Elderly and Homeless and Poor, Oh My!

October is upon us, and as is the case each October, the month promises to provide an assortment of ghouls, goblins, and ghastly specters that incite dread and fear in young and old alike. October brings with it not only ghosts and Jack-O-Lanterns, but also a new session of the Supreme Court. This Halloween season, politicians and liberal lawyers are making it a point to frighten three groups in particular: the elderly, the homeless, and the poor, into thinking they are in danger of losing their right to vote. Such notions are as fictional as the Headless Horseman, but that fact is easily obscured through scare tactics worthy of the most chilling spook alley.

One of the cases the court will review involves the constitutionality of Indiana's state law requiring voters to present a form of photo identification to prove their identities at local polling stations. The law was challenged by the ACLU and the Indiana Democratic Party immediately after its passage in 2005. Both moved quickly to stir up fear by declaring that the law would limit the right to vote among the elderly, the homeless or disabled, and of course the poor. The tactics used by the ACLU and the Indiana Democratic Party were simple and stolen directly from the Democratic playbook for fighting Social Security reform: scare the elderly into believing their benefits will disappear at the hands of nasty conservatives and then sit back and watch them flood Congress and newsrooms with angry letters and voice mail. The "right" to Social Security is perhaps the most cherished American "right," second only to the right to vote. Most of the time the two are related, as elections that promise to have the most impact on Social Security are also the elections with the greatest voter turnout.

The irony is that the ACLU and Democrats who oppose the voter identification laws are remarkably ignorant of the host of government services that already require that the elderly, homeless, and poor possess a form of government-issued identification before they can obtain them. A visit to a Social Security Office for any kind of service, even for registering a newborn baby for a Social Security number, requires government-issued photo identification, and in some cases multiple forms of identification.

As for the homeless, a group that one would expect not to consistently carry any form of identification, most cities issue benefit cards that require at least some identifying information. For example, Santa Monica, California, an affluent and intensely liberal city with miles of beautiful beachfront properties, is a Mecca for the homeless. Mild coastal weather and generous available services have swelled the ranks of the homeless in Santa Monica, resulting in large gatherings and lines at city buildings. Yet even liberal Santa Monica issues public service identification cards to its homeless population. This identification serves three purposes: one, it allows workers at shelters to distinguish between those who have registered with the city as homeless and those who have not; second, it allows Santa Monica's Police Department to have a means for identifying homeless residents in the event they violate laws or if they are victimized by crime themselves; third, it allows homeless residents to obtain other city services, such as libraries.

In exchange for city services, the homeless agree to register for free for a Santa Monica identification card. Those who do not wish to do so simply move on to a city without such a requirement. Yet most stay and enjoy the benefits offered to them. As Santa Monica is their official place of "residence" established by their city-issued card, they can obtain a Post Office box or similar service which further establishes that they have a local mailing address and reside in the city. At California polling locations, that combination is usually already sufficient to allow them to vote. What then is the hardship for the homeless in making the city-issued card they already willingly obtain at no cost into a free photo identification they can take to the polls?

Opponents argue that requiring the elderly, homeless, and poor to obtain government-issued photo identification presents a hardship because people in these voter classifications have difficulty navigating bureaucracy. These groups should be insulted by such a claim. The Social Security bureaucracy is considerably challenging, yet millions of elderly Americans somehow obtain the services they need despite the daunting bureaucracy. State and federal welfare programs surely contain the most complex requirement and eligibility rules known to man and endless bureaucracies to administer them, yet millions of needy families have applied for and obtained public assistance services far more challenging than filling out one form and getting a picture taken for a free voter identification card.

The low opinion liberals have of the elderly, homeless, and poor is as evident in this fight as it is in affirmative action and other liberal entitlement programs. They consistently underestimate the abilities and intellectual capacities of entire segments of the population while claiming their actions are for the "good" of these groups.

The key factor is that if something is sufficiently important to someone, he or she will find a way to navigate endless layers of bureaucracy to obtain it.

Opponents of Indiana's voter identification law would have us believe that the elderly, homeless, and poor are incapable of filling out a form for a free card, sitting for a picture, and taking the card home with them for use at their polling stations. The Indiana law even includes provisions that would exempt the disabled or those living in rest homes or assisted care facilities from the photo identification requirement. Let's be clear then that the ACLU and Indiana Democrats do not consider mobile, self-sufficient elderly residents, homeless people, or poor people smart enough to obtain a free identification card.

