Reale Simple

Playing the Bigotry Card

2010-08-04T15:36:00.001-04:00

My friend Ellie Burhans wrote an article on her blog today in regards to the 13-story mosque being planned in Lower Manhattan, less than 600 feet away from the former location of the World Trade Center. She referred to opposition to the project as "hate, pure and simple." It's an argument that those who are opposed to the project have been hearing for a couple of weeks now.

This isn't a response to Ellie per se, but it is a venting of frustration for being repeatedly called a bigot without any established basis for it. I'm not a bigot. I simply believe that the concerns of all groups involved should be considered, not just the concerns of one group.

I don't deal with emotional arguments. I deal with facts. Brutal, undeniable, plain truths. And in case you doubt these facts, I've provided links to reputable sources, national and international, backing them.

Fact: The 19 perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks were Islamic, and were using their faith as justification for their attack. Whether the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful or not (the body of evidence suggests that they are), this cannot be avoided.

Fact: Terrorists using Islam as a justification continue to attempt attacks on the United States and on New York City, most recently on December 25, 2009 in Detroit and May 1, 2010 in Times Square. Both attacks were narrowly avoided, but there were 290 people aboard Flight 253, and the Times Square bomb, had it not been thwarted, would likely have been worse than the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. We are still at war with radicalized Islam, whether we like it or not, because they are attacking us.

Fact: The imam behind the project, Faisal Abdul Rauf, has refused to categorize Hamas (whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel, and who has been firing rockets at Israeli citizens from their Gaza stronghold for six years) as a terrorist organization. He also called the United States an "accessory" to 9/11 on 60 Minutes after the attack.

Fact: Sources of funding for the project are fairly unknown. Rauf has said that the funds would be raised entirely within the Muslim-American community, but he also told an Arabic-language newspaper in London that funding would also come from Arab countries. Saudi Arabia, for instance, has frequently funded mosque projects abroad to support Wahhabism (the strain of Islam practiced by Osama bin Laden), especially in Great Britain and Southeast Asia, which have been sources of extremist rhetoric and the growth of domestic terrorism in those areas.

Fact: The project is known as the "Cordoba Initiative," named for the vanquished Spanish capital conquered by invading Muslims in the 8th Century. Following the conquest, the massive Great Mosque of Cordoba was built, symbolizing the victory and the conquerors' power. (The building itself has been renamed from "Cordoba House" to "Park 51," the building's location, but the project's name is unchanged.)

Fact: Construction is due to begin on September 11, 2011, the tenth anniversary of the attacks. September 11, 2011 is a Sunday, which is an awfully strange day to begin construction.

These are the collective reasons why I oppose the building of a mega-mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero. I'm sorry, what's hateful about all of this? Is it hateful to point out the facts?

As of 2002, there were over 100 mosques in New York City, including 17 in Manhattan. That number no doubt has increased since then. If this were truly an issue of freedom of religion, an issue of hate, why wouldn't this be one of the things brought up as a major concern of those who oppose the Cordoba House? Muslims in New York are not lacking for places to worship.

Another mosque already exists near Ground Zero, and has been there for 30 years. They are seeking a new location nearby. Why has there been no controversy? Because they aren't trying to be ostentatious with a grand monument and have been exceptionally gracious with the 9/11 families.

St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, built in 1832, was destroyed in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks when the South Tower fell on it. Despite promises from the City of New York, it has yet to be rebuilt due to miles of red tape. There's outrage over private citizens voicing their preference to holding back an Islamic mosque near Ground Zero. Where's the outrage over government actually holding back a previously existing Christian church near Ground Zero. Are they hateful, too? (Answer: No, of course not. The government can't possibly be hateful)

Imagine the outcry if an evangelical Christian church decided to build a mission just outside an abortion hospital where an abortion doctor had been killed. It would be ear-shattering, and the people behind the outcry would have a point. They wouldn't be called hateful.

Hey, I've got a great idea! Let's allow Fred Phelps to move forward with his plans to build a monument in Cheyenne, Wyoming celebrating Matthew Shepard's killing! Why not? Fred Phelps is a religious figure, aren't you just full of hate for opposing his freedom of religion?

Gonna get outraged over the blocking of a "super mosque" in London near the site of the Olympics? Nah, Europeans aren't bigots.

I'm not opposed to mosques. I'm not opposed to the free practice of religion. I'm not opposed to Islam. I'd have no problem with this mega-mosque being built near Central Park or uptown. I just have a problem with it being built THERE, at a location that was heavily damaged and ultimately abandoned after the 9/11 attacks, which may not have even become available for sale if not for the 9/11 attacks. They can't find a place more than 600 feet away from the place where almost 3,000 people from all walks of life and from multiple religions were murdered in the name of Islam? Seriously?

But ultimately, the bigger problem isn't whether there's a mosque near Ground Zero or not. The use of charges of bigotry or racism is reaching epidemic proportions in the modern political discourse, and it is to the detriment of said discourse.

Bigotry and racism are more and more routinely being used as blunt instruments, without basis in reality, as a method for seeking to silence opposition. The method has a double effect for the person using it. First, it allows them to lay claim to the moral high ground while casting doubt on the motivations of those in opposition, seeking to delegitimize relevant arguments. Second, it acts as a threat to those who would oppose - the message becomes clear; support our position or be labeled a bigot or a racist. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who will look at the facts I have laid out, understand them, even agree with them, but will still support this mosque lest they be called a hateful bigot.

What does that do? It spikes real political conversation and dumbs it down to the lowest common denominator. Are there some bigots out there who oppose the mosque? Of course, but that's because there are some bigots in society. Are there racists in the tea party movement? Yes, but that's because racists exist in society. That doesn't make ALL opposition to the mosque inherently bigoted (pure OR simple), and it doesn't make the tea party movement inherently racist.

I'm not afraid to be called a bigot (since I know I'm not one), but it does get tiring to hear it constantly.

Learning the Wrong Lessons From NY-23

2009-11-04T16:43:00.003-05:00

It's obvious at this point that the national media, from Fox to MSNBC, has no idea what just happened in NY-23. Part of that stems from their late arrival into the race midway through. The other part stems from their general ignorance of local politics in this neck of the woods.

1) Third parties are a waste of time. Nope. In this case - assisted by New York's electoral fusion rules - a third party proved a useful tool for conservatives to at first nudge, then poke, and finally hit the GOP over the head with a 2-x-4 repeatedly to get their point across.

2) Third parties are the wave of the future. Wrong again. When national figures like Glenn Beck start arguing for the formation of third parties to be populated by conservatives, I want to bang my head against the wall. Perot in '92 ring any bells? Nader in 2000? Under American election laws, a third party without a corresponding and mirrored fourth party is like asking for your ideology to fail. In a system with instant runoff voting, I would be all for it. Not now. It's far better for conservatives to fight smaller battles, like NY-23, than to split the right-wing and right-of-center votes along two parties.

3) Conservatives should have picked a candidate who lives in the district. Take a look at this map:

See the black dot I put on there? That's the approximate location of Lake Placid, where Doug Hoffman lives. Go west from it, and you're in the district. Southwest, you're in the district. Due south, you're in the district. Southeast, east, northeast, north, northwest from Lake Placid, and YOU'RE IN THE DISTRICT. Four of the five towns that border North Elba (the town that includes the village of Lake Placid) are in the district. Lake Placid was gerrymandered out of NY-23. Throw in the fact that this whole area is rural and very similar to its surrounding towns, and the "Doug Hoffman doesn't live in the district" meme that the Republicans pushed while Scozzafava was still in the race and that the Democrats pushed after her departure seems very, very silly.

Oh, and as an aside, Republican Party? Maybe you shouldn't have been playing that card considering your support in the SAME YEAR in the SAME STATE in ANOTHER special election, in fact, one in a BORDERING district, of a candidate who was not from that district. The hypocrisy is yet another reason why conservatives are not happy with you.

4) Conservatives drove a moderate out, which is why they lost. Wrong on two fronts. First, calling Dede Scozzafava a moderate is like saying Timothy Leary merely dabbled in drugs. Second, if Scozzafava had stayed in the race, there's a good chance that Doug Hoffman would have won, not to mention that if Hoffman had been the nominee to begin with, he would have stood a good chance of winning.

5) New York Republicans need moderates, not conservatives, to win elections. It sounds similar to the above argument, but it's wrong for a different reason. It's true that in many parts of New York State, Republicans should put moderates rather than full-on conservatives on the ballot. The Albany area's a good example. The North Country isn't like the national stereotype of New York as a liberal state. The party should assess the political mood of each individual district and support candidates that fit with those areas. Dede Scozzafava wasn't a good fit for NY-23. Doug Hoffman was. On the flip side, so was Bill Owens, who figures to be another Blue Dog Democrat in the House. The Democrats figured out that NY-23 didn't want a liberal. One wonders exactly how the GOP came to that conclusion.

6) NY-23 proves the Democrats aren't in big trouble next year. It doesn't prove anything. The nomination of Scozzafava and the insurgent conservative campaign turned this race into an all-out melee. By itself, it can't really speak to the relative vulnerability or strength of the Democrats heading into the midterm elections. The results in New Jersey and Virginia, on the other hand... well, let's just remember what Whitman and Allen's '93 victories portended for '94, and what Corzine and Kaine's '05 victories portended for '06...

7) Sarah Palin and the tea party movement were marginalized by the result in NY-23. Wishful thinking on the part of those professional journalists who can't help but resort to juvenile name-calling when talking about the tea parties. On the contrary, Palin, Thompson, and other fiscal conservatives flexed their muscle and made their point days before the election - the GOP is going to stand on principle whether the party heads want to or not. Remember, up until the last week of the election, Doug Hoffman wasn't expected to win - conservatives merely hoped he'd beat the liberal Republican, and hopefully squeak out an overall victory. The former was accomplished even before Election Day. That's a big win for Sarah Palin, whose endorsement of Doug Hoffman helped kickstart his campaign into overdrive.

8) Hoffman owes all of his support to national figures, so this was "astroturf." Nope. Take a look at the polls. From the very beginning, his numbers did nothing but rise and Scozzafava's numbers did nothing but fall. He wouldn't have attracted any national attention if he and the conservatives of NY-23 hadn't already established him as a legitimate candidate. The national attention merely accelerated his already rising support.

Segueing from the last point, the national media was really only paying attention to this race over the last three weeks of the campaign - thus, they never really got a feel for what was going on there. If they're not careful, it'll cause people to draw the wrong conclusions from NY-23, and the same foolish mistakes will be made in the future.

Who Lost NY-23?

2009-11-04T16:41:00.001-05:00

There's no doubt I'm disappointed this morning. It's rough to head into the count with cautious optimism only to come out on the losing end no matter what the circumstances here.

New York's North Country will be represented by a Democrat for the first time in several generations for at least the next 14 months. When something of that kind of historical magnitude comes down, finger pointing is completely inevitable. So before people start pointing fingers in the wrong directions, allow me, a local resident who has been watching the special election since the day President Obama nominated John McHugh to be Secretary of the Army, to guide you in the right direction.

Those to blame for last night's Democrat victory, in order starting with the most culpable and going down:

1) NY-23's GOP Chairpersons. Don't start at the end. Start at the beginning. There were six other candidates for the Republican nomination besides Dede Scozzafava, including Doug Hoffman and Matt Doheny. Scozzafava happened to be the only elected official in the field. The chairs learned the wrong lesson from the 2008 election and didn't learn the obvious lesson from the NY-20 special earlier in the year. They thought NY-23 was trending Democrat due to Barack Obama's victory in the district and decided to go with a non-conservative holding the top position of power among the potential candidates.

The #1 culprit here is Clinton County chair Janet Duprey, who, like Scozzafava, happens to be an Assemblywoman. The two women are close friends, and by all accounts Duprey was the driving force behind the appointment of Scozzafava as the nominee.

