Law School Conservative

This is from noted conservative Robert Novak on Human Events Online in his recent January 7, 2008 assessment of the New Hampshire primaries:

“Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee never was expected to repeat his Iowa win in the less fertile soil of New Hampshire, but his performance in the Fox debate was truly dreadful. The Luntz focus group hated Huckabee’s refusal to answer questions about his record.”

There must be something in the water down there in Arkansas that makes its governors think they can re-write their records.  I respect Mike Huckabee as a Christian, a pastor, and (as far as I know) as a good and decent man.  However, if you want Populism and bigger government, pull the lever in November for Obama, Edwards, or Hillary.  Huckabee, much to true conservatives’ chagrin, is a big government-open border-soft on crime-tax raising-Populist trying to repackage himself in conservative clothing.  Not happenin’!  As long as the other candidates continue to press him on his record, his plans, his ideas, we may yet have a chance at getting a conservative in the White House.

Ongoing….

Buyer beware. I am writing this against my better judgment. I am not one who advocates voicing an opinion of discontent just to do so, however I am going to do so because I plan on taking action after doing so. Also, this discussion is long overdue. I am absolutely frustrated out of my mind with the GOP. I have been a card carrying Republican since I could vote, and remember admiring Reagan as a child. I, with some other great folks at Drexel, founded the Drexel Law Republicans who now boast thirty plus fantastic members. I was raised as a Rush-baby. I have been a Christian first, American second, and Republican third. Get the picture? However, this list has a new addition. Republican is now fourth, and I am thirdly a conservative.

This reclassification is inspired by the Republican party’s lack of an ability to listen to many of us within the party. Flat out, this term’s group of GOP contenders for POTUS just suck. Am I really going to be asked to vote for someone who is pro-choice, but will appoint “strict constructionist judges,” Mr. Giuliani? Am I really going to be asked to vote for someone who does not support closing the borders, like the Huckster? Am I really going to be asked to vote for someone who wants to raise taxes and did so as a governor, like the Huckster? Am I really going to be asked to vote for someone who thinks more government is the solution? Am I going to be asked to vote for someone who has insulted Christians as McCain has done? What about the 2nd Amendment, Rudy? And on, and on, and on this list could go.

Sadly the Republicans have bought into the idea of electability rather than ideology and it will cost us dearly. Ronald Reagan gave us a template for Christian conservatism, which is largely being ignored by the GOP. I am so sick and tired of hearing about who is the most “Reaganesque” candidate. Don’t be like Reagan, enact the principles he and other conservatives have fought for. They are in large part what makes our nation the best place on God’s green earth. Here they are:

1. Stand up to evil in the world. Yesterday it was the USSR, today it is terrorism and state sponsors thereof. No questions. You threaten us, we kill you. Got it?

2. Protect freedom of religion. Ironically the Mormon (and in an odd twist of fate one of the few who has had only one wife) in the ’08 race for POTUS seems to have a hold on this. You can’t have true freedom in a society without freedom of religion, and freedom of religion begets freedom. This does not mean create a theocracy, this means allow people their constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion without governmental interference. I think I read that somewhere…

3. Protect the innocent and unborn. This is non-negotiable. Stop abortion in America. A society who kills those without a voice deserves the worst possible fate that befalls it.

4. Lower taxes. Conservative Economics 101, lesson 1. Lower taxes to increase economic growth and thereby increasing the volume of money heading into the treasury. I still do not understand any confusion here.

5. Close the borders. Many will knock Reagan for providing amnesty, however, like his successor (G.H.W. Bush, “no new taxes.”) he made the mistake of trusting a Democratic Congress to live up to their promise. Reagan agreed to amnesty for illegals already in America while trusting the Democratic Congress to secure the boarder. 20 + years later we have more illegals and send border guards to jail for doing their job and most Republicans in DC are out to lunch on this. Shut the borders to illegals and allow an efficient pathway of legal immigration. Done deal. And please, let’s not let people who shouldn’t even be here vote. This is a huge problem in Philly, according to John Fund, where there are 18% more registered voters than there are people alive in Philadelphia.

6. Protect the 2nd Amendment. Many of us in the GOP are hunters, gun owners, and value the right to protect our person and property against the degenerates who would take them from us. Again, this is constitutionally guaranteed. Further empirical data is on the side of the 2nd Amendment. Where there is free gun ownership, there is lower crime. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that if law abiding citizens can protect themselves and their families, the criminals are less likely to take a risk if it may permanently end their criminal career with a dirt-nap.