These opponents also set forth the claim that requiring photo identification places an undue financial burden on poor voters, because driver's licenses and state identification cards involve fees ranging in some states from $10 to $30. They raise the racial specter of the old Southern poll taxes and accuse conservatives who support the identification law of attempting to "disenfranchise" minority voters. To refute such a claim, most of the 26 states requiring photo identification at polling stations offer free voter identification cards. Where then is the financial hardship on the poor in obtaining a free card to take to the polls?

It is impossible to honestly identify any classification of legal voters who would be "disenfranchised" by being required to show photo identification. Certainly the elderly, homeless, and poor have already obtained far more complex services, all of which required some form of government-issued identification. Yet the media continues to portray voter identification as "a move that can limit participation of the elderly and poor in elections." The NAACP refers to identification requirements as "undue burdens" on voters, but offers no convincing evidence of that claim. States requiring voter identification have already made accommodations for the disabled, have made the cards available at no cost, and have made it no more difficult to obtain than any of the other public services these "disenfranchised" groups already have applied for successfully.

To claim otherwise is a political scare tactic in this season of sinister spooks.

Technorati Tags:
Indiana, Voter Photo Identification, Disenfranchisement, Supreme Court, Voter Registration Laws, Constitutionality, Entitlement Programs, Liberals

Conservative Defends Hillary from Obama

Conservatives should rise to defend Hillary Clinton from Barack Obama’s assault on her Iraq War authorization vote. Why, my readers will ask, should conservatives support Hillary in any way? The answer is quite simple: our nation’s survival may depend on such action. By that I do not mean that supporting Hillary in and of itself will save the nation, but rather finding common ground for agreement on that one issue, the rightfulness of a war authorization vote, will help liberals and conservatives alike to recognize that some situations require military intervention, and WMD development or concealment is one such situation.

Yes, Hillary has flip-flopped on her support for the Iraq War as her 2008 presidential campaign has advanced, and yes, her criticisms of President Bush’s handling of the war have been shrill at times. She merits the conservative disdain she has reaped through such behavior and calculated political maneuvering. However, conservatives and fair-minded liberals should consider the consequences of not defending Hillary’s vote to authorize the use of military force to enforce UN Resolution 1441 against Saddam Hussein’s reported WMD stockpiles, especially in light of the rapidly approaching showdown with Iran over its uranium enrichment efforts.

Yesterday Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated the Iran will “never abandon” its nuclear ambitions regardless of how many UN resolutions or sanctions are employed to thwart the Iranian nuclear program. In the face of such recalcitrance, strong and decisive leadership will be needed, and undoubtedly there will be future votes in the House and Senate to approve or disapprove of the use of military force against Iran. I am certainly not implying that Hillary would provide such leadership if elected president. My views on her politics and personality are known to Capital Cloak readers. Her disdain for the military is well known. However, if Barack Obama succeeds in convincing a majority of the Democratic Party, or worse, a majority of all American voters, that Hillary’s war authorization vote was “irresponsible and naïve,” as he has characterized it, it will signal that even when presented with overwhelming intelligence from every allied nation worldwide, America might likewise consider military action against future foes like Iran as “irresponsible and naïve.” That form of national paralysis could prove fatal in confrontations with determined enemies.

Specifically, Obama chastised Hillary for voting to authorize a war “without asking how we were going to get out.” That is an opportunistic argument coming as it does from one who has never been in position to make such difficult decisions. Obama, of course, was not a senator yet when the Iraq War vote took place, and was not privy to the intelligence documents that the colleagues he now derides as naïve were briefed on prior to committing troops to Iraq. For any nation embarking upon a war effort, the way out is obvious: win, and win decisively. The eventual outcome of war is not perfectly predictable, and history proves that war strategies often change mid-course, usually after initial campaigns meet with unexpected or underestimated resistance. Perhaps Obama should study the initial battles of our own Civil War, paying particular attention to the overconfidence and short-sighted planning of the Union’s early generals. That war, which eventually ended slavery in America, was entered into by the Union army with virtually no prior planning for “how we were going to get out.” Does Obama consider Abraham Lincoln to have been “irresponsible and naïve” to enter a war with poor prior planning?

