Thoughts on DADT

On Satuday the Senate voted to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, ending a prevented gays from openly stating their sexuality in the military:

 In a landmark vote, the Senate on Saturday ended the Clinton-era ban on gays serving openly in the military, marking a major triumph for President Obama, liberals and the gay community.

The final vote to end the Pentagon's 1993 "don't ask, don't tell" policy was 65-31, drawing support from eight Republicans.

With the vote comes my last chance to state my opinion on the policy, and the debate that centered around it, so I will take a few moments to do so here.

To the left DADT is a discriminatory policy, one that has unfairly punished patriotic service members.  To the right it is a mixture of things, ranging from something that protects homosexuals who wish to serve, to a policy that makes our fighting forces stronger.  However, for the most part this is nothing more than hyperventilating on both sides.  Both ignore facts, such as:

• The policy has forced relatively few people from service, accounting for roughly 13,300 discharges between 1994 and 2009, or roughly 831 a year.  There are currently 1,445,000 active service US military (and before 1999 the US military also applied DADT to reservists).  Assuming that even 2% of those service members are homosexual (a number which is probably slightly low) that puts us at 28,890 active duty homosexual service members at any given point.  Meaning less than 5% of the total gay, active duty service population is being forced from service per a year.

•  Homosexuals openly serve in several countries with strong militaries, most notably Israel and Great Britain.  Obviously neither nation has suffered from any sort of handicap by having homosexuals integrated openly within their military systems.

Both arguments are lacking in simple common sense as well. 

The liberal agenda is painfully obvious, this isn't about DADT being an abomination so much as it continues to change the culture, and set give gay right's a victory they've desperately needed, even if it is merely symbolic (in the direct sense).  To go about this they have unfairly framed DADT as something that prevents gays from serving, directly trying to represent the policy as oppressive.  What Don't Ask, Don't Tell does is allow gays to serve, it simply draws a line with expression of sexuality, which should seem fair to any reasonable minded person (although that doesn't necessarily mean you agree with it).  Liberals also ignored common sense in the timing of the appeal.  Even if repealing DADT won't reduce combat efficiency in the long run, it's hard to ignore the effect it will have on morale - during wartime - when 60% of Marines believe that it will have a negative impact.  The point being that even if it's not harmful to our military, the perception that is by our soldiers will harm morale.

On the flip side, conservative have made arguments that DADT protects homosexuals within the military.  While homosexuals may find that the military isn't exactly a friendly place for them, the argument ignores that it's not uncommon for soldiers to already know who around them is gay.  Ignoring that, it's offensive to assume that our armed forces would be unable to restrain themselves from violence against a homosexual service member, and in some ways echoes the disingenuous belief that segregation kept blacks safe. (Disclaimer:  This is not me saying that conservatives are anti-gay the same way segregationists hated blacks,  but merely using an uncomfortable fallacy that stuck out in my mind)

It was this uncomfortable combination of valid and invalid arguments from both sides that shifted my position from against DADT repeal, to being truly neutral on the whole thing.  If it stood, or if it failed, I didn't particularly care, perhaps giving it up as a lost cause on the right and a potential area for compromise (something the GOP failed to capitalize on).  My only source of discomfort comes from knowing that this will most likely make the culture war against gay marriage that much harder, a fight which I'm already finding increasingly depressing. 

At the end of the day both sides turned this into an incredibly sad display of absurdity over a policy which, in and of itself, was inconsequential.

Why does Ron Paul hate freedom?

I recently asked, on facebook, "Why does Ron Paul hate freedom?".  It was, of course, a rhetorical question, intended to be bring grins or fury depending who read it.  But under the rhetoric is a disturbing trend - a trend which, in may ways, validates the question.  Why DOES Ron Paul hate freedom?

In 2009 Iran was rocked with mass, anti-government, pro-democracy protests following the fraudulent election results.  Hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of Iranians took the streets and their roofs and streets, and the government in turn unleashed their thugs upon the democracy activists.  The following Green Protests were followed all around the world, and united both the left and right in their sympathy for the protesters.  We saw dozens of images and videos of defiant protesters being beaten, chanting with bloodied faces, and in once case, dying on the street.




Neda died on June 20th, 2009, shot by a Basij thug at random.  One day earlier Ron Paul was the sole member of the House to vote against a resolution which expressed "support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law."  Here is his statement on why he voted no:

I rise in reluctant opposition to H Res 560, which condemns the Iranian government for its recent actions during the unrest in that country. While I never condone violence, much less the violence that governments are only too willing to mete out to their own citizens, I am always very cautious about "condemning" the actions of governments overseas. As an elected member of the United States House of Representatives, I have always questioned our constitutional authority to sit in judgment of the actions of foreign governments of which we are not representatives. I have always hesitated when my colleagues rush to pronounce final judgment on events thousands of miles away about which we know very little. And we know very little beyond limited press reports about what is happening in Iran.

Of course I do not support attempts by foreign governments to suppress the democratic aspirations of their people, but when is the last time we condemned Saudi Arabia or Egypt or the many other countries where unlike in Iran there is no opportunity to exercise any substantial vote on political leadership? It seems our criticism is selective and applied when there are political points to be made. I have admired President Obama's cautious approach to the situation in Iran and I would have preferred that we in the House had acted similarly.

I adhere to the foreign policy of our Founders, who advised that we not interfere in the internal affairs of countries overseas. I believe that is the best policy for the United States, for our national security and for our prosperity. I urge my colleagues to reject this and all similar meddling resolutions.

Dr. Ron Paul's reasoning here is about as sound as a sinking ship.  In fact sinking is exactly what he's doing here.  RP works off the foreign policy belief in non-intervention, which is really just isolationism, but him and his followers try hard to pretend it isn't.  However I don't see how you can interpret what he says as anything other than a cheap cop out.  RP focuses his reasoning around the basis that the US has no right to "meddle" in the affairs of other nations, ignoring the fact that a condemnation isn't really so much meddling as it is a strongly worded letter.  If sanctions or military action came from this resolution, then perhaps Ron Paul would have a valid point, but it doesn't.  All it does is condemn violence against pro-democracy activists, and applaud the activists for their bravery.  Where exactly is the harm in that, other than to our relations with that nation?

Relations with a nation is exactly where Ron Paul takes this argument next, pointing out our citicism is based largely on pragmatism. America doesn't want to piss Saudi Arabia off, so it doesn't condemn it's human rights record, but because we don't like Iran we're eager to jump down their throats.  That may be, but what does that have to do with anything?  Are you somehow morally superior than the people who pretend to care about human rights - but ignore abuses in countries they want to curry favor with - by ignoring all of the instances of abuse altogether?  Why RP decides to bring up this point after clearly stating that he doesn't want to "interfere" in the internal affairs of any foreign nation is beyond me.  He clearly doesn't care to condemn the abuses in Saudi Arabia any more than he could care to condemn the abuses in Iran, so what purpose does this point serve?