2) The RNC and the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC). After Duprey and the local chairs made the big mistake, the national chairs expounded upon that mistake and made it worse and worse, even as local conservatives and Republicans virtually shrieked at them that they were backing a bad candidate. They poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into the race on her behalf, including some ads which attacked Doug Hoffman, who more and more became the choice of Republicans during the course of the election, even before Sarah Palin and Fred Thompson became involved. By the time all was said and done, the GOP spent over $1 million building up Dede Scozzafava into a player in this race despite the fact that her poll numbers peaked at the very beginning of the race, before her record became widely known.

3) Dede Scozzafava. I'm not going to sit here and attack her for making the decision to run for higher office. I'm not even going to attack her here for her liberal record - she's entitled to her views on governance. What IS indefensible, after receiving so much money from the national GOP and being unable to rescue her own campaign from the growing popularity of the conservative candidate, she decided to take her ball and go home, and THEN endorsed the Democrat - the very person the GOP spent all that money on her in order to defeat. The most cursory glance at the final results shows that this endorsement was likely the difference in the race: an endorsement borne out of spite for Doug Hoffman for stealing away the conservative base that she took for granted, and out of spite for her own party, which eventually - with considerable prodding - saw the writing on the wall and stopped supporting her.

Solutions?

1) Dump Dede. The Republican Party CAN be a big tent, but a big tent has to have strong center poles to hold it up. Those center poles represent the party's core values, and if parts of the big tent stray too far from those poles, they undermine the strength of the tent. Such is the case with Dede Scozzafava. So many of her political stances run completely counter to the core values of the GOP. It's not a problem if one or two stances are moderate or liberal. That's why you have a big tent, for people and candidates like that. But after a while, it starts to become a matter of principle. If the party is going to stand up for an outright liberal candidate simply in order to win elections, where is the principle, and what is a party without principle?

The final straw is her endorsement of Owens, which more than likely swung the election in the end. How can she be allowed to ruin the Republicans' chances of retaining a congressional seat by espousing values counter to that of the party, running a horrible campaign (including several unforced errors on her part), wasting the party's money, and then turn around and endorse the Democrat to secure the election for him and still call herself a Republican? Even if she wants to, why would the party allow it?

The counter-argument is going to be that removing Scozzafava from the GOP caucus in Albany will leave the Assembly with only 39 Republicans. My response: so? She votes with the Democrats a large chunk of the time anyway, and it's not like the Republicans are anywhere close to having any sort of power in that legislative body anyway, nor will they likely have control in the near future. Losing a liberal is no loss here.

2) 2010 primaries for Scozzafava and Duprey. Barring the above scenario, the conservative movement must continue its diligence. These two women, by and large, are directly responsible at both the beginning and the end of the election for its result. Although neither are conservatives, Duprey could at least fit into the "big tent" as a moderate, but her actions have done serious damage to the party's reputation in the North Country just as much as Scozzafava's. There should be repercussions to such action. It would be nice to see some serious fiscal conservatives challenge them for their Assembly seats next year.

3) Hoffmania rolls on. There can be little doubt that if it wasn't for the Dede Scozzafava sideshow, the Republicans would have held onto this seat if Doug Hoffman, Matt Doheny, or another fiscal conservative had been the party's nominee. If Scozzafava hadn't been in this race for six weeks, her endorsement of Owens wouldn't have had anywhere near the effect that it ended up having, Hoffman would not have been operating from the disadvantageous position of a third-party, and would have had logistical and financial support from the GOP from the get-go... which is what conservatives in NY-23 were saying all along. This seat is up for election again in 12 months. We know what we did wrong. Now it's time to get it right, and now with the PEOPLE back in control of the first step - nomination - we will get it right.

The mainstream media, the bigwigs at the NRCC afraid to face their own faults, and the party hacks will point to the conservatives as the reason this race was lost. And to the extent they're right, we should be glad they're right. The answer has to be crystal clear for them to understand - we'd rather lose with our principles than support someone who has no respect for those principles whatsoever.

The consolation prize for conservatives? It was said time and time again that Scozzafava was to the left of Owens. We ended up with a more moderate winner than if the party's choice had won. On principle, that's what you want. We made our point in this race - now let's hope the ones who failed us get the message and don't stick their heads back in the sand.

Breakfast With Doug Hoffman

2009-10-30T10:30:00.001-04:00

I had the great opportunity to be present for an early morning breakfast and meeting with Doug Hoffman yesterday in Plattsburgh. The room was rather small, but the event was well attended - I didn't see an open seat in the house.

Doug's campaign has taken my interest since well before it became a national sensation. I saw just how liberal the Republican candidate was and how Mr. Hoffman was espousing common sense conservative values - less government regulation, lower taxes, and taking a firm stand against some of the more damaging elements of the Nancy Pelosi agenda, like cap-and-trade and card check, and it was a no-brainer to support him.

But I hadn't had the chance to meet Doug until yesterday, and I walked away with a great image of the man.

First off, it's true what the pundits have been saying about Mr. Hoffman. He's unpolished - a regular guy. A fellow attendee told WPTZ-TV that Doug seemed "socially awkward." I think that's a fair assessment. My father picked up on it. "He's a CPA," he declared. Short, blunt, and to the point.

Of course, none of these are really negatives. Not in this political atmosphere.

What is political savvy and polish really good for anyway? For decades we've completely populated the House of Representatives with slick talkers who have an answer for everything - veritable know-it-alls who are the magic elixir for everything that ails us. That's not Doug, and that's why he's a breath of fresh air.

So the "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" meme that the media is using for Mr. Hoffman is 100% accurate. Like Fred Thompson said in the ad, "he's one of us."

But it was what Doug said to us that really made me glad I was supporting him (and I'm paraphrasing throughout here, since I didn't have my voice recorder with me). "Politicians don't create jobs," he said of his opponents' constant promises of X number of jobs here and X number of jobs there. "Our elected leaders need to create a positive environment for businesses in order to allow THEM to create jobs."

Isn't it kind of obvious which candidate is more interested in creating that climate? I'll give you a hint - it's not the one who has been railing on repealing the Bush tax cuts, calling them "failed policies." Mr. Hoffman went into a short discussion on S-corporations and how repealing these cuts hurts small business owners more than anyone (hey, he's a CPA, he knows his stuff).

When it came down to question and answer time, I was fortunate to be able to ask the last question. I noted that the Watertown Daily Times had peppered him with all kinds of questions about local projects like the St. Lawrence Seaway and the proposed "Rooftop Highway" connecting Watertown to Plattsburgh. I thought it was ridiculous of them to cherry-pick local pet projects and demand an answer on them and ignore issues like card check and high taxes as though those aren't "local" issues. I'm sorry, were we exempt from cap-and-trade?

"I'm from Ticonderoga," I told Mr. Hoffman. "I could care less about the St. Lawrence Seaway. I do, however, care about the Crown Point Bridge. Fact is, New York's 23rd is a vast district with diverse interests." I then added my bit about national issues not having any local relevance - well, at least if you write for the Watertown Daily News - and asked him for his thoughts on the matter.

Doug compared being a congressman to his job as a CPA. "Lots of people would walk through my door with issues that they wanted me to take care of. You're never going to know as they walk in just what those problems are. The most important thing is that you find out what they are, seek to understand them, and help them arrive at a solution."

Bingo. At any rate, politicians in Washington don't need to be involved in every little thing that comes down the pike. Most of the time, they're only doing it for the face time involved anyway. Mr. Hoffman remarked that many politicians only get involved in local projects for the votes they can buy with them in the first place.

Mr. Hoffman also shot down the notion that he's against all earmarks. His opponents have been acting like if you're against pork barrel spending, you're against any money whatsoever coming into the district. His rebuttal was that he was opposed to wasteful earmarks, using the indoor rainforest in Iowa as a classic example of things the federal government doesn't need to spend money on.

When he gets to Washington, Doug certainly going to be an engima. Many of his colleagues aren't going to understand his approach to solving problems. That's going to be an underscore for exactly how screwed up Washington is.

Silencing the Military's Voice

2009-10-01T09:01:00.002-04:00

David Paterson, this one's for you.

I gave up a year of my life serving my country overseas. That's 365 days of being away from the people and places that I hold dear to my heart. It's sacrificing job opportunities, potential salary, and personal freedoms for the chance to put my life on the line, day after excruciatingly long day. Without our military, the most basic of freedoms that are taken for granted by so many in this country, the freedoms of speech, religion, the press, and the freedom to choose our leaders paramount among them, would cease to be.

John McHugh was appointed Secretary of the Army on June 2nd. For those of you keeping score at home, that was four months ago, so this special election that's coming up, we've seen it coming for some time.

Yes, it's true that the nomination, after over two months of procedure, was held up by the senatorial contingent from Kansas, which was concerned that the Obama administration might place prisoners from Guantanamo Bay in their state. Yes, this kept Mr. McHugh from leaving his seat until September. But the senators' beef was not with McHugh, a member of their own party. There was never much doubt that McHugh would eventually get his Senate vote and, as an uncontroversial nominee, eventually become Secretary of the Army.

After another month of the hold, the senators allowed a vote on McHugh's nomination, at which point observers remarked that the prudent thing to do logistically for the special election that would result from his move to the Pentagon would be for November 3rd - Election Day.

McHugh was confirmed on the 16th of September. He was sworn in on the 21st. Governor David Paterson must have called the special election on the 21st or the 22nd, right? I mean, this had been almost four months in the making.

Try the 29th - more than a week later.

Why does this matter? Well, for a soldier serving overseas, it matters quite a bit. The election was called for 36 days after Paterson's proclamation on September 29th. A soldier who wants to vote has to send a request for a military ballot to their county board of elections. Based on my own observations, that can take over a week to arrive back in New York. The board then mails out a military ballot, which takes another week. Assuming that the soldier isn't too busy to pick up his or her mail everyday - or that they receive mail everyday in the first place - they then fill out their ballot and put it back in the mail, which takes another week to return.

That doesn't leave much room for error in the process. Soldiers, after all, have a lot more on their mind than their ballot.

I experienced this squeeze first hand earlier this year when I voted in the NY-20 special election that was called to fill the vacant seat of Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. Paterson set the election on February 23rd for March 31st, which was also a 36 day difference. As soon as the election was called, I started the process I described above. Did my ballot get counted? I'm not optimistic.

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission recommended absentee ballots be mailed to military voters at least 45 days before they are due, [Justice Department official Hans] von Spakovsky said. And the chief of operations at the Military Postal Service Agency recommended at least 60 days.

That's MAILED absentee ballots. How can they do that when the election is called with such a short amount of turn-around time?

That week between Secretary McHugh's swearing-in and Paterson's election proclamation could have been used to help get those military ballots in the hands of voters in a timely manner, but nothing could be done until the proclamation. During that time, it was repeatedly mentioned that the NY-23 special election would probably be held on Election Day for the sake of saving money. What was the hold up?

It's no big secret that the vast majority of the military leans to the right politically - I've told friends that my time on deployment was the only time in my life where I felt like I was the liberal of the group - and a second consecutive snap election from Democrat David Paterson is beginning to look peculiar.

But this time, it's even worse. Of all of the 29 congressional districts in New York State, there is none more closely linked to the military than the 23rd, which includes Fort Drum, home of the Army's 10th Mountain Division. And wouldn't you know it? Much of the 10th Mountain is deployed - the 3rd Brigade Combat Team is currently in eastern Afghanistan, while the 1st and 2nd BCTs are in the middle of deploying to Afghanistan and Iraq respectively, making it even more difficult for them to be able to cast ballots.

The bottom line is that in any special election, the voting group that needs the most consideration and, quite frankly, protection, are the servicemen and servicewomen who are deployed, fighting their country's wars. While it is they who provide the backing for our right to vote, too often they are administratively denied that right.

I'm proud to have had the chance to serve my country. Looking back, seeing everything that I gave up and all the hardships that I endured, I still would have done it all over again. But now, having returned home to see parties and politicians continually trying to do the politically expedient thing instead of doing the right thing, it's enough to get me more than a little upset.

Republican Values?

2009-09-26T07:00:00.000-04:00

Last week, the Watertown Daily Times reported that House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) "will push Scozzafava for House Armed Services post if elected." Dede Scozzafava is crowing about it as though this is a major coup.

Seriously? For a person who would be representing Fort Drum? You don't say.