I suspect that Obama is glad today that Lincoln ignored his critics at the time and pressed forward in a just cause. Obama, despite being a senator from Illinois, is certainly no Lincoln when it comes to perseverance in wars for freedom. Or perhaps he does not consider the Iraqi right to freedom to be as inalienable as his own.

In the case of Iraq, winning the war involved more than removing Saddam Hussein, a task that was even simpler than our military planners projected. Removing Saddam and accounting for his WMD were merely the great opening battles of the war for Iraqi freedom (hence the name Operation Iraqi Freedom). The way out of Iraq, which Obama and unfortunately now Hillary as well fail to see is an Iraqi parliament capable of sustaining and defending itself from domestic and foreign efforts to topple it. In that sense, Obama and others should limit their criticism to the fact that our goals in Iraq have not been reached rather than condemn the initial decision to act against Saddam’s defiance toward the UN over his well-documented WMD programs.

It is no coincidence that former Secretary of State and retired General Colin Powell, who recently claimed in dramatic Monday morning quarterback fashion to have urged President Bush no to invade Iraq despite the overwhelming intelligence detailing Saddam’s WMD facilities and ambitions, has been advising Obama on military and foreign policy issues. Whereas criticisms of the decision to invade Iraq from Obama are truly “irresponsible and naïve,” they merely reflect the influence of General Powell.

There is clearly little common ground between conservatives and Hillary Clinton. After all, she burned whatever rickety bridges may have once existed when she blamed the “vast right wing conspiracy” for damaging her husband’s self-destructive presidency. Yet when a political opportunist like Obama criticizes Hillary for voting to remove an oppressive dictator and secure the WMD the world was convinced he possessed, we should defend her for making that decision. Despite her current efforts to cast herself as a candidate who would work to end the war, she was right to vote as she did. At least in Hillary’s case America knows that in a sobering moment with long-term consequences, she once voted to eliminate a rogue nation’s WMD programs. Obama, on the other hand, never has faced such a decision but we can conclude from his criticisms and General Powell’s influence that were Obama to be president, he would be loathe to act when facing the threat of WMD acquisition by rogue nations.

For conservatives, neither of these candidates is politically appealing, but Obama’s contagious depiction of Hillary or anyone else who voted to authorize the Iraq War as “irresponsible and naïve” must be prevented from infecting our future decisions when faced with similar or more dangerous threats, such as Iran. Liberals and conservatives can disagree on a host of social, moral, and economic issues, but on the issue of preventing radical Islamic regimes from enriching uranium and proliferating nuclear weapons or technology, there must be unity and shared determination. Regardless of her current views of the Iraq War, Hillary was right to authorize it, as was President Bush to request it, based on the intelligence available at that time. President Bush or his successor, Democrat or Republican, will face the decision to act against Iran since Iran has made it clear it will never halt its uranium enrichment. Obama’s attacks on Hillary’s war vote are irresponsibly making it more difficult for a president to make a convincing case for future military action of any kind to Americans.

Having never faced a difficult decision like a war vote, Obama can conveniently profit from hindsight and impugn the responsibility and motives of those who voted for the Iraq War. Of Obama I would ask the same question I posed to General Powell in a previous post: what further evidence would you have needed to convince you that action against Saddam was necessary given the intelligence already in hand? There is no more clear evidence of Obama’s disingenuous criticism of Hillary on this issue than the words of Obama’s consultant on foreign policy and military issues, General Powell. Powell himself made the case for war to the UN, including the following dramatic statement:

…We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction; he's determined to make more. Given Saddam Hussein's history of aggression, given what we know of his grandiose plans, given what we know of his terrorist associations and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not some day use these weapons at a time and the place and in the manner of his choosing at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond?

The United States will not and cannot run that risk to the American people. Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11th world.

I’m still waiting to see a news headline that reads, “Obama Calls Own Adviser Powell ‘Irresponsible and Naïve’ for Launching Iraq War.” After all, the entire House and Senate voted to authorize war based on what leaders such as Powell recommended at the time. If Hillary was “irresponsible and naïve” for following Powell’s advice, Obama must by default be equally irresponsible and naïve for taking current advice from the same source.