Commenting on the internal affairs of foreign nations also exposes Ron Paul for the hypocrite he is.  On April 6th, 2006 he had no problem getting involved in Romania's policy on intercountry adoptions and how they treat orphaned children.  In June of this year, he had no problems condemning the Israeli raid on a flotilla trying to break through the Gaza blockade.  But six days ago he couldn't vote yes on a resolution to congragulate Liu Xiaobo, a Chinese democracy advocate who recently won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Ron Paul is creating a habit out of condemning those who yearn for freedom and democracy, and use peaceful means to try and attain it.  This behavior isn't exactly uncommon from him, and any clear thinking individual who watches Ron Paul for any decent amount of time will realize that the man is, at best, a bit extreme.  At worst he's down right insane.  So again, I ask:  Why does Ron Paul hate freedom?

Gay Marriage: We need a coherent argument

Just looking at the gay marriage's recent history in America shows a total lack of momentum:

• In the 31 times gay marriage has gone to the ballot, gay marriage supporters have been defeated all 31 times
• 30 states currently have constitutional bans on gay marriage
• Two states have had gay marriage legalized, only to have the voters ban it
• Gay marriage is only legal in 5 states currently
• Of the 5 states it is legal in, only one state did so through legislative means

Gay marriage has yet to win with the nation's populace, and if it were not for judicial activism only one state would of legalized gay marriage, and that would be in the most liberal state in the Union (Vermont).  Despite this strong showing over the years, support for gay marriage has shown a huge increase over the last few years:

One recent poll has even shown that a majority of people think that gays have the constitutional right to marry.

If things continue as they are gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states within our lifetimes.

In my mind the biggest reason for the increase in support for gay marriage is two fold.  First being that gay marriage supporters have struck a theme - which primarily appeals to the youth - and plays well with the electorate, that theme being one of equality.  The second reason is that those who oppose gay marriage have yet to find a coherent argument that people accept.

At this point I want to make it clear that I am a supporter of traditional marriage, and oppose gay marriage.
Most of the people who oppose gay marriage remind me of those who support abortion in that they both think they've won the argument, and are so assured of this fact that they ignore their opposition.  There are three major mistakes with this.

The first mistake is that it ignores some valid points that the gay marriage crowd brings up; points that most people recognize as valid, see as an injustice, and swing toward gay marriage when there doesn't appear to be an other arguments.  A good example of this would be the tax benefits married couples receive that homosexuals would be ineligible to receive, which sounds dangerously close to taxing homosexuals more for not being heterosexual.  Another would be things such as hospital visitation, something Obama has already handled.  Issues such as these are genuine examples of inequality, and things that should be handled, but do not necessarily need to be handled by permitting gay marriage.  By refusing to address these issues you build up the pro-gay marriage argument that gays are treated as inferior human beings.  An obvious solution to this problem would be civil unions.

The second mistake is that it does not allow for supporters of traditional marriage to effectively combat the invalid arguments made by gay marriage supporters.  In order to gain momentum gay marriage supporters have tried to make this into a fundamental question of equality, and have tied it to the civil rights movement.  By doing so they make this a moral crusade of sorts, drawing up images in people's heads of civil rights protesters being beaten in the streets even as they push toward something that is ultimately good.  But few, outside of a random individual every now and then, ever bother to address the absurdity of this.  Homosexuals aren't treated as second class citizens.  There are inequalities as we pointed out in the paragraph above, but compared the treatment of blacks and other minorities they're extremely minor.  By suggesting that their movement is at all similar to a time when people were killed, driven out of cities, and otherwise terrorized without protection from the law (and sometimes these actions were undertaken by the law) does a dishonor to the historical significance of that episode in American history.  Never mind the complete lack of proof that one is born homosexual, which makes the argument completely illogical when compared to the struggle of a racial group.

The final mistake is that it does not allow for the movement itself to put together a desperately needed coherent argument.  Most of the arguments already in play have a good deal of validity in them, but because there doesn't seem to be any consistency behind them, they're usually dismissed as absurd by the opposition.  Take, for example, the argument that legalizing gay marriage will inevitably lead to a curtailing of religious freedoms:

A Christian street preacher has been arrested and charged with a public-order offence after saying that homosexuality was sinful.

Dale Mcalpine was handing out leaflets to shoppers when he told a passer-by and a gay police community support officer that, as a Christian, he believed homosexuality was one of a number of sins that go against the word of God.

Mr Mcalpine said that he did not repeat his remarks on homosexuality when he preached from the top of a stepladder after his leafleting.

But he has been told that police officers are alleging they heard him making his remarks to a member of the public in a loud voice that could be overheard by others. 


Mr Mcalpine, 42, who earns about £40,000 a year in the energy industry, was arrested and taken to the local police station in the back of a police van after preaching in the Cumbrian town of Workington on April 20.

After seven hours locked up in a cell, he was charged with using abusive or insulting words or behaviour contrary to the Public Order Act 1986.

Granted this is a British case, but it's a good example of the slippery slope argument is valid.  It's not as if there aren't valid cases from America either, such as when a New Mexican photographer was sued for refusing to photograph a gay wedding, or when E-Harmony got sued.  All the tools are present, but they're rarely used to back up arguments.  The fact is that this isn't "fear mongering", these are real life examples that would make most people take pause and think about the validity of the gay marriage movement, and open them up to the possibility that this isn't a fight over marriage or equality, but over control of the direction culture.

On that note the classic "Gay marriage will lead to pedophile" rights has to actually be enforced by something, otherwise you get the same "fear mongering, hateful, Republicans!" response.  If the movement can get people to question the cultural validity of gay marriage, however, they could make the slippery slope argument.  If homosexuals are born homosexual, then who's to argue pedophiles aren't born pedophiles?  And why should we prevent polygamous marriages if all parties are willing participants?  Debate the validity of using the slippery slope argument in general all you want, but the fact is that pedophiles already use the exact same strategy as gay marriage supporters:

In this online community, pedophiles view themselves as the vanguard of a nascent movement seeking legalization of child pornography and the loosening of age-of-consent laws. They portray themselves as battling for children’s rights to engage in sex with adults, a fight they liken to the civil rights movement. And while their effort has brought little success, they celebrated online in May when a small group of men in the Netherlands formed a pedophile political party, and they rejoiced again last month when a Dutch court upheld the party’s right to exist.

Traditional marriage supporters need to recognize the fault in their own logic too.  If this isn't about repressing a group of people, why not address the points brought up in issue one?  Civil unions may make some people uncomfortable due to how close they come to marriage, but ultimately isn't it a relatively fair compromise?  Let the religious and cultural institutions retain control over the term marriage, and let the state give its benefits out to all citizens.

By no means am I suggesting that I have the perfect solutions right here - this is obviously just opinion - but the fact remains that unless the traditional marriage community changes its tactics it will soon loose the argument.

The worst political video...

...and of course it was made by college progressives.

I honestly thought I was going to have to give it to the "Gather your armies" video which I found to be corny, fringy, and all together bad, even though it was popular among conservatives.  Of course I underestimated how young, ignorant, progressives have this ability to fail even your lowest expectations as if it were a continual source of pride.  Brace yourself, because you'll likely feel like the next three minutes of your life were stolen.





The link that's supposed to give me help me understand all this takes me to a page with one sentence that doesn't help at all.  I was hoping I was going to get something that would make sense of all of it, like an explanation for the title and phrase they use to replace Thriller, "Iller".  I can see that you dropped the first three letters of thriller, but does it actually have a point other than a questionable attempt at avoiding copyright infringement?  Or does it seriously mean "sicker", with sick meaning cool.  And even if that's the case,"Cooler nights"?  I still don't get it.