I should mention at the outset that Boehner is just doing his job. He's a party figure as Minority Leader and thus it's part of the job description to support the candidates with the "R." Being Minority Leader means working for the party, even if you're a man of principle. He didn't choose Dede Scozzafava, but it's his job to get her elected. The purpose here isn't to blast John Boehner, it's simply to point out how weak of a motivation this is for voting for Scozzafava.

Forget for a moment that Doug Hoffman would clearly caucus with the Republicans after he's elected. Let's take a quick trip in the Wayback Machine.

In 1984, the 10th Mountain Division was reactivated, and its headquarters was placed at Fort Drum, which, at the time, was a minor Army post. Today, 80,000 soldiers a year train there.

In 1983, Congressman David Martin, a Marine Corps veteran representing the 26th district and Jefferson County, was named to the House Armed Services Committee. Since that time, Fort Drum's representative has never been missing from the committee's member rolls until John McHugh's resignation this week.

It's hardly uncommon to find representatives of districts with major military posts on the HASC. Among the posts currently represented: Fort Carson (4th Infantry Division), Fort Bragg (82nd Airborne Division, 2 different representatives), Schofield Barracks (25th Infantry Division) and Pearl Harbor Naval Base (US Pacific Fleet), Norfolk Naval Base (Fleet Forces Command)... Camp Lejeune, Fort Detrick, Fort Huachuca, Wright-Patterson AFB, the list goes on and on.

Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO), the chairman, represents Fort Leonard Wood and Whiteman Air Force Base. The new Ranking Member of the minority, Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA), represents Fort Irwin. And of course, the most recent Ranking Member, John McHugh, represented Fort Drum.

It's also not uncommon to see military veterans on the committee, like Democrats Rep. Jim Marshall and Rep. Joe Sestak, or Republicans Rep. Duncan D. Hunter and Rep. Mike Coffman. Two women on the committee, Rep. Niki Tsongas (whose father survived Pearl Harbor) and Delegate Madeleine Bordallo of Guam, grew up in military families. One is married to a Vietnam veteran. Democrat Rep. Dave Loebsack's step-son is in the service.

Based on an admittedly less than thorough look at the current HASC, at least 36 of the committee's 58 members either have a personal connection to the military as a veteran or close relation to a veteran, or represent a major military facility. Three of them - Tsongas, Rep. Walter B. Jones, and Rep. Silvestre Reyes, are both.

Doug Hoffman, who left the Army Reserve in 1976 as a Staff Sergeant, would also be both.

So considering that he did his turn in the military and would be representing an important active duty post of the United States Army with a long history of representation on the HASC, and would caucus with Republicans... clearly, Doug Hoffman is equally, if not more qualified to serve on that committee.

So there are only a few conclusions we can draw from this announcement. Either the Republican Party is willing to place either Scozzafava or Doug Hoffman on the committee, and thus, this is no reason to vote for Scozzafava. Or, this is some sort of veiled threat to keep Hoffman off the committee if he wins. Sour grapes, perhaps? If this is the case, the Republican Party is clearly only looking out for itself and not for any kind of principle. Why would you vote for that?

The North Country wants a conservative. The only one in this race is Doug Hoffman. He's the best choice we have to represent not only Fort Drum, but the 23rd District as a whole, whether the Republicans are willing to give him a seat on the Armed Services committee or not.

Why I Support Doug Hoffman for Congress

2009-09-23T19:38:00.002-04:00

I used to consider myself a strong Republican, because I believed the Republican Party best espoused conservative values. I'm not exactly sure when it was that I decided that was no longer true. It might have been after I plugged my nose and voted for John McCain. After all, I figured he was better than the alternative, and given the way things have played out to date, I still feel I made the right decision.

But time and time again, the Republican Party has shown that it is willing to try for the most politically expedient path, instead of the path of conservative principle. Somewhere between 1994 and 2006, when the party was unceremoniously booted from power in Congress, the mantra of "a government that governs least governs best" became "a government governed by Republicans governs best." That's the wrong answer.

Doug Hoffman knows this firsthand. Easily one of the best conservative choices to throw his name into the hat for the special election in New York's 23rd District, he was unceremoniously spurned in favor of "the party's choice."

"The party's choice" didn't win in NY-20 when then-Assembly Minority Leader Jim Tedisco was chosen over a better choice, State Sen. Betty Little. It's even worse now when "the party's choice" has been repeatedly endorsed by ACORN's front party, the Working Families Party.

After hearing that Assemblywoman Dierdre "Dede" Scozzafava was "the party's choice," I was flabbergasted. A woman who is unabashedly pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and whose husband runs the local AFL-CIO and has been endorsed multiple times by the Working Families Party... is the best choice for the Republican Party... in the North Country? I wouldn't think twice about her as a Republican choice in, say, Albany, or Manhattan. But Watertown? Plattsburgh? REALLY?

When State Sen. Darrel Aubertine, a true moderate who is considered more conservative than many of his colleagues across the aisle in Albany, was considered a favorite for the Democrat nomination, I caught myself asking an open question - might I actually support a Democrat?

Aubertine did not run, and there's a better choice. Doug Hoffman - the Conservative Party of New York's choice for Congress, and the only small-c conservative running in NY-23.

The party didn't pick Dede Scozzafava because she represents the party's values well. The party picked Dede Scozzafava because they thought she had a better chance to win. They chose her because they thought that being previously elected made her more likely to win than just a common citizen, a businessman. They selected her because it was "her turn."

It was Jim Tedisco's turn, too. Whoops.

But the party miscalculated. I, like many North Country residents, will not support Dede Scozzafava simply because she's got an "R" next to her name.

Bill Owens is the Democrat candidate, the handpicked choice of Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod. He's another vote for Nancy Pelosi and her radical agenda that seeks to fundamentally change our nation from a country founded on individual liberties to one which fosters and encourages dependency on a bloated, mismanaged government bureaucracy. But at least he's a liberal in liberal's clothing. It would be better that we not fooled ourselves about who we were voting for if we were to choose him as Secretary McHugh's replacement rather than choose a wolf in sheep's clothing.

But the best part is this: ultimately, it's not why you shouldn't support Scozzafava. It's why you SHOULD support Doug Hoffman.

It's time to stop voting because you don't like the other guy, and this election is a great place to start. Pundits popularly claim that you are "wasting your vote" to choose a third party. Not this time. Not when the "major party" choice is six of one and half-dozen of another, not with a clear alternative with a real, populist message like Doug Hoffman - and not when he has a real chance to win.

Doug Hoffman is the only candidate in this race that espouses the values which drew tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of concerned Americans to the streets of Washington on September 12th. Those values are, traditionally, in sync with the values of North Country voters. Doug Hoffman is the only candidate that will stand up to government waste. He's the only one willing to stand against a corrupt tax code. He's the only one standing against card check. Against the disastrous cap-and-trade scheme. Against a government take-over of healthcare, which can only drive the quality of health services into the ground. All of these positions support liberty and oppose government control, and Doug Hoffman is the ONLY candidate who can claim these positions.

When we choose our candidates based on their record and their values instead of whether they've got an R or a D next to their names, it becomes a no-brainer. The North Country needs Doug Hoffman - and he can be an important reminder to not only the New York GOP but the GOP nationwide that conservatives are not going to be led around blindly by the hand.

On Facebook, commenting on his recent endorsement by the PBA, Hoffman said, "it goes to show that people follow principles, not parties. When will the parties figure that out?"

Maybe after Doug Hoffman is sworn into Congress as an elected Conservative.

The Many Faces of Eric Massa

2009-08-20T12:04:00.002-04:00

Freshman congressman Eric Massa (D-NY) made some waves this week when he was caught on camera openly defying the will of his constituents:

MASSA: I will vote for the single payer bill.
PARTICIPANT: Even if it meant you were being voted out of office?
MASSA: I will vote adamantly against the interests of my district, if I actually think what I am doing is going to be helpful.
(inaudible participants' comments regarding the "interests" of the district statement from Mr. Massa)
MASSA: I will vote against their opinion if I actually believe it will help them.

Where have you gone, Mr. Massa? What about your principled stand against your party on cap-and-trade, back when your constituents apparently knew what they were talking about when they gave you their opinion?

"Today I voted against the Cap and Trade bill because of several concerns," said Congressman Eric Massa. "Let me begin by saying that I know global warming is real and we must take steps to address this situation, however I don't think this proposal takes us in the right direction. I was also deeply concerned by the fact that hydrogen fuel cell technology did not receive any attention in this legislation. Additionally, my constituents have told me in overwhelming levels that they wanted me to reject this plan, and as their Representative, I take their opinions very seriously. I was also upset by how rushed this process was. We have a district work week coming up and I would have liked the opportunity to hold more townhall meetings while this issue is on the front burner to hear what the families of Western New York thought about Cap and Trade."

Woof. So Mr. Massa uses his constituents for cover when he bucks the party, but knows better than they do when it comes to their health. Is this really what the Southern Tier wants in their representative in Washington?

Escalation

2009-08-07T10:41:00.002-04:00

There are multiple ways to bend the truth. There's the boldfaced lie, there's the lie by omission, and then there's the most common lie in Washington today: the halfway truth.

If one was to come right out and say "President Obama has never favored a single-payer health care system," that would be a boldfaced lie. You can't come out with boldfaced lies in politics, because they're the easiest to refute - simple facts, like video footage, are all that would be needed to destroy credibility. So instead, if someone even dares to ask about such video footage, the creative answer is to use "the dodge," that is, giving a response that fails to adequately answer the question. A good example of this came from the Obama/ABC healthcare informercial: when asked if he would subject his own children to ObamaCare if one of them was sick, his long response started with "well, obviously, I would want my children to get the best care," and then failed to indicate during his long soliloquy whether "the best care" was under the current system or his proposed system.

The lie by omission and the halfway truth are closely related. In these methods, members of Congress have the audacity to stand before their constitutents and claim that ObamaCare won't lead to a single payer system. It's a half truth - there's nothing in the bill specifically providing for a single payer system, but it doesn't take an economist to see that the particulars of the plan would likely, over time, force more and more Americans into the so-called "public option," slouching toward what would eventually just become a single payer system by default as private insurance becomes more expensive and as private insurers find it increasingly difficult to keep up with a competitor that can levy taxes, print money, and operate without turning a profit.

And lo and behold - these consitutuents don't like being lied to. People don't just sit there when they have concerns being dismissed by lies, or worse, having their concerns completely ignored when these Congressmen and women refuse to take questions or only accept pre-screened questions (that is, screening out the hard ones).

What's the Administration's reaction? They label these people as being part of "organized angry mobs." Their concerns simply aren't important, and what's more, the President has indicated that they need to "stop talking." Now, just last night, we see that town halls across the country are either being canceled outright or stacked with union "volunteers," there to produce the image of support. If that support was truly present, they wouldn't need to stack their crowds.

These "angry mobs" do not exist. They are a cross-section of society - senior citizens, veterans, doctors, students, and business owners alike have been part of these so-called mobs. They know what the stakes are, and they aren't willing to just sit there and be lied to. They want their congressperson to get that message, and instead, they are treated as kooks for doing nothing more than exercising their right under the First Amendment for a redress of grievances.

The response of the government to all of this is an unnecessary escalation of the situation. Just last night, a conservative activist was assaulted by t-shirt wearing union members - wearing the t-shirt of a union which was "proud" to have spent $6o million to elect Obama and other Democrats last November - outside of a town hall in St. Louis. What are we supposed to take away from this sort of physical intimidation? Are we to simply back down, and stop showing our displeasure at being lied to? Are we to simply sit down, shut up, and wait for this abomination to become law?

Say what you want about the "mob." They have been wholly non-violent. There's no need - they have their First Amendment rights and they are using them. But if physical intimidation is going to become the norm, there's no guarantee that self-defense won't become the next escalation.

I Am A Conservative

2009-08-05T16:39:00.002-04:00

Um... hi.

I'm not a racist, or a homophobe. I don't live in a double-wide, or eat fried food or own a gun. And I don't know Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin personally, although I'm sure they're really, really nice.