For conservatives and liberals alike, it is important to separate the rightfulness of the decision to invade Iraq from the subsequent execution of the war or its current status. There is always room for improvement in the handling of wars, and the one constant of conflict is that human error is inescapable. However, the drive to impugn the motives of those who voted to disarm and depose Saddam Hussein will only serve to cripple our national resolve to take similar actions in the future when necessary. Taking Ahmadinejad’s words at face value, such actions will be necessary again soon.

Hillary gets a lot of things wrong, but deserves positive reinforcement when she does something that is in the best interest of America and global security. Her Iraq War vote was the right thing to do at the right time. If conservatives do not defend such action by a liberal when it is hypocritically and opportunistically attacked, then we will have only ourselves to blame if fewer liberals choose to make sound national security decisions in the future.


Technorati Tags:
Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Iraq War Vote, Colin Powell, 2008 Campaign, Presidential Candidates, Conservatives, Liberals

Conservatives Use Liberals to Justify Acts

Conservative reaction to two recent news stories raises a question that conservatives should consider very carefully: is liberalism really the behavioral standard by which we as conservatives want to be judged?

The old excuse that “everyone else is doing it” seems to have infected the reasoning of conservatives, who increasingly cite examples of liberal misbehavior to justify their own similar words or actions. Although it may not be fair for liberals to constantly get free passes in the MSM for what most of us would consider illegal or immoral conduct, conservatives should be willing to point out the hypocrisy while continuing to take the moral high road in their own behavior. That is, or at least that was, what separated conservatives from liberals on so many issues, such as abortion, gay marriage, political corruption, personal morality in elected officials, and others. Now conservatives seem no longer to care much about living up to a higher standard than our liberal rivals, but instead demonstrate that we wish we could behave badly too and receive the same free pass from the media that liberals enjoy.

In the following paragraphs I will reference two recent news stories and conservative reaction to them to illustrate the shamefully growing practice of wanting to be judged by liberal, rather than conservative standards:

1. President Bush’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s perjury conviction sentence.
Regular readers already know that Capital Cloak argued that since there was no underlying crime in the case, i.e. the outing of a CIA operative, there should have been no trial of Libby or anyone else. However, since a trial was held, Libby was convicted by a stacked DC liberal jury, and sentenced to prison time, President Bush commuted Libby’s sentence to a fine and probation. Liberals were, not surprisingly, outraged that their attempt to bring down the Bush administration through scandal fear mongering failed. Ironically, the Clinton’s criticized the president’s commutation decision, with Bill Clinton making this extremely hypocritical statement:

The former president tried to draw a distinction between the pardons he granted, and Bush's decision to commute Libby's 30-month sentence in the CIA leak case.

"I think there are guidelines for what happens when somebody is convicted," Clinton told a radio interviewer Tuesday. "You've got to understand, this is consistent with their philosophy; they believe that they should be able to do what they want to do, and that the law is a minor obstacle."

Of course, I am not suggesting that Bill Clinton was justified in issuing 140 pardons to many convicted criminals including his own business and political associates. Those pardons were wrong and certainly confirmed the stench of graft and corruption conservatives smelled for 8 years of the Clinton White House. However, instead of merely defending President Bush’s decision to rescue Libby by citing legal reasons or simply stating the president’s authority and perceived moral obligation to do so, the White House and conservative radio hosts and Internet bloggers took the moral low road by justifying the action based on Clinton’s numerous pardons:

"I don't know what Arkansan is for chutzpah, but this is a gigantic case of it," presidential spokesman Tony Snow said.

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., has scheduled hearings on Bush's commutation of Libby's 2 1/2-year sentence.

"Well, fine, knock himself out," Snow said of Conyers. "I mean, perfectly happy. And while he's at it, why doesn't he look at January 20th, 2001?"

In the closing hours of his presidency, Clinton pardoned 140 people, including fugitive financier Marc Rich.

Conservative radio hosts like Sean Hannity, though doing so for the noble purpose of defending the obviously railroaded Libby, also joined the “look what Clinton did” chorus, pointing to the already mentioned pardons as well as former President Clinton’s impeachment in the House for perjury which ultimately resulted in no removal from office, no jail time, no fines, only the later loss of his law license. Libby was sentenced to two years for the same crime that Clinton committed. Conservative media figures also pointed to other examples of Clinton administration officials who have thus far escaped prosecution, such as former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger. They pointed out that Berger committed a serious crime against national security by stealing classified documents from the National Archive, to which he plead guilty. Libby, who was convicted of perjury would serve jail time while Berger, who hamstrung the 9/11 commission by removing and destroying top secret documents dealing with the counterterrorism actions of the Clinton administration, only lost his law license, hardly a fair outcome and a clear double standard in punishments dealt in DC.