Failing an explanation I would of liked something that would of made me feel a bit sympathy for these kids.  Sure the video would still be awful, but at least I would feel bad for them instead of feeling like they're insufferable, ignorant, twits.

But no, instead I got this:  "Campus Progress created a video to push back on the notion that politically active young people are Zombies."

I'm not quite sure how having bad singing, a theme that doesn't make any sense, and an unoriginal video is suppose to make us think that you're not all, in fact, zombies, and the fact that nobody said "Hey guys, maybe we shouldn't release this terrible crap." just reinforces my belief that these people are completely morons.

I honestly expect better from a bunch of ten year olds with a camcorder and some free video editing software they found online.  The singing might be just as bad, but they would of had the good decency to give us a coherent theme and a few goofy, funny moments.

Pro-Life consistency

For the past couple years I've been struggling with my Pro-Life views.  The issue isn't whether or not the fetus is a child, but rather it's a problem I have with the Pro-Life movement. It's also the issue that zombie discussed in a recent post he made to PJTV:

I think both sides of the abortion debate are lying and have been lying since the argument first arose. Anyone who wants to forbid abortion “except in cases of rape or incest” is, frankly, full of crap. And here’s why:

If you truly are “pro-life” in that you believe abortion is murder because the unborn child is a full-fledged human being, then you wouldn’t so casually allow the child to be murdered simply based on its parent’s misbehavior.

Most people who are anti-abortion adopt the label “pro-life” based on the shared notion that the zygote/embryo/fetus, no matter what its stage of development, is an undiminished human being with full human rights. And that’s a principled position which I can respect — if you stick to it consistently. But if you start making expedient exceptions, then your dishonesty has been revealed. Because if you really and truly believed that an embryo was a full human being, then you wouldn’t allow it to be murdered simply because its father was a bad man.

Zombie starts his post out by saying that he's not going to make any friends by writing this, and I'm sure that more than a few people won't be able to stomach everything he has to say.  However his review of both sides, while harsh, is 100% accurate and something that long needed to be said.  At this point I'm going to recommend fully reading the article, which I'll go ahead and link again.

The Pro-Life movement has attatched an asterisk next to their platform.  

"A fetus is a life!*"
*: Except in cases of rape or incest.

In terms of political pragmatism, that asterisk makes sense.  Abortion isn't particularly popular in this country, but then again neither is the thought of forcing a woman, who was just raped, to carry the child of the man who raped her.  However this isn't an argument about what is politically pragmatic.  This is an argument about the intellectual, and principled consistency of the Pro-Life movement, and as zombie points out, the people who buy into and promote this pragmatism aren't really Pro-Life so much as they are anti-abortion, or anti-sex.  The main concerns of any Pro-Life person are in protecting an innocent Human life, not on what is going to be easiest to sell to the American public.  Looking at it from this perspective you inevitably reach the conclusion that there is no valid reason to punish an innocent person for a crime someone else committed, or as zombie puts it "Allowing a rape-and-incest exception to any abortion ban essentially means we are willing to punish the children for the sins of the father."

The argument may not be a winner, but if you truly believe that a fetus is a life, what other conclusion can you reach?  When innocent lives are at stake, principle needs to trump pragmatism every time.  The Pro-Life movement needs to drop the asterisk.

A bad week in the polls

...and it doesn't matter which poll you look at, or how biased it is.

Gallup

Thirty-eight percent of independents approve of the job Barack Obama is doing as president, the first time independent approval of Obama has dropped below 40% in a Gallup Daily tracking weekly aggregate. Meanwhile, Obama maintains the support of 81% of Democrats, and his job approval among Republicans remains low, at 12%.

[...]

Overall, 46% of Americans approve of the job Obama is doing as president in the June 28-July 4 aggregate, one point above his lowest weekly average. Obama's average weekly job approval rating has not been above 50% since Feb. 8-14, though it reached the 50% mark as recently as May 3-9.

Obama's lower ratings come amid a still-struggling economy, the ongoing difficulties presented by the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and the recent change of command in the war in Afghanistan. Underscoring the challenge at hand, Obama's 44% approval rating in July 2-5 polling (Gallup did not interview July 4) ties his lowest three-day average to date.

WaPo

On the question of Obama's leadership, 42 percent of registered voters now say they have confidence that he will make the right decisions for the country, with 58 saying they do not. At the start of his presidency, about six in 10 expressed confidence in his decision-making.

Obama's overall job-approval rating stands at 50 percent, equaling his low point in Post-ABC polling; 47 percent disapprove of the job he is doing. For the first time in his presidency, those who strongly disapprove now significantly outnumber those who strongly approve.

Among those who say they definitely will vote in November, 53 percent disapprove of the way he is handling his responsibilities.

CBS

Economists have declared the economic recession over largely over, but most Americans don't share their optimism, and they are increasingly blaming President Obama for their money woes.

Mr. Obama's approval rating on the economy has tumbled five percentage points from last month, according to a new CBS News poll, with just 40 percent of those polled expressing full confidence in his actions.

More than half of those questioned (54 percent) said they disapproved of Mr. Obama's handling of the economy. Last month, 45 percent approved. The drop in approval has been seen mostly among independents, just 35 percent of whom now say they approve

[...]

The poll shows widespread concern among Americans when it comes to employment. Seven in ten Americans rated the job market in their area "fair" or "very bad"; only a quarter of those polled described it as "good".

There did appear to be some optimism that the job market would improve over the next year -- but not a lot. While 28 percent said they expected the job market in their area to get better over the next year, twice as many -- 56 percent -- said it would likely remain the same. Another 14 percent predicted even fewer available jobs in the coming years.

PPP

Barack Obama's hit a record low in PPP's monthly national polling on his approval numbers. 45% of voters approve of the job he's doing while 52% disapprove. This is the first time he's topped the 50% disapproval mark in our surveys.

There isn't any one smoking gun to point to in explaining Obama's diminished standing. In the last month he's seen small increases in the number of voters disapproving of him among Democrats (from 13% to 16%), Republicans (84% to 88%), and independents (55% to 56%) alike.

The two most troublesome things for Obama in his numbers at this point are his standing among white voters and independents. Whites now disapprove of Obama by nearly a 2:1 margin, with 62% giving him bad marks and only 35% saying he's doing a good job. With independents his approval is just 40% and 56% disapprove of his performance.

Both WaPo and CBS have a tendency to skew their samplings in favor of the Democrats, and these polls are no different.  In the WaPo poll there's a 7 point advantage for Democrats while the CBS polls has a 5 point advantage for Democrats, both of which are far higher than they should be.  Even with a seven point bias in his favor Obama only manages to get 42% support for his decision making, which is just slightly important when you're the chief executive of a nation.  In fact the few subjects Obama and Democrats manage to win on in either poll are by small amounts, which means they aren't actually winning in those areas.

Even if you ignore the bias, Democrats will still have a hard time justifying the huge decline in support they've witnessed.  Both Gallup and CBS are quick to point out that both Clinton and Reagan has similar approval numbers during this phase in their Presidency and went on to win second terms.