I am a concerned citizen, not part of an angry mob. I speak plain English, not a nuanced, politically correct substitute, and I never had a slavish devotion to George W. Bush or the Republican Party. I proudly display my love of my country, regardless of who the President is. I believe in the individual, not in stereotyping people into groups, the melting pot, not in a multiculturalism that separates us, and that the SUV is a proud and noble icon of American design and ingenuity.

Speech is a natural right, I listen to talk radio but I don't get my "marching orders" from it, and I think President Obama was born in Hawaii, not Kenya.

I believe that making a profit is not evil, and businesses which make money create and nurture jobs. America is the greatest nation on Earth, as evidenced by the millions who come here and try to come here, even to the point of breaking our laws to come here, every single year. I believe in the Constitution as a strict framework for government which was made difficult to change for a reason.

My name is Tom, and I... am... a CONSERVATIVE.

Reale Simple is back online.

Rating the Debating

2007-05-16T14:01:00.000-04:00

If you wonder why Fox News is slaughtering the competition in the 24-hour news network ratings war, look no further than last night's Republican debate, and compare it to the "debate" that MSNBC put on a few weeks ago. Instead of Chris Matthews trying to steal the spotlight with "gotcha" questions and Keith Olbermann's snarky comments trying to denigrate the entire field at once, Fox went with a more dignified and classy approach - actual questions meant to evoke thought provoking responses and actually move the campaigns forward. That must be one of the reasons why the Democrats all cancelled en masse when Fox tried to put on a Democrat debate - they knew Fox wasn't going to let them play footsie with each other and see which one could best trash the President and/or the war for 90 minutes. Tough questions are hard to deal with, after all, but most of the Republican field did a decent job of handling them last night.

Last night's big winner had to have been Mike Huckabee. No other candidate was able to hit as many high points as Huckabee did - his one knock was that as Governor of Arkansas, he raised taxes once or twice, but he handled that line of questioning gracefully, and proceded to answer every other question with excellent poise and diction, positioning his conservative credentials very well on basically every topic that came up. He delivered one-liners at the right time - especially the one about how "Congress spends money like John Edwards at a beauty shop" which brought the house down. Any undecided conservative who watched last night's debate has got to have put Huckabee among their top choices - his performance last night was that good, especially considering that such a standout performance took place with nine other men on the stage.

Behind Huckabee, Mitt Romney had a very solid night as well. He is still coming off as very polished, which for some reason is a negative aspect. He clearly prepares very well for debates and anticipates questions exceedingly well, given his detailed response to nearly every question. He had to admit that he was in favor of returning to a ban on assault weapons, and in doing so probably didn't ingratiate himself with those who find the second amendment to be among their most important issues - especially since his claim to otherwise be in full support of the second amendment wasn't well supported. He also tried to explain his successes in creating and implementing a conservative government in perhaps the most blue state in the country, and did a decent job explaining his position on Roe and abortion. Thankfully, Fox didn't make his religion an issue the way Matthews tried to do. Carl Cameron mentioned that he might have a tough sell in South Carolina (where the debate was) because of the high concentration of Southern Baptists, and the Southern Baptist church supposedly classifies Mormonism as a cult. Last I checked, Southern Baptists weren't the biggest fans of Catholics either, but that hasn't stopped Rudy Giuliani from leading the polls there. So hopefully, religion won't be a major concern for any candidate - they all deserve to be judged on more than that.

Giuliani, the candidate that I am currently supporting, did a much better job last night than he did on MSNBC. He framed his position on abortion very well for pro-lifers who would consider voting for him like myself - he's personally opposed to abortion and even if he was rigidly pro-life, you have to start somewhere, and limiting abortion is the place to start. He really shined when he jumped on Ron Paul. Even though it was just Ron Paul and not one of his closest competitors, his decision to butt in really emphasized the leadership he showed in the wake of 9/11. It was also the least rehearsed bit of the night, which also made him stand out as being able to think on his feet and make quick judgment calls.

McCain was off a little bit. I had him as the winner of the MSNBC farce, but considering how utterly ridiculous that whole episode was, it didn't mean much. He came off as a grumpy old man more than as a dynamic leader, and was on the defensive more than a little.

As far as the others are concerned, Tom Tancredo also turned in a good performance, although he really needs the immigration issue to return to the level it was at a year ago in order to make gains. He's done a decent job of making it "his" issue, but he has displayed a bit of weakness on other topics. Duncan Hunter continues to outline his policies very well and underlines his strength in national defense issues, especially his Iraq policies and the fact that his son is in the military and has done a couple of tours in Iraq. Unfortunately he hasn't been able to stand out from the field despite good diction.

Brownback was very milquetoast. His answers were straightforward and boring, and not terribly insightful. You'd forget about them as soon as the camera moved away. But at least he was somewhat coherent, which is more than can be said for Tommy Thompson and Jim Gilmore. Both were horrible and did nothing to make themselves stand out, and actually made themselves look like they are not the right answer. Thompson tended to ramble incoherently, Gilmore tried to paint himself as the party line. Gilmore was even given an opportunity to call out other candidates for not being conservative enough - which has been the main theme of his campaign - and he failed miserably at it. Thompson, meanwhile, tried to lay out plans for Iraq that are beyond the reach of the presidency - i.e., forcing Iraq's government to shape itself in a specific fashion. I can't even remember anything else he talked about, because he was very uninteresting. I get the feeling that he didn't have as much time to talk as a lot of other candidates, but there's probably a good reason for that. He did nothing to warrant it.

Then there's Ron Paul. Now, I have a lot of respect for Ron Paul even though I don't agree with his worldview. It takes guts to hold an isolationist policy in the post-9/11 world. It may even be a preferable foriegn policy stance for a better world. Unfortunately, he acts as though 9/11 didn't change anything, and even had the audacity to claim that we brought 9/11 on ourselves. Kudos to Giuliani for dropping the hammer on him on that one out of turn. He really hurt himself right there, even if his internet nerds are still going to continue to help him win every meaningless unscientific poll out there - including Fox's text-vote after last night's debate.

So here's where I peg the field right now. I include Fred Thompson, because if he gets into things, he's already created enough buzz to be considered near the top.

1st Tier (Contenders)
Giuliani
McCain
Romney

2nd Tier (Nearly Contenders)
Huckabee
(F. Thompson)

3rd Tier (Middle of the Pack)
Hunter
Brownback
Tancredo

4th Tier (Hopeless)
T. Thompson
Paul
Gilmore

The best part is that I could see myself vigorously supporting anyone in the top three tiers if they gained the nomination. I don't completely agree with any of them on everything, but there are many excellent candidates. I get the feeling Giuliani, McCain, and Fred Thompson would already have an advantage over anyone the Democrats put up, and I feel like once the world gets to know Mitt Romney, he'd be able to beat anyone the Democrats put up too. Huckabee would have yet more work to do but he could be competitive.

Fortunately, those guys are the ones most likely to be the nominee - and none are inextricably linked to the unpopular administration while the leading Democrats other than Edwards are very linked to the unpopular Congress.

Sleeping with the enemy

2007-04-11T11:30:00.000-04:00

I still want to believe that American leaders aren't willing to compromise. I still want to believe that American leaders will do what is right for America first.

Unfortunately, the Democrats - and worse, Congress at large - are not willing to uphold those beliefs.

Fresh off her junket to Syria, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has supported the comments of fellow Left Coast Congressman Tom Lantos, who has called for a "dialogue" with Iranian madman Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This, of course, despite the unwillingness of the Iranian government to bow to any international concerns over its nuclear program.

Let's slow this down for a minute and get down to some hard facts. The State Department maintains a list of nations which sponsor international terrorism. We are currently engaged in a War on Terror. So let's take a quick run down the list and see who we're dealing with.

Syria - The only nation which has been on the list continuously since its inception in 1979. According to the State Department, Syria has provided, and continued to provide refuge and basing privileges to such fine, upstanding organizations as Hezbollah, Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and Islamic Jihad. Visited last week, without any concession whatsoever, by Speaker Pelosi with the aim of "establishing dialogue." What have they done to deserve dialogue? Are they now going to stop funding Hezbollah because we asked nicely? We've been "asking nicely" through the use of sanctions for over a quarter-century. Sanctions didn't do the trick, but Nancy batting her eyes at the world's scariest ophthalmologist, Bashar al-Assad, that'll work.

Cuba - Castro's regime made the list in 1982 because of its support for the Basque ETA, and several terrorist factions in Columbia. This did not stop Jimmy Carter from chilling with Castro in May 2002.

Iran - Hit the list in 1984 for essentially the same reasons as Syria, although the Islamic Republic is now playing the role of Michael to Syria's Fredo. There's no doubt that Iran has been the world's leading terrorist nations ever since the ayatollahs came to power. They've been the 800-pound gorilla in the room that the world has, thus far, been unwilling to stare down during the War on Terror. They've just continued on their merry way without much of a hitch, but now we're supposed to "open a dialogue with them."

North Korea - Listed in 1988. Kim il-Sung and his loser son Kim Jong-il have been selling arms to the highest bidder for decades, and that often includes terrorists. They've given asylum to Japanese Communist League and Red Army Faction terrorists. The current Kim himself is suspected of plotting a bombing in Rangoon in 1983 that targeted the President of South Korea - he was not killed, but several members of his government were, and if he had been killed, it probably would have touched off another war. Kim also oversaw the bombing of Korean Air Flight 858 in 1987, which killed 115, which directly led to their inclusion on this list. Bill Richardson has made six trips to North Korea, including one he's on right now, engaged in unilateral talks with their government.

Sudan - The last member of the list was added in 1993. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Islamic Group, and last but not least, al-Qaeda have continued to use Sudan as a safe haven for logistical and support activities. Perhaps due in large part to the ongoing genocide in Darfur, there haven't been any Democrat sitdowns with Omar al-Bashir, Sudan's head thug. After all, it's pretty difficult to be chummy with people who are in the middle of an active campaign of terror rather than simply lending money and support to terrorists.

The Democrats controlled both the White House and the House of Representatives during both World Wars, so the parallel isn't exact, but suppose Republican Minority Leader Joseph Martin had met with figures like Hitler, Mussolini, or Tojo during the war, "seeking dialogue." He'd have been scourged and pilloried for undermining the war effort, giving propaganda value to the enemy, and likely would have been accused of treason. Is that no different from what top Democrats have done across the board - given nations like Syria an instant credibility upgrade, while they concede nothing in return?

Libya was a member of the list from its inception up until last year. What changed? Yes, it was a diplomatic negotiation that brought Libya off the list and helped them move toward rejoining the global community. No, Bill Clinton didn't swing by to say hello. It was an example of the way we should hope to be able to deal with these nations - negotiation following a show of goodwill from both sides. As a nation, we must always be willing to act in good faith and show goodwill to our enemies, but there is one main component which must be present and which Nancy Pelosi has failed to recognize - there must be goodwill on the other end.

What was accomplished? Nothing, although Pelosi clearly achieved her goal of undermining the President, which is essentially Job #1 for all Democrats these days.

Whatever happened to the days of Wendell Willkie, who supported the foreign policies of the man he faced in the 1940 Presidential Election, Franklin Roosevelt, rather than undermine the national interest? Sadly, they're gone, and they may never return.

2007-03-29T21:06:00.000-04:00

Because they could

Iran is up to the same old garbage again. This time, they've kidnapped 15 British sailors from the HMS Cornwall who were doing nothing more than carrying out UN mandates in the Persian Gulf. The mad mullahs claim that the sailors were operating within their territorial waters, but of course, the Iranian government has been telling boldfaced lies for the last 25-plus years, why would they start being truthful now?

But let's suppose that the Iranians, in a sudden pang of realism, were actually coming across a British patrol in their waters. Surrounding them, capturing them, and then trotting them before a television camera is supposed to be acceptable behavior apparently. No warning message, not even a shot across the bow?

The Iranians aren't the only outrageous element in this. The HMS Cornwall is a Type 22 frigate of Her Majesty's Royal Navy, equipped with 4.5 inch Mark 8 gun, two 20mm close range guns, two Quad Harpoon missile launchers, a Lynx helicopter armed with Sea Skua anti-ship missiles, and even anti-submarine torpedos. Are those things just for show or what? How does it feel to be a soldier or a Marine in Her Majesty's service when your superiors won't use the force necessary to defend you against being taken at gunpoint?

