply trying to make the case that the young, single Mr. Ford’s extravagant lifestyle, as well as his relationship with big-spending contributors that makes the lifestyle possible, doesn’t provide the average Tennesseean with much confidence that Mr. Ford is in touch with his values and concerns. Is that a fair conclusion to draw? Maybe. Maybe not. But the NRSC has simply put facts out on public view so as to let the public decide for itself. The problem is that prominent Democrats often have a somewhat uncomfortable relationship with facts – but that’s a subject for another post.

The thing is, it also gives Mr. Ford and his supporters the chance to make a legitimate defense, if such can be done, of the facts that are revealed at the site. Instead, Ford supporters have blasted the site as a case of “character assassination” (Have you noticed how often this is the term used to describe Republicans’ citing of facts about Democrats and their records?) and a “racist attack site.”

Right, it’s only the fact that Mr. Ford is black that makes his lifestyle so foreign to most Tennesseeans. Everyone knows that Tennessee is known for the rich and lavish lifestyle that most of its white folks live. And, yes, I say that as a white Tennessee hillbilly myself.

If truth be told, Democrats are afraid that this site will actually have its desired effect, by virtue of the fact that they can’t dispute any of the facts on display there. Might this be evidence that the more the undecided voters learn about major Democrat candidates, the less electable those candidates become?

Of course, the Democrats could respond in kind, by putting up a similar site about the lifestyles of the Republican candidates for the Senate seat. But don’t hold your breath waiting for such a site about Ed Bryant, Bob Corker, and Van Hilleary. I know two of these men personally, and have met the third, and can attest that the lifestyles lived by these men – all of whom are devoted husbands and fathers – wouldn’t do much to discourage people from entrusting them with their representation in Washington. Kind of surprising, since they represent the party of the cold rich and powerful, as opposed to Mr. Ford’s “party of the working man,” huh?

Petty Politics In Time Of War

2006-03-14T08:50:00.000-08:00

It seems that Senator Russ Feingold has changed his position on the question of whether to go to war.

The Wisconsin Democrat has been a vocal opponent of the war in Iraq from the outset, but anyone who aspires to lead the nation’s military as Commander-In-Chief – as Senator Feingold does – needs to be able to demonstrate to the American people that he has the intestinal fortitude to take on the enemy when it becomes necessary. Thus he has done. Of course, in his case, the enemy is George Bush.

Leave aside, for the moment, the irony of the fact that Senator Feingold – one of the principal sponsors of the McCain-Feingold bill that effectively placed limits on free speech so as to protect incumbent politicos – is suddenly concerned about our constitutional system of laws. In only the latest demonstration of the fact that his party is the party of trivial politics in very un-trivial times, Mr. Feingold has introduced a resolution into the United States Senate calling for the censure of President Bush for his implementation of the terrorist-surveillance program.

That this is a case of trivial politics is evidenced by the actions of Mr. Feingold himself. In introducing the resolution and subsequently defending it, the senator has unambiguously accused the president of willfully breaking the law, despite the lack of evidence that would make such a public accusation justified. Yet, when Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist called for an immediate vote on the resolution – essentially calling Feingold’s bluff – Democrat leaders, obviously recognizing the embarrassing result such a vote would produce, would not permit the vote to take place, and Feingold himself excoriated Frist for “trying to hold a vote ten minutes after it was introduced.”

But it seems that Senator Feingold wants it both ways. The resolution is based on the presumption that President Bush has broken the law, a presumption that the facts that have been revealed so far contradict. Yet if it is so obvious to the senator that this is the case, how much time is needed to decide on whether or not to support the resolution?

Additionally, in the unlikely event that revealed facts were to demonstrate that President Bush did break the law, the opportunity would still be available to censure, or even impeach, him at whatever time those facts were to be revealed. Yet the resolution has been introduced, and is now in search of evidence to support its passage, thus putting the cart before the horse. It’s a pity that the senator didn’t look for that evidence before introducing the resolution.

How ironic it is, indeed, that the senator would decide to take on the president in the area of National Security in such a public way. One would think that, given the perils facing the nation from its terrorist enemies, a presidential aspirant would not be so hyper-critical of a program whose very purpose is to protect America from further attacks from those enemies. Unless, of course, the aspirant in question doesn’t really believe the peril is all that great anyway.

The introduction of the resolution by Senator Feingold only serves as further evidence to the American people that his party doesn’t take the issue of National Security seriously, and that getting back into power is more important to them than protecting the homeland. In defending the resolution following the attempt to hold a vote on it, the senator stated, “I don’t introduce a censure resolution lightly.”

On the contrary, the facts, as well as his and his party’s actions surrounding the resolution suggests that introducing a censure resolution “lightly” is exactly what he has done. Thus, the oft-stated truth is still true: It is not yet safe to entrust the security of the nation to a party that engages in such petty politics during time of war.

Process Is Important

2006-03-10T08:56:00.000-08:00

It is usually a bad idea to pass legislation that is prompted by either emotion or narrowly-focused election year politics. Unfortunately both of these seem to be the primary motivations behind the embarrassing spectacle on Capitol Hill yesterday that effectively killed the misnamed Dubai “ports” deal.

I have already stated in this space that I didn’t have a firm position on the deal, and wouldn’t until I learned more about what’s involved. Would that it were that more members of Congress, as well as more members of the electorate, felt the same.

Indeed, the table was set for all of us to learn more about the deal, and its implications, if any, for national security. The Dubai-owned company itself agreed to a forty-five day waiting period during which time further investigations could be made into the matter so that everyone involved could make sure they had the facts straight.

But when all was said and done, facts didn’t matter to those in Washington who were preening for the cameras, and the voters back home, and determined to kill the deal, regardless of whether killing it was the right thing to do.

And was it the right thing to do? I don’t know. As I said, we were never given the opportunity to get all the facts. Frankly, what facts were already known about the deal – as well as the United Arab Emirates in general – pointed toward not slamming the door on the UAE at least, or allowing the deal to go through at most.

It’s possible that whatever might have been revealed during the forty-five day period would have either reaffirmed this, or refuted it. But we will never know, will we? Because when all was said and done, we didn’t think we need to know. All most of the American people “knew” was that a company owned by an Arab government would own six U.S. ports. And all that most members of Congress knew, or wanted to know, was that people who would vote in November were vehemently opposed to such a scenario.

This might have been a perfect opportunity for Senators and Representatives to actually communicate with their constituents and educate them on what was going on – a legitimate function for an elected government official with greater access to information of this nature than the average voter.

They might have thus made more people understand that the company would not own the ports, it would merely be managing a few terminals within each port – as the Chinese already do on the west coast. They might have pointed out that the U.S. already sells sophisticated weapons systems to the government of the UAE. They might have reminded the people that Dubai is probably the most westernized Arab entity in the world, ever trying to grow more so, and one of the most popular places for U.S. service-members in that region of the world to take leave. And they might have informed their voters that the port of Dubai is friendlier to hosting U.S. warships than the port of San Francisco. But that was less important than manipulating fears and emotions in order to score political points.

So, as is, we have publicly given the government of Dubai a slap in the face – no small thing in Arab culture. Members of the royal family are infuriated, and hold out the prospect of retaliating financially – a move that could have greater impact on the U.S. than we might realize initially. Not only that, but this will likely only provide our enemies in the Arab world with more fodder for their propaganda campaigns, providing “evidence” of an American prejudice against people of Arab descent. And it could give our allies in this part of the world pause as they wonder if they will be perpetually relegated to “second-class-friend” status.

Whether such distressing developments actually result remains to be seen. But in view of the fact that they could result, wouldn’t it have just made sense to maintain cool heads and actually wait until all the facts were in?

When hearing of this short-circuiting of the agreed-upon waiting period by both the House and Senate, I was initially inclined to say that the process failed in this matter. But that’s just not true. We failed, because we refused to let the process run its course. And failure is a common companion of those who allow themselves to be governed by emotions and narrow self interests, rather than truth and facts.

The Pride Of The Academy

2006-03-09T12:19:00.000-08:00

Well, they’re at it again.

In just the latest example of devoted leftists trying to persuade Americans of their point of view by silencing their opponents, professors at Duke University led a contingent of about twenty in an attempt to drown out and disrupt conservative speaker David Horowitz as he delivered a speech on campus to a gathered crowd of around 800 this past Tuesday.

Of course, what this motley crew actually did to try to disrupt the address – first laughing derisively as Mr. Horowitz began to speak, and then shouting rebukes at him – was actually plan B. What Diane Nelson, Director of Undergraduate Studies and a professor of “Cultural Anthropology” originally wanted the group to do in order to disrupt the assembly was to disrobe to the waist during Mr. Horowitz’s speech.

But it’s not as though she wanted to be obscene about it, mind you. She did suggest that the females in the group wear jogging bras for the occasion. The males, of course, would be wearing nothing. Ironically, it was the students who were to take part who had to play the part of the “more mature” players and express discomfort with stripping off their shirts in public.

Does this story even need any more commentary?

Perhaps not, but it’s worth noting once again that those who are supposed to be the “intellectual elite” are the very ones who don’t seem to posses the intellect to fashion a coherent and persuasive argument against what conservatives are saying. Thus, the reliance on disruption and silencing as debate tactics.

Oh, and did they succeed in silencing Mr. Horowitz? Not in the least.

Did they succeed in convincing the crowd that Mr. Horowitz and his conservative ideological soulmates are ignorant hayseeds who shouldn’t be allowed to be seen, much less be heard, in public? Apparently not. When Mr. Horowitz responded to their shouts by asking them from the podium, “Didn’t your mother teach you manners?,” the 800 or so others who were there wanting to hear him responded with an ovation.

I’m pretty sure that, at one time, those who made their careers in academia were held in fairly high esteem for their learning and devotion to seeking and disseminating knowledge. Back in those days, the views of those in this field would, justifiably, carry a great deal of weight, because those views would be articulately expressed. Nowadays, the academy is looking more and more like a place where intellectual deadbeats want to hunker down in order to avoid having to produce anything useful for society while still drawing a paycheck. Not surprisingly, a career in this field no longer carries much prestige, nor the views of those in the field much weight – with certain exceptions, on both sides of the aisle, of course.

If silliness like this were actually succeeding in winning over people to their side of any issue, behavior like this would be legitimately worrisome to conservatives. As it is, however, the continued attempts on the part of howling-at-the-moon leftists like this only further enhance the image of those of us on the right as more rational in our approach to public debate (When did you last hear of conservatives pulling a stunt like this?). So conservatives can feel perfectly comfortable in issuing a blanket invitation to any liberals who want to join in the parade of silliness and let the public see their true nature as well as the weight of their arguments.

Oh, and by all means, let them name the names of the candidates and party they support in the upcoming, and any other, elections as well. You know as well as I do what party and candidates this would be, don’t you?

The Verdict On Bush From A Leftist Town Hall Meeting

2006-03-08T11:30:00.000-08:00

So I suppose you heard about the town of Newfane, Vermont approving a resolution calling on their U.S. Representative Bernie Sanders – the only avowed Socialist in Congress – to file articles of impeachment against President Bush? This story deserves comment on any number of points.

The 121-29 town hall vote called on Mr. Sanders – the only avowed Socialist in Congress – to file the articles against the President on two counts: Misleading the nation into war and engaging in illegal domestic spying.

Of course, the allegation that the Bush administration lied – implying willful intent to mislead – to get America into the Iraq phase of the War on Terror is one of the most worn out and tiresome of the many allegations raised against the President by his opponents. And it is also one of the most easily refuted. Only the most ardent left-wing Bush-bashers actually feel that this is a charge that could really go anywhere. But then, these are the very people who elected the only avowed Socialist in Congress.

As to the “illegal domestic spying” allegation, it is misleading in its very terminology. By definition, the NSA program is not “domestic spying.” But the facts concerning what actually is being done, and its legality, are obviously not things that are of much concern to these folks – who elected the only avowed Socialist in Congress – anyway.

The jury is still out among many in Washington – on both sides of the aisle – as to whether the administration has done anything wrong with regard to the NSA program (It hasn’t - JLH). But apparently the investigative resources of the people of Newfane – who elected the only avowed Socialist to Congress – provide them with insight not shared by those in the halls of power in Washington.

For his part, Mr. Sanders – the only avowed Socialist in Congress – would not disavow the merit of the charges against the President. He would only say that, despite the fact that the Bush administration “has been a disaster for our country,” the political reality of Republican control of both houses of Congress makes it “impractical to talk about impeachment.”

The statement issued by Mr. Sanders – the only avowed Socialist in Congress – makes for an interesting comparison. Almost from day one of the Clinton administration, there were “conservatives” who were calling for his impeachment on any number of counts, generally ranging from the ridiculous to the unworkably vague. During most of Mr. Clinton’s administration, Republicans were the majority party in Congress. Yet they did not act to impeach the President until they had actual evidence of actual crimes.

Had impeachment, to the Republicans, been simply a matter of “political practicality,” as it is to Mr. Sanders – the only avowed Socialist in Congress – it stands to reason that they would have filed articles at least four years before they actually did. But the funny thing about true conservatives is that they realize that, no matter how much they may dislike a person or political situation, there are rules and laws whose letter and spirit must be respected, even when you possess a sufficient majority to get around the spirit and letter of the rules.

One gets the distinct impression that this is not the case with the leftists who simply want to do anything they can to hurt the President or his supporters. There is little doubt in anyone’s mind that, should Democrats win control of the House on the evening of November 7, articles of impeachment will be in the works by the afternoon of November 8. Not because of any verifiable evidence of wrongdoing, but simply because of blind rage on the part of those who have long since abandoned the tactic of trying to convince the American people of the rightness of their view through rational discourse.

Local Notes

2006-03-03T06:56:00.000-08:00

It’s a daunting challenge anytime one decides to embark upon the undertaking of running for governor against an entrenched incumbent. When one adds to that burden the fact that the challenger in question starts his campaign with very little name recognition, he truly does have a tall mountain to climb.

In spite of such seemingly daunting challenges, Mark Albertini has been traveling the state of Tennessee since October to promote his campaign to oust sitting Governor Phil Bredesen. Thursday night, he made his first appearance in Fayetteville, addressing the Lincoln County Republican Party.