Obama is not alone in facing a challenging second year in office -- Bill Clinton (43%), Ronald Reagan (42%), and Jimmy Carter (40%) all were below the majority approval level in July of their second year. Of course, each of those presidents saw his party lose a substantial number of seats in that year's midterm congressional elections, though both Reagan and Clinton recovered in time to win a second term as president.

What both fail to mention is that neither President has seen a decline on the same level of Obama.  If you look at Gallup's numbers you get some interesting results.  For example, Obama has seen a 23 point drop in support since he took office, while Clinton's level of decline at this point in his Presidency was 15 points, and Reagan's was only 9 points.  Keep in mind that Clinton only won 43% of the popular vote in 1992, meaning that he never lost the support of those who voted for him.

In fact the other person they mention - the one who failed to win reelection - who most resembles Obama.  Both Carter and Obama started with similar numbers at the start of their presidency (Obama 67%, Carter 66%) and ultimately Carter would lose 26 points in this same time frame, just three points more than Obama.  Keep in mind that Obama is still pulling in around 90% approval from blacks, which helps boost his approval ratings slightly.

The point both polls were trying to make (If you give CBS the benefit of the doubt) is that it's too early to be using these polls as an indication of reelection chances.  But reelection is exactly what Obama needs to be worried about.  In 2012 Obama will have to actually win the election on his own merits, without the hope of a huge turnout of young voters or minorities eager to elect the first black President.  In 08 Obama was a sort of "fill in the blank" candidate.  To the moderate he was a moderate and to the progressive he was a progressive, but in 2012 everyone will know exactly what he is, and it's not something anyone is happy with right now.

Speaking of reelection, wasn't she suppose to be unelectable?

With his approval numbers hitting new lows it’s no surprise that Barack Obama’s numbers in our monthly look ahead to the 2012 Presidential race are their worst ever this month. He trails Mitt Romney 46-43, Mike Huckabee 47-45, Newt Gingrich 46-45, and is even tied with Sarah Palin at 46. The only person tested he leads is Jan Brewer, who doesn’t have particularly high name recognition on the national level at this point.
 
It’s not that any of the Republican candidates are particularly well liked. Only Huckabee has positive favorability numbers at 37/28. Romney’s at 32/33, Gingrich at 32/42, Palin at 37/52, and Brewer at 17/20. But with a majority of Americans now disapproving of Obama it’s no surprise that a large chunk of them would replace him as President if they had that choice today.
 
There are two things driving these strong poll numbers for the Republican candidates. The first is a lead with independents in every match up. Romney leads 48-35 with them, Gingrich is up 50-39, Huckabee has a 46-40 advantage, Palin’s up 47-42, and even Brewer has a 38-37 edge.

St. Louis Tea Party condemns NAACP racism

With the NAACP set to condemn the Tea Party movement as racist, the St. Louis Tea Party decided to go on the offensive by condemning the NAACP for their own racism.  It's about time too:

St. Louis Tea Party Coalition Resolution
July 12, 2010

Whereas, the National Coalition for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) was founded to advance the position of minority groups, and

Whereas a hallmark of the NAACP has been to do the important work of identifying and exposing remaining vestiges of racism and discrimination, and

Whereas the NAACP vocally stands against the discriminatory and harmful practice of labeling people with a broad brush, and

Whereas the NAACP decided to launch their 101st National Convention with a resolution condemning the Tea Party movement and labeling millions of their fellow Americans who subscribe to the movement as “racists”, and

Whereas the “Tea Party movement” is a label applied to patriotic Americans who have expressed their political free speech in the grand tradition of all that is American, that being the spirited expression of viewpoints in a 100% peaceful manner, and

Whereas, it is a hallmark of America that we settle our disputes civilly and avoid the gutter tactic of attempting to silence opponents by inflammatory name-calling, and
Whereas the very term “racist” has diminished meaning due to its overuse by political partisans including members of the NAACP, and

Whereas, the NAACP had an opportunity to preserve some semblance of legitimacy by standing up for Ken Gladney, the victim of a vicious racist battery conducted by a black avowed communist, even labeling him an “Uncle Tom”, but chose instead to use the opportunity to mock the St. Louis Tea Party, and

Whereas, the NAACP has refused to denounce the New Black Panther’s call to murder white cops and their babies, and

Whereas, the NAACP does its entire membership a grave disservice by hypocritically engaging in the very conduct it purports to oppose,

Now therefore be it resolved that the St. Louis Tea Party condemns the NAACP for lowering itself to the dishonorable position of a partisan political attack dog organization, and,

Be it further resolved that the St. Louis Tea Party calls on similar organizations to join in unanimous condemnation of this despicable behavior, and

Be it further resolved that we demand that the NAACP withdrawal their bigoted, false and inflammatory resolution against the tea party for any further consideration, and

Be it further resolved that these organizations call on the Internal Revenue Service to evenly apply their standards and consider the tax-exempt status of the NAACP considering the degree to which they are engaging in habitual partisan political behavior.

Adopted unanimously, this day, July 12th, in the year of our Lord, 2010.

It was only a matter of time until the repeated hypocrisies became too much.  As I've started before, the leaders of the black community - which includes the NAACP - all have political goals, and they use their position to control thinking and use blacks as a political club for their own purposes.  It becomes increasingly difficult to give those leaders the benefit of the doubt when you see someone like Jesse Jackson being outraged over the Arizona law, but absolutely no outrage when the leader of the New Black Panthers calls for the death of "crackers" and their babies.

Hopefully other Tea Party organizations will pass similar resolutions.  I doubt very many people will care if the NAACP passes a resolution calling the Tea Party racist - the talking point is rather old now - but why ignore it when you have legitimate grievances of your own to bring up?

Hey Nancy: I found your Astroturf

Anyone remember the Coffee Party? 

In case you forgot (or blinked and missed their brief existence ) the Coffee Party was basically the left's grassroots response to the increasingly successful Tea Party.  The movement billed itself as non-partisan and civil, using the cliched stance of being tired of partisanship in Washington and wanting thoughtful discourse.  Unsurprisingly the leftist organization received a glowing reception from the media, but despite the promotion they didn't manage to accomplish anything other than directly confronting the Tea Party (Kinda).  To give you an example of how badly the Coffee Party failed, look at their "breakout" protest, which attracted a grand total of...30 people.

The failure of the Coffee Party has to be rather disappointing and mildly embarrassing for a Democratic party so desperately in need of some sort of momentum from Progressives, especially while the Tea Party continues to enjoy some level of success.  So what's the left to do when a grassroots movement won't shoot up on its own?  Create one:

If imitation is the highest form of flattery, the "tea party" movement must be honored.

In an effort to replicate the tea party's success, 170 liberal and civil rights groups are forming a coalition that they hope will match the movement's political energy and influence. They promise to "counter the tea party narrative" and help the progressive movement find its voice again after 18 months of foundering.

The large-scale attempt at liberal unity, dubbed "One Nation," will try to revive themes that energized the progressive grass roots two years ago.

[...]

The groups involved represent the core of the first-time voters who backed Obama, including the National Council of La Raza, the Service Employees International Union, the NAACP, the AFL-CIO, and the United States Student Association. (The effort is separate from the Democratic Party's plan to spend $50 million trying to reach those same voters.)