This argument successfully captured the understandable outrage of conservatives, and certainly by comparison Berger’s actions were far more serious than Libby’s, but by constantly holding out Clinton’s perjury, his last-minute pardons, and the treatment of Berger as an example, the White House and conservatives in the media contributed to the increasing trend of conservatives acting as if we wish to be judged by the loose moral and ethical standards afforded to liberals. If Libby’s commutation was legally and morally justified, as most conservatives agreed, why was it necessary to wallow in the mud with the Clintons and engage in childish and ultimately self-destructive “they did it and so can we” arguments?

Tony Snow’s snarky response quoted above was an unnecessary and atypical acceptance of the lowest common denominator in political judgment, the Clinton administration. Now conservatives are rallying to defend Congressman David Vitter (R-LA) who, when faced with a public outing by the madam of a highbrow DC brothel, confessed to his use of “services.” What is the most common conservative defense of Vitter? Clinton engaged in far more serious illicit behavior with a subordinate in the Oval Office itself and didn’t have to resign, so Vitter should not resign either! Is that really the moral high ground conservatives claim to occupy? Supporting his return to Congress because he was a good but flawed man would be one thing, but supporting him because Clinton got away with moral lapses sends a very different message to voters seeking to find some difference between the values of the two parties.

2. The arrest of Albert Gore III in California for DUI and narcotics possession.
Driving 100 mph is reckless and endangers the public. Driving 100 mph while under the influence of various controlled substances is incredibly irresponsible and inexcusable. This was not Al Gore III’s first DUI (two prior arrests), and it was widely reported that the young man had been abusing a number of prescription drugs. Clearly the former vice president’s only son has a substance abuse problem, possibly a parent’s worst nightmare. What was the “compassionate conservative” response to news of the incident? Few conservatives in the media extended to Gore or his son any sympathy or best wishes for a full recovery, yet many engaged in sarcastic jokes about the younger Gore’s environmental carbon footprint from driving 100 mph in a hybrid car. More plentiful were the admonitions that conservative radio hosts and callers had for the surely anguished father, chiding him for being, in their opinions, an irresponsible parent who spent more time on global warming than on his children.

I found it interesting that when some in the media asked rhetorically whether the children or families of public figures should be “fair game,” the overwhelming response from conservatives was to point out that the media had incessantly and viciously reported the Bush twins’ brushes with police for false id and underage drinking in their late high school and early college years, and so turnabout was fair play. Here is a brief sampling of conservative responses that were all too typical in the wake of headlines announcing Gore III’s arrest:

From Sweetness and Light
Doesn’t Algore have any problem with the fact that his son was burning the marijuana? Think of how much carbon dioxide got released… and is THC a greenhouse gas, anybody know? Now, take a look at the response to this from the same people who wanted to put the Bush twins in the stocks for drinking before they turned 21…..

Sad yes, doingwhatyoucan, but this is from a group who screams incessantly about how hypocritical and ‘holier-than-thou’ conservatives are and gleefully splay any and all faults, falls, and crimes (real and bogus) ad nauseum (and as 1st said, if it had been one of the Bush twins, breaking news alerts) - yet we hear barely a peep. And I for one had not known about his previous arrests. And therein lies the basic problem - the Bush twins drink at college (Gasp) and it is news for how many days?

Gore’s son is arrested (again) for speeding and drug possession - and nary a word is said. Sort of like Sandy’briefs’Burger and his non-punishment and yet Libby is drawn and quartered for a lie about a case that is utterly and completely based on a lie. Do As I Say - Not As I Do Liberals Strike Again. Sad, yes, deserved - absolutely.

From Hotair.com

Maybe instead of trying to save the UNIVERSE, AL GORE(the man who claims he invented the internet) should of stayed home more often.

A Crying shame. He might spend more time with his drug addicted son, or his celebrity seeking wife, or his addled brain.