If I may, I am going to label the above the Six Basic Principles of Conservativism. Yet I think there might be one guy for POTUS who actually adheres to these tenants and has done so consistently. That may be Fred Thompson (but sadly, he’s about as motivated as a flea bitten coonhound asleep on the porch a country huntin’ cabin and I don’t see his campaign lasting through Super Tuesday). When these principles of our ideology, when actually adhered to, go into an election they do not lose. When we lose is when we on the right try to out-liberal the liberals and “meet in the middle.” Our Republican party today seems to think that by putting someone out there like a Giuliani they are going to get liberal votes and win a general election. Wrong! Liberals don’t want a half-conservative and won’t vote for one. They want a liberal who will govern as a liberal and ignore the 6 principles listed above. Why our GOP does not understand this, I cannot tell you, but I am going to make sure that my folks in the GOP hear my frustration.

I think part of the problem is that we on the right within the Republican party have not given a good faith effort to voice our discontent. We still show up willingly at the polls and pull the lever for the “best candidate out there.” While I am not advocating not voting, I think we need to do a better job of voicing our disgust. I certainly am going to. I am going to write letters, keep calling into talk radio, call my legislators, visit my legislators, and frankly be quite a pain in the neck to the establishment Republicans out there who are Republicans first, and everything else after that. We are at a critical time when we need a true conservative leader who will keep America on the course to greatness. Any deviation from the above 6 points will be disastrous for all of us. And well, if the GOP is not on board with our beliefs, we either need to go somewhere we are welcome or create that place on our own.

Mr. Huckabee enjoys putting reporters in peril while hunting.

There’s not enough I can say about this…how on earth does he (and the group of hunters he was with, for that matter) think that its a good idea to fire a volley anywhere near the general direction of a group of people?

The irony of the whole thing is that before he went out, he took a swipe at Dick Cheney.  When asked why Cheney wasn’t invited, Huckabee answered “Because I want to live all the way through this.”

So, on top of not really being conservative, he’s also a bad hunter…and a hypocrite.

Great…

I have one criticism of Ann Coulter. It’s that after reading her articles, you never know how she really feels on a subject. OK, that’s not true at all.

Nonetheless, her analysis of Huckabee is right on and can be found here.

As I said in my previous post on December 18th, Huckabee is no conservative. He gets a free pass by conservatives because he is a Christian (like myself), and a free pass from the media because he is about as conservative as a McGovern or anyone still alive in the Kennedy family. Also, the media loves him because he is what they want Christians to be: goofy white guys from the South who like to kill stuff and not think too hard.

Anyway, read Ann’s article and you’ll get the point. I hope my fellow Christians wake up. As Martin Luther said, “I would rather be governed by a competent Turk (Muslim) than an incompetent German.” I would not go that far at all, but it says something about the importance of competent leadership. Christian faith and values are important characterstics in leaders. However, just because someone (Huckabee) is a Christian does not mean he is fit to govern a nation.

Anyone who hopes the Republicans can produce a candidate as qualified as Jimmy Carter, and who will likely do as stellar a job, by all means please support Huckabee. I thought we conservatives were smarter than that…

I can’t read my colleague’s article, “To Hell with the Cells” and let it go without writing a response. My colleague is the type of person who grew up in a small town where everyone knows your name and where times are much simpler. While, I want to emphasize that I am not diminishing that style of living, in today’s modern world, it is impractical and almost impossible to be technologically impaired.

Yes, technology certainly has its downfalls. I no longer write contemplative, hand-written notes to old friends. Instead, I type quick 5 second emails on their Facebook profiles saying, “What are you up to? It’s been so long!” Also, because I am in constant communication with my husband throughout the workday with email and text messages, the excitement that “Honey, I’m home!” used to bring is non-existent. And yes, I too, get frustrated when the work-addicted business man has his cell phone glued to his ear while I am trying to relax on my train ride home or in a once-tranquil café. Mr. Connolly, I understand your frustration and contempt for modern technology.

However, you fail to look at all the benefits that technology brings. I am able to keep in touch with old friends on a daily basis, instead of once a year with hand-written notes. I can tell my husband that I missed my train when I am running late, instead of him arriving at the train station and not knowing why I am missing. I can call home and ask if we have milk, instead of coming home and finding that we have none, and then be forced to go to the store again. More than the daily conveniences, there are substantial benefits to our modern technology. For example, I can video conference with my parents who are 2,000 miles away, I can sign a form for my attorney and return it in less than 2 minutes with my fax machine, and I can drive more safely with my “hands-free” Bluetooth cell phone. Certainly, there is nothing wrong with the technological benefits that I just described.

The key, Mr. Connolly, is finding a good balance. We must learn to put away our Blackberry when we are eating dinner with our family. We must put restrictions on the amount of X-Box360 our children can play and instead, get them involved with sports. Or, we can even restrict ourselves to “basic cable” (like my parents choose to do) so that our children aren’t channel surfing the hundreds of channels available on the television for hours on end.