This brazen attack is about one thing for Iranians - they want to show that they can do what they want, when they want, and so far, they're showing just that. Iran learned in 1979 that it can humiliate the West by snatching a few hostages and then laughing as the US squirmed in uncomfortable helplessness. They learned again recently, as provocative move after provocative move in the nuclear showdown was met by nothing but more talk. President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad is more than willing to do whatever he wants when it comes to nuclear weapons, and now he's trying to show Britain, and by extension, Europe and her American allies, that he holds all the cards.

Iran wants the UK to admit to wrongdoing - wrongdoing they have repeatedly shown was not the case - in order to get their sailors back. From their view, it's a win-win. By making the grab, they've shown that the Royal Navy isn't willing to use force for something as simple as protecting its own, let alone making an offensive attack. This further enhances the Iranian attitude that they can do what they want on nukes. If the UK capitulates and admits to something they didn't do, it's a propaganda victory that shows the mullahs how they can maniuplate the West. If they don't, they have 15 British sailors for propaganda use to try and reverse the diplomatic pressure in the opposite direction, and it's a 1979 redux - the West gets to feel helpless while Iran holds its people hostage.

As I mentioned in this spot several months ago, the time is now for Europe to "cowboy up" and stop letting themselves be pushed around by the Islamic Republic. This snatch and grab operation was a good opportunity to at least give the impression that the nations of Europe are willing to at least make a display of military might, but even that failed miserably as the Cornwall watched helplessly while their sailors were absconded.

Perhaps what is called for is a little message to Tehran by way of the Royal Air Force. That is, of course, if the RAF still exists.

2007-03-27T18:53:00.001-04:00

Exemple Québécois

A revolution of sorts has taken place just north of the border. It didn't involve armed conflict, and although it took place in a province with a secessionist history, no new nations were created.

The provincial election in Québec yesterday saw the first minority government elected to the National Assembly in 129 years. Québec politics was, until yesterday, dominated by two parties - the fiscally moderate Liberal Party, and the socialist Parti Québécois. Although both parties were left-leaning, the overriding question of Québec nationalism was the true defining element that separated the two parties, with the Liberals standing for federalism and the PQ supporting soveriegnty or independence for Québec.

So where was the real choice if, as happened this year, soveriegnty wasn't the issue?

The genesis of this particular revolution started some 13 years ago. Québec conservatives, for some time, have supported the Liberal Party (not affiliated with the national Liberals) as the lesser of two evils, nationalism notwithstanding, and such was the case in the early 1990s.

Mario Dumont, the young conservative leader of the youth wing of the Liberals, had falling out with the party over the issue of soveriegnty in 1994, and helped form the Action démocratique Québec party, or the ADQ. That same year, he was elected to the National Assembly under the ADQ banner, but was the only member of the party in the body.

The next year, Dumont lent his support to the "Oui" side of the referendum on soveriegnty which was ultimately defeated by the slimmest of margins. He continued his quixotic quest in the National Assembly, remaining as a lone voice of the ADQ - with the party eventually becoming identified mostly as "Dumont's Party" - against the two parties of power for a decade between his election in 1994 and 2002, when the party won four by-elections due to growing voter dissatisfaction. In the last elections in 2003, the ADQ was essentially ganged up on by both parties, who used negative campaigning against the upstarts, and the party lost one of its five seats.

Retooling, the political gadfly became a player yesterday. With a populist stance and fiscally conservative outlook while supporting increased autonomy for Québec from the federal government, the ADQ began siphoning conservative support away from the Liberals and nationalist support away from the PQ. After the results were posted yesterday, Dumont had officially gone from 8 years as the party's only voice to the Leader of the Opposition - and very nearly became Premier.

Voters were frustrated with the Liberal government, and did not see a viable alternative in the PQ, which has been on the decline for several months in the eyes of the voters, even among separatists. The ADQ offered a new way of looking at things, and Dumont now wields considerable power - the minority Liberal government will be unable to pass legislation without his assistance.

The rise of a third party of power is something that did not happen overnight, but the drive and vision of one man held things together. That's what has been missing in this country's third-party quest, which was largely ignited by the presidential candidacy of H. Ross Perot in 1992. The resulting movement did not survive past its leader's exit, but certainly showed signs of organization while he was still involved.

If not for Dumont's continued direction, perhaps the ADQ would have also floundered and failed. He kept going after failure in 1995. He kept going after failing in 1998 to have any party members but himself elected. He kept going after a minor setback and a firestorm from the establishment in 2003. Today, he and his followers have the power to be the change they saw 13 years ago.

In the United States, there's no reason for fiscal conservatives to choose between a party which will spend money hand over fist or a party which will merely spend money less quickly. There's no reason for social moderates to choose between the Old Testament and abortions on demand with a euthanasia chaser. What's needed is another charismatic leader, a Perot with Dumont's drive, ready to work for the long haul and put in the effort to create a viable third party.

Until then, Americans will only have the choice of two parties, neither of which is likely to truly represent the will of the nation as long as they have their pet constituents, know they only face opposition from one other front, and can gain a majority with simply one more vote than the other party.

2007-03-25T22:23:00.000-04:00

Nudge me if something important happens

I honestly didn't think there could be anything less important or "scandalous" than the so-called "Plame affair." Boy, was I ever wrong.

Alberto Gonzales fired eight US Attorneys last fall.

Our Republic is in grave, mortal danger, isn't it?

Really, it's kind of a circus of stupidity on both sides of the aisle, but the ravenous screeches from people like Chuck Schumer (who never met a Republican he didn't think should resign for some reason) underline that the true march of moronics is coming, once again, from the left.

The real shocker here - Gonzales' firings may have been political. Oh, you don't say! You mean people holding politically appointed positions can lose their jobs over politics? That never, ever happens, right?

I mean, we all remember the nerve-wrenching Constitutional crisis that ensued when Bill Clinton fired 93 federal prosecutors when he first took office, including one that was close to indicting Dan Rostenkowski, a key Clinton ally in the House, and several that were working on indictments pursuant to some failed Arkansas business venture known as Whitewater.

Remember the way the talking heads breathlessly expected the worst and demonized the Clintons? No? Me neither.

The attorneys in this case were supposedly fired because (gasp!) they were being lax in investigating voter fraud. I thought Democrats were the ones who were supposed to be the big watchdogs against voter fraud - you know, like the fraud that was perpetuated in 2000, 2002, and 2004 (but somehow was missing from the 2006 elections - maybe those firings sent a message, eh?).

But the message now is this - don't consider that this is something which happens all the time with federal prosecutors. Don't consider that it's been done before, and will likely be done in the future. The key here is simple, and actually related to the previous non-story, most likely. That whole Plame thing just isn't sticking (gee, wonders never cease), so let's find something else to stick on this Presidency. When a scandal doesn't exist, make one up.

Republicans, for their part, are falling for it hook, line, and sinker. When questions were raised, they headed for the hills instead of standing there, taking the questions, and answering confidently, "yeah, we did fire them, so what?" Lies and half-truths were told. Dumb move. Now the cacophony is only louder, because if there's a cover-up, there must be something wrong.

Now comes the real concern - Gonzales, while not exactly pursuing his duties in the War on Terror to the same level as his predecessor, is still carrying himself better than anyone the Democrat-controlled Senate would ever be willing to confirm if they had the opportunity. And it's very, very apparent that they are salivating at getting that opportunity if they can force Gonzales to resign. They play hardball with Bush, and Bush, as is the norm for him lately, caves and puts up someone they'll get through, and their execution of duties at the Department of Justice as it pertains to the War on Terror is going to be much closer to that of Janet Reno than that of John Ashcroft.

All Gonzales has to do for this to pass is to not resign. The caterwauling will eventually die down, and history will forget any of this nonsense ever happened.

2006-09-07T13:39:00.000-04:00

Release the hounds

For all of its bluster about being equal in importance and prestige as the United States, the nations of the European Union continue to fall short in both arenas for one simple reason - they are generally useless when it comes to dealing with obstreperous countries and getting their way.

The crisis with Iran is a real chance to change that, for the benefit of both Europe and the United States. Iran has obviously noted, likely with a great degree of amusement, that Americans are losing their stomach for war while Europeans have displayed zero willingness to fight for years. Thus, the ayatollahs and their puppet president (who was "democratically elected," remember) know well that they can continue to defy the world with little to no real ramifications. They've decided that if they want the bomb, they can go ahead and get it.

While the misguided "anti-war" movement in this country is undoubtedly helping Iran reach this conclusion by adopting the popular European approach of all wars being unacceptable, the bigger, more direct problem that a military solution to the Iranian issue presents is the current level of committment of American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

However, Europe - with the possible exception of the United Kingdom - does not have this problem. While Britain remains committed in both Afghanistan and Iraq, countries like France and Germany have remained specifically on the sidelines in Iraq and have minimal commitments in Afghanistan and elsewhere. They have militaries. They have means. But Iran is willing to wager everything that the nations of Europe will keep those militaries idle while the big dog is busy taking care of issues on either side of their border.

Europe is supposed to be an ally of the United States, but the alliance is clearly uneven, with the balance tipped toward America. The European Union was founded with the unstated goal of evening that balance. But when was the last time you heard of any grand coalition being led by a European power?

To their credit, Europe has been steadfast in taking point on negotiations with Iran up until now. The question is whether they will continue to be steadfast and put due pressure on the ayatollahs to bend to the world's view. With the United Nations revealed time and time again to be nothing more than a paper tiger when it comes to dealing with totalitarians, the task falls to other organizations to achieve goals the UN could only dream of achieving, and such is the case here. Europe's challenge is to avoid falling into the same trap that the UN did long ago by issuing demands and then doing nothing when those demands are not met.

Both World Wars were largely fought in Europe, and the horrible experiences that the continent went through during the early 20th Century has led to the prevalent belief that war must be avoided no matter the cost. That belief kept the peace during the second half of the century and helped ensure that the Cold War came to a conclusion without significant conflict and bloodshed returning. However, we are now living in a world where dangerous extremists seek more and more power and are more than willing to give their lives to that end. The War on Terrorism and radical Islam is not a war of choice, we merely choose to dictate the terms of when and where the battles will take place, because if we do not, as Europe does not, the terms will be dictated to us, and they will not be palatable.

While the United States is certainly not alone in fighting the War on Terrorism, it certainly has been shouldering a significant part of the load. For decades, the powers of Old Europe have looked to the United States to serve as the policeman of the world, making more sacrifices and more commitments to save Western civilization than any other country has been expected to. And now, Europe has arrived at a point where they would normally look to the United States for assistance, but none will be readily available militarily.

How would a military campaign on Iran work? It would clearly be very similar to the coalitions which won the Gulf War, which rooted out the Taliban, and which toppled Saddam. But the one thing each of those coalitions had in common were the nation which took point. This time, why not a French and German led coalition, a coalition in which the United States could still play a key role - perhaps making use of our air power as a solid augment with special forces on the ground and our powerful Navy operating along Iran's coast - while the nations of Europe lead the operation. Regardless of whether they approve or not, the French must realize that our commitments in Iraq are not going to simply disappear just because Iran is causing trouble. If they want things to get done, they may have to grow the backbone that they lost long ago and start pointing guns in response to saber rattling. Hell, if I were French, I'd want to do it if only to show that we still mattered, and if I were German, I'd want to do it if only to finally be invading another country for the purposes of good instead of evil.

A European-led coalition would benefit the continent by allowing the European Union to grow in international prestige while the world benefits from a defused crisis and likely, a free Iran. Everything the EU has wanted is right there for the taking, but if they refuse to take risks, it will only make matters worse for the entire world.

2006-09-05T18:20:00.000-04:00

Calling the Maytag Repairman

If you want to be among the trendiest of the trendy on the Left today, you need to be claiming that American democracy is broken. Why, and how is it broken, do you ask? Why, it's broken because those of those cursed suits who are rigging elections so that those darn Republicans win so often! Why, of course the Democrats won in 2000, more people voted for Al Gore, therefore he should have been President! And everyone knows that incumbent parties are supposed to lose mid-term elections, which is why 2002 was a stolen election, and there was 2004, where John Kerry was winning those exit polls, and therefore was supposed to win the election! Democracy is broken because the people's voice was ignored!