WaPo does a pretty poor job of covering their bias, but what else is new?  Ed from HotAir hits nail on the head over that last paragraph:

Separate?  Uh, sure it is.  The SEIU and the AFL-CIO never  coordinate with Democrats, and neither do La Raza or the NAACP … right?  This overly credulous statement should embarrass the WaPo editorial staff.  If the Tea Party had been formed on the basis of massive funding from the NRA, the Chamber of Commerce, and Focus on the Family, would anyone in the media have written that the effort would have been “separate” from the GOP?

Say, didn't Nancy Pelosi have something to say about groups like this?




Throughout this blog I've repeatedly pointed out cases of liberal hypocrisy, and this is certainly a big one.  When the Tea Party was gaining ground the left was comically schizophrenic in their lies, either claiming that the Tea Party was a group of fringe extremists, or fake grassroots controlled by special interest groups loyal to the GOP.  The Democrats and Progressives spewed the demagogue and the media eagerly proliferated it.  But when their own grassroots organization failed miserably, they wasted no time in dabbling in a bit of astroturf.  In other words:  Demagogue the opposition and then engage in the very same thing you accused them of.

The hypocrisy falls not just on the heads of the Democrats, but also on the media, who is undoubtedly going to ignore the obvious while at the same time proclaiming "One Nation" as a great example of civic involvement.  I'd include the groups involved in this, but being hypocritical is the last thing anyone should be concerned about when it comes to a group of thugs (SEIU), racial supremacists (La Raza), and charlatans (NAACP).

Exit question:  Wouldn't silence on this be in violation Pelosi's much vaunted ethics?  More hypocrisy?  There's a shocker.

"Am I not a man and a brother?"

In August last year a black, conservative man was handing out Gadsen flags at a Tea Party rally in St. Louis when he was attacked and beaten by members of the SEIU who yelled racial slurs while beating him.  From the police report:

I then contacted Witness #1, Harris Himes.  Witness H. Himes stated that as he was leaving the school gymnasium, he saw Suspect McCowan talking to Victim Gladney.  He stated he saw Suspect McCowan reach over the table and punch Victim Gladney in the face.  This assault knocked the victim off balance.  Suspect Molens then went around the table and pulled Victim Gladney over the table backwards by the back of his shirt collar.  he began to punch and kick Victim Gladney.  Witness H. Himes added that while Suspect Molens was kicking and punching Victom Gladney, Suspect McCowan joined in on the assault.

Witness #2, Sandra Himes, statement of the incident concurred with Harris' account of the incident.  She did add that Victim Gladney did nothing to provoke this assault.

[...]

Gladney stated that he was handing out pens and buttons outside the gym.  He stated that is when Suspects Molens and McCowan, along with a third suspect who is unidentified at this time, walked by his table.  Suspect McCowan picked up one of the buttons from Gladney's table and said, "Who's sellin this shit?" Victim Gladney stated, "I'm not selling anything, it's free."  At this time Suspect McCowan said, "What kind of nigger are you?"  Suspect McCowan then reached across the table and punched Victim Gladney in the face.  Victim Gladney added that Suspect Molens grabbed him from behind, at which time he was struck several times and taken to the ground.  At this time he was struck several more times.  He doesn't know how many people struck him or how many times exactly he was struck after he was on the ground.

There was no outrage among the black community, no appeal from Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton or the NAACP for charges or justice.  No one lamenting "black on black" violence, or the attack on free thinking.  Just a silence that emphasize a message most conservatives already knew:  "You cannot be both black and conservative." To be both would make you a traitor, a dog, and below human in their eyes, and ff a "real" black man happened to attack you, then you probably deserved it.

So the event went ignored by the black community, and the media decided to ignore it as well.  After all such a beating would undermine their already weak "Racist Teabagger" narrative.

In my first post I wrote this:

In case you're wondering about the name of this blog I decided to give a little explanation. There's a particular hatred for Black Conservatives on the Left. The names they use to describe us say it all: Race Traitor, Uncle Tom, Oreo, Pet Monkey, among others. The message is clear "You cannot be both a Conservative and Black." You are forced to pick between your beliefs and your race.

It's an absurd thing, especially when you consider who it comes from. The people who claim to champion tolerance and free thought are the very same ones who become so outraged whenever someone dares to think differently. It is surreal to think that the rewards for freedom and equality are a loss of individuality and a demand to participate in group think. We must become what THEY want us to be.

Keep those words in mind as you watch a video released today showing a NAACP leader calling Kenneth Gladney an Uncle Tom, and basically saying he isn't black:





He's far too excited to praise political, racially motivated violence, especially for an organization that is supposed to protect blacks from those very things.  It's more than a little ironic that the organizations and people who fought for black equality now encourage violence against those who dare think differently then them. 

If any one video could be used as proof of the hypocrisy of black community, and evidence that black Americans - in general - are used as sheep for the far left, then this is it.  This is the  reason I made this blog, and the reason it's named "TheRaceTraitor".

Indepedence Day follow up

Gallup released a poll a couple days before Independence Day showing an increase in the number of Americans who are willing to describe themselves as "Extremely Patriotic."  The increase is hardly worth noting since a total of 74% Americans call themselves either "Extremely Patriotic" or "Very Patriotic" with the individual being allowed to discern between the two. What is worth noting is what is driving the increase, and the timing of it:

The increase in the overall percentage of Americans calling themselves "extremely patriotic" is driven largely by seniors, Republicans, and conservatives -- all of whom are significantly more likely to say so than they were in 2005. Republicans' relatively higher identification with the "extremely patriotic" label is particularly intriguing when one considers that Democrats are currently far more likely than Republicans to say they are satisfied with the way things are going in the country (41% vs. 7%, respectively).  Still, the majority of Americans in each of these subgroups say they are "extremely" or "very" patriotic.

The interesting thing, as Gallup points out, is the sharp increase of patriotism among conservatives and Republicans despite being unhappy with the current course of the country.  The only logical conclusion from that is that their opposition to the current administration and its policies isn't driven by partisanship or selfish ideology, but by a genuine concern for America and her well being.  We oppose Obama not because he's black, a Democrat, or anything like that, but because we genuinely believe that his policies harm America.  Even if we're misguided, our priorities and loyalties still lay firmly with America, which significantly undermines the liberal accusation that we are rabid, racist, haters - unless they're suggesting that a love for country includes those attributes, or a that their patriotism is the only right form patriotism, something I hardly think would be popular.

The slight drop with Democrats and liberals is hardly concerning since, as Gallup stated, they retain a majority when you consider the "Very Patriotic" bracket.  However it would be interesting to theorize why they're not seeing a surge in patriotism while they control both the Presidency and Congress.  Perhaps they expected both to enact even more of the leftist agenda?  Too much of a stretch to add this to the evidence of liberals going far left?

Independence Day

"A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." - James Madison

Every year we celebrate 4th of July with barbecue, fireworks, parades, and displays of patriotism. but all of these things are empty if we do not understand what we are really celebrating.  The declaration of independence is not a long document, but it is a document which shook the very foundations of the world. Take a moment out of your celebrations to read the document that declared our independence from Great Britain, and brought about our nation.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

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.