Yes, the moral fiber our country has been degrading rapidly over the years, but, blaming technology is not the answer. It is up to the parents of our country to fight against the slipping morals and teach our children what is right and wrong. Not, what is right or wrong according to the world’s standards, but what is right and wrong according to the family’s standards. I was always told by my parents, “we live in the world, but are not of the world. If we remember what is important, and keep our technology in balance with other key aspects of our lives, we should turn out all right.

This is the type of article that gets nominees in trouble. This is the type of article that parents, students, liberals, girlfriends and politicians will go no where near. It raises the type of question you don’t want asked in time of war.

Should we bring back compulsory military service?

Why on earth would I ask that question?

Simple. We’re at a point in history where laziness is rewarded. Really. Indigent kids drop out of school and join gangs. Rich kids graduate high school and spend 4, 5, 6 or 9 years in college “fratting” out and then get a cushy job in daddy’s company. Not to say that there aren’t young people out there who do bust their necks in high school and college, and later become a contributing member of society, but they’re a dying breed.

To not make this drawn out and pointless, I’ll get to the gist of it. My proposal is this: Every person between the ages of 18 and 21 will be required to spend two years active duty in either the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, Coast Guard or National Public Health Corps. They will have the option of going before college as enlisted personnel, or after college as an officer. For those with an aversion to Military service, they will be required to spend two years after college teaching in a Public School, full time.

What effect will this have? Ideally, it would ensure that virtually an entire generation of people are trained in marketable skills. Not all military personnel are fighters, there are electricians, mechanics, engineers, medics, clerks, bookkeepers, communication specialists, photographers, reporters, chaplains, law clerks, and others. If they opt to not enter the military until after college, they will serve with their generation as officers and leaders, also gaining marketable skills that most employers salivate over. Finally, I don’t think I need to explain the benefit of having a throng of trained, young public school teachers enter the workforce.

This proposal, while provocative, and maybe even initially repugnant, is, I think, sound. It would require a generation that has been spoiled by the media into being lazy (a generation that, sadly, includes me) to get off their butts, stop bitching, and get something done. Chances are, it might even reduce crime, increase the high school graduation rate, and possibly even create an incentive for kids who otherwise wouldn’t try to get a better education.

This is probably not a solution, but its a good place to start looking.

“To Hell with the Cell” is a slogan I coined and used over the past four years as an undergrad when I was faced with constant criticism from my peers about not owning a cell phone. I was recently forced to get one, and after not even 2 months of ownership, I HATE it. However, my resistance to the evolution of technology in modern society goes well beyond pure stubbornness.

Let me begin by of course acknowledging the tremendous benefits our world has enjoyed through the development and advancement of technology. People are living longer, communicating and traveling faster and more efficiently in emergencies, and advancing the causes of science to extraordinary lengths. Of course, this is all good.

However, now turn to the technologies used by average Americans on a daily basis. What have cell phones, computers, pagers, fax machines, Blackberries, Palm Pilots, iPods, and “Bluetooths,” done for us? The prevailing sentiment seems to be that they have “opened the door to a world of possibilities,” and now people “can stay in touch with everyone they know.” Wrong. Instead, these technological devices have done little except to shift the emphasis to individualism and consumerism. What’s worse is that individuals who resist and despise such simple-minded devices are forced to submit to their use without choice of any alternatives.

Consider how the cell phone, the world’s most commonly used technological toy, has corrupted our culture. Cell phones serve one legitimate purpose as far as I can see: emergencies (i.e. medical or vehicular incidents). Other than that, the conversations held on cell phones are mostly irrelevant, grossly unnecessary, and just plain stupid. Don’t get me wrong, it is certainly the right of everyone to use cell phones as they please, I simply do not like the culture of self-centeredness which has arisen from their use. When people are on these phones, the emphasis is constantly on the self; “Where am I going later?” “I’m supposed to meet someone, but since I want to go to the mall, I think I’ll just call him/her and postpone it – thank God I can do this because of my cell phone.” Although these examples may be corny, they drive home the underlying point – the use of cell phones and technological gadgets has shifted society to value personal convenience more than anything else.

As Judge Robert Bork notes in his book Slouching Towards Gomorrah, “A culture obsessed with technology will come to value personal convenience above almost all else…and among the consequences is impatience with anything that interferes with personal convenience. Religion, morality, and law do that.”

This statement exactly pinpoints where our society is today in 2007. America has witnessed the decline in traditions and values which were once commonplace. For example, going to church on Sundays, once a common practice for Christians of many faiths, has declined sharply in recent years. Why? When you ask many people who purport to hold religious beliefs, the response is usually, “I don’t feel like it,” or “I observe my faith on my own time when I choose.” Great for you lazy, are you proud that you lack a basic discipline? Most people of faith know that it is not so much what one takes away from Sunday mass, as it is the act of sacrificing time that could easily be used to do something probably more fun and exciting.