Over the course of approximately an hour, Mr. Albertini – who is an attorney and owner of Albertini Construction – introduced himself to those gathered, providing a brief summary of his life up to the present, before introducing his message to them.

Describing himself as feeling called to try to make a difference, he noted that the cultural and moral decline he sees in the state and nation is what first prompted him to consider his electoral run. He would later note that excessive materialism, fed by the aforementioned moral decline, is behind many of the problems Americans face with their ever growing and ever more intrusive government.

Mr. Albertini then gave a brief summary of his campaign activity and progress to date, noting that he has been able to meet with Republicans in all sections of the state and is starting to identify reliable supporters in these places. He also discussed his recent attendance at the Republican Governors Association meetings in Washington, where he was able to make contacts with several office holders and business leaders who might be able to assist his campaign.

Using the acronym LIFE to describe his platform, he noted that he intends to support Limited Government, Individual Responsibility, Faith and Family First, and Entrepreneurial opportunity. After discussing each of these campaign points, he rounded out his speech by contrasting his would-be administration with that of the incumbent Democrat Bredesen. He then used the remainder of his time to field questions and comments from the audience.

It’s no secret to anyone who follows Tennessee politics that Republicans across the state were sorely disappointed at the decision of several “leading lights” among the state’s Republicans not to run against an incumbent that many feel is vulnerable. Despite that fact, listening to Mr. Albertini one quickly perceives that he has not gotten in the race as mere “token” opposition to Governor Bredesen. He is running against the odds, to be sure. Nevertheless, he is running to win.

Busy, Busy, Busy

2006-03-01T12:39:00.000-08:00

Apologies to those who have looked here this week for new material. Between work obligations ("cleanup" after a series of meetings last week with internationals) and local party work (meeting arrangements as well as Reagan Day planning), this week has filled up fast. There will be something new here by the end of the week, but my normal efforts to post at least three days a week will most likely fall short. Just don't want anyone to think I've forgotten. Thanks for checking in, and letting me know that you do.

- JLH

Take A Deep Breath

2006-02-24T05:16:00.000-08:00

It’s no secret that I am a supporter of George W. Bush’s presidency. However, that is a far cry from being an automatic Bush apologist. I am more than willing to publicly state that he was wrong to sign the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Bill into law. He continues to fall short on the issue of illegal immigration. He has not done a very good job of selling the fact that we are at war to the American people. And his unwillingness to make serious attempts to rein in federal spending has been a disappointment to many conservatives like myself. My only point in saying all this is simply to note that any accusations I hear that I take a particular position just because the president supports it have no validity whatsoever.

Now.

Like many across the nation – as well as many of those who read this, I’m sure – my initial knee-jerk reaction when I heard of the deal that is to put the management of several U.S. ports in the hands of a government-owned company out of the United Arab Emirates was pure outrage. But, fortunately for me, I refrained from speaking publicly on the issue until I had time to cool down and ponder the facts that are available on the subject – sparing me the problem many may now face of having to back down from a position too vehemently espoused too quickly.

Of course, it should be acknowledged up front that the political implications of the deal are hard to dispute. Democrats could win big from this if they can manipulate the issue to demonstrate something they have been unable to demonstrate to date – that they are indeed serious about national security. This is, of course, why figures in both parties are distancing themselves from the administration. Democrats want to exploit it for political gain, Republicans want to minimize the political damage they would suffer from being associated with it.

But when one stops and considers what the overriding concern is that so many feel about this deal – the potential for terrorists to sneak a weapon of mass destruction into the U.S. through these ports – it turns out that the bloviating by so many is much ado about nothing.

After all, the ships in question, the ones we’re worried about carrying, for example, a nuclear bomb into an American port, are ships that will be loaded in foreign ports – ports that are not affected in any way by the change of management at U.S. ports. Does anyone really think terrorists are going to try to sneak onto ships that have already arrived to plant a bomb on them? Wouldn’t it make more sense, if it is already in this country, to plant that bomb in the heart of a city somewhere?

Besides, as many have already noted, the company in question will not be handling security at the port any more than a local airport is in charge of screening passengers for flights. That will be handled by U.S. government agencies, as it already is. Of course, the question of whether the U.S. government could do a more thorough job of screening incoming shipping is a valid one, but it has nothing to do with who is running the ports those ships travel to.

The role of the UAE company is administrative, and its functions will likely be carried out by many of the same people who are doing these jobs today, as is often the case when a new company takes over a worksite – just ask any of my engineer friends who work in the defense and space industry.

As for the fact that the company itself is owned by the government of the UAE, making it suspect in the eyes of many, I would hasten to add a fact that many may not have thought of. The United States government sells weapons to the UAE government all the time. In a previous manifestation of my work in the defense industry, I worked on a military installation in Alabama, helping manage the program through which the U.S. Army sold Apache helicopters to Saudi Arabia. In the office next to mine was the team that performed the same duties on the program that sold these attack helicopters to, yes, the United Arab Emirates.

This is a government, though we may not like every aspect of it, that has been cleared by all the relevant procedures to receive high tech weaponry from our military. And yet they are not fit to manage the flow of traffic through an American sea port? Sorry, that case hasn’t been made yet.

A bad move politically? Most likely. A betrayal of the nation? Not by a long shot. Let’s face it, any thing that has people saying that President Bush is weak on the War on Terror, given his history over the past four years, should throw up numerous red flags to the attentive observer.

Make no mistake about it, the political implications are based on perceptions, not facts. And, though it is an oft-quoted belief for many, the fact is that perception is not reality. And, by the way, doesn’t that suggest something about the fact that this is the way the Democrats want to create the perception that they are serious about national security?

Understand, I really don’t have that strong a position on who should be running the ports one way or another. But much of what has been said on the subject so far is unfair, and unsupportable by facts. It’s time for everyone to take a step back, breathe deeply, and remember that the deal they just became aware of has been on the administration’s radar for a bit longer.

It's The Message, Not The Messenger

2006-02-22T10:40:00.000-08:00

What do you do when the position you’ve taken on a particular issue becomes the subject of attacks from “the other side” for which you’ve got no defense? It seems that, more and more, for the left the answer is to simply try to shut “the other side” up.

Symbolically, this “tactic” was manifested during the president’s State of the Union Address by the gathering of the moonbat left, led by Cindy Sheehan’s example, outside the capitol, at which they banged pots, pans, drums, and whatever else they could find to try to “drown out” President Bush’s message in the House Chamber.

But what was symbolized that night has obviously become a very real strategy for many who have no other way to respond to Republican positions. And just as the president’s speech that night kicked off a campaign of sorts for him to push the agenda he had just laid out for the year, it seems that the night also kicked off the left’s campaign for their own agenda laid out that night – to silence anyone who dares to hold a position contrary to their own. Two recent developments certainly seem to bear this out.

The first involves an Illinois newspaper’s refusal to run advertisements produced by a pro-life group in opposition to abortion. The reason given by the paper is that the images in the ads are “too graphic.”

The images in question? Sonograms. Those pictures taken of the unborn child inside the womb. Like the ones many expectant parents keep on their desks or refrigerators to show to friends. Like the ones featured recently in a major company’s television ad campaign showing technological breakthroughs they have produced.

The second has to do with television advertisements produced in support of the war in Iraq. These ads feature servicemen, as well as family members of servicemen lost in the war, speaking of the need to continue the job that has been started and take note of the good things being done in the war-torn nation. The reason at least one Minnesota television station has given for rejecting them is that they criticize the mainstream media. And goodness knows how little tolerance members of sage institutions like the mainstream media, or United States Senate incumbents, have for criticism.

Both episodes feature criticism, or at least alternative points of view, that is very difficult for the left to respond to. In the first case, the difficulty is the uphill battle they face against logic in their continued refusal to acknowledge that what’s in the womb is human life, as born out by technologies that allow people to see more clearly than ever what actually is conceived in the womb.

In the second, the difficulty comes from having to support a position that runs contrary to a group of people who are, by and large, held in very high esteem by the American public – members of America’s military. Needless to say, it’s no small task for someone to argue the point that the war is a disaster from which America must extricate itself quickly while those who have actually been on the ground in Iraq say just the opposite.

In such a position, what can one do other than hope that those whom you oppose will stop talking? In this case, apparently they can actively seek to silence those voices themselves. Witness the refusal of media outlets, no friends of Republicans or conservatives in general, to publish or air the ads in question.

And it’s grown beyond just an issue with liberal-friendly media outlets. Both of these episodes have been jumped on by political organizations as well. In the Illinois newspaper fight, an official with the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice has gone on record as saying that “the Right to Life ads are intended to inflame public opinion and create shame and fear about abortion.” In Minnesota, the state Democrat party has weighed in against the military ads, calling them “un-American, untruthful and a lie,” as well as noting the tragedy over the fact that “our brave men and women are being used in this type of propaganda.”

Hearing these arguments, one can’t be faulted if he wonders if similar indignation would be expressed by these leftists had they been able to weigh in against those that “inflamed public opinion” against slavery in the nineteenth century, or against civil rights inequities in the twentieth. And it would be no great surprise if one were to wonder why no similar outrage has been expressed over the use of Ms. Sheehan’s story for “propaganda.”

Of course, it’s not hard to see why those of a liberal persuasion feel so threatened by these points of view that are alternative to their own. One needs only to note the words of an e-mail sent out by the Minnesota Democrat party encouraging people to oppose the military ads: “What we do here, now, will have an enormous impact on the success or failure of this kind of swiftboating in 06” (emphasis mine).

Just as the Swiftboat Veterans damaged John Kerry’s quest for the White House in 2004 with their presentation of accounts that were never effectively countered by his campaign, those on the left know that in this election year, there are facts whose revelation are counterproductive to their political goals. The problem is that they are using the same response tactic – denouncing the messengers – that failed to work for Senator Kerry. Much better to disprove the message. But then, there’s the problem brought up at the beginning of this piece – it’s a message that they are unable to disprove.

What Rates As Newsworthy Nowadays

2006-02-21T12:20:00.000-08:00

It’s no secret to most people who know me how I feel about the trend in recent years on the part of lazy journalists and news outlets to present polling data as news – a piece that I wrote on this very subject can be found here. A recent CNN story only further illustrates the absurdity, and often nefarious purposes, of this irresponsible practice.

In a February 14 story, the “news” network that was the creation of Ted Turner ran a story in which it was revealed that one-fifth of Americans believe, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, that it was likely that their conversations had been “wiretapped” – a reference, although incorrectly termed, to the Bush Administration’s “Terrorist Surveillance Program” that has caused such a stir recently.

Left out of the presentation of the poll results was any explanation as to why the people who believe they have been monitored feel the way they do. The logical thing to assume is that this is because no such reasons were given – or even likely asked for.

But as long as such poll responses are going to be presented as newsworthy, why not take a poll asking Americans to identify those bodies currently lying in the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery? Or how many people believe that their homes have been photographed by extra-terrestrials? The responses, and thus the data so compiled would be just as meaningful as that presented in this recent actual poll.

It seems that what was important to those who conducted this poll was to give the impression that a significant portion of Americans believe that they are being watched by Big Brother. For while it is true that twenty-one percent falls far short of a majority, the fact that it is one-fifth of the public unquestionably makes it a significant portion. And if a significant portion feels this way, the unspoken implication is that maybe more of us should be worried about this as well.

Now I’m not prepared to say that the fact that the reasons behind the responses were left unaddressed was an intentional omission. But any objective observer who has watched or read any of the news and commentary produced by CNN, or listened to the rants of its egomaniacal founder, knows that there is a history here of an anti-Bush tilt. In that light, it is not unreasonable to wonder if, at the very least, it was an oversight made possible by the intense desire on the part of those presenting the data to make a point from the results – that a portion of the public that fears the imperial presidency as large as twenty-one percent suggests that there is something substantive to this fear.

This whole story only demonstrates again the trend in much of the media toward influencing public perception of current issues, rather than simply presenting facts and letting the public form its own opinion – remember Wolf Blitzer’s statement that he “makes” the news? Most likely, this is because simply presenting facts all too often works against the perception they are trying to create.

What passes for “serious journalism” in the media today – as demonstrated by this poll – would be laughable, but for the very serious fact that an unwillingness on the part of reporters to report facts and events – as opposed to having press releases and poll data handed to them – often means that the public does not have the amount and quality of information it needs in order to come to truly informed opinions. In a nation where the people are to be sovereign – based on the notion they will know what they are talking about – this can be a serious problem. The news media ought to be part of the solution to this problem, but this episode shows that, all too often, they are a major contributor to it.

JournalismGate

2006-02-16T12:17:00.000-08:00

It was with great interest that I read an AP story regarding the special edition DVD release, to mark the thirtieth anniversary of its theatrical release, of “All the President’s Men” – the 1976 movie about the unraveling of the Watergate cover-up that eventually led to the downfall of President Richard Nixon. Not that I plan to go out and actually buy the DVD. I’ve never seen the movie, and the events that it chronicles are just a distant – and not terribly interesting – childhood memory for me.

The fact is that the Watergate episode, though certainly historic in its importance, is yesterday’s news. Okay, it’s actually a lot older than “yesterday” – I might as well acknowledge my age – but the fact remains that it is now a closed unhappy chapter in the book of our national history, the ongoing obsession with it on the part of the mainstream media notwithstanding.

What is actually much more interesting to me about the – coincidental, I’m sure – timing of this release, especially in the current political context, is how the movie chose to tell the story of Watergate. As acknowledged by one of its stars and co-producers, Robert Redford, the purpose was to tell the story from the point of view of the most prominent reporters involved – Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Indeed, it seems that the story was as much about the investigative reporting by these men as it was about the particular story they pursued.

And it is the fact that it was a story that was pursued by the journalists in question that is so striking. Interestingly enough, when Woodward and Bernstein discovered that the Nixon administration might be involved in a cover-up, their first thought, apparently, was not to go to the administration and ask to be handed on a silver platter the facts that would result in the first resignation of a President of the United States. Crazy guys that they were, they most likely knew that getting to the bottom of the story would require a bit more work on their part than that. Even Mr. Redford, as he talked about the story of Woodward and Bernstein’s efforts, noted that it was a story “about investigative journalism and hard work.”