The Eco-Messiah who wants to manage our environmental policy can’t even manage his own family.

From RedState

If any of the Bush or Cheney children were busted for drugs, speeding at 100mph right now, it would be front page news at both the New York Times and the Washington Post online.

College students Jenna and Barbara trying to sneak an alcoholic beverage was a huge scandal, but we're not supposed to question that Chelsea got a six-figure job to start out.

These were just a few examples from a mountain of such comments found on virtually all high-traffic conservative news sites. The comments made by callers to conservative radio in the wake of this story were of similar tone and content, with expressions of near-glee at the misfortune of the Gore family, in large measure because the media had been so quick and cruel to report the less legally serious misdeeds of the Bush twins. Certainly the media savaged the Bush twins for months after each incident, but conservatives should keep in mind that we loudly proclaim ourselves to represent family values, and showing a lack of sympathy for a family in crisis, as Gore’s clearly has been and continues to be, is unworthy behavior for “compassionate conservatism.” To adapt a scriptural warning to such behavior, “Nastiness never was happiness.”

If conservatives object to unfair media coverage of the family members of conservative public officials, how does salivating over stories about liberal families help resolve the issue? There is no question that great hypocrisy exists among liberals, their personal family issues, and the media responsible for news coverage. However, for conservatives there is nothing noble about wishing for others to suffer intense public scrutiny of painful personal matters simply because conservatives have also been victimized by the media.

Rather than wishing for equal media treatment with liberals when it comes to questionable behavior, conservatives should instead seek to live and uphold a higher behavioral standard than the one liberals aspire to. Conservatives should stand on principle instead of resorting to defending their actions or words based on what liberals have done in similar circumstances. If voters cannot detect a palpable difference between the two parties in 2008, they will likely side with the one that promises to represent the most significant change from the status quo. For conservatives hoping to hold onto the WH and regain the House and Senate, being different, rather than indistinguishable from, their opponents will be critical to potential victory.

Technorati Tags:
Scooter Libby, Bill Clinton, Presidential Pardons, Perjury, Sandy Berger, Conservatives, Liberals, Al Gore III, DUI, Media Double Standard, David Vitter

"Pariah Kerry" Woos Swiss with New Hit: "America is a Pariah"

The dictionary defines a pariah as “somebody who is despised and avoided by other people.” Synonyms for pariah include exile and outsider. Considering John Kerry’s tearful decision to not run for president again in 2008 after realizing that he is a pariah within his own Democratic Party, it should not surprise anyone that Kerry is out on the anti-American lecture circuit speaking about pariahs. So “avoided by other people” was Kerry last fall prior to the mid-term elections, that his swipe at the intellect of US soldiers (charitably and inaccurately labeled a “botched joke” by the media) resulted in his disgraced withdrawal from scheduled campaign speaking engagements on behalf of Democratic candidates. By order of the DNC, Kerry was muzzled until after the 2006 mid-terms were concluded.

After coming within 118,000 votes of winning the presidency in 2004, Kerry is now an outsider within his party, despised and avoided by the US military, and exiled to speaking in front of the only friendly crowds available to him, i.e. America-bashing international groups such as the World Economic Forum, which he addressed on Saturday in Davos, Switzerland. Responding to a question regarding whether the Bush Administration had failed diplomatically with Iran prior to the “election” of the radical Ahmadinejad, Kerry could not restrain himself from declaring that America had failed in nearly every aspect of foreign policy under Bush. He expanded that sentiment by stating that America is now an “international pariah.”

According to Kerry, American’s have an “unfortunate habit” of looking at America through the American lens, and not engaging in the Anti-American self deprecation that has become a staple of liberal ideology. A twin doctrine, of which liberals are equally enamored and which was touted by Kerry in Davos, is that national security is best achieved through international diplomacy. When the issue of America’s national security is being considered, Americans want their elected officials to do so through the American lens. No other nation will or can protect America, and thus our defense and security policies should be promulgated based on what is America’s best interest for national survival and cultural preservation.