All conspiracy theories aside, it's popular for an increasingly agitated and angry Left to simply make the claim that they can't win elections because the democratic institution just isn't working correctly. After all, if it were working correctly, they'd be in power.

Underneath all of the paranoia and power-hunger, there does appear to be an increasing amount of truth to the basis of the argument. Is Democracy itself broken?

If so, it can hardly be blamed on the Republicans solely. Yes, they are the party in power right now, but one thing Democrats rarely do is turn their critical eyes inward - if they did, they'd probably find ways to win elections through other methods than by default.

What Democrats have done since losing the White House in 2001 is to gradually make it the exclusive position of the party to oppose the President at every turn. Despite President Bush's promise of a "new tone" in Washington following the 2000 election and the subsequent appearances of such items as steel tariffs, the No Child Left Behind Act (authored by Sen. Ted Kennedy), and a record in five and a half years of precisely one veto, which wasn't for a spending bill, Democrats have chosen to lambaste the President continuously and without remorse on every single issue. Even when the President enacts things like NCLB, which, if you look carefully at it, looks like exactly what the average liberal wants in an education bill, the Democrats and their liberal allies will find fault and stand against it. If you want to know where the Democrats will stand on an issue, ask the President what his stance is, and the Democrats will take the opposite view by default. That's not exactly a party of principle.

This strategy has led the Democrats to several unenviable positions, which make them successful only when bad things happen to the nation - whether it is the economy, the war in Iraq, or elsewhere. No, I'm not questioning their patriotism. They told me I couldn't.

But then there are the Republicans. By spending like a drunken sailor with a three-day pass, the Republicans have drawn the ire of Americans of all political walks. Conservatives are frustrated with the unbalanced budgets and want to cut spending. Liberals are flabbergasted that taxes aren't higher to pay for all of the spending (never mind that the Bush tax cuts spurred the highest ever government revenue numbers last year). Further compromises on domestic issues like immigration and energy policy has conservatives up in arms. But who are they going to vote for in 2006? Are they supposed to vote for the party whose sole tenet is "Bush is an idiot," or are they supposed to vote for the party they've tended to support in the past who has let them down and continues to let them down? Should they vote for Bad or Worse?

The tinfoil hat crowd is in a similar predicament. They'd never vote for the Republicans and that evil fascist Bush. But they'd never vote for the Democrats who refuse to call for the President's public execution by stoning. Who are THEY supposed to vote for?

Vote for a third-party, sure. But it's not considered a two-party system for nothing. It's been said that voting for a third-party is like throwing your vote away because, well, it is. If you vote for someone who is not going to have a chance at winning, what have you accomplished? Sure, you've shown your displeasure, but either Bad or Worse still won the election. Which one is more palatable for the next 2, 4, or 6 years, Bad or Worse? Could your vote for either of them have changed things? Was your vote for a third-party just a helper vote for Worse? Who would vote for Better if Bad was more likely to beat Worse? So you end up voting for Bad to keep Worse from winning. As such, conservatives will vote for the GOP even through the party continues to abandon its principles in favor of whatever will keep it in power, and liberals will vote Democrat even though the party continues to abandon its principles in favor of whatever will help them gain power.

It is because of this "spoiler effect," as seen recently by H. Ross Perot and Ralph Nader, that the two parties have gained a new stranglehold. Now that the Republicans have had their Perot, and the Democrats their Nader, the political arena has only become more polarized as voters increasingly begin discounting third-parties completely while the two main parties become so convoluted that up becomes down and left becomes right, and the only choice for America is to vote for either Bad or Worse, because Better has no shot.

That's how Democracy was broken.

How do we fix it? Perhaps the answer comes from an unlikely source. The concept of Instant Run-off Voting, or the Alternative Vote, has been a prime tenet of the Green Party (yes, that Green Party, the one that championed Ralph Nader in 2000, and is beloved by left-wing radicals all over the nation) for years. The reason for their advocacy is simple - under IRV, they'd wield more influence. Yes, many times advocates for change are motivated by greed, even on the Left. Because of this, I've been skeptical in the past of IRV, but recent events and trends have led me to believe that it's an idea whose time has come.

IRV is simple. Given the choice between Better, Bad, and Worse, a voter would be able to vote in a manner which eliminates the spoiler effect by essentially ranking the choices he or she was willing to vote for. Instead of voting just for Bad in order to beat Worse, the voter could vote for Better first, Bad second, and Worse third (or even not at all). In Instant Runoff Voting, the first vote on every ballot is counted and recorded. After the counting, if a candidate does not have a majority, the candidate in last place is eliminated. That candidate's votes are then recounted and redistributed to other candidates by using the second preference among the eliminated candidate's voters. This process continues until one candidate has achieved a majority.

For example, in the first round of voting, perhaps Worse leads, but does not have an absolute majority. Better got the fewest votes, so Better is eliminated. Now everyone who voted for Better has their second choice counted. It may well turn out that the majority of Better voters voted for Bad second. Thus, after the second counting, Bad pulls ahead of Worse and nets a majority thanks to Better voters generally preferring Bad to Worse. It would allow a conservative to vote for an Independent or Libertarian while still preferring Republicans to Democrats. It would allow a liberal to vote Green or even Socialist while still preferring Democrats to Republicans. In short, it would allow a much more vibrant and diverse range of political discussion in the public forum.

This is the reason why the Republicans and Democrats will never go for IRV. It eliminates the advantage that they currently hold, and allows third-parties to challenge either their grip on power or their near-grasp on power.

And in the meantime, everyone will continue to vote for Bad just so we don't end up with Worse.

2005-12-19T21:14:00.000-05:00

The politics of war

I noted with some degree of amusement the Democrats' canned response to President Bush's speech last night. They continue to repeat their tired line of "the President isn't telling us anything new" despite the President choosing to take full responsibility for the war and its consequences, including the fact that weapons of mass destruction were not found in Iraq, something which the Democrats have been braying for him to do for months. You'd think that would make them happy, but of course, nothing does.

"While I appreciate the president's increased candor, too much of the substance remains the same and the American people have still not heard what benchmarks we must meet along the way to know that progress is being made," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. Well gee, Harry, what part of "train Iraqi security forces, deploy Iraqi security forces, root out terrorist leaders, help the Iraqi government establish its legitimacy, and slowly draw down troop levels" is hard to understand about "benchmarks?" Reid's problem is that he wants these benchmarks to have dates attached to them.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi missed the point entirely. "Tonight the president acknowledged more of the mistakes he has made in Iraq, but he still does not get it. Iraq did not present an imminent threat to the security of the United States before he began his war of choice," she said. Well, that was mighty informative, Nancy. How exactly does this help our current situation? Besides, the whole point was to make sure that Iraq didn't become an "imminent threat," something that Bush never directly called Iraq prior to the war, and something Democrats don't seem to ever understand.

The whining continued... Kennedy, Kerry, Boxer, the usual suspects came out before the cameras and complained about this thing or that. All continuing the sad, political line, accusing the Bush Administration of engaging in destructive politics to some degree or another.

But which side has been more consistent throughout? Kerry and Reid in particular are sounding an awful lot different than they were in 2002 when they voted to approve war in Iraq. The problem that the Democrats have had for the last five years is that their position, on everything, is simply to oppose the President (unless it comes to spending money, but I digress). What is good for Bush is bad for them, and vice versa under this position. When public opinion was overwhelmingly with the President, they trudged along with the politically expedient thing to do. Now that the war isn't going 100% perfect and the American public is beginning to show its abnormally short attention span, it's attack, attack, attack.

But let's not mention the fact that 70% of Iraqis turned out to vote last week. We didn't hear this from Reid or Pelosi or Kennedy. That would fall under "good for Bush," since those elections would have never happened if he had done what they asked for and set timetables and drawn troop levels prematurely.

And now the Democrats have begun to eat their own - perhaps the only Democrat in the Senate with the moral conviction to pick a stance and stick with it these days is Joe Lieberman from Connecticut. He supported the war from Day One, and while admitting that the war has not gone perfectly, still supports the war and says he'd still have supported the war knowing what he knows today. Because he refuses to attack the President on the war, his party leaders are shunning him, and even trying to defeat him in the Democrat primaries next year - a man who six years ago was the toast of the party, running on a national ticket, is now a pariah because he dares to have convictions.

The party out of power didn't always use everything but the kitchen sink to throw at the President during a time of war. When Wendell Willkie ran against FDR in 1940, he refused to use World War II to his political advantage, when he could have railed against the President for implementing a peacetime draft, he refused to make it an issue in the campaign, because he knew that if a war was on the horizon, the country would be best suited to execute that war if its leaders were united.

The Democrat leadership does not possess this same moral fiber. They are determined to regain power, and they will make any issue a political issue in pursuit of that goal, including a war where our country's men and women are engaged as we speak. If the war in Iraq goes poorly for the United States, it means good things for the Democrats. What a backwards morality that is.

2005-12-12T18:19:00.000-05:00

Free Tookie? Where?

The most recent example of a "cause celebre" to come down the line has become Stanley Tookie Williams (Tookie is his actual middle name), a thug gangster who started the infamous Crips gang and who is set to die in California's death chamber tonight at San Quentin.

To hear the Hollywood glitterati describe Williams, you would think that he is a kind and gentle person who wouldn't harm a flea. He's been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, you see, for his generosity toward others and his work in stopping gang violence on the streets from his prison cell. What they won't tell you is that Tookie Williams brutally murdered 4 innocent people in Los Angeles in cold blood. They won't tell you that the evidence proving his guilt is overwhelming. They won't tell you that he has never once admitted to his crimes or shown any remorse for them. They won't tell you that during his first several years in prison he was extremely violent towards guards and other prisoners. About the time that it sunk in that he was going to pay for his crimes with his life, he started to wise up and play nice.

I'm against the death penalty, but I'm also against breaking the rule of law. Williams has neglected to do the one thing that ought to be required in order to recieve clemency in a case where the evidence was so overwhelming as it was in this one - admit guilt and show remorse. Given that these killings were exceptionally violent against innocent people, and that he hasn't shown one ounce of remorse, I feel California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger did the right thing by denying clemency. I may be against the death penalty, but California law allows it, and a jury convicted him and handed down the ultimate penalty. That decision can't just be overturned because someone doesn't like it. That's not what the foundation of law is built on.

The key to abolishing the death penalty is not to simply grant clemency to all who request it. The key is demonstrating the cruel and unusual nature of the death penalty as a means of punishment, along with the economic reasons for doing away with it. Also key is proving the innocence of people who actually were wrongly convicted and sentenced to die - none of this "Free Mumia" or "Free Tookie" garbage. Just because a person doesn't deserve to be killed at the hands of their government doesn't mean these people are not still evil and should at least rot in jail for the rest of their lives.

You can't just suddenly turn your life around in order to be spared. While that's important, Tookie left out the most important part of all - that he killed four innocent people. The fight goes on to stop capital punishment, but I'm not going to shed any tears for this guy.

Yet still, we have people like Mike Farrell - you know, the guy from M*A*S*H - calling Schwarzenegger a "coward" and that his reply to the request for clemency was "garbage." He also criticized him for not going to meet with Williams, as if the governor of the largest state in the union didn't have better things to be doing today than meeting with an unapologetic murderer and asking him his opinion on whether he should be put to death or not.

Truth is, Williams only became a "cause celebre" because he himself is a celebrity - a title anyone who writes literature while on Death Row can now claim for themselves. One also has to wonder which of Williams' actions had more of an impact on gang violence in this country - speaking out against it from prison, or starting one of the most notorious and violent gangs in the nation's history, a gang which now spreads from coast to coast.

Oh, and that Nobel Prize thing? He may have been nominated for a Nobel Prize, but odds are poor that he was ever considered for one. I could be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. All someone would have to do is send my name to the committee that votes on the winner. Even Adolf Hitler was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize at one point. Is this why this man deserves clemency?