How ironic that this takes place at roughly the same time that the current White House press corps, egged on by their beneficiaries in the Democrat party, is alleging/hoping that there is a scandal being covered up by the Bush Administration regarding Vice-President Dick Cheney’s recent hunting accident – and whining because the administration isn’t spoon-feeding it the story that it believes, nay, wishes, is there.

But their indignation – if it is raised in the hopes that an outcry on the part of the general public will follow – is misplaced. The general consensus from the public is that what happened was indeed an accident – and accidents happen. If they are persistent in their belief that there is more of a story here than meets the eye, it seems that the thing to do would be to roll up their sleeves and work on flushing out that story. Isn’t that what journalists/reporters do?

Besides, it’s hard to spoon-feed from an empty bowl. And the administration can’t do the work that the reporters should be willing to do for themselves – even if it wanted to – if there is simply no story to tell. This whole furor is really not so much about what happened on a ranch in Texas last weekend as it is about the left’s fervent desire for another scandal on the scale of that which the country witnessed in the early seventies.

For the mainstream media every “scandal” is Watergate – so long as it involves Republicans, every war is Vietnam, every Democrat administration is Camelot, and every Republican administration is the Imperial Presidency. Never mind the fact that the public at large has moved on from the sixties and seventies and isn’t nearly as fascinated with such things as are these “chroniclers of history.” They are like that sad friend from high school who, twenty or thirty years on, continues to obsess with re-living those “good times” to the point that they can’t take pleasure in the world they now live in.

The mainstream media have seen the world as they would like it in the pages of the past, and refuse to acknowledge that what actually is in the here and now can, or should, be any different. Small wonder that the vast majority of them count themselves as liberals – a group whose very existence depends upon the ability to see beyond dealing with the world as it is and dealing with it as they wish it was.

Ingratitude In The Ivory Tower

2006-02-15T14:02:00.000-08:00

It’s always a sad spectacle to see an individual, or an institution, embarrass themselves publicly. It is even sadder when the party involved doesn’t have the presence of mind to recognize the fact that they have embarrassed themselves, because this leaves open the possibility that they might do so again in the same manner at some point in the future.

Such is the case with the Student Senate at the University of Washington, where not only do they not feel the need to honor the deeds of those who defended freedom at its hour of greatest peril in the twentieth century, they are evidently actually ashamed of any association one might make between their university and those very heroes.

Gregory “Pappy” Boyington attended UW from 1930-34, prior to his World War 2 career which saw him gain his greatest fame as a Marine Corps combat pilot in charge of Fighting Squadron 214 – better known as the “Black Sheep” squadron immortalized in a 1970s television series. His part in that great struggle included destroying 26 enemy aircraft – tying a record, getting shot down and spending 20 months in a Japanese prisoner-of-war camp, and receiving the medal of honor for his service – feats that one would think would cause any institution enjoying an association with him to take great pride in that association.

But one would be wrong.

Despite his receiving the highest military honor that the government of the United States bestows upon its service members, apparently Mr. Boyington is unworthy of honorable recognition by as esteemed an institution as the University of Washington Student Senate. Or, in the words of one of the senators, he isn’t “an example of the sort of person UW wanted to produce.”

Indeed, it may truly be the case that the self-absorbed generations that now inhabit the offices and classrooms of institutions of higher education do not want to produce the kind of person who sacrifices safety and comfort to take up the cause of freedom and the defense of his countrymen. But this leaves open the question of what kind of person they do want to produce. If it is the kind of person who takes such an attitude toward members of the military – particularly members of the military during that era – then ingratitude and ignorance must be the highest aspirations of many of the nation’s colleges and universities.

The president of the university’s college Republicans pointed out, following the vote, that last year the university erected a monument to diversity – that ambiguous “strength” that the left seems to feel is our nation’s greatest asset – yet will not afford a similar honor to Colonel Boyington. But there is no small bit of irony in the fact such diversity is not something the university would even be able to celebrate were it not for the heroics of men like Pappy Boyington and those who served under him.

This writer doesn’t deny that it is sad that the world is such a place that requires the sacrifices of military service – even among peace-loving peoples. But such is in fact the case – and always will be so long as there are those who are unwilling to live in peace with those around them, no matter how accommodating those around them may try to be. And those who are willing to make the sacrifice of service, often under extremely hazardous conditions, deserve better than the reproach all too often visited upon them by those who enjoy the benefits of their service, and refuse to see the world for the dangerous place that it is, where men like Gregory Boyington are owed a great debt of gratitude by those who now – obviously unawares – stand on their shoulders.

Fighting The War We Are In

2006-02-14T11:31:00.000-08:00

Amidst all the cries from the moonbat left that George Bush has committed a crime against the Constitution via the terrorist surveillance program that he has authorized the National Security Agency to conduct, one question remains unaddressed: Just what was the nefarious intent behind his “criminal” activity?

If indeed, as many would have us believe, it was for the purpose of listening in on the private lives of average Americans, the program must be considered a colossal failure, as it only seemed to focus on foreign agents of terror and their points of contact within the United States. Unless, of course, the listening in on terrorists’ conversations was just a “test run” in anticipation of the program’s real purpose of listening to college students call home for money.

That there was no criminal intent suspected on the part of the administration is made more than evident by the simple fact that no one within the halls of power in Washington wants the program to stop. The vast majority of Senators and Representatives from both parties are emphatic that the program should continue – though the ongoing effectiveness of the program has been severely compromised by its very revelation.

The only caveat that any such “leaders” are adding to their endorsement is that the program should be retooled to come into compliance with the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. But one suspects that this caveat is just a way for Bush critics to admit that the administration’s rationale for the heretofore secret program is sound – without really admitting it.

After all, if the program is retooled or reconfigured, then it can hardly be considered to be the same program that even Democrats like Patrick Leahy and Tom Daschle say should continue. If anything, it is the statutory law – FISA – that should be reconfigured to better deal with the reality of the war in which America currently finds itself.

Indeed, the administration’s contention that restricting itself to the confines of the FISA law – which, it can reasonably be argued, would impinge upon the president’s constitutional authority/responsibility to protect and defend the nation – would not provide the agility necessary for a quick response to unfolding events is supported by the much ballyhooed 9/11 Report. That bipartisan report noted that the Commission’s investigation revealed problems in “managing and sharing information across a large and unwieldy government that had been built in a different era to confront different dangers.”

It has been noted many times that one of the most oft-repeated failures of leadership, both civilian and military, is the tendency to always want to fight the last war. George Bush has shown time and again the value of electing a President that hasn’t been quarantined in the insulated confines of Washington for decades. He and his advisors have shown a willingness to “think outside the box,” without necessarily deferring to “Washingtonian Custom” on issues ranging from the momentous – Social Security – to the mundane – more cost-effective ways of printing government publications. But never has this trait been more valuable to the exercise of his duties than it has in this matter. Many of his critics are insistent on fighting the last war, while he tries desperately to fight the current one.

Granted, acknowledgement of the necessity of such a program as this requires a willingness on the part of the public to invest a substantial measure of trust in one who wields such power, as could be said regarding any number of other presidential powers as well. But all the evidence suggests that said public currently does have such confidence in George Bush, at least in greater measure than they have it in his most vocal critics on Capitol Hill.

The Problem With The "We're Not Them" Approach

2006-02-08T12:14:00.000-08:00

To this point in time, there have been documented none of the terrible crimes against human freedom and dignity that so many have been warning would be the result of the Patriot Act. Even liberals like Diane Feinstein have had to acknowledge as much. What can be documented, however, is that Americans recognize that there are terrorists who want to kill more of their fellow citizens, that there needs to be some new way of combating, and preventing, the new kind of warfare waged by this new kind of enemy, and that the Patriot Act, with whatever faults it might have, is a step in that direction.

And yet, it was just a month or so ago that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid boasted, when the Bush Administration had to settle for a temporary extension of the act rather than renewal, that he and his Democrat colleagues had “killed the Patriot Act.”

At this point in time, most Americans are aware – and have been for a while – that the Social Security system cannot long endure in its present state and form. They know that, absent some workable reform, the only way to meet the commitment made by the federal government to retiring seniors will be to continue to raise taxes on those still working. And they know that, the longer the nation goes without implementing some attempt at a fix, the more difficult and the more painful it will be to solve the problem without causing economic chaos.

And yet, when President Bush noted in his State of the Union Address that Congress did not act on his proposed reforms last year, the Democrat side of the House Chamber erupted in raucous applause.

Rather than being isolated events, these two episodes reveal much as to why it may be harder for Democrats to retake one or both chambers of Congress than they currently realize. In both instances, they allowed the American public to witness a display of their joy over failing/refusing to deal with issues that need to be dealt with – and all primarily because their minority status prevents them from enacting whatever solutions they might prefer, if such actually exist, and claiming a political victory. So, in the absence of the ability to claim one for themselves, they have opted to work merely to prevent their opponents from claiming one, regardless of the effect on the nation.

And it seems that to at least some at the highest levels of the party, this is enough. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, in responding to fears voiced by some prominent Democrats that they are not doing a good enough job of convincing voters why they should vote for Democrats, as opposed to simply not voting for Republicans pointed to their “achievement” in stalling Social Security reform. As noted in the New York Times today, the California Democrat stated, “People said, ‘You can’t beat something with nothing,’” and then tried to make the case that that is exactly what they had accomplished on the Social Security issue.

But she is making the mistake of believing that preventing a victory by the Republicans constitutes a victory for the Democrats, regardless of whether or not that “victory” so defined helps or hinders in the struggle to solve the nation’s ills. And she may or may not realize that this puts anyone who holds such a view in a politically dangerous position in which what is best for their party might not be what is best for their country.

The problem here is that the great American swing-vote constituency – that both parties so fervently work to win – cares less about what group of politicians gets credit for solving pressing problems than they do about simply getting those problems solved. And they can be most unappreciative toward a party that is perceived to be holding up progress on an issue for purely political reasons.

The Republicans made what one might consider to be variations on this erroneous line of thought in 1998. At that time, they relied almost exclusively on exploiting Democrat scandal/controversy rather than on a positive agenda for the nation. They were rewarded for the efforts, while still maintaining control of Congress, with reduced numbers in both chambers.

And the Democrats may find, much to their surprise and chagrin, that they could likewise lose numbers in Washington this year. They’ve spent the last twelve years – since Republicans won control of Congress – trying to convince American voters that they’ve made a terrible mistake, without trying to make a case to convince those voters why this is so. This writer doubts that this tactic – despite recent problems in the Republican ranks – will be much more effective this year than it has in the last five elections.

Hillary's Angry? So What Else Is New?

2006-02-07T13:06:00.000-08:00

As to whether recent comments made by Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman about New York’s Junior Senator develop into a notable news story it remains to be seen.

But it really shouldn’t.

At least, it shouldn’t if it is true that only newsworthy stories should develop into news stories. If Nancy Pelosi switches parties, that’s news. If Pat Robertson comes out in favor of gay marriage, that’s news. But a “revelation” that one of the Democrats’ leading players – specifically Hillary Clinton – is an angry person? Sorry, it just doesn’t measure up.

The fact is that when Mr. Mehlman made his comments about Senator Clinton’s rage on ABC’s “This Week” show last Sunday, he was only reaffirming what most, if not all, America knows. The only point where a significant number of people might differ with him is in his contention that such a high level of anger is not what the American people want in a president.

Yet, while those who do want that in a president are in the minority, it is a significant minority – of the general population – nonetheless. And when one looks to the constituency that presidential aspirants in the minority party must appeal, such rage in those candidates is hardly surprising.

The angry people who desire an angry president, although in a minority of the general electorate, are a clear majority within the activist ranks of the Democrat party. Witness the obscenity-laced posts on prominent left-wing blogs, particularly when Republicans score any victory in the political arena. Witness the comments of “celebrity Democrats” like Alec Baldwin, who used a vulgar term to describe Senate Democrats who didn’t vote to filibuster Sam Alito. Witness the incoherence that makes such rage manifest in displays like the “pot-banging” demonstration outside the Capitol while President Bush delivered his State Of The Union Address inside.

These are the people who, at this point in history, stand to choose who the Democrat candidate for President will be two years hence. Thus it is these people to whom those who want George Bush’s job must make their appeal. It is to these people that Democrat Presidential contenders have to make the case that they are political and ideological soulmates.

That’s not to say that the Hillary Clintons and John Kerrys wouldn’t be angry anyway, but it helps to explain why they don’t worry so much about letting their rage show anymore. They have to make a public display of their like-mindedness to convince the faithful that they can be counted on to carry on the good fight against the “real enemy” – the Republicans and conservatives. Hence Senator Clinton’s “plantation” remarks about the Republican Party – she was speaking to her base. Just as Senator Kerry was when he unleashed his foul-mouthed tirade just off the Senate floor the day his “Alito Filibuster” attempt failed.

But it is a fine line that leading Democrats must walk, not only in 2008, but in this election year as well. Because while Americans may not always agree with the policies pursued by a particular party, there are enough rational minds in the electorate to absolutely fear a party whose main unifying factor is the hatred toward “the other side” that all the faithful possess. After all, which party, when in power, is more likely to be willing to silence voices of dissent within the population, the one already in power with which whose policies an individual might disagree, or the one that has already shown a pattern of misdeeds designed to keep opponents from being heard?

The beauty of it all – at least where Senators Kerry and Clinton are concerned – is that they don’t have to worry about their displays hurting them in a general election this year: Senator Kerry is not up for re-election, and Senator Clinton is effectively unopposed in a state that would probably re-elect her anyway. The difficulty may arise two years down the road when they, like all their rivals, have to think beyond merely appealing to the far-left, that has taken over their party. Will the nation as a whole remember what it saw when they revealed their true selves?

Local Notes

2006-02-03T08:02:00.000-08:00

The Lincoln County Republican Party held its monthly meeting at 7:00 P.M. last night, following the completion of the Executive Committee meeting an hour earlier.

The bad weather kept the crowd size down, but those who did attend were treated to a thoroughly informative, and even entertaining, evening with State Senator Jim Bryson of Franklin.

Senator Bryson’s remarks, though covering a number of different topics, all generally followed from the theme that there is a great need for those in public office to behave in an ethical and moral manner, as he took special note of the current Special Session in the General Assembly on Ethics and his role in it.