The American People have an obligation to understand where they came from, and how they got to where they are today.  Without that understanding the concept of American liberty will gradually die, until we wake up one day and do not understand what is to American anymore.  Although it's cliche, the past really does hold the answers to our future, and by having a firm grasp of both the past and the present we can ensure the survival of our Republic and our freedom.

Happy Fourth of July everyone.  God Bless America.

Petraeus to ease RoE in Afghanistan?

Lets hope he goes through with it:

Gen. David Petraeus, tapped to replace McChrystal after President Obama fired him last week, vowed Tuesday to take a hard look at the rules which came in "tactical directives" from McChrystal to unit commanders.

In a message to troops and their families who believe the ROE have led to unneeded battlefield defeats and deaths, Petraeus pledged before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he will "look very hard" at the restrictions. He offered no specific changes.

"I want to assure the mothers and fathers of those fighting in Afghanistan that I see it as a moral imperative to bring all assets to bear to protect our men and women in uniform and the Afghan security forces with whom .... troopers are fighting shoulder-to-shoulder," he testified at his confirmation hearing. "Those on the ground must have all the support they need when they are in a tough situation."

He said that after Obama nominated him last week one of the first issues he discussed with Afghan President Hamid Karzai was the ROE.

Ever since Petraeus has taken McChrystal's spot there's been a lot of buzz over whether or not he will change the rules of engagement, which as of now seem to do more to help the Taliban than coalition forces.  I understand the idea is that you don't want people becoming upset  with American forces and joining up with the enemy, but they have their own PR problems to deal with, and at the end of the day we still have to be able to engage and destroy the enemy.  It doesn't matter how many or how few people join the enemy if you're unable to kill them effectively.

I'd go more into why the RoE's are so bad, but the article touches on that point so well, that I don't have to:

An Army special operations soldier who has served in Afghanistan had this bitter assessment:

"If soldiers in contact need an air strike or a fire mission, give it to them. Don’t deny them illumination or smoke because a canister might land on a civilian.

"If a Taliban runs into a deserted house after clacking off an IED killing Americans, don’t disallow the attack on the house because it is a civilian dwelling. If the same guy who just shot at you, hides his weapon, walks out and gives you the finger, don’t let him go because he’s an unarmed civilian. The enemy knows our ROE and is using it against us. If we are going to turn war into a joke—get out."

There really isn't a better summary of what's going on, and he's right in that we're not really fighting a war currently.  If we're going to be in Afghanistan spending time, money, and lives, we have to be in it to win it, no matter how long it takes.

The RoE in the Afghan war has my biggest complaint (followed by the lack of support from our NATO allies) about the war, so seeing a change there would be pretty exciting.   Perhaps if we gain some ground and make some progress the defeatist talk of withdrawal will go away and be replaced with something a bit more pragmatic.  I doubt it though.  Obama will probably need a "victory" before November 2011, and a withdrawal would give him that.

Why Obama deserves the gulf spill criticism

Every now and then you get someone who tries to defend Obama over the gulf spill.  It's not hard to make an effective argument to refute them, but having examples like this really makes the process that much easier:

After making a brief stop in Norfolk for refueling, U.S. Coast Guard inspections and an all-out publicity blitz intended to drum up public support, a giant tanker billed as the world's largest oil skimming vessel set sail Friday for the Gulf of Mexico where it hopes to assist in the oil-cleanup effort.

The Taiwanese-owned, Liberian-flagged ship dubbed the "A Whale" stands 10 stories high, stretches 1,115 feet in length and has a nearly 200-foot beam. It displaces more water than an aircraft carrier.

Built in South Korea as a supertanker for transporting oil and iron ore, the six-month-old vessel was refitted in the wake of the BP oil spill with 12, 16-foot-long intake vents on the sides of its bow designed to skim oil off surface waters

The vessel's billionaire owner, Nobu Su, the CEO of Taiwanese shipping company TMT Group, said the ship would float across the Gulf "like a lawn mower cutting the grass," ingesting up to 500,000 barrels of oil-contaminated water a day.

But a number of hurdles stand in his way. TMT officials said the company does not yet have government approval to assist in the cleanup or a contract with BP to perform the work.

Ed over at HotAir points out a lot of interesting facts and makes a few key points, such as how this ship can basically do what's taken us 2 months time in one day, and that there's no reason the government shouldn't of known about this ship before day 66.  He's absolutely right, and there is no valid reason why this monster shouldn't of been in the gulf as soon as possible.  This is where the President comes in.  ThePresident has the ability to pound on tables and make things happen without all the bureaucracy, but instead of actually doing what he can to fix the problem, he's tried to pass the buck off on whoever he can.

Even more proof that Obama is a legislator at best, but certainly not a leader.

5 things Conservatives shouldn't say

Obama isn't my President.

It's unsurprising that the first time I heard someone declaring that the President wasn't their President was during the Bush years.  Although I'm certain others have made this statement toward other Presidents, I doubt it was quite as widespread, and so the statement has come to personify the rabid, foaming at the mouth hatred that liberals expressed during those years.  The statement isn't offensive because the man in charge happened to be from my political party, but it offends me as an American.  To disagree or even hate a President is one thing, but to declare that he isn't your President is something else entirely.

The same goes for Obama.

Is it unfortunate that an incompetent, far-leftist got elected to office?  Of course, but does that mean he's not your President?  Absolutely not.  Him being your President doesn't mean you owe him any particular loyalties.  Americans aren't expected to love or follow their Presidents, but we should be expected to respect the office.  I hardly consider it respectful to ignore the current officeholder just because you disagree with - or outright loathe - his policies and ideology.  Like it or not Barack Obama is the current President of the United States of America, so unless you're in the process of throwing a revolt or giving up your citizenship, he is your President.

There's a surprisingly thin line for legitimate dissent to outright insanity.  Liberals sprinted across that line without looking back, and conservatives could find themselves teasing with that boundary if they're not careful.  I can count the number of people I've heard say "Obama isn't my President" on one hand, but virtually no one offers any sort of condemnation for such statements, and that's what worries me.  Conservatives need to ensure that we don't become what liberals became during the Bush years.


Obama is a Kenyan!/Where's the Birth Certificate?

Where is the birth certificate?

That question isn't aimed toward Obama, but the Birthers who, for whatever reason, have pursued this relentless despite having little to no proof.  Initially I was open to the suggestion that Obama wasn't a natural born citizen and thus wasn't eligible for the Presidency, but as time went on I became less and less impressed with Birthers and their arguments.

For the last year and a half they've been going on about this, and for the last year and a half they've produced...nothing.  Their argument never evolved past its original point, in which they point to Obama having never released his birth certificate.

For a starting argument it isn't bad.  It is suspicious that we've never seen a birth certificate, and that Obama has blocked that information with an executive order, but that's circumstantial evidence at best.  At some point you have to start producing something to validate the serious nature of your claims, but they never did that.  There was never any decent answer to the certificate of live birth, or the newspaper clipping declaring Obama's birth, but their absolute lowest moment came when they declared that they had the birth certificate, only to find out it was forged by a blogger.

Conservatives should treat Birthers for what they are:  Conspiracy theorists.  If they want to spend their own time pursing this, then that's their business, but conservatives need to continue to distance themselves from people who believe Obama isn't a natural born citizen.  At the same time we really do need to pass legislation which requires presidential candidates to produce their birth certificates.