Consider another example to illustrate the point particularly with younger Americans: the prospect of a military draft in any situation, not just the current war in Iraq. I am disgusted by the responses of my peers. “I would not go, why should I go fight and die? Let the volunteers do it.” “No way, not me, I’m not cut out for it.” The very nation, for which thousands upon thousands have died to protect, now sees a culture of youths who run at the mention of anything that might get in the way of their personal agendas. Do they honestly think all veterans wanted to go to war? I guarantee you that most did not, but when their country called on them to serve, they answered this call with dignity and respect for America. The lack of respect which dominates this generation is a disgrace.

Now you may say: Okay nutcase, but how is this related to technology and cell phones? Surprisingly, there is a closer connection than you may think. American youths are being sucked into a culture which promotes consumerism and individualism, and does so through the use of technology. Where children would once come home from school and go outside to play has now been replaced by sitting inside fooling with video games. Instead of asking for footballs and books from their parents, this generation demands iPods and cell phones. Why? Because parents have failed to raise their children properly, and so children are instead raised on societal trends and the constant theme of personal convenience (not to mention a politically correct education system which brainwashes youngsters into believing that they are all fantastic and “unique”).

This matter is not simply a trend, but rather it is a cultural evolution which will surely ruin America. People no longer seem to understand that life does not have to be as complicated as we make it, and just because we can achieve such “greatness” in technological capabilities should not mean forced submission to it. Where does it say that individuals today must be in constant communication with one another? Why can we no longer enjoy small talk and more person-to-person interactions?

I fear for America and the world as we continue to drown in a sea of self-absorption and individualism. I long for the day when I can once again stand on a street corner and strike up a conversation with a random person, and just talk about the simple things that make life great.

But for now, we must face the current cluster of blabbering incoherence and iPods jammed in ears as people focus solely on themselves and worship their own little worlds. This course is not an easy one to reverse, but it must begin sooner rather than later. As the one and only Ronald Reagan once said, “All great change in America begins at the dinner table.” How true it is – Americans must step up to the plate and teach their children the values of service, integrity, and discipline which once made this country so great.

Editors note: A combination of the same technology the author speaks of, and the editor’s own issues prevented this piece from being promptly posted. I apologize to Mike and to our readers for the delay.

Yesterday I wrote an article on the far-left fraud machine, which pointed out that a UK judge ruled Al Gore’s documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” was politically biased, and was not supported by scientific consensus. Today, Al Gore won the Nobel peace prize along with the UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It is always nice and fair to give credit where it is due, and to that end, congratulations Mr. Gore, and to the rest of the unnamed “panel” people.

Essentially the war on climate change has taken two fronts: the scientific front, which has been led by the IPCC, and the political front, which has been led by Al Gore. It has not mattered a great deal to climate change activists that the parties in these two fronts have been so separated in their information and facts, because each party has served its role. The scientific community has proven that global warming exists, and Al Gore has done his job of spreading the message across (the world?) the United States.

I have often talked to Al Gore fans about why they love him so much. I point out that he spreads lies and deceit, that average people know that, and that this diminishes the real message. They point out that it does not matter that his message is not factual, because he does the job of spreading a message which is known to be true, and he has done more for the cause of global warming than perhaps anyone. I often find this argument to be unsatisfactory, but apparently the Nobel Prize committee does not.

I have always advocated for truth, but truth doesn’t always seem to be the most important thing to everyone. My own impression is that the IPCC are the real leaders in the war on climate change. These are the hard-working folks who have dedicated their lives and souls to establishing scientific truth in the face of adversity. It has taken decades for them to establish their scientific findings. Al Gore on the other hand, never blinked or thought about global warming until recently, where he then used his celebrity status to make a false documentary. Somehow, Al Gore ends up being the only named individual on the prize.

While I began the article by congratulating Mr. Gore, I will end it by saying that he doesn’t deserve it. The IPCC deserves it, not Al Gore. It is a sad day for truth, when two advocates for a cause are given an award, and the propagandist takes center stage, while the hard-working men and women who have truly dedicated their lives to the cause are simply referred to as the “panel.” I’m sure they are happy, but as a researcher myself who knows what the 16 hour days and sleepless nights are like, I know that are hurt inside. Al Gore makes movies and speeches and rolls in tons of cash for his propaganda campaign. The scientists working for the cause sacrifice leisure, personal relationships, and mental well-being, only in the end to be referred to as the “panel.” Truth and propaganda have been at war longer than people have. In the long run, truth has always won, but today, it suffers a sad, sad defeat.