Of particular note were comments he made that noted that, in addition to the danger of violations of the law that come when those in positions of authority are not bound by worries over ethical behavior or even the appearance of impropriety, there is also the simple fact that government often cannot provide real solutions even to those problems that it does have a legitimate need to solve. As evidence, he noted the current problems with the administration of the TennCare program, as well as the scandals rocking the Tennessee Highway patrol.

Regarding matters more clearly political, he noted the tremendous opportunity that Tennesseeans have this year to effect significant change. Having already won control of the Senate two years ago, the Republican Party is standing on the brink of winning control of the House of Representatives, as the Democrats’ majority has been narrowed to only four seats.

A change in control of the House would set in motion a host of changes, not the least of which would be the right for Republicans to draw Congressional District lines, as well as the change in all county Election Commissions from majority Democrat to majority Republican control – a fact that ties back directly to the discussion on ethics, in light of the recent election debacle in Memphis.

During this part of the discussion, he made a vague reference to the fact that “tomorrow” (Friday) could be a major day in Tennessee history while not revealing specifically what he was talking about – only telling those to “watch the news tomorrow night.” (Perhaps a reference to the subject of a story in the Tennessean this morning.)

With that, the Senator rounded out his comments as he had begun them, by noting the need for the current generation to leave the world in better shape than they found it, and a notation of the fact that electing, and re-electing, leaders with a moral compass such as himself, as well as Senator Bill Ketron – who represents Lincoln County and, like Senator Bryson is up for re-election this year – will be a step in the right direction.

Bits And Pieces - Alito, et al

2006-02-02T12:58:00.000-08:00

Trying to catch up on some items before the end of the week. Enjoy.

JLH

--------------------

Interesting how Senator Charles Schumer – clearly one of the three most partisan members of the Senate – responded to Tuesday’s 58-42 vote to confirm Sam Alito to the Supreme court:

“I must say that I wish the president was in a position to do more than claim a partisan victory tonight.”

Don’t worry, Senator, he is in position to do more than claim a partisan victory. He’s in position to claim a constitutional victory. Something you and your ilk have not been able to do very much in recent years, which explains your constant need to invoke extra-constitutional procedural moves to try to stop, or at least delay, President Bush’s constitutional victories.

--------------------

Along that line, I must say I found it very encouraging to hear a prominent Democrat reveal that he understands at least part of the answer to his party’s recent dry spell in advancing their agenda. After criticizing his party’s “over-reliance” on “procedural moves” – think judicial filibusters – on ABC’s “This Week” last Sunday, Barack Obama of Illinois acknowledged that “There’s one way to guarantee that the judges who are appointed to the Supreme Court are judges that reflect our values, and that’s to win elections.”

Bravo, Senator! I’ve said for some time now that, when the Republicans were in the minority, they accepted that Democrats were entitled to enjoy the fruits of their victories via things like advancement of their agenda items and appointment of judges they wanted. Hence no filibuster of the appointment of an extreme left-wing justice like Ruth Ginsburg. At that time, Republicans recognized that the answer was to get out, work hard, and win elections. So they got out, worked hard, and won elections.

Senator Obama’s party has been slow in accepting this reality. Actually, it’s not certain that they’ve actually accepted it yet. Barack Obama is just one of 45 Democrats in the Senate – I number Jim Jeffords among them – and, in what I found to be an extremely ironic move, Senator Obama himself voted in favor of the failed filibuster attempt – another “procedural move” prior to the final confirmation vote. At least the thought of trying to win the right way has been thrown out there by one of them. Maybe that’s the first step in righting themselves.

Of course, to win elections, they’re going to have to think hard about those “values” the Senator wants judges to reflect.

--------------------

I noticed in a Reuters report of the confirmation vote a comparison of the seats occupied by Justice Alito and the other recent appointment, Chief Justice John Roberts, in which an interesting statement was made by the writer:

“Roberts replaced a fellow conservative, the late William Rehnquist, so he did not change the balance on the court.”

Frankly, I have been a bit surprised that this line of reasoning – not changing the “ideological balance” of the court – hasn’t been trumpeted more loudly by the Schumers, Kennedys, and Leahys in the Senate in their opposition to Alito. Yet I feel very confident that the next appointment to the Supreme Court President Bush makes – and, yes, I do think he’ll have one more before he leaves office in three years – will be to replace one of the more liberal members. It’s almost a certainty that the “ideological balance” issue will be raised at that time.

So.

By way of “preemptive rebuttal,” let me offer this very simple little tidbit: There is no requirement – either in the text of the Constitution or in the realm of common sense – for any kind of “ideological balance” on the Court. If anything, the spirit of our republic demands a court that is unanimously committed to the same ideology – the one that puts faithfulness to the Supreme Law of the Land as it is written over how one might wish it were written.

--------------------

Ed Whelan at National Review Online had a great piece on what that failed filibuster attempt accomplished for the Democrats – have a look at it here – and it’s not good news for them.

In addition to what Mr. Whelan notes, I can’t help but feel that this casts an unfavorable light on Kerry’s 2008 aspirations. Here is a man who made a very public move to take his party’s lead on an issue against the president – and the party didn’t follow. Yet in two years he’s going to try to convince America that he can effectively occupy the single most powerful leadership position in the nation. Good luck to him. This little episode didn’t help that cause.

Ditto when it comes to Hillary Clinton. First of all, I’ll note once again that I have always questioned her ability to win a nationwide election. Proving you can win in New York doesn’t prove you can win enough of the “heartland” to take the presidency – just look at Al Gore and John Kerry. The fact is that, among all the states she could have established residency in to run for the Senate, there are some very specific reasons she chose New York. I believe one of them is the fact that it is one of the few states that provides enough of a “friendly audience” for her to actually win, despite her high negatives with so much of the populace.

But anyway, we were talking about the filibuster, weren’t we? As one of the Senators who voted in favor of it, despite its certainty to fail, she reinforced many Americans’ view of her as a devoted left-winger – an image she had been trying to shed to position herself for a presidential run.

Not to mention the fact that she demonstrated that she was willing to follow John Kerry’s lead in charging over a cliff. Who’s the better pick for the Dems in ’08, the guy who could only get a few of his own caucus to follow him, or one of those wretched few who did follow him?

--------------------

While we’re talking about Hillary, who can really question her intent to run for the presidency now, after her comments to Jane Pauley recently?

Speaking of the American public’s willingness to elect a female president, Mrs. Clinton stated that “there’s a feeling that it’s time,” and that she detected “a certain impatience.”

Where shall I begin? With the assumption that her liberal voice speaks for the American people, like Diane Feinstein has been doing for some time? Like Vicki Saporta of the National Abortion Federation did the day of the filibuster vote when she noted that “Americans” don’t want a justice like Sam Alito? I have no doubt that someone is impatient for a woman to be elected president. But I question whether there is a nationwide feeling of impatience.

Understand, I’m not addressing whether or not America should elect a female in 2008, or any time after that. But I happen to believe that the American people still take voting for the leader of the nation seriously enough to not elect somebody, or the representative of some group, simply because “it’s their turn.” Something tells me most voters still care about who is best suited to lead America more than they care about what that person’s gender might be.

And, still, I wait for someone to tell me why she is even the best candidate among the women who are in American public life. My invitation for someone to explain that to me still stands.

--------------------

Not directly related to the Alito confirmation, but relating to the Supreme Court nonetheless, I noticed that in his announcement that he would not support the filibuster attempt, Democrat Colorado Senator Ken Salazar couldn’t resist taking a shot at innocent bystander Clarence Thomas.

After his announcement about the filibuster, the Senator went on to say, “There are members of the U.S. Supreme Court that I very much disagree with. Clarence Thomas, for example, I think is an abomination when you contrast him to the leadership and principles of someone like Thurgood Marshall.”

With regard to Clarence Thomas, there are few people in public life who have had to endure as many hateful slings and arrows cast by people who we are supposed to consider statesmen as this man who has served with quiet dignity and distinction for fifteen years now.

Does anyone really believe that Senator Salazar would care a whit about Justice Thomas’ leadership and principles if he simply voted “the right way?” Can you recall a time when any conservative or Republican lashed out at Thurgood Marshall in this way, despite his extreme liberal voting record on the court? Can you imagine what charges would be leveled against any conservative that would have lashed out this way? Of course you can.

Interesting how we keep winning, despite the fact that the other side insists on not having a level playing field.

--------------------

And finally.

It seems to be worthy of some note that President Bush “snubbed” columnist Helen Thomas at his White House press conference a few days ago. According to Drudge, the President took questions from everyone on the front row but Ms. Thomas, who was sitting in her traditional front-row center seat, and raising her hand throughout.

This was notable to many. And it was maddening to Ms. Thomas. But I’ve got a question about all this: Why should the President take any questions from this ancient, angry liberal woman? It’s been some time – actually I can’t remember a time – since she had anything to say or ask that wasn’t specifically designed to publicly demonstrate her disdain for the President.

Granted, it’s hard to find any journalist at these conferences who is really aiming to be an unbiased chronicler of the Bush administration. But Helen Thomas’ comments and remarks go beyond the pale, not even willing to demonstrate respect for the office that Mr. Bush holds.

Besides, she’s not even a reporter anymore. She is a columnist. Is a White House press conference really an appropriate place for her to be in the first place?

The fact is that her presence at the press conference is just another one of Washington’s silly traditions – not all of them are silly, mind you – that most folks couldn’t care less about. Somewhere there’s a legitimate reporter who is not able to attend those conferences simply because Helen Thomas has to have a seat.

And with that little rant, I will abruptly close.

Have a good ‘un.

Sliding Down The Slippery Slope

2006-02-01T09:27:00.000-08:00

It appears that America has quickly begun its slide down the slippery slope that was carved out of the Constitution last June. Readers may recall that it was at that time that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of the city of New London, Connecticut to invoke Eminent Domain in order to seize homeowners’ private property not for public use, as the Constitution mandates, but for the private use of others whose company the city more highly values.

In that case, the argument that was used to justify the taking, and the argument that carried the day in a 5-4 decision, was that the Public Use requirement could be satisfied if the property was taken in order to provide it to wealthier entities – who could provide the city with greater tax revenue that would, in turn, fund city projects.

People often make light of the slippery slope argument in any area of public life, but often at their own peril. In this particular case, the abomination that was the Kelo decision is already seeing foul fruit borne from the bitter seed that was planted.

In Sand Springs, Oklahoma the latest target of a local government’s perverted use of Eminent Domain is Colonial Baptist Church, which otherwise would be standing in the way of a development project to be anchored by a Home Depot. As was the case in New London, the biggest “selling point” of this move on the part of the local government is that new businesses will bring in more tax revenue to the city.

That the role of money as the primary motivation in this controversy is something that is recognized by parties on both sides of the issue. Roosevelt Guildon, who serves as the congregation’s Pastor, has noted, “I guess saving souls isn’t as important as raking in money for politicians to spend.” As if to confirm this allegation, Sand Springs Mayor Bob Walker has been quoted as saying, in response to what outcry has occurred over the move, “I’m open to anyone telling me how we’re going to pay for city services.”

What this recognition/admission reveals is that the abuse of the constitutional provision for Eminent Domain is the direct result of out of control growth in the government at every level. Whether looking to help secure re-election, or simply build their personal empires, elected officials from Washington to Jefferson City to Sand Springs seem constantly on the lookout for ways to expand their influence in the lives of citizens via “services” they try to add to the government’s plate.

But new or expanded services must be paid for. Hence the need for greater revenue in the face of the fact that most traditional sources of government revenue are already heavily tapped, and the desire to sell Americans on measures they might otherwise think twice about based on the “it’ll generate more revenue” argument. It is the primary benefit put forth in support of lotteries. It is pretty much the sole argument when liquor initiatives come up. And it is what is fueling the ever-more threatening trend of government seizure of private property for the purpose of providing that property to other private entities.

That the problem of “Eminent Domain gone wild” is a real and vexing one is now beyond question. But no one who is as appalled by its abuse as is this writer should lose sight of the fact that it is also but a symptom of a larger problem that fuels it – a government that has grown far beyond a justifiable size. Citizens may indeed welcome a government that continually dangles goodies before their eyes, but they should recognize that “there is no free lunch.” Every goodie so dangled comes with a price, and the price may eventually come to be the most cherished freedoms and benefits enjoyed by virtue of being an American. Indeed, it may already be approaching that point. Just another confirmation of the truth of Jefferson’s statement that “That government governs best that governs least.”

The Activist Left Prepares to Speak

2006-01-31T12:34:00.000-08:00

Tonight, as the President addresses the nation on the state of the Union, outside the Capitol Building a group of activists will gather to try to “drown out” Mr. Bush’s speech with drums, violins, car horns, bells, pots, and pans. The left-wing gathering, expected by its organizers to number in the thousands, will feature noted Bush haranguer Cindy Sheehan as part of her ongoing quest to humiliate the President by engaging herself in undignified publicity stunts.

The demonstration is being organized by a recently-created organization known as The World Can’t Wait. The overriding purpose of the organization, in its own words, is to get the message out that “Bush lied, Bush spied, Bush must step down.” Protesters planning to be present for the event state the President’s crimes as, among other things, waging an “unjust war in Iraq, widespread use of torture, massive spying, and total neglect of the people of New Orleans.”

It’s almost a pity that they don’t include the guilt that the President bears in making it difficult for some to quit smoking. After all, that’s the claim recently made by Sean Penn – who will forever be Jeff Spicoli from Fast Times At Ridgemont High in the mind of this writer – in addressing those gathered for another anti-war forum staged in Sacramento. Mr. Penn’s comment is notable in this context as he is one of several Hollywood personalities who have given their endorsement of tonight’s gathering on Capitol Hill. Doubtless, event organizers must certainly be buoyed by the intellectual weight that accompanies Mr. Penn’s vote of confidence.

Of course, it is doubtful that anyone, whether for or against the demonstration, actually believes that it will in fact “drown out” the proceedings within the walls of the House Chamber hundreds of feet away. The intent is obviously symbolic. But this raises the question of what is being symbolized by the left-wing ruckus. To those who vigorously desire the swift departure of George Bush – and indeed all conservatives – from the public arena, it may simply be the voice of dissent. But to the President’s supporters and, more importantly, the partisan-neutral, it is more likely to symbolize one of two things, if not both: The utter lack of a message on the part of the opposition, or the desire to silence any voices that oppose their own.