For opponents of the death penalty, there are better cases to hold up than Tookie Williams.

2005-11-14T19:12:00.000-05:00

Let's go (CENSORED)!

After several weeks at St. Cloud State University, if you haven't been to a hockey game yet, you aren't getting out enough. Several weeks ago the SCSU Huskies welcomed the Wisconsin Badgers to campus. The following week they took on their arch-enemies, the Minnesota Golden Gophers. They've since played games against the Colorado College Tigers. But if you travel to St. Cloud this weekend for a little bit of hockey, the opponent will be the University of North Dakota.

And that's it.

No nickname. Where "Gophers" read on the scoreboard scant weeks ago, "N. Dakota" will be instead. What kind of school is this, that shuns having a fierce and proud name to be known as? As it turns out, there isn't one. Peering at the ice, you'll see a picture of a proud Indian warrior on the jersey - designed by a Native American - with the name "SIOUX" above in bright bold letters.

Roy Saigo, the president of St. Cloud State, has led the charge in shunning North Dakota because of their chosen team name. Never mind that the school has shown nothing but the ultimate respect to the Sioux Nation. The NCAA has determined that the "Fighting Sioux" moniker is "hostile and abusive."

What is "hostile and abusive" about a nickname? Why exactly was this name chosen in the first place? You don't see teams named the "Fighting Frenchmen" or the "Fighting Italians." Why? It's because those names seem somewhat humorous - they don't evoke any kind of fear in the opponent. The "Fighting Sioux" evokes the warrior spirit of the Sioux people. It represents a favorable aspect of Sioux culture that the University of North Dakota seeks to emulate in their athletic teams. When the US Cavalry came to take their land, the Sioux fought valiantly and bravely, to the last man, even when outnumbered and outgunned. It is that type of brave spirit that North Dakota honors by name its team after the Sioux.

This is "hostile and abusive?" To some degree, it's actually "hostile and abusive" to the Sioux to deny the University the ability to use the nickname. It says that the name itself is inappropriate to be used to represent that fighting spirit. Would they rather be the "Docile Sioux?"

And where does this stop? Let's look around. The Irish might have a problem with Notre Dame's "Fighting Irish." Greeks will surely complain about the USC Trojans. Even in Roy Saigo's backyard can trouble be found - overweight individuals will easily feel slighted by the St. Cloud State Huskies. Next thing you know, animal rights groups will feel that teams like the Tigers and the Badgers are being "hostile and abusive" to animals.

It's already starting elsewhere. Groups are calling for the University of Miami to change their name from the "Hurricanes." There's almost no more appropriate name for Miami - a hurricane is an especially mighty force, as anyone who has ever experienced one can attest to. Given its location, the name fits. But no, the PC police are paying a visit to the Sunshine State just as they continue to harass North Dakota.

School nicknames are chosen for a number of reasons. My alma mater are the "Engineers." Not terribly frightening, but engineering is a prominent major at the school. But is that "hostile and abusive" to non-engineers (like myself)? Of course not!

If we are to ultimately satisfy every possible request from the PC police, we'll have to abolish nicknames completely. Then, to be fair, every team color will have to be the same - say, yellow - and every player should get to play. To improve player self-esteem, every player will be given number 1. And why bother keeping score? Losing is depressing. If no one wins, then no one can lose.

This is the logical route the NCAA is going down by continuing to interfere with non-athletic issues like what a school decides to call its team. Bickering over it is even worse, because it takes away from the athletic competition. In St. Cloud this weekend, while the players are giving their all on the ice, there will undoubtedly be several people outside the arena protesting the NAME. St. Cloud State does not honor the Sioux by deciding to pretend that the nickname does not exist. Indeed, they do a distinct dishonor.

2005-11-04T18:45:00.000-05:00

Mother, should I build a wall

You'd be hard pressed to encounter someone these days who won't agree that illegal immigration in this country is a real problem. Even those shrill-voiced socialists who'll claim you're anti-immigration if you try to do anything about illegal immigrants have been admitting this recently, so you know things have gotten really bad.

Some 3,000 illegal immigrants cross the US-Mexican border every single day, and they don't intend to leave once they get here. The problem has been largely ignored by both major parties for years - the claim being that Republicans don't want to lose their main source of cheap labor, and the Democrats don't want to lose their main source of cheap votes. However, in the post 9/11 world, there are several politicians in Washington who are acutely aware of the national security issue that such a porous border arises.

Yesterday, Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter of California introduced a bill which would mandate the creation of a "border security fence from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico." Included in the draft proposal is a 100-meter border zone on the US side.

The proposal, while eerily similar to the design layout of the Berlin Wall - which included a buffer zone patrolled by armed guards who had orders to shoot anyone even approaching the Wall - seems rather sound. A 14-mile wall near San Diego has proven to be efficient and successful in keeping out unwanted immigrants. This is the main departure between the Berlin Wall and the proposed US-Mexican wall; the Soviets built the Berlin Wall in order to keep East Germans in East Germany and out of free West Berlin. Any wall built on the border with Mexico would serve to keep illegal aliens out, not keep legal immigration and legitimate cross-border traffic in. Indeed, the East German authorities had no problem with West Germans visiting their country and spending their money there. They just didn't want their own population to leave, because they knew most would if they got the chance.

With Mexico, it's different. The Mexican government practically encourages people to leave the country illegally, especially in order to support families who remain in Mexico. These illegals come to the United States, earn some money under the table, and immediately send it south of the border. So in addition to a security hazard, a porous border also presents an economic problem. Add a humanitarian reason for erecting the wall - nearly 2,000 illegals died in the attempt to reach the US between 1998 and 2004 - and the pointed comparisons to Berlin which will undoubtedly be made by a hysterical socialist Left fade away into just that, hysterics.

There is some degree of concern on the Right, and when it comes in the person of Congressman Jeff Flake of Arizona, one of the best conservative voices in the House, it is certainly worth consideration. Flake, who represents a state with one of the most popular routes taken by illegals to enter the country, laments that a wall would not solve the problem of 400,000 immigrants from the world over that enter the United States legally and then proceed to overstay their visas. This is true, though this is another issue which the Department of Homeland Security needs to consider and tackle with the intent of lowering that number significantly.

One potential move, which is also before the Congress, would be to eliminate the practice of jus soli, which immediately bestows citizenship upon children born in the United States, if the child is born to individuals who are not in the country legally. Each year, thousands of immigrants come to the United States and have children born here. These children become "anchor babies," because the government will not deport an American citizen, and will not leave a child orphaned while their parents are deported. For an illegal, having a child in the United States guarantees that they'll be able to stay. Colorado Representative Tom Tancredo, who has made immigration form his main priority, has been considering addressing this issue through necessary channels, either through a congressional statute or a constitutional amendment.

The wall, however, will remain an important tool for keeping out those who intend from the very beginning to enter the country illegally and remain illegally. A wall is not, as detractors already claim, an anti-immigration move. It does nothing about legal immigration, which is a cornerstone of our American heritage that should continue to be encouraged for anyone who wishes to pursue it. "Making it" for legal immigrants who are trying to gain permanent resident status or even to become American citizens is often a long and difficult process to go through. Why should we continue to allow illegals to flow over our borders while honest people are put through the wringer to achieve, in most cases, some of the same things illegals are?

At this point, it's not clear that the bill introduced by Congressman Hunter has the support necessary to pass both houses of Congress. It certainly could pass the House, but passing the Senate is always more difficult when it comes to matters of immigration policy. But a wall simply makes sense for security, economic, humanitarian, and, yes, even in support of legal immigration. We'll see if Congress has the gumption to do what is necessary on the most wide open border in the world.

2005-11-03T18:08:00.000-05:00

Reaping what you sow

By most peacenik accounts, the French should not be experiencing what they have been going through for the past week on the outskirts of Paris. After all, the French have steadfastly refused to become involved in taking the fight to terrorists - in fact, they have been involved in trying to stop the United States and her allies from executing the war where it needs to be executed. One would expect that Islamist violence would spare the French.

Wrong.

For the last week, rampaging Muslim youth, using as their excuse the unfortunate death by electrocution of two Muslim teenagers (who while running from police that apparently were not even chasing them, chose to hide in a power station), have been shooting at police, setting fires to privately-owned businesses, lighting cars and public buses ablaze, and throwing rocks at trains. In the radical Muslim world, this is more than an appropriate response.

The rioters are claiming that the French government is ignoring their plight in these poor suburbs. Once again, it's always the government's fault whenever people don't have jobs or are living in poverty. Of course, in France, the government has made it their responsibility to be the people's nanny from cradle to grave, so it's possible that these rioters have a point.

But what more lame excuse could a group have for causing mass chaos than two idiot kids who, after apparently doing something wrong (why else would they think they cops were chasing them, and why else would they want to escape them?), made themselves instant candidates for the Darwin Award by hiding in a power station. The truth is that these young Muslims were mostly looking for any excuse to start causing mayhem. It's all they see on the news - their "brothers in arms" advancing their cause through jihad. Preachers in mosques throughout the Middle East and even in an increasingly secular Europe teaching intolerance and hatred for the West. Is it any wonder that France, which is now bending over backwards to make atheism the state religion, is having a hard time staying out of the Islamist crosshairs despite their Neville Chamberlain-like approach to terrorism?

Jacques Chirac must know this: it is beginning with riots today, but al-Qaeda is no doubt watching what is going on, and rest assured that no end result will satisfy their desires. These riots will, in and of themselves, give al-Qaeda the weak excuse they need to add Paris or Marseille to their hit list. The Metro will become as juicy a target for these bloodthirsty radicals as was the London Underground or as the MTA in New York remains. Chirac has an opportunity to put his foot down and actually deal with Islamist violence in his own country, and in defense of his own country, join the fight internationally against terrorism wherever it is found. Or, he can simply whine and whimper, acquiesce to these insane youth, and hammer another nail in the coffin of the French Republic.

Come on, Jacques. Prove us all wrong about how you're just a "cheese-eating surrender monkey" and join the good fight. Appeasement only makes the aggressor more aggressive.

2005-11-01T17:40:00.001-05:00

Reid's Tantrum

Faced with a Plame affair indictment that didn't satisfy his party's most fervent hopes and a conservative Supreme Court nominee that his party cannot hope to defeat, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid imploded on the floor of the United States Senate today, forcing the body into closed deliberations after a speech full of hysterics.

"The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about, how this administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions," Reid said just before he invoked the Senate rule that allows for a closed session. Let's break this down. First, Reid claims that the Libby indictment is some kind of damning evidence that a leak occurred in the Plame affair, when nothing could be further from the truth. Libby was indicted on charges that he lied to the grand jury, not that he or anyone else leaked the name of Valerie Plame. Second, Reid acts as though the Bush Administration fabricated all of the information they had about Iraq, when President Bill Clinton and his administration were saying many of the same things in 1998 (with the support of a lot of today's Senate Democrats, no less). Finally, Reid bloviates that the Administration has done something wrong in the aftermath, which, yet again, is totally unproven. And this was his justification for kicking the American people out of their government for almost two hours this afternoon.

Reid's right-hand man, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin - a man who once compared American soldiers serving in Guantanamo to Nazis and Pol Pot - immediately backed him up, seconding the motion and spewing further unsubstantiated bilge.

Despite the fact that nearly the entire world was claiming that Iraq had a covert weapons of mass destruction program prior to the war, including the governments of France and Germany, despite their open opposition to war, Senate Democrats and the Left in general seems to have this strange inability to grasp that instead of the Bush Administration manipulating and fabricating their own truths, it may have been possible that the intelligence accrued by such services as the Central Intelligence Agency, MI6, and the Mossad may have just been misinformed, if not dead wrong.

And then there's the assumption that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. This claim can only be true if the lack of proof is equivalent to a proof of lack, which any logician will tell you isn't necessarily accurate. While no weapons of mass destruction have been found, neither has their been any evidence that Iraq's known weapons of mass destruction stores were ever destroyed. Perhaps Reid's temper tantrum antics would be better served exploring what did happen to Iraqi WMD. After all, we know that at one point, he had possession of chemical weapons and biological weapons, and had a functioning nuclear weapons program. It just vanished into thin air? Or are we to believe that Saddam Hussein decided to voluntarily dismantle his program on his own after booting UN inspectors out of the country in 1998? We continue to hear rumblings that Iraqi WMD ended up transported through Syria and Iran. There's a wonderful thought. Maybe instead of all of the whining that there was a "rush to war" back in 2003, the real problem is that we didn't go to war soon enough.