Obama is a Muslim!

The argument for Obama being Muslim goes something like this:  Because Obama's father was Muslim, and because he spent time as a child in Indonesia learning in Islamic schools, Obama is a Muslim today, as is evident by his poor treatment of Israel.

It's a bit difficult to address that argument simply because it's so absurd, and is on the same level as doubting Nikki Haley's conversion.  I'm not even sure why they would bring up his faith of his father since that's certainly does not bind a man toward any particular faith, especially when you grow up in a completely different culture.  Pointing out that he spent time reading the Quran and learning in Islamic school has a bit more validity, but again has no consequence on choices he made later in life in regards to faith.  It would be like saying a Muslim child is Christian because her family has embraced the American life and now celebrates Easter and Christmas in the same commercial sense that so many other Americans do.

I've repeatedly maintained that if Obama is anything other then what he says he is, it's Atheist, but ultimately it's not something worth focusing on.  Arguing over whether Obama is Christian, Muslim, or Atheist doesn't change what he's doing to this country, but it does serve to make his opposition look radical and/or insane.


When will the States/People revolt/secede?

Revolt and secession should always be a legitimate option for the American people to take should it ever come down to it, and wondering how far you would have to be pushed before you take up arms against your own government and countrymen is something we should all think about at least once.  However it's a thin line between asking yourself what the prerequisites are for rebellion, and openly demanding/supporting it.

Advocating revolution is a serious thing, so unless times are extremely dire or your reasoning is perfect you won't find much sympathy with the public, and to be honest that's a good thing.  When people make such threats they often do so not because they believe they have an obligation to fight against a government that has usurped the law, but because they disagree with the current ideology/policies in practice.

Again we can look to the Bush years for an example.  During this time it wasn't uncommon to hear smug liberals saying that the blue states should leave the union, have their own President, and watch the red states crumble and die.  This talk wasn't driven by a belief that they had a legal obligation or case to rebel, but from a hatred of the man (Bush) and his policies. 

There are some similarities the conservative case for revolt against Obama.  It would be dishonest to say that the majority of flirting with revolt doesn't stem from a conservative hate of the man and his ideology.  While there is a valid argument that his ideology could be outside the constitution, and thus illegal, the argument isn't so clear cut as to permit talk of revolution.  There is quite a bit of gray, and certainly nothing that mainstream America would see as valid.   It's worth noting that in some cases the threat is merely on the table, with legitimate reasoning for it, such as when Governor Perry of Texas spoke of secession if the Federal government continues to usurp state power. The distinction has to be made between the two, otherwise you risk coloring the entire movement as one of radicals who may very well be those "right-wing terrorists" the DHS spoke of.


Impeach Obama!

Much like how I'm offended as an American when people say Obama isn't their President, I'm also offended when people call for the impeachment of Obama.

Throughout this post I've brought up the Bush years, and I've done so because it's easy, for me at least, to remember the disgust I felt over the way liberals acted during those years.  Those memories and feelings have been invaluable in guiding my dissent against the current administration, in reminding me where the line is and why I shouldn't cross it.  The call for impeachment personifies this best.  During the Bush years liberals were proud to call for Bush's impeachment, often validating it under the belief that he lied about the Iraq war.  It was, and is, a flimsy excuse, one that if true would mean the impeachment of many Senators and Representatives, including many Democrats and liberals, and would imply a greater conspiracy throughout the world.  Pointing this out doesn't change their mind, and only serves to remind you that their dissent is based in disagreement turned into rabid hatred.

Just to be fair:  The above picture actually came from a Ron Paul rally, but it's just an example of the type of thing you would see broadcast, proudly, by liberals.

Just as liberals had no legitimate reason to call for impeachment with Bush, conservatives lack a legitimate reason to call for impeachment with Obama.  Many of the arguments I made when talking about revolution apply here.  There is a legitimate line of questioning about if his ideology is legal under the constitution, but it's such a gray that I don't believe any of the arguments (that I've heard) for impeachment are reasonable, let alone legitimate.  The call for impeachment stem from a sizable minority, who often make the call during Obama's particularly bad moments, and often are never called out.  It's not beyond reason to believe that if Obama were reelected it could send conservatives into a frenzy not unlike that of liberals during the Bush years.

The consolation is that impeachment would ultimately do more damage.  Biden is a complete moron in every sense of the word, and impeaching Obama would only serve to make him a martyr for Progressives.  His defeat, however, would be a crushing defeat, and perhaps see moderates retake control of the Democrat party.


Final thoughts

Unlike liberals, conservatives do not have much in the way of leeway.  Liberals got away with their rabid, foaming at the mouth because they have the support of the media and as such they were able to present themselves as far more moderate and reasonable then they were.  The worst of them were not shown, and the bad was always presented as no so bad.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are always presented as bad.  We're violent, we're radical, and we're insane.  Most people don't buy into that, but conservatives can't take that for granted.  Conservatives need to remember what it was like during the Bush years, and always need to do their best to keep their arguments within reason, or at least be able to justify them when the time comes.

Often people say shocking things (and too often it seems they do it just to be shocking) and too people many look the other way, unwilling to attack another conservative.  However, this is our movement, and we have an obligation to police our own.  Maybe we can't control it, but we do have the right to try.

If nothing else internal dialogue offers us the chance to strengthen our views, and helps us to defend them against liberals later.  As the bible says:

     As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. - Proverbs 27:17

Conservatives still gaining ground

Whether you're a bit down or encouraged about the political climate today, Gallup brings you some good news with one of their latest polls:

Conservatives have maintained their leading position among U.S. ideological groups in the first half of 2010. Gallup finds 42% of Americans describing themselves as either very conservative or conservative. This is up slightly from the 40% seen for all of 2009 and contrasts with the 20% calling themselves liberal or very liberal.

Not only have conservatives maintained their plurality, but there are now twice as many self-described conservatives than there are liberals.  The increase in people describing themselves as conservatives likely comes from the drop in those calling themselves moderates, and I can't help but feel that that has something to do with another chart Gallup provides:

While the Republican party has been the conservative party for at least the last ten years, the Democrats went from a party with a plurality of moderates, to one with a plurality of liberals.  The fact the Democrats are liberal really isn't going to be surprising to anyone, but it is interesting that as liberals have taken over the Democrat party, more and more people have identified themselves as conservatives.  That leads me to believe that people's views aren't changing so much as the left is increasingly looked upon as radical, or otherwise outside the mainstream while conservatism is stilled viewed favorably.

Perhaps the most important thing to take away from this is a continued sense of momentum conservatives have leading up to the midterm elections.  Rasmussen shows that Republicans are up 8 points among likely voters on the Generic Congressional Ballot:

Republican candidates now hold an eight-point lead over Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot for the week ending Sunday, June 20.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 44% of Likely U.S. Voters would vote for their district's Republican congressional candidate, while 36% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.  Last week, Republicans led 46% to 36%, tying the GOP's largest lead ever since it first edged ahead of the Democrats a year ago.