Strong arguments can be made for both. The fact is that the left has made one its SOPs the silencing of anyone who might offer views alternative to theirs. One can’t help but wonder if this is borne of a recognition – either conscious or unconscious – that they really can’t afford to try to get involved in a rational debate, because they have so little to bring to the table. Thus, the lack of message may be what drives the need to “drown out” those who do have one, but not one that they like.

As a conservative, this writer actually draws encouragement for the future at the prospect of this demonstration. After all, these are the people who will likely choose the next Democrat nominee for President. Americans will be well-served by seeing who is in the driver’s seat of the minority party when evaluating who it is they propose to place in the oval office.

Perhaps it would be helpful for the American public if a network broadcasting tonight’s proceedings present a split screen, with the orderly conduct of the President and the Congress shown on the right side of the screen, and the chaos of his opponents playing on the left side. Forget the formal response of the Democrats, who are beholden to groups like this. There would be a symbolic contrast that could be of real use to American voters.

In The Midst Of The Ethics Session

2006-01-27T09:02:00.000-08:00

It’s been well over a week since the Tennessee Senate, voting as a committee of the whole, voted to nullify the results of the special election that put Ophelia Ford, sister of the indicted former senator she replaced, into office. Yet, despite an original intent to conduct a final vote of the Senate acting as the Senate to officially ratify the resolution two days later – and expel Ms. Ford from the Senate – said vote has not been held, and Ms. Ford remains Senator Ford.

Really, no one should be surprised that this is the case. Ms. Ford being a Democrat and all, it was only logical to expect her to file a federal lawsuit to try to stop the Senate from exercising its constitutional role as the final judge of the election of its members. After all, trying to win in the courtroom what they cannot seem to – legitimately – win at the ballot box has become standard operating procedure nationally for the party that now finds itself in the minority in Tennessee’s Senate.

At issue is the fact that the thirteen vote margin by which Ms. Ford defeated Republican Terry Roland is easily exceeded by the number of votes that evidence indicates were fraudulent. A bipartisan Senate panel has already unanimously agreed that nine of the votes in question were illegally cast. And a four vote margin of victory in an election that features, at the very least, another thirty ballots with the forged signature of a poll worker on them is hardly an election in which an observant citizen can have confidence.

In defense of the election, Senator Ford’s attorney is arguing that to void the election would infringe upon the equal protection and due process guarantees for her and her supporters, who he claims would be disenfranchised, as well as violate the Voting Rights Act. The sentiment expressed in this defense seems to be that “errors” are a fact of life in elections, and the system should learn to live with them, even when they are clearly identified.

It continues to be a significant trait of the Democrats to be champions of defending the “equal protection” rights of those who either aren’t honest enough, or responsible enough, to see to it that they actually have a right to vote where they show up to vote – a “protection” that seems to take precedence over the protection of those who do go through the process honestly and/or correctly.

As for the “due process” that is called for in determining the results of an election to a given legislative body, the actions of the Senate up until the intervention of the federal judge are precisely the “due process” called for by the State Constitution – as is the case in most, if not all, state legislatures as well as the United States Congress.

But constitutional means of holding power, such as winning elections, have not been producing the results that Democrats would like in, among other places, the Volunteer State, where following the 2004 elections they found themselves as the minority party in the Senate for the first time in 140 years. And while it is true that any political party is, and should be, interested in increasing its own ranks among elected officials, Democrat Senator Steve Cohen’s attempt to engage in misdirection – another popular Democrat tactic of late – by saying that the desire for more Republican Senators is all that’s driving the movement to void the election in Memphis makes less sense than simply acknowledging that upholding the election would only further erode the already low level of confidence that Tennesseeans have in their legislature as an institution. It is helpful to note here that this all takes place in the midst of a Special Session on Ethics called in response to the recent arrests and indictments of several members and former members of the General Assembly.

At this stage, Republican Majority Leader Ron Ramsey remains confident that the case brought by Senator Ford against her colleagues will be thrown out. Perhaps justice will prevail, but the fact that the judge in question is a Clinton appointee who received her job at the request of the Ford family will probably cause other conservatives to feel a bit more nervousness until the verdict is rendered. But hope will spring eternal.

A Comparison That Won't Fly

2006-01-25T13:23:00.000-08:00

In the ongoing fight to try to cast purely political moves as blows struck in some noble cause, Senator Patrick Leahy, as is so often the case with his party, is relying heavily on his perception – or hope – of the ignorance and laziness of the American voter.

While it may be possible to find some refreshment in his admission of Judiciary Committee Democrats acting as Democrats, as opposed to United States Senators, in their opposition to the unquestionably qualified Samuel Alito and his ascension to the Supreme Court, it would be more refreshing still if he could do it without insulting the intelligence of the people he’s addressing.

In explaining his committee vote against the confirmation of Judge Alito, the man who may be the most partisan member of the Senate – it’s hard to decide between him, Ted Kennedy, and Charles Schumer – tried to cast his opposition in historic context, stating that “No president should be allowed to pack the courts, especially the Supreme Court. An overwhelmingly Democratic-controlled Senate stood up to the most popular Democrat ever elected president, Franklin Roosevelt, and we Democrats protected the independence of the Supreme Court by saying that even somebody as popular as Franklin Roosevelt could not pack the Supreme Court.”

If the Senator’s comparison is accurate, then Americans will certainly see the need for such a principled stand. After all, surely opposing an attempt to do something as nefarious as “packing the court” in the way that FDR tried is something that all Americans should be able to support, right? The problem is that the comparison doesn’t fly. Virtually anyone who would actually recognize the term “packing the court” as a reference to Roosevelt’s actions would also recognize that there is a fundamental flaw in the Senator’s attempt to link it with George Bush’s nomination of judicial conservatives to the bench.

President Roosevelt was frustrated with a Supreme Court that had overturned several pieces of New Deal legislation that he strongly supported. His “answer” to the problem was to concoct a scheme in his second term which would enable him to actually increase the number of justices on the court, allowing him to add enough jurists who would be friendly to his point of view to guarantee the sustainment of his agenda. George Bush, on the other hand, is merely exercising his prerogative, in the exercise of his constitutional duty, to appoint justices who share his judicial philosophy. It’s the difference between playing by the rules to achieve your goals as opposed to making up new rules as you go, when the existing rules don’t get you what you want. George Bush is doing the former, while Franklin Roosevelt attempted the latter.

And really, it is the latter that the conduct of Senate Democrats has more closely resembled over the past five years as well. Having failed to win the right to see judges they would prefer placed on the federal bench by playing by the rules – think “winning elections” here – they have continually tried to rewrite the constitutional rules governing this important government function – think requiring sixty votes for confirmation, or deference by the majority to the minority here.

At a time that Democrats controlled both political branches of the government, Republicans offered little opposition to the appointments of left-wing jurists Ruth Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer to the Court. Despite discomfort with the nominees, Senate Republicans recognized that Democrats had won the right to pick “their judges” at the ballot box. And what did they do to solve their problem? They got out, worked hard, and won elections in order to get that right for themselves. Would that it were that Senate Democrats would act like adults and do the same.

Instead, the American people are forced to witness demonstrations like that of Senator Leahy’s, in which he either exposes his own ignorance of the issue, or simply hopes for the ignorance of his listeners. Might this just be further evidence of the lack of confidence that Democrats have in their own agenda to win over voters?

A Poor Use Of Their Valuable Time

2006-01-24T13:46:00.000-08:00

It’s becoming obvious to anyone paying even a little bit of attention that Democrats - once again - are hinging their hopes to retake Congress this year not on their ability to sell America on their ideas, whatever they might be, but on their ability to sell America on the notion that Republican rule is hastening the destruction of the universe, or at least the destruction of the Land of the Free.

Witness the ongoing furor over the Bush Administration’s use of the National Security Agency to monitor contacts between persons in the U.S. and foreign agents hostile to the United States. Receiving what they believe is a valuable assist from alleged Republican Arlen Specter, who plans to hold Judiciary Committee hearings on the program, Democrats are salivating at the prospect of drawing the public’s attention to an issue that they believe is a sure winner for them.

Unfortunately for them, there is a fact that will likely elude their recognition until they have already expended much time and energy that could have better been spent elsewhere – like on selling voters on their policies, if indeed voters can be sold on them: That is, that there is no provision in the law that will clearly condemn the Administration’s actions in the eyes of the populace. Indeed, the relevant law seems to have been written broadly enough to easily include the narrowly targeted monitoring that is taking place. Between that and the grant of power given by the Congress to the President following the 2001 attacks on America, “there’s nothing to see here.”

But beyond just being a colossal waste of their time and effort in an important campaign season, the simple fact is that they are missing a huge point that may indeed cause them real harm in the fall campaign: Americans are still more scared of the terrorists than they are of George Bush and the Republicans. And the Democrats’ continual drawing of attention to an issue which at the very least gives the impression that they would rather give a terrorist a pass on calling an accomplice in the U.S. than take the chance on hearing a teenager confess to a friend that she had an abortion without her parents’ knowledge does not help their image in the national security arena.

Ask an American if they fear jack-booted Bush Brownshirts will break down their door in the middle of the night to drag them away because they told a friend over the phone that they’re going to campaign for the Democrats in the fall, and it’s safe to say that less than five percent will honestly say “yes.” Ask that same person if they fear what might happen if terrorist leaders outside the U.S. can transmit orders to their agents within the U.S., and that number shoots through the roof. Indeed, it’s safe to say that most Americans would agree that if the President knows such correspondence is taking place, it would be colossally irresponsible for him not to monitor such.

But then, what can the Democrats do? The fact is that even in the election year of 2006, five years after the attacks, National Security remains near the top of every Americans’ list of most pressing issues. And the Democrats are viewed as extremely weak on this issue, in no small part due to the impression, given by their attempts to equate George Bush with Hitler, that they are not serious about it.

So maybe it’s only logical that they would attempt to divert attention from such a pressing issue to try to focus on a scandal. The problem here is that the “scandal” that they are choosing to focus on only draws attention right back to their weakness.

There have been some who suggested that, during the seventies and eighties, the Republicans exploited the threat of Communism for political gain to win four of five presidential elections during that time. And reasonable people can debate such an assertion from either side. But the simple – political – fact is that the American people viewed Communist expansion as a legitimate threat, and consequently wanted a leader who took the threat seriously. It was only after communism was largely defeated that Americans felt it was safe to put a Democrat in the oval office again.

Americans now once again live in what they believe to be dangerous times, and they know who their real enemies are. The continual attempts on the part of the Democrats to convince them that the real enemies are not terrorists, but rather Republicans, will most likely assure that they continue to be the party out of power in the near future.

George and Harry

2006-01-20T11:55:00.000-08:00

I don’t watch awards shows of any kind anymore. When I abandoned the religion of celebrity worship several years ago, I discovered that there was no real reason for me to watch them apart from whatever thrill I might get from catching a glimpse, however briefly, of pop culture icons making a temporary descent into the real world in which the rest of us live. As that experience no longer carries such a thrill for me, I find I can make better use of my time reading a book, or cutting my toenails.

Nevertheless, there are sometimes episodes that occur in such settings that make their way into my “field of vision” and prompt a lot of thought on my part. Such is the case with an acceptance speech at the recent Golden Globe ceremonies. In accepting the award for Best Haircut, or something, George Clooney decided to thank Jack Abramoff “just because” - a reference to the bribery conspiracy scandal that some feel will touch only Republicans. He then went on to make a vulgar joke about parents that give a child that particular first name to go with a last name that ends with “off.”

Of course, my first reaction to this incident was to question whether making jokes about someone’s name in this manner is really territory that George C. Looney wants to venture into. But it is just enough to know that Mr. Clooney’s propensity for using events such as this as opportunities to remind viewers of his hatred for those with whom he disagrees is something that has remained constant with the passing of time. Many, no doubt, still remember his tasteless jokes about Charlton Heston’s Alzheimer’s disease in the not-too-distant past, and his unrepentant behavior when criticized for them.

In the spirit of other recent posts to this space, in which I have felt much more comfortable in speaking directly to the actions of a particular faction/party, I take note here that it is no surprise that Mr. Clooney is but one member of the vast Hollywood-Leftist community who is a staunch supporter of the Democrat Socialist party. And that engaging in the kind of personal smears that has become such a standard tactic among those of his ilk, he has joined his partisan beneficiaries in the ranks of those whose needless comments have hurt more than just the intended target – this time it was Mr. Abramoff’s twelve-year-old daughter who was reduced to tears by what was said.

Of course, I don’t deny that Mr. Abramoff has left himself open to such childish attacks from the simple-minded sort who find such gratification in this kind of immature rhetoric by virtue of his criminal activities – which will likely end up implicating members of both parties, by the way. I just think it’s useful to note who the simpletons are that jump on such opportunities as he has afforded, the pointless and damaging nature of what they have to say, and the “leaders” with whom they keep company.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, in yet another episode in which he has been forced to apologize for inappropriate statements he or his office has made, wrote on January 19 that he regrets “the current political climate in which policy disputes escalate too quickly into personal condemnation.” Yet he seems to be willing to do nothing to rein in those in his camp who continue to use it as their debate tactic of choice. We thus certainly shouldn’t be surprised that their staunchest supporters who memorize and recite other people’s thoughts for a living are inclined to use the same tactic, as opposed to offering real and well-thought solutions to the problems our government and nation face.

And maybe that’s because what few ideas they do have simply aren’t very appealing to the American electorate to which they still – much to their chagrin, no doubt – must appeal in order to win back power in the nation’s capital. Thus the need to accentuate scandals in the other camp. But leaving aside the fact that this scandal will likely end up embarrassing both Republicans and Democrats, this brings me back to my basic thought on scandal as a political tactic.

Scandals are one of the few things that the major parties have in common. By that I mean that both parties have been tainted by scandal in the past and will likely be touched by scandal again in the future. If someone wants to try to present one party as better than the other in this regard, he attempts the impossible. And the American people, by and large know this. Perhaps it’s cynical, but many within the voting public expect to hear about such things happening from time to time. This is likely what many mean when they say that there’s “not a dime’s worth of difference” between the parties. And if scandals in the past and present are what they are talking about, they are right.