At any rate, Reid's little political play, correctly identified by Majority Leader Bill Frist as a "hijacking of the Senate," is nothing more than a desperate move for attention during a week where Bush rebounded from the Miers strikeout with a sure run-scoring move of nominating Samuel Alito to the high court, then outlined a comprehensive federal program for dealing with a potential flu pandemic. Both of these events hurt the Democrats' political strategy, which consists of Blame Bush, then Blame Bush some more, and after that, Blame Bush. Reid had to find something to get the Democrats back on the front page, and he found it. Unfortunately, shutting the public out of the Senate in a petty political move isn't very likely to draw moderates on these issues to his side, as temper tantrums on either side are rarely approved of by any but the most fervent party members. Harry Reid may have just made the Alito nomination more likely to succeed, and the Plame affair more likely to fade into nothing. Oops.

2005-10-31T17:29:00.000-05:00

Alito's Way

President Bush must be an early riser. Every single one of his last three Supreme Court announcements since September has come bright and early in the morning. When he did so first thing this morning, he nominated the type of judge that he was elected to nominate: 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Samuel Alito.

The announcement of Judge Alito to replace Sandra Day O'Connor was met with the bellyaching from individuals like New York Senator Charles Schumer and Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy that conservatives have been waiting for since O'Connor first announced her retirement. Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy said the nomination would "divide the country." Minority Leader Harry Reid decided to imply that Alito was "a radical."

Conservatives voted for Bush in 2000, and again in 2004, largely because of his promise to reign in judicial activism around the country, especially on the Supreme Court. Liberals breathed a sigh of relief as the first Bush term approached a conclusion with no Supreme Court vacancies having opened up, and believed they were in the clear with their golden boy, John Kerry, surely about to be elected. But then the unthinkable happened - the American people returned George Bush to the White House to get another chance to do what he was unable to do during his first term - nominate conservatives to the Supreme Court. Even worse for liberals, they watched their slight minority in the Senate become even smaller, which meant a greater difficulty in fighting any potential nominees.

Along came John Roberts, who was at first pilloried by fringe liberals and media pundits for being neither a racial minority nor a woman, as if these qualities were more important than judicial philosophy and legal background. With every word they spoke, it was fairly apparent that liberals did not want to support Roberts at all. NARAL, the large pro-abortion group headed by Kate Michelman, managed to issue their opposition and anti-Roberts talking points within minutes of the announcement by the President. But the Democrat Senators used a considerable amount of tact. After all, Roberts had a fairly spotless record, and had nothing that they could use to "bork" him in the Judiciary Committee. Oh, they tried. They tried to make him out to be a hardass for rules, as displayed by the "french fry case." Then, when they couldn't find anything concrete for their own base to oppose him, they tried to entice conservative opposition by claiming that Roberts supported gay rights cases as a lawyer. Nothing would stick to him. Ultimately, only the most liberal Senators voted against his confirmation as Chief Justice, largely citing a "lack of answers" when they demanded to know, basically, how he would rule on specific cases, which court nominees have never had to answer.

Conservatives got their man on the court, but the fight they desired left them a little unfulfilled. Ultimately, Roberts replaced Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a move expected to keep the balance of the court generally at the status quo. Ardent conservatives awaited the sure sign that a nominee would be most to their liking - when Senate Democrats would fight tooth and nail to oppose the nominee. So when President Bush nominated Harriet Miers to a general bit of applause from the Left, conservatives got flustered immediately.

Democrats, for their part, realized that Miers represented a good outcome for them - an unknown quantity not seen since the successful nomination of David Souter, who quickly became a liberal-leaning jurist. They realized that while Miers was not exactly who they wanted, it was likely the best they could hope to get from Bush. Conservatives, meanwhile, had a fit. Not only did Democrats seem nonplussed by her nomination, but strict constructionists pointed out that Miers herself, even if she did turn out to be conservative, would be more likely to become a conservative judicial activist on the court than to interpret the Constitution. While pro-life groups hailed her nomination, most conservatives were livid. Ultimately, if Miers had not withdrawn her nomination, Senate Republicans more than likely would have removed it themselves.

After Miers' departure, Democrats panicked. Immediately switching sides in a 1984ish method, they largely took credit for spiking one of the Bush nominees, and warned that the next nominee would have to be more "moderate" (read: liberal). Instead, Bush nominated Judge Alito, who appears to be ideologically more like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the Left's two Darth Vaders of the court. Reid and his band of merry men surely saw a nomination like this coming as soon as Miers withdrew.

Reid blasted the nomination, saying, "President Bush would leave the Supreme Court looking less like America and more like an old boys club." I guess I missed the part of the Constitution which said that the Supreme Court had to look a certain way. Again, like Roberts, Alito is guilty of being a white man, which is an unforgivable crime in today's politically correct atmosphere in which Democrats live. According to their logic, since Roberts was a white male, the next nominee, therefore, is required to have either a different complexion, or a different gender, or both. Expect this to be the first method of attack, followed by attacks on his record, and, if necessary, attacks on his character. Judge Alito certainly must know that these attacks are forthcoming - which makes his acceptance of the nomination quite the courageous move.

The Left sees Alito for what he is - a man who will move the Supreme Court more towards the "strict constructionist" mold than the "legislate from the bench" court that we have seen for over a decade now. The Judiciary has been the last refuge for liberal power in America since 2000. Since that time, the Left has been losing elected power both in Washington and around the country. The Supreme Court, their last bastion of power, is sliding out of their grasp, and they won't go down without a fight. Unfortunately, it is a fight which they are doomed to lose, either in a Senate floor vote, or in the court of public opinion.

2005-10-28T17:23:00.000-04:00

Involuntary Spasms

Today came the news that liberals across the country have been waiting on pins and needles for. Sort of.

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, until recently Vice-President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff, was indicted on five felony counts, supposedly all related to the so-called "Plame affair," the name for the year-long finger-pointing being done by Bush opponents trying to nail their enemies for "blowing the cover" of a CIA desk jockey. There's only one problem. None of the counts are related to the supposed leak itself. They're all related to the investigation into the leak.

Two counts of perjury, two counts of making false statements (also known as "the Martha Stewart rule") and a count of obstruction of justice were handed up from the grand jury today. All of these counts relate to Libby's behavior before the grand jury, not related to whether or not he - or anyone else for that matter - leaked sensitive information to the press for any reason. So what, exactly, has this grand jury determined so far? They believe that someone has lied to them, and that's about it.

Still, the Left is unleashing ululations of joy at the news, despite the audible gnashing of teeth over the fact that their real target, Karl Rove, is still in the clear. Despite the incredible amount of media attention that would have you believe that this is the Story of the Decade, their questions to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald this afternoon revealed their true agenda - the number of times Rove was mentioned or alluded to in questions at Fitzgerald's press conference belied their disappointment that Public Enemy #1, the man who is really running things at the White House, King Karl, is still out of their grasp. So they did the next best thing. The Bush Presidency is doomed, you see, because a staffer for the Vice-President may have lied to a grand jury abuot something. Wheel out the Dom Perignon!

Libby, of course, while innocent until proven guilty, isn't exactly blameless in this. If in fact it is proved in court that he is guilty of perjury and obstruction charges, he deserves to do the time. But if we're being fair, should we not compare his case to that of another recent high-profile perjury case dealing with the Executive Branch? Perhaps you may have heard of it, it dealt with a fairly high ranking person in the White House. This individual was accused of being the target of nothing more than a partisan attack, that he didn't do anything wrong, and that the case was about something other than it really was. The special prosecutor in his case was savaged and personally impugned for years.

Comparitively, Patrick Fitzgerald has NOT been treated as a pariah, and has actually faced more savage remarks from those who want to see him indict Rove than from those who pooh-pooh this entire investigation. But once again, the Left sees the individual being charged with perjury as actually being charged with something else. Last time it was adultery, in order to make the accused seem like they've done nothing wrong. This time, it's treason that the supposed perjurer is guilty of, and one prominent liberal commentator is suggesting that he should hang for it, saying this before he's even charged with anything but perjury, before he's even convicted.

It's a day of celebration for the Left, and they can have it. Tomorrow, they'll wake up and realize that they have accomplished none of their goals, and the Bush Presidency will be humming along without being weakened in the slightest. Cheers!

2005-10-27T20:35:00.000-04:00

Are we there yet?

It's a scene that plays itself out in the family car every single day, somewhere in North America. The parent, who has geared themselves up for a long journey, is driving to a specific destination. He does this out of necessity, or perhaps just the love of his family.

Meanwhile, in the back seat, the family's young child is growing impatient. The child is bored, and wants to do something different than just sit in the back and wait until the family arrives at their destination. "Are we there yet?" whines the child. "No," the parent replies firmly. "We won't be there for a little while."

Time passes. The child is still bored. Sure enough, not five minutes later, the child again cries, "are we there yet?"

Sound familiar? It ought to. It's the same question the 24-hour news cycle has been asking over and over and over again with regards to Iraq. The so-called "Main Stream Media" has been that petulant child in the back seat, whining and whining and whining because they want the trip to be over. They're tired of it.

The parent, in this situation, is none other than the man who reluctantly committed the nation's resources to fighting the battle in Iraq: President George W. Bush. And just like the parent, he has rightly continued to inform the child that there is still a distance to be traveled to reach the destination, never becoming visibly upset at the constant nagging, but surely brimming with frustration. He refuses to pull the car to the side of the road - after all, any stopping would make it all the more longer until reaching that destination.

This week, the American media was able to count to 2,000, that is, the number of American deaths in Iraq since the beginning of the war. They breathlessly told the story of SSG George Alexander, a volunteer warrior who gave his life in the service of his country. Unfortunately, his name and date of death were largely all the media were willing to talk about. SSG Alexander, like the others before him, was simply a number to these macabre body counters. One more American soldier dead. One more reason to shout "Are we there yet?"

They ask the same droll questions. "What is the exit strategy? Why are we there?" They bay and moan, and the "peaceniks" demand a pullout. They would rather that those 2,000 soldiers died for no discernable progress. They admit that a premature withdrawal would plunge Iraq into chaos, but would rather dismiss it and then blame such inevitable chaos on President Bush.

A peaceful and democratic Iraq is the goal. That is why we are there. It is worth fighting for - the corruption and evil that was represented in the regime of Saddam Hussein was part of everything that is wrong in the Middle East. It is part of the cesspool from which international Islamist terrorism breeds. It's time we started draining those cesspools, and drain them we are.

Ask a "peacenik" what they would do to solve the terrorism issue. Usually, they don't have an answer, "but it isn't this." Ask what direction we should go in Iraq, and if they don't say "immediate pullout," they'll just complain that "we shouldn't have been there in the first place." There's no "this is where we are, and this is what we should do to achieve the best solution for our country."

One has to ask - what's happened to this country? The answer is simple - the 24-hour news cycle. It lets you know what is happening as soon as it happened. If the satellites had been live on the air at Normandy, would the American public still have a stomach for war? We lost more men during the D-Day operation than we have in Iraq and Afghanistan combined in four years. That's a testament to our troops, and the new ways we have found to fight our wars. We still have not found a way to fight a bloodless war, and it is highly doubtful that we ever will. Brave young men and women, some of the best young people our country has to offer, will fight and give their lives trying to achieve peace for others and ourselves.

We honor each fallen soldier. We honor their sacrifice and their families. But we honor them best by finishing the job they started. We make sure their sacrifice was not meaningless.

This trip, this mission, will end eventually. It won't be soon enough for a media which is tired of reporting from Iraq 24 hours a day. Perhaps then, when the objective is reached and a proud nation can welcome home its troops as a proud international community welcomes a newly free Iraq, the media will be placated, and will realize, just as the child inevitably does - it was worth the trip.