It seems diplomatically schizophrenic to belittle your own nation as a pariah that is “sending a terrible message of duplicity and hypocrisy” to the world, while simultaneously claiming to seek national security through diplomacy. Kerry’s idea that Americans should view America not as an ideal for the world to aspire to, but rather a pariah as seen through the lens of “other cultures and histories,” is sadly embraced by the current leadership of the Democratic Party. Kerry compares America with the rest of the world and sees only its faults and blemishes. Yet, as author Mark Steyn argues effectively in his book America Alone, what nation would Americans like Kerry prefer? Why are Democrats so insistent that America become more like other nations, particularly Europe? Is it the appeal of the utopian socialist dream of mandatory national healthcare and economy crushing national pensions? Is it the absence of an armed citizenry? Is it the high unemployment rate endemic to EU countries?

Kerry and those who share his views should remember, as Steyn reminds with unmatched clarity, that those countries poured unlimited funds into guaranteed healthcare and retirement pensions because they left their national security expenses to the only nation capable of protecting them: America. Even without bearing the expense of their own defense, the EU nations have proven incapable of financially sustaining these programs into the near future due to demographic decline and increasingly indolent populations too dependent on the state to be entrepreneurs or productive workers.

Kerry and the Democrats claim they want to improve America. Why not start that quest for improvement by ceasing to join the anti-American choruses of Europe and radical terrorist sponsors like Iran? There is nothing wrong with seeking improvement in something you love, and Democrats are quick to defend their patriotism and love of country. However, one does not achieve improvement through constant America-bashing on the international stage.

Just as one could never hope for marital bliss while repeatedly belittling and exposing the faults of one’s spouse, anti-American remarks from its own elected officials will never result in a strong and admired nation. Contrarily, if one constantly praises one’s spouse and offers loyal encouragement to a spouse’s efforts to improve, marital bliss is entirely likely. Like the self-improving spouse, Americans are an optimistic people who thrive when given the freedom and encouragement to find new solutions to old problems. Unfortunately Kerry and many others in his party offer only criticism to please America-haters instead of investing their collective intellect and energy into creating identifiable solutions.

Such remarks further illustrate why politically savvy Democrats have shunned Kerry and declined to give him a second chance for the presidency in 2008, not out of disagreement with his “America is to blame” ideology, but as a practical matter of political survival. By calling America a pariah at every opportunity, Kerry has personally become the embodiment of the word.

Technorati Tags: John Kerry Pariah World Economic Forum Davos Switzerland Anti-Americanism European Union Mark Steyn liberals International Diplomacy

"Permissives" Better Description than "Progressives" for Today's Liberals

Having listened to media coverage of the campaigns from a wide variety of sources, I could not help but notice that the MSM uses the term "secular progressive" with increasing frequency to describe social liberals, and unfortunately many conservative columnists and talk show hosts (like Hugh Hewitt, whom I enjoy) accept this term and use it themselves. I know that using the term "secular" draws a distinction between those who espouse a religious world view and those who would prefer an absence of religion, but it is the term "progressive" which rankles me most.

I refuse to accept the term "progressive" when talking about liberals, as it is a politically correct euphemism (almost as bad as "undocumented worker" used for illegal alien). Conservatives are called conservative because they seek to preserve, as closely as possible, the institutions and socio/economic policies established at the founding of our nation as provided by the constitution. True conservatives then could rightly be referred to as "constitutional conservationists." What is the opposite of a conservationist? One who destroys, demolishes, ruins, or abolishes.

Liberals engaged in environmental conservation take pride in preserving, maintaining, and protecting that which they value. When corporations or local governments determine that economic "progress" will be enhanced by encroaching on the environment through construction and land development, liberal "conservationists" seek injunctions and decry construction as being destructive and harmful. They certainly would never refer to the land developers as "progressive."

"Progress" then, is in the eye of the beholder.Since the definition of progress is entirely subjective depending on what one considers improvement, social liberals should not be allowed the moniker of "progressive." They should merely be called what they are, permissives. Everything unnatural and immoral is accepted, embraced, and declared a "right." Moral absolutes? The Permissives surrendered to moral relativism decades ago, and have now "progressed" to the point where they permit what is wrong to be called right. They lack the fortitude to declare any behavior as wrong (except religious expressions by Christians). No, "progressive" they are not. The "Secular Permissives will eventually permit the collapse of our defense (by "progressively" negotiating with terrorists), our economy (by "progressively" raising taxes, and our national morality (by "progressively" permitting a complete abandonment of religious values in public life).

campaigns conservatives liberals Secular Progressive Hugh Hewitt