Where the parties actually differ – and where more people than the Democrats seem to believe look to determine which party to support – is in what they believe. The positions they take, the policies they advocate, these are what set the Democrats apart from the Republicans. And these are the things that the “vast undecided” electorate will look to come election time.

Is it unpleasant to have to witness the endless finger-pointing that the party of George Clooney and Harry Reid seem to want to use to win people over? Certainly. But knowing that the real goal is to win the support of the people who still hold ultimate power in our Republic, I’m more than willing to endure it if it only helps to secure victory in the only expression of public opinion that really matters – in November.

Regarding Election Integrity

2006-01-18T12:00:00.000-08:00

A debate currently rages in Georgia over the need for voters to be able to prove who they are, and that they have the right to vote in a given election. The controversy stems from a law that was passed by Georgia’s legislature last year which required voters to show a photo-ID when they go to the polls in order to be able to vote. Those who did not already have one could purchase one for up to $35.

This final provision within the bill seems to have been what left it open to legal challenge, and the law was indeed blocked from taking effect by a federal judge who ruled that the requirement for some to purchase an ID amounted to an unconstitutional poll tax. The law, consequently, has been unenforceable. That is, until recently – perhaps.

Earlier this month, Georgia’s legislators passed another bill making the photo-IDs free to those who cannot afford to purchase them – seemingly removing the obstacle that kept the original bill from taking effect. Not that it’s going to happen without a fight. Those who continue to oppose the voter ID requirement continue to raise charges that the requirement suppresses the votes of the poor, minorities, and elderly. Of course, it should be noted that this writer has seen no documentation offered to substantiate that claim.

If anyone needs to see real-world evidence of the need for laws like the one being debated in Georgia, he needs only to look to the state bordering the Peach State to the North. In Tennessee, politics-watchers are getting a firsthand look at the corruption that inadequate voter identification breeds.

Tuesday night, the Tennessee Senate, acting as a “committee of the whole,” voted to nullify the results of a special election held in September which was intended to replace one of its members, John Ford of Memphis, who had resigned as the result of a bribery scandal. The election was won by Mr. Ford’s sister, Ophelia, by a margin of 13 votes.

The problem is that more than 13 votes in the election were cast by convicted felons, people living outside the district, or people who aren’t living at all. Should the Senate, voting as the Senate, duplicate last night’s results on Thursday, Ms. Ford will be removed from office, and the Shelby County Commission will appoint a replacement until the next general election.

What is fascinating in both the Georgia case – where the discussion of inadequate voter verification is still at the theoretical level – and the Tennessee case – where the discussion has moved into the “real world situation” arena – is that those in both cases who oppose taking measures to prevent or correct corruption, by and large, have something in common – their partisan affiliation.

It is the Democrats in Georgia who are trying to oppose the measure that would work to prevent corruption in the electoral process. It is the Democrats in Tennessee who are fighting to keep in place the results of an election that no impartial observer could deny was corrupted to the extreme. Predictably, the charges of racism and vote suppression have been thrown out as a means of misdirecting the discussion, for lack of any real leg that these opponents have to stand on.

But “racism” as all too often charged nowadays has become a meaningless term. Whereas in the past, it usually pointed to actual cases of someone’s being unfairly discriminated against on racial grounds, nowadays, more often than not, it is used merely to describe the actions of those with whom a particular group may disagree. Thanks to the race-hustlers who have thrown around the term too freely and carelessly, “racism” as a charge has come to have a very hollow ring to it. What some don’t seem to want to acknowledge is that the measures being discussed in both cases would apply to people of any race – regardless of the race of anyone in a given instance.

And “vote suppression” seems to have come to mean anything that discourages from voting people who don’t have a right to vote. The simple fact of the matter is that there are some whose votes do need to be suppressed under the law: underage citizens, convicted felons, those not properly registered, non-citizens, and, yes, voters who have passed from this life.

The real question that this writer suspects many people – like himself – would like to have answered is: Why is the Democrat party behind most of the opposition to measures that would provide real solutions to the problem of vote and election integrity?

Best guess – It is because elections are a democratic (small “d”) process, and, perhaps ironically, democratic processes have not been kind to the Democrats (large “D”) in recent years. Whereas, when the Republicans were in the minority, they realized they had to just go out, work hard, and win elections, the Democrats now in the minority have decided that they need to circumvent constitutional democratic process in order to move their agenda forward – think of their heavy reliance upon the judicial branch for making policy in this light as well.

What makes this all very sobering is the implications it has for the day, if and when it ever occurs, that the modern Democrat party ever returns to power. They are already trying, through various extra-constitutional means, to suppress and silence those who oppose their agenda. Just imagine how successful they might be at this if they are ever given back the authority that goes with being the majority party.

It’s ten months until election day.

Reactions to the Alito Hearings

2006-01-17T13:45:00.000-08:00

I’ve mentioned to friends before that I sometimes worry if I’m too partisan. Granted, I am a member of the Republican party, even an officer in a couple of different GOP organizations. But I would never want my partisan loyalties to supersede my loyalty to the nation, or to the truth. So I honestly sometimes ponder if I’m reacting to a particular event just because it involves “my guys” or “the other guys.”

Then again, maybe the fact that I’m still able to ask myself that question indicates that I’m still in the land of the rational. But honestly, I am also reassured by the fact that the party that I presently oppose is the party that has allowed an unrepentant – most of you know to what I refer – Al Sharpton to rise to the status of “presidential contender.” It doesn’t take a partisan Republican to be repulsed by the company that a given party keeps.

And it doesn’t take a partisan of any stripe to see nothing but sheer nastiness in the conduct of certain leading members of a national party in their handling of a constitutional duty/obligation involving people of a different world view.

After the debacle that was the Democrats’ attempt to derail Judge Samuel Alito’s ascension to the Supreme Court, it may be a while before I worry again if I’m being too partisan in how I react to political news in Washington. It was a classic example of what has become the standard operating procedure of the Democrats over the past few years – oppose a Republican nominee on the basis of the record, and if there is nothing in the record to oppose, then just destroy – or try to destroy – the nominee himself.

The fact that Judge Alito survived the hearings – and will most likely be confirmed soon – does not in any way absolve Committee Democrats of their guilt for their shameful behavior toward a man whose qualifications and temperament are beyond question. Their failure to achieve their diabolical objectives doesn’t change the fact of what their objective was, or the fact that they were willing to do anything they were able in order to try to achieve it.

I am about as disgusted with the Democrats as I have ever been. And this from a guy who, as already noted, honestly worries about being too partisan. It just seems right to me to let the reader know this up front before offering the following comments on the Alito hearings.

------------------

I suppose nothing can sum up what the minority party has sunk to in this regard better than the reaction of Martha Alito to the constant assault on her husband at the hearings. Many a wife can listen to legitimate criticism of her husband’s performance as a professional and recognize it as legitimate discourse. She may not like it, but generally won’t be reduced to tears by it.

But rest assured, ninety-five times out of a hundred, when a wife has been reduced to tears in a situation like this, it is because she knows her husband is being treated unfairly, and that the jabs are designed to hurt him. There is no noble intent that is too painful to bear, only viciousness recognized for what it is.

And make no mistake about it – the way the democrats treated this good man is the way they would treat any one of us if we were in the same position as Samuel Alito. They are the “rulers” – as opposed to “leaders” – and their position entitles them to crush whomever they will with no need for regret. If someone is hurt by what they do, so what? That person doesn’t live in their gated community anyway.

I see the kind of bullying that Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, and Charles Schumer engage in at times like this, and have to wonder if the founders envisioned this abusive behavior when they included the “advice and consent” provision on executive nominees. But then, I also wonder if they envisioned an electorate in certain quarters that would actually agree to let them act this way.

Speaking of this bullying, and the hurt it caused, isn’t it cute how Richard Durbin – one of the conspirators in the “destroy Alito’s character” operation – tried to sound sympathetic toward the judge, and his wife? Well, actually, no, it isn’t cute at all. The liberal Senator from Illinois commented that he knows how tough public office can be because of what his own family has gone through when he has faced public criticism.

If memory serves, the last time Mr. Durbin faced public criticism, it was because he compared American servicemen and women to the killing squads of Pol Pot, et al. There is little comparison between justly-deserved criticism over what one says as part of the public record, and simple mischaracterizations and false allegations designed to impugn a man’s character for political gain.

If I had his ear, I would challenge Senator Durbin to point to a single time when someone, in a nationally-televised forum, subjected him to the same kind of humiliating personal attacks to which Sam Alito was subjected – with no basis in anything he had actually said or done. I see Senator Durbin’s comments as a weak attempt at damage control. Like many others, he may recognize how much damage the Dems may have done to themselves in their behavior.

And, by way of transition, this is the Senator Durbin who flat-out told Judge Alito that he could not support a nominee who would not promise to uphold the right to abortion. This, of course, is really the only issue Democrats on the committee need to know about in order to decide how they’ll vote.

Any careful observer can see that any Supreme Court nominees would really need to do only one thing in order to meet with the approval of national democrats – vow allegiance to Roe v. Wade. As Kate O’Beirne has rightly pointed out, the left wants desperately to keep this issue in the judiciary and away from the democratic branches of government. I’ll leave it to the reader to surmise why.

The fact is that there’s not a prominent Democrat who can legitimately criticize anyone for being a “one-issue” voter. Abortion is, simply, the primary issue that gives the Democrat party its reason for existence. Thus all the questioning of Judge Alito on whether or not Roe v. Wade is “settled law,” and if he is willing to commit to never laying a hand on it while on the High Court.

Of course, the “settled law” discussion is but another misdirection on the part of the left, as if to say that “settled law” is somehow beyond the reach of anyone to alter or revoke. Isn’t it true that all “law” is “settled law” in that it is recognized to be the rule currently in effect? But do we not also recognize that all law, even that which is “settled” can be revisited and even overturned by the institution that created it? That’s certainly the case with statutory law made by Congress, why not with judicial law?

I’ve asked the question before: If Roe v Wade had been decided the other way, would abortion rights activists have been willing to say “oh well, it’s settled law” and give up their fight? I think not. But abortion opponents are supposed to do precisely that.

Interestingly enough, as time goes by, it becomes more apparent to me that the Dems’ allegiance to abortion is symptomatic of the problem that has made a once-great party one that is now fighting against history to survive ideologically – there is no commitment to truth. This problem is most clearly revealed in the left’s refusal to acknowledge – despite a growing mountain of evidence – that what is conceived in the womb is a human life, deserving of all the rights and protections that government is bound to secure for any other human life. A party that is committed to what they wish was the truth more than they are what is the truth is a party that is dooming itself to alienation from continuingly larger portions of the populace. Unless the populace itself loses it’s commitment to truth and reality – but that’s a discussion for another time.

This issue is, of course, the primary issue under consideration when Joe Biden says he is upset that Judge Alito won’t be drawn into a discussion about where he stands on the issues? Excuse me? As a judge, he is not supposed to be drawn into such a discussion in an official capacity. He should be discussing where he stands on the law. Discussion of the issues is for the political branches – the branches that answer directly to the people – to engage in. Just one of many statements that either demonstrate a lack of understanding on the part of the Senator himself – or herself – or of a willingness to misdirect, and count on the public’s ignorance.

And speaking of statements designed to misdirect, what about these constant complaints about Judge Alito coming down on the side of the corporation versus the “little guy?” Again, his job is to come down on the side of the law. If you want to talk about the judge’s decision on a given case where a corporation was pitted against a “little guy,” you need to look at where each of those parties stood in relation to the law.

Since I’ve started complaining about Senator Biden – which, I acknowledge, I do quite a bit – I note that the man who obviously considers himself the smartest man in America stated in an interview that Robert Bork was rejected because he was forthcoming with his views “on the issues” and, in the words of the Senator “the American people didn’t agree with his views.” I would love to see his documentation to back up that statement. Clever, though, how he tries sell the idea that the Senate Judiciary Committee is the barometer of how the American people feel about the issues.

Reminds me of Diane Feinstein saying she speaks for American women on matters of “reproductive rights.” Who exactly appointed her to that position? I know an awful lot of women who would be quick to point out to Ms. Feinstein that she does not speak for them.

But, oh, how it makes you sound more authoritative to claim such.

Of course, how are they to know whether or not they really do represent the views of the average American? The fact is that they don’t really care how the average American feels. They know how the average American should feel about an issue, so there’s no need to listen.

Just like there was no need to listen to Judge Alito that much. Maybe, like me, some of you saw a piece (sorry I can’t remember where, but I’ll find it if you need me to) that noted how long each Senator spoke during their thirty minutes each that they were given to “question” judge Alito. Long story short, between Schumer, Kennedy, and Biden, Alito actually was able to speak significantly less than ten minutes in each case.

Again, they represent a party that doesn’t listen, or feel the need to. They have become more committed to the party line and agenda than they have to what is true and factual – and right. And their behavior reflects it. The Alito hearings are only the latest example of this.

I have been hesitant to say much what I’m now saying in a public forum for some time. But the fact is that the national Democrat leadership has just become quite nasty and offensive in how it approaches politics and government. And the national leadership has finally become so rotten at the top that the nastiness is trickling down, even to the local levels.

I have been saying for some time that many Democrat activists at the local level – separated somewhat from the national leadership – are good, decent people who aren’t inclined to the type of misbehavior in which their national leaders engage. But the fact is, even in a peaceful little area like the one in which I live, the nastiness is making its way down.

Maybe it’s because new media have enabled the “local folk” to stay in contact with the leaders more easily – making it easier for the leadership’s behavior to “rub off” on them. Maybe it’s the frustration of continuing to see their party lose even in election years when all signs point to a long-awaited victory (due to their reliance on scandals to win for them, as opposed to ideas – but that’s the subject for another piece as well). Whatever the reason, even at the local level, it’s getting ugly. I could provide specific examples that both myself, and Republican associates have had direct involvement in, but won’t at this time. But if it does get to the point where even in a peaceful little town in Southern Tennessee supporters of the Democrats can no longer carry on civil discourse, one needs only look to their national leadership in Washington, and events like the recently-concluded hearings to see why they simply aren’t able to talk rationally. Their leadership has given them no rational ground on which to stand.