In January of last year the numbers were reversed with 42% supporting Democrats and only 36% supporting the Republican.  Democrats have to contend with a universally unhappy response to the oil spill, strong anti-Obamacare sentiment, an economy that continues to struggle, and the increasing view that Obama is just as much to blame as Bush for the state of the economy.  Unless something major changes in the next few months - and there's no reason to think anything will - Democrats will find themselves replaced in the House, and possibly (though unlikely) even the Senate.

Something to think on:  Is Republicans taking control of the House and/or Senate a good thing for Obama in 2012?

In defense of a Democrat

I've watched the video a few times, and I really don't see what all the outrage is about.  HotAir's headline is Dem Rep says “minorities, defective[s]” not “average, good American people”.  That makes you think that the man pulled a Margaret Sanger, but after watching the video I'm actually offended since that title seems so disingenuous.  Watch and decide for yourself:



The key quote that people seem to be freaking out over:

"We're giving relief to people that I deal with in my office everyday now unfortunately.  That because of the longevity of this recession these are people - and they're not minorities, and they're not defective, and they're not all the things you'd like to insinuate that these programs - these are average, good, American people."

Was the choice in words poor on paper?  Slightly, but it seems pretty clear to me that the Representative is addressing the Democrat held belief that Republicans are racists and oppose things like welfare because they "help too many brown people."  Watching the video should make it very clear that he's not saying that minorities aren't "average, good American people", but that he's combating the notion that minorities are the only ones on the system, and that they're living off of it.

In fact I feel like if you're going to criticize anything he said it should be the suggestion that the poor can never be anything other than poor, although I'm fast discovering that that is a rather common belief among liberals.

Cute: Mexico thinks we care

In case you hadn't heard, the Obama administration is planning on challenging the Arizona anti-illegal immigration law in court soon.  For whatever reason Mexico thinks that that gives it a right to put its two cents in, but hey, what else is new?

 Mexico on Tuesday asked a federal court in Arizona to declare the state's new immigration law unconstitutional, arguing that the country's own interests and its citizens' rights are at stake.

Lawyers for Mexico on Tuesday submitted a legal brief in support of one of five lawsuits challenging the law. The law will take effect June 29 unless implementation is blocked by a court.

The law generally requires police investigating another incident or crime to ask people about their immigration status if there's a "reasonable suspicion" they're in the country illegally. It also makes being in Arizona illegally a misdemeanor, and it prohibits seeking day-labor work along the state's streets.

Mexico doesn't want to have to go through the painful process of cleaning up corruption and fixing their economy, so instead they use America as a release valve.  The population has a place to escape, money flows back to Mexico, and you don't have to deal with silly things like fixing your country.  If at any point those gringos up north start getting uppity, you call em racists and watch white guilt set in.  Not a bad plan.

Whenever Mexico says stuff like this I can't help but grin.  It's so laughably transparent.  For example there's this little bit from the same article:

Citing "grave concerns," Mexico said its interest in having predictable, consistent relations with the United States shouldn't be frustrated by one U.S. state.

So where was Mexico's interest in having predictable, consistent relations whenever President Chalderon blamed his country's drug war on us?

In an editorial printed in newspapers nationwide Monday, President Felipe Calderón defended his drug war as vital to the country's security. More than 23,000 people have died in drug-related violence since December 2006, when Calderón first sent the Mexican military into the streets, according to a government report.

The president directly blamed the United States.

"The origin of our violence problem begins with the fact that Mexico is located next to the country that has the highest levels of drug consumption in the world," Calderón wrote. "It is as if our neighbor were the biggest drug addict in the world."

Now that I think about it this does fit in the "predictable, consistent relations" category, doesn't it?  It's OUR fault that your country is filled with corrupt government agents who allowed drug cartels to get powerful.  So does this mean Mexico punishes drug users more harshly than the drug dealers?  Is that what this drug war is about, seeking out the users?

If Mexico wants to get involved in our court system maybe we should get involve in their drug war.  After all the violence is bleeding over the border.  Perhaps another expedition is in order?

Charlie Crist

A new Florida Chamber of Commerce poll suggests Charlie Crist may be widening his lead over Republican Marco Rubio and Democrat Kendrick Meek in the U.S. Senate race.

Where other recent polls showed Crist barely edging out Rubio, the June 9-13 survey of 607 likely voters by the Florida Chamber of Commerce Political Institute and Cherry Communications found 42 percent backing Crist, 31 percent Rubio and 14 percent Meek. The margin of error was plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Has Florida lost it's mind?

Politicians are about the last people we expect to be principled, but that doesn't mean there aren't expectations in place.  Shifting positions to be more acceptable to voters isn't an uncommon thing, but radically shifting positions and doing it frequently is something to worry about.  Pandering to voters is seen as weak, and a terrible way to govern the populace.  John Kerry was accused of flip-flopping on the issues back in 2004, and that attack worked. 

So why in God's name is Crist pulling ahead?

When it comes to unprincipled politicians who whore themselves out for votes I'm hard pressed to find someone worse than Charlie Crist.  His flip-flopping goes all the way back to mid 90's, but it's his latest string of opportunistic crap that crosses the line.  It started out with one act of selfishness, and just snowballed from there:




The result of his betrayal was a refund demand from some donors.  They had supported a Republican, they argued, not an independent.  At first Crist agreed, but of course that changes whenever he realized he needed that money:

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist announced today that he will not refund donations he received from Republican voters before he left the GOP in his bid for Florida’s U.S. Senate seat.

“Our position is that people donated to a good cause and we intend to spend it on a good cause,” Michelle Todd, an adviser to the Crist campaign, said.

The announcement contradicts statements the Crist campaign has made to several newspapers, including the Miami Herald and St. Petersburg Times. In both publications, the campaign said it would issue “pro-rated refunds” because Crist had already spent some of the money.

At the very least those who donated to Crist could take some comfort in that they donated to someone who would likely still caucus with the Republicans if he won, but Crist soon realized that if he wanted to win he was going to have to win Democrats over to his cause.  Republicans are mostly behind Rubio, and since winning had become the bottom line it wasn't long before that "People of Florida" line made it pretty clear he could go all the way in his defection:

GREGORY: “Would you vote for a Republican or a Democratic Majority Leader?”

CRIST: “I might not vote for either one. I’m going to vote for who I think would be best for the people of Florida. And if that happens to be a Democrat, so be it. If it happens to be a Republican, so be it. But I’ve got to look out for the people of my state.”

Wooing Democrats transformed Crist, although to be fair he had originally changed in order to woo conservatives.  But the back and forth is astonishing.  When he needed to win over Democrats he dropped the pro-life section of his webpage, flipped his position on DADT, and pimped himself out to the White House.  A few months ago you would of thought Crist a solid, if moderate, Republican. 

Today you wouldn't be shocked if he outright joins the Democrats in his selfish bid to gain political power.  And all for what, I have to wonder.  He's clearly ambitious for higher power, but he couldn't possibly think that he could ever run for President, could he?  Then again his strategy is currently paying off, and the voters of Florida are lining up behind the man even though he didn't have the respect to give them a decent lie.  Crist is just about the lowest piece of political scum imaginable, and I'm surprised I don't see more conservatives talking about him.  Florida may deserve this scum if they decide to elect him, but Marco Rubio deserves better and America most certainly does.  Maybe if a bit more attention was paid to his crap he wouldn't find himself up in the polls.