Bits and Pieces

2006-01-12T13:31:00.000-08:00

Trying to get back into the swing of posting more regularly. On those days when I simply can't get a full-fledged commentary completed, I'll at least try to get something like the following posted.

JLH

- I see where Planned Parenthood – one of the organizations that leads the charge in ending parenthood wherever possible – has launched a line of keychains promoting condom use. Included in this line is one model that features a doctored version of Michelangelo’s The Creation of Adam. Only in Planned Parenthood’s version God is handing Adam a condom. It reminds me of NARAL’s “Choice on Earth” Christmas cards in its mockery of Judeo-Christian imagery.

Beautiful, just beautiful.

Frankly, the simple form of Christianity I adhere to doesn’t put much stock in painted or carved images depicting the Divine. And I don’t even celebrate Christmas from a religious standpoint. But I know an awful lot of Americans do. And I know that regardless of how I, or anyone else might react to, or ignore, such gimmicks, I recognize the intent to mock, or at least exploit, the cherished beliefs of many to promote an agenda when I see it.

I have to think that Somebody somewhere doesn’t appreciate the intent. And while I think these promotions on the part of abortion advocates are tacky in the extreme, I’m content to let them be judged elsewhere for their effrontery.

- I plan to have some things to say – a lot of things, actually – concerning the Alito confirmation hearings in the next couple of days. But for now, I’ll just take note of a story I saw in the Washington Times about a group of twenty female Democrat members of the House of Representatives who have declared Samuel Alito to be unfit for the Supreme Court.

All I know to say when I hear such things is, “So what?” These women have no Constitutional say in who gets nominated/confirmed to any federal court. So what’s the point? Grandstanding? Fundraising? Or maybe it’s just the liberal need to execute some form of public protest when they don’t get their way?

- This is kind of dated, but I noticed where former President Bill Clinton said that he believes that the country is ready to elect a woman president – as long as she is the right kind of candidate. I don’t suppose I have any argument with that statement, but the obvious implication on his part is that the country should be willing to vote for Hillary.

Okay, obviously he feels she is the “right kind of candidate.” I suppose that term might have a different definition depending on who you’re talking to, but it would have been helpful if he had explained what he meant by it.

I have said for some time that if Hillary wants to run, she has the right to. And if people want to vote for her, they have the right to, even if they don’t know why. I certainly don’t know why they would. And I don’t say that to bash Hillary in any way. I honestly don’t know what it is about her that commends her to America as the best choice for President, and would love for someone to tell me what it is.

Michael Oates Palmer, who wrote for “The West Wing” (Or is it still on the air?), offered to buy a beer for the first Hillary supporter who “can point me to one decision or vote she’s made in the last four years where she took a stand that went against her best political interests.”

That is a valid question from a purely political standpoint. But for me, it goes even further. I just want to know what she’s done, what she’s accomplished, that makes her the best candidate, or even the best candidate among women. Can anyone help me out here?

- Maybe it’s only of interest to me because of my ties to Russia as the result of the adoption of my sons and the friends we made there in the process, but Lee Edwards had an interesting commentary in the January 5 Washington Times, the principal purpose of which was to talk up a proposed memorial to the victims of communism to be located in Washington. Regardless of how you feel about the proliferation in recent years of more and more “landmarks” in the nation’s capital, the piece provides some sobering reminders of the cost that has been imposed by, as he puts it “the bloodiest ideology yet devised by man.”

I’m reminded of an episode a few years ago in which my wife and I were in some other folks home in East Tennessee, when the news broke that Elian Gonzalez had been seized in a late night raid, and was to be returned to communist Cuba. As all who were gathered where we were discussed the events and their implications, one of the sons of our host, in his early twenties, said something to the effect of, “How bad can life in a communist country really be?” I was stunned into silence.

It only reaffirms the truth of Edwards’ statement that “We Americans are lucky. We’ve never had to worry about a knock on the door in the middle of the night, with members of the secret police ready to drag us from our homes.” Unfortunately, as that episode demonstrated, our good fortune in this regard has, in many cases, made us blind to the terrors of this ideology that many faced, and continue to face. For as Edwards’ notes, communism still remains a force for terror over one-fifth of the world’s population. And certain nations that have thrown it off previously stand in danger of falling back in it’s particularly deadly brand of tyranny.

- Remember when President Reagan was mocked for saying that trees contribute to global warming?

Well!

I had to chuckle when I saw the Reuters story proclaiming that German (that’s European) scientists have confirmed that living plants are major producers of greenhouse gasses.

But this really isn’t about that particular news item.

President Reagan was brutalized for suggesting this very thing two decades ago. Not because his statement had been dis-proven scientifically, but because, you see, he was a buffoon and had no business contradicting the accepted wisdom on the subject.

President Reagan’s simple-mindedness and ignorance was a major assumption made by many in the press and on the left (Or am I being redundant?) that served as their starting point on how to evaluate anything he said or did. Indeed, making unproven assumptions as starting points for evaluating any number of phenomena seems to be becoming more and more accepted as valid practice – which may be why the German study can’t explain why such a large source of the gasses had been overlooked before. Maybe it’s because they had previously started with the assumption that plants couldn’t be a source, so never bothered to look at them before.

In any event, as time goes by, new revelations/admissions made by those in politics, science, or whatever are revealing that maybe the Gipper wasn’t a buffoon for suggesting the emperor had no clothes after all – on more subjects than just greenhouse gasses. And his stature only becomes all the more impressive for his refusing to back down from what he believed simply because it wouldn’t be accepted by those who supposedly knew better than him (Weren’t we discussing communism a moment ago?). History is being very kind to him, as many of us knew it always would.

Now we have another President who is evaluated the same way by all the “smart people” – that is, begin with the assumption that he is a buffoon and that anything he says is laughable, particularly if it goes against the accepted wisdom of the day. Many in this community of “smart people” are already labeling him as one of the worst presidents ever – including a well-educated friend of mine who should really know better than to try to evaluate the historic quality of a presidency while it is still going on. But President Bush is standing by his beliefs with regard to the most pressing issues of our time. Don’t be surprised if history is equally kind to him in another quarter-century or so.

Some Of Us CAN Handle The Truth

2006-01-04T11:54:00.000-08:00

Sometimes it’s just easier to get down on a personal level, and write in first person. My apologies to Delores Thompson (my 12th Grade English Teacher).

JLH

What drives my thinking on any number of topics – politics, religion, or whatever – is a burning desire to know the truth, that overrides any personal agendas or ambitions I may have. I have positions that I hold on any number of issues within such broad topical areas as I have just described, but none that can’t be altered, or even recanted, if verifiable evidence is presented to me that my positions are wrong.

Religion? I am firmly committed to my Christian faith, because I believe the historical evidence, both scriptural and secular, supports the notion that Jesus of Nazareth actually died physically, and then actually came back from the dead three days later, convincing me, like Paul of Tarsus, that He really was/is the Son of God. But I am willing to listen to voices of dissent. If it can be proven that my foundational beliefs about Jesus and the events surrounding His death are not true, I stand ready to acknowledge that I am wrong in this regard. Because I love the truth.

Abortion? I am pro-life – or anti-abortion, if you prefer – because I believe the evidence supports the notion that what is conceived in the womb is human life, and that all human life is inherently precious. But I am never opposed to discussing the issue rationally, and listening to the arguments and evidence to be presented by those who believe otherwise. If it can be undeniably determined that their position is grounded in the truth, I stand ready to correct myself. Because the truth doesn’t change just because I might not choose to believe it.

It is a small and, I believe, insecure person who is unable to acknowledge that the position they hold on a given issue within any topical area is beyond debate – when insufficient evidence has been presented to rule out any and all alternatives.

These are the kind of thoughts that run through my head lately when I hear about all the furor surrounding the evolution/intelligent design debate going on in many school systems – and court systems – throughout the land. I’m certainly no old-timer – yet – but even I can remember when public schools, which I attended early in life, referred to the notion of the origin of life as promoted by Charles Darwin and his disciples as the theory of evolution.

It is interesting to me to note that, among its proponents, the “theory” qualifier has been dropped, and the notion of evolution as settled science is now insisted upon. There is now no room for doubt, dissent, or alternatives. I suppose simply because it has been accepted for so long – prompting me to think about other “scientific” theories that were accepted for many years in earlier times. But I digress.

The latest episode in this ongoing struggle – at least that I am aware of – has taken place in Dover, Pennsylvania, where, according to the Associated Press, the school board last year approved a policy that required a statement to be read about the theory of intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. The statement would note that Darwin’s theory has never been established as fact, and that there are gaps in the theory that may merit attention. If anyone is interested in learning more, reference is made to an “intelligent design” book, that can be acquired.

That’s it. No lessons on how intelligent design might work, or have worked. No lessons on how to debunk evolutionary theory. Just a statement read, reminding the listeners that evolution remains an unproven theory that is nevertheless accepted by many in the scientific community.

But that is apparently more than the “evolution proponents” can bear. Not only can they not tolerate an open and rational debate on the subject of the origin of life – leaving aside the question of why the origin of life needs to be taught in the public schools anyway (I have my suspicions) – they cannot tolerate even a hint that their position could conceivably be at odds with what actually is.

Since the policy was implemented in Dover, one board member resigned in protest, and most of the rest were voted out of office at the next election, in favor of those who promised to rescind the policy. One teacher was quoted as saying “I will feel comfortable again teaching what I’d always felt comfortable teaching.” I wonder if plantation owners of the old South felt similar comfort after the 1858 Dred Scott decision, that affirmed the belief of many, despite what was true, that blacks were not worthy of the same level of civil rights and liberties as whites.

Keep in mind that this teacher was not required under the policy to teach anything other than the theory of evolution that she had always taught – only to add in a note about the possibility of another alternative to the question of where life came from. No doubt, though, the indoctrination she received in the course of receiving her degree and certification convinced her that “smart people” knew that evolution was the only possibility. Aren’t the emperor’s new clothes beautiful?

Of course, to no one’s surprise, the policy had already been declared illegal by U.S. District Judge John Jones, who ruled that teaching that says that life may have originated with an unidentified intelligent cause is religious, not scientific. Consequently, he ruled that such is not appropriate in the schools as it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment – though he failed to note what specific religion such endorses at the expense of others.

But leaving the constitutional issue aside, there is a question that has been raised by many that the judge’s ruling neglects to deal with: What if intelligent design is, in fact, the truth regarding the origin of life? Whether it’s some alien life form that visited this planetary system eons ago or a living spirit, a Deity, that was at work, what if that is really what happened? Does the fact that such might lead some – though not all – to certain religious beliefs mean it can’t be taught, and our children should thus be taught some unproven theory, that is at odds with reality, because of a “wall of separation” that recent generations – certainly not the founders – have erected?

Regardless of what the insecure and arrogant voices of some declare, neither evolution nor intelligent design can be proven scientifically. From that standpoint, one is as valid as the other, and merits just as much attention in the nation’s classrooms. If either “theory” is acknowledged, both should be acknowledged.

Frankly, I am one intelligent design/creation proponent who is perfectly comfortable with an open and rational debate regarding the evidence used to support the alternative beliefs. Again, because at the end of the day, I just want to know what the truth is, and have nothing to fear from it being unveiled – to whatever extent that we can unveil it. Would that it were that those on the other side of the debate were as secure in their beliefs and sincere in their desire for the truth. But their unwillingness to hear any hint of dissent suggests that they simply are not.

Character Does Count

2005-12-28T11:23:00.000-08:00

Every time the American people elect a new President, there is an implied agreement between the elected and the electors. Those who cast the votes that ultimately decide who will occupy the White House agree to confer upon the nation’s Chief Executive all the Constitutional privileges and powers granted by those who created the office in 1787, and by all those who have modified its standing via statutes and amendments in the two centuries since.

It is recognized by the voting public that included among these powers and responsibilities of the President are functions and directives that may be unknown to them. Most are willing to concede that some level of secrecy and initiative must be preserved for the one in the Oval Office in order to effectively fulfill his obligations to the nation he serves. This is especially so during times of national crisis. The public thus agrees to confer such authority upon the one who holds the office.

The flip side of this agreement is that the one who holds the office recognizes that such vast grants of power must not be abused. Such would be easy enough to do, given the resources at the command of the President. Despite their best efforts, there is no way for investigative reporters to catch everything the President does that might be perceived as a breach of this agreement. At some level, the man behind the desk must possess a sense of self-restraint, in order for the office to fulfill its role of both leadership and service for the American people. In a word, Americans, recognizing these basic facts, must never discount the value of trustworthiness in those for whom they vote – especially where the Presidency is concerned.

The lines being drawn over the controversy regarding President Bush’s use of warrantless wiretaps to monitor conversations between people in the United States and people outside the U.S. with ties to Al Qaeda do not follow traditional Republican/Democrat patterns. A reader of the day’s editorials will find Democrats defending the practice, and Republicans excoriating the President over it. So it is not the purpose of this post to weigh in on the rightness, or wrongness, of this particular practice – although it so happens that the writer supports it. Rather, the purpose of this post is to share an observation made in the light of the revelation of the practice.

The message that was oft-repeated in matters related to this in the early 1990s was that character in an officeholder didn’t really matter that much. One assumes this was done to justify the worthiness of a certain leader who even political allies noted didn’t have much character, or much of a moral compass – Does anyone remember a prominent senator of that particular President’s own party describing him as “an unusually good liar?.” The idea being that the personal morality of a political leader doesn’t matter. An amoral, secular government in the United States would work, so long as institutions are in place to keep its power in check.

However, the experience of the late 1990s, when that President’s misdeeds briefly appeared to have finally caught up with him, taught the nation that such institutions cannot check corrupted power, if those occupying those institutions have been tainted as well. From the very beginning, it has been noted that a United States government without a sense of morality cannot work. As the second President once stated, the Constitution was written for a moral and religious people, and is unsuited to the governance of any other kind of people. It relies on a compact of trust between the people and their leaders – a compact that can only be maintained by voluntary compliance on the part of both parties to it.

Few, if any, Americans expect their President to be the beacon of virtue that, say, their preachers or bishops may be. But they do know that they have to be able to trust him not to abuse the authority granted to him while he holds the most powerful office ever created by man. And whether that level of trust can be granted should, in large part, be determined by the kind of life the man has lived prior to his rise to power, and whatever private life he made lead once in power. This writer has long known that President Bush has information, resources, and powers available to him of which most Americans may never be fully cognizant. But the life lived by George Bush, even before he ever became President George Bush, leads the writer to believe that such powers are safe in his hands, until proven otherwise. And that hasn’t been proven yet.

Merry Christmas

2005-12-22T08:59:00.000-08:00

Slowly - but surely - getting back into the swing of the political scene following the busy past six weeks surrounding the adoption of Levi and Aaron. For now, though, it's time to kick back for a few days and enjoy some time with my newly enlarged family. Hope everyone is able to spend some happy time with their family as well, or at least spend some time at a very happy place - and you know who you are.

In any event, a Merry Christmas to all from the SouthTenn Blogger, his lovely and gracious wife, and his two little bloglings. See you next week with some new posts.

Interesting Question

2005-12-16T13:41:00.000-08:00

It happened again the other night. This writer was in traffic behind a car that sported a bumper sticker that said the following: “Had enough? Vote Democrat.”

Never mind the fact that, as usual, no ideas for improving America are offered as a reason to vote for the minority party. Only a reliance on the hope that enough rage can be inspired within the hearts of Americans to turn out the evil Republican Party that, it is implied, has done so much damage to the nation.

Very well, if that’s where they are at, then the debate should be taken to them at that place. Maybe Americans should be asked if they’ve had enough. But enough of what?

- Had enough of a hot economy, in which housing sales are up, unemployment is down, consumer confidence and spending are at record levels, and consumer prices have dropped by the largest amount in fifty-six years?

- Had enough of an America where people are keeping more of the money they earn than they did five years ago?

- Had enough of an administration that is verbally committed to appointing judges that will adhere to the original intent of the Constitution, thereby ensuring greater freedom for all Americans?

- Had enough of an America that is envied by a world that wishes it could duplicate America’s success, and which is still the destination of choice for thousands of immigrants each year – even those willing to break laws to do so – because they know their opportunities for success here are greater than anywhere else in the world?

- Had enough of a country that the world’s major, and emerging, economic powers are falling all over themselves to get closer to?

- Had enough of a nation that has suffered no major terrorist strikes in over four years, whose enemies now think twice before crossing it, for fear that it might actually take difficult, yet necessary, steps to protect itself, and visit retribution on those who would harm its citizens and interests?

- Had enough of a majority party whose policies have created greater security at home by working toward greater stability abroad?

- Had enough of a Commander-In-Chief who has decided to use the best-trained – and all-volunteer – military in the world to fight our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan, so that American civilians don’t have to fight them in New York and Washington?

No doubt, there are those who do find such things as distasteful and reason enough to work toward throwing out the party in power – just look to the far left to see such souls. But this writer is guessing that the majority of Americans would join him in saying that, no, they haven’t had enough of these things. If the party that demonstrates its connectivity to the American public by putting forward a San Francisco liberal as its choice to occupy the House Speaker’s Chair – and, consequently, sit directly behind the Vice-President in the Line of Succession – would like to ask the question again next year, or even three years hence, they are more than welcome to. But it would be most surprising if the answer of most Americans change.

Had enough? Not by a long shot.

So You're A War Hero?

2005-12-15T13:35:00.000-08:00

You want to talk about war heroes? Then consider a man who unquestionably fit the bill during a war that no one could seriously deny was vital to the survival of the United States. Leader of an attack that captured a vital enemy outpost, twice wounded in battle, recipient of an official letter of thanks from Congress for his accomplishments, and earning the friendship and trust of his Commander-In-Chief, he rose to the rank of Major General and was eventually rewarded with the command of West Point. If any man ever rightfully and unquestionably earned the title of “American War Hero,” then this man – Benedict Arnold – could reasonably be said to have set the standard by which such heroes are measured.

It has been said that, had he been killed at the Battle of Saratoga – where he received one of his wounds – Arnold would be remembered as one of America’s greatest heroes to this day. Yet that’s not how Americans remember him, is it? No, in this nation, his name has become a synonym for “traitor.”

Interestingly enough, when one discusses the treachery of Benedict Arnold against not only his friend George Washington, but also the very country and cause for which he had earlier bled, there are very few who will criticize him and declare that he has “no right to disparage an American war hero in that way.”

By now, hopefully, the point of all this is becoming obvious to the reader. In recent times, the minority party in this nation has chosen to pursue positions and advocate policies that are undermining the efforts of American troops currently in harm’s way in Western Asia. And for their “spokesman” at many discussions regarding the issue, they have chosen men who they continually describe as “war heroes.” Think John Murtha and John Kerry – You did know that John Kerry was in Vietnam, didn’t you?

The idea here is that whatever heroic deeds – be they confirmed or alleged – such men have previously performed while in combat immunizes them from even reasonable criticism. But it is interesting to note that one of the earliest lessons that America’s history has taught its students is that prior valorous acts on the part of some are no guarantee that those same individuals will always have the nation’s best interests at heart.

The simple fact of the matter is that the citing of combat experience as a debating tactic on the part of Democrats who are taking a leading role in the attempt to hurt George Bush politically by undermining his wartime policies is nothing more than an attempt to cut off honest and open debate. It just might make some wonder what it is that Democrats have to fear from such honest and open debate. Some, but not all – this writer feels confident that he already knows what it is the Democrats have to fear.

It is reasonable to suspect that even Mr. Arnold would not have gone so far as to make the ludicrous allegation that American soldiers terrorized women and children in the dead of night. And it is a fact of history that he never tried to cite his prior heroics on behalf of the United States in order to try get back into the good graces of General Washington, or the American people. If there is any honor to be found in Benedict Arnold’s story, it may simply be that he was willing to live, perhaps uncomfortably, with the consequence of his decision to turn against his nation, with no expectation that anyone in that nation would embrace him purely for what he had done in the past. Two-hundred-four years after his death, one can’t help but wonder if certain members of the national Democrat leadership have even as much honor about them as America’s most famous traitor.

Back In The Saddle

2005-12-05T10:11:00.000-08:00

I would like to apologize to those of you who have been looking, in vain, to this space for new material for some time. But I have to acknowledge that I have little regret for the “down time.” You see, for the past three or four months, the Lovely-And-Gracious Tanya and I have been finalizing the adoption of our two sons out of Russia. I can now happily report that the newest Harwells – Levi and Aaron – are back home with us, and carrying on like they have always belonged here – which, of course, they have. Anyway, perhaps in the near future I’ll be able to compile a condensed version of our “Russian Adventure” for all (six) of my loyal readers to enjoy. In the meantime, here’s a look at my sons.

Oh, and a new commentary as well. Maybe not my best writing, but it feels good to be getting the cobwebs out, and the fire back in my belly.

JLH

A Question Of Judgment

2005-12-05T10:04:00.000-08:00

A recent Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll may shed more light than many people realize on the question of which party is best suited to lead America during turbulent and dangerous times such as these. When asked if President Bush willfully lied to the American people to justify the war with Iraq, or simply made use of the best intelligence he had available to him, seventy-two percent of Democrats stated their belief that he had lied.

Granted, that response on the part of identified Democrats probably shouldn’t be very surprising to anyone who is familiar with the belligerent nature of modern Washington politics. Nor, for that matter, should anyone be surprised that seventy-nine percent of Republicans believe that he operated with the best intelligence he had available. After all, George Bush is a Republican, and that alone presently seems to make him unworthy of the benefit of anyone’s doubt on the left. It’s all just a question of partisan identification, right?

Perhaps, but maybe that partisan identification tells us more about the judgment of the partisans involved than is readily apparent at a passing glance. For, you see, that same poll had other questions asked of members of both parties, and it is the response to one question in particular that may prove quite telling to anyone paying attention.

In the poll, when asked if Iraq and the world are better off with Saddam out of power, or if it would be better if he were still in power, a plurality of Democrats – Forty-one percent – stated that things would be better if Saddam were still in power – and presumably if his sons were still around to fulfill their desires through the abuse of abducted fourteen-year-old Iraqi girls. Only thirty-four percent stated that things were better with Saddam out of power. By contrast, seventy-eight percent of Republicans stated that it was good that he is gone, and ten percent say things would be better with him still in power.

This writer is guessing that, to those “swing” voters out there – those without a partisan ax to grind whose votes both parties covet – the response on the part of the left wingers who currently run the national Democrat Party is going to suggest one of two things. One is that they sincerely believe that Iraqi people should have had to continue live under the brutal oppression of one of the most heinous tyrants to run a nation in recent centuries – making this sacrifice so that the rest of the world could enjoy the alleged stability – assuming we ignore his prior well-documented use of weapons of mass destruction – that he brought to the region.

The other possibility is that the respondents probably know better than their answer to the question suggests, but that the well-being of the American nation and its increased security through the betterment of the world around it is no longer the goal of the party. Rather, the overriding purpose driving the party is its quest for a return to power and the defeat of the “other side.” The notion of a “loyal opposition” thus becomes a thing of the past, and the willful misleading of the public regarding the character and veracity of the majority party is a line they are willing to cross in order to return to dominant status. In other words, the ends justify the means.

Either way, their response to the question about Saddam doesn’t provide much encouragement regarding their judgment on what to believe about George Bush and the Republicans. Or about the course that the nation should be charting in the near future. Something to think about, eleven months from election day.

Wild and Crazy Day

2005-09-15T13:19:00.000-07:00

No guarantees on posts for the next several days. The lovely and gracious Tanya and I have been running around like crazy today, and will be for the next several days. The reason? We have received our travel dates for our first trip to Russia as we move forward with our adoption. We are getting visa applications, medical records, and other such documents prepared and certified. Levi and Aaron are waiting, so we've got to get busy.

Of course, when I got out of bed this morning, I was planning to have something to say about the decision coming out of the 9th Circuit Court ruling the Pledge of Allegiance as unconstitutional. No time for a lengthy discussion today, but let me just say that, while this decision is outrageous, it may well work to the advantage of those of us who desire a return to sanity in the federal courts. Most are saying now that the Democrats are willing to concede on John Roberts' nomination to the Chief Justice's seat so that they can fight tooth and toenail against a conservative being nominated to replace Sandra O'Connor. But this ruling reminded Americans why they don't like the kind of judges that liberal Democrats prefer. Opportunity may have just started knocking very loudly.

JLH

All About Spin

2005-09-13T13:08:00.000-07:00

Mary Landrieu and Ray Nagin need to talk to each other more.

Maybe if they did, the Louisiana Senator and New Orleans Mayor could ensure that they were both sticking to the same story the next time they are questioned about the failure of the Big Easy’s local government in dealing with the post-Katrina disaster. In dealing with one of the most heavily-publicized scandals coming out of the tragedy on the Mississippi – regarding the two-hundred plus school buses that were left unused to be swamped just over a mile from the Superdome – the excuses offered by the respective Delta country politicians fall short of jibing with one another.

Appearing on “Fox News Sunday” this past weekend, Senator Landrieu was very clear on who was to blame for the unused buses, which could have transported thousands of citizens to safety before the catastrophic flooding began – President Bush was to blame.

As reported at Newsmax.com, the Senator stated, “Mayor Nagin and most mayors in this country have a hard time getting their people to work on a sunny day, let alone getting them out of the city in front of a hurricane. And it’s because this administration and administrations before them do not understand the difficulties that mayors . . . face . . . In other words, this administration did not believe in mass transit.”

Leaving aside the fact that the buses in question were not used to get people to work – they were school buses that were, no doubt, used every day when the schools were operating – and leaving aside the fact that the difficulties of running normal transit routes on certain schedules has little to do with simply loading people up and transporting them to safety as soon as possible, it is interesting to note that the mayor himself has not used this line of reasoning to try to excuse the city’s failure in this regard. One would think that he would have trumpeted this long before the senator if this was the reason he didn’t utilize this unutilized resource – but he apparently didn’t get the memo with the talking points in time.

Rather, Mr. Nagin felt that the issue wasn’t his problem to begin with. When asked by NBC’s Stone Phillips why the buses weren’t ready to take people to “higher ground,” Mayor Nagin’s response was simple: “I don’t know. That is a question for somebody else . . . we tried to get as many people out as possible.” He didn’t bother to say how.

Apparently, the chief executive of the City of New Orleans isn’t a big adherent to that whole “The Buck Stops Here” mentality that most effective leaders feel compelled to live by. And it is interesting to note that, while he says the question of unused buses is a question for “somebody else,” two days after the levee broke he had acknowledged on a local radio station that he had been earlier advised that the school buses could be used, but that he insisted on getting Greyhounds to transport evacuees instead. Apparently, individual reading lights is an absolute must for passengers seeking to be taken out of harm’s way.

In any event, the differences in the stories being peddled by two of the highest-profile Louisianans in this debacle are worth noting. Of course the reason for the differing stories can most likely be explained by the fact that each person has a different purpose for offering their respective excuse. Mayor Nagin’s primary concern is to simply try to cover his posterior as the man who should have led the “first response” efforts. Senator Landrieu, on the other hand, primarily seems to see in this disaster an inviting opportunity to try to destroy the Bush administration, after her threat to punch the President didn't accomplish much.

In both cases, it seems that actually solving the problems following the catastrophe and helping its victims is a priority that has become subordinated to winning political and public relations battles. At this writing, it seems that only one high-profile leader has actually concerned himself less with politics and more with getting things accomplished. And that would be the very President who – rightly or wrongly – earlier today accepted responsibility for the problems in New Orleans as well as the responsibility for solving them.

This writer’s early perspective is that simply doing one’s job, and maybe the jobs of some others as well, will be the best public relations move of all for a real leader. Time will tell.

Change of Pace

2005-09-12T06:53:00.000-07:00

Apologies for the lack of a post yesterday. The lovely and gracious Tanya and I were scheduled to work the GOP booth at the fair from 7 to 10 P.M. However, on our way to the fair from church last night, we received word that the building housing the booth was closed early. Freed up our evening to have a look at the goats and miniature horses on display in the livestock building. If you’ve never been to a real fair, this is the place for you. We are next scheduled to man the booth on Tuesday evening. Come and see us.

In the meantime, there is news to report from other areas of the SouthTenn blogger’s life. Let me take this opportunity to introduce you to my boys: Levi Nathanael and Aaron Joseph. They are currently living in Russia, but we hope to have them home in Lincoln County soon.