Thursday, December 27, 2012

Feminist Agenda vs. the True Fight for Women’s Rights


On a cold winter night, a public bus sped through the dark streets of New Delhi, India. Curiously, the bus passed through several checkpoints without stopping at any of them including those guarded by the police. Unbeknown to the outsiders, a grave crime was taking place on the bus. Six men used iron bars to attack and furiously beat a young man senseless. The same six men then proceeded to beat the man’s 23-year-old female friend and gang raped her mercilessly.

Far from being a tale of fiction, the events actually took place on the night of Sunday, December 16, 2012. After ruthlessly beating the young couple and raping the young woman, the perpetrators threw their naked, half-dead bodies on the cold streets of New Delhi. The woman suffered multiple injuries that required several surgeries and she now remains in critical condition fighting for her life.

The crime led to a backlash from the public and protestors swarmed the streets to demand justice for the young woman. In response, the police used tear gas, batons, and water cannons in an effort to disperse the crowd away from the government buildings, injuring several people in the process. Women were a good majority of those injured during the protest but police continued the onslaught in hopes of controlling the protest. Only after days of protest, the government of India finally decided to become involved in the case.

The young woman needs prayers and support to make it through the horrific trauma she must be suffering now but her trials are only just beginning. If she recovers, she must consider what awaits her in the wake of this tragedy. In India, family and friends could easily ostracize a rape victim. The odds of her getting any justice are remote. Consider, for example, there are approximately 40,000 rape cases in India that remain unresolved as of today. Women in India remain at the mercy of laws that hardly give them any protection. For example, the current laws have no provisions to protect women from sexual harassment at work. Even today, India’s Marriage Act does not make provisions for women to have equal property rights. Whether the government of India actually carries out its promises of dishing out justice in favor of the victim of the New Delhi rape case is something only time will show but the incident gives one pause to reflect on the plight of women in America.

The contrast between the circumstances of women in India and America are incredible. To be sure, tragedies occur in the United States as well but the portrayal of women’s issues in America needs reconsideration. Modern feminists who screamed about the “war on women” during the 2012 national election have much to learn about women’s rights. The liberators who threw such tantrums against the “inhumanity” of unavailable free birth control from the government must consider how fortunate they are to live in a nation that allows them the freedom to voice their opinions. Imagine what would become of them if they lived in a country that afforded them no protection against brutal attacks upon their person as the one experienced by the woman in New Delhi.

What makes the situation worse for a rape victim in India compared to one in American is the disinterest expressed by the Indian government to have laws in place which help women in their every day struggles. In comparison, the laws of the United States actively protect women’s rights and provide them with opportunities to advance in life. In the United States, even the poorest girl has the opportunity to attend college, start a business, become a politician, practice law or medicine, and join the military. In short, women in America have a chance to make a difference in the world. The poor women in India are fortunate if they can find their next meal.

Yet, in their quest to fight for women’s rights, feminists in America have destroyed the essence of what it means to be a woman. Today, feminists hold dedicated wives and mothers in contempt but young women demanding free birth control earn a top spot on the cover of Time magazine. In their rush to gain “equality” for women, these feminists have destroyed the American family. For those claiming to preach that women such as Abigail Adams, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Sojourner Truth were all feminists, rest assured they were dedicated wives and mothers before they became activists. Even as activists, they did not pursue their own ambitions at the expense of their families.

The best lesson for Americans must include improving things in America for everyone. Yes, this includes men, women, and children. Emasculating men and alienating children in hopes of gaining greater “freedom” for women only hurts everyone involved. By ignoring the family, feminists have done a disservice to women and actually devalued the role of women in America. The only thing they have accomplished is to shift their attention from the family to the government. Unfortunately, forfeiting their liberties to the government has helped make America a nation where the rights of people become secondary to the might of the government. For what else is government dependence if not servitude? Is this then the “freedom” these feminists seek? What freedom is there when the government controls all things, even as it claims to provide for women’s rights?

The feminists in America should be aware that by infringing upon the rights of all people, they have helped create an atmosphere where no one’s rights remain intact, least of all those of women. The unfortunate tragedy of the young woman in New Delhi should alert every woman in America that the true fight for women’s rights lays further away from our shores. Perhaps, if we can remove the attention from our makeshift “women’s issues” in America for a moment, we just might be able to help those women who truly need the support, urgently.

 

 

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Are Conservative Values Dead?


Anyone who has lived through the 1980s as a young adult would know actor Ken Wahl.  Wahl enjoyed a successful career in Hollywood films such as The Wanderers, Fort Apache, and The Soldier.  He achieved the pinnacle of his career on the hit television series, Wiseguy.  His dashing good looks and mesmerizing voice captivated women and broke many hearts when the show finally ended in the 1990s.  Wahl is undeniably a versatile actor; however, this article is less about his enigmatic onstage presence but more about the warmth and humility he exhibits as an American in his daily life.  Although Wahl is private about his personal life, he recently gave an interview where he discussed, amongst other things, his political views and the future of the Republican Party.  (You can watch the interview in its entirety here). 

Despite his fame and success, Wahl lived as a conservative in the hotbed of liberal society.  He recalls that as early as age 8 he understood the importance of keeping with conservative values.  People often argue that children are disinterested in politics.  Indeed, there is some truth to that argument, as many children are too busy with their own personal interests to care about policies and the state of the nation.  Peer pressure, entertainment, and especially the advent of social media have all compounded the problem over the last few decades.  In public schools, the insignificance of subjects such as history and civics today has made things even worse for children who know more about the latest trend than the Pledge of Allegiance.  Yet, Wahl’s point proves that young children are sensitive to learning and retaining conservative values.       

Children receive their first instruction about life at home.  Parents are their first teachers and are responsible for passing conservative (or liberal) values to them.  Some children cherish conservative values, grow up with them, and pass it on to their children, thus repeating the cycle.  Others grow up with a liberal worldview or learn conservative values but fall through the gaps in their teenage years.  For those who claim that children of divorced parents will undoubtedly become liberals, Wahl stands as a prime example of this untruth.  His parents divorced when he was young but he still held fast to his conservative roots.    

When discussing the outcome of the 2012 national election, Wahl wisely (no pun intended) points to the current electorate and calls it a “generational vote.”  Indeed, Wahl's point is sound because young people carried a higher rate of votes for Obama than Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.  Obama’s “War on Women” rhetoric scored big with young women.  Wahl feels that the main issue with women was their rights over reproduction.  Considering that majority of the young women voted for Obama, there is an element of truth in Wahl’s argument.  Yet, to think that all women supported Obama is a grave mistake.  Well informed, conservative women throughout the nation denounced Obama’s so-called war against women.   

Another interesting point Wahl makes, one which the GOP should seriously consider, is that Obama won because he remains popular with the younger generation.  As absurd as it may seem, the presidential election has become more or less a popularity contest.  Wahl points out that the younger generation is unfamiliar with the concept of ideology, they are more interested in whether the candidate is “cool.”  Again, his analysis is accurate if we consider the last few Democratic presidents including, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama remain the “coolest” presidents in recent history especially when compared to their rival, George W. Bush.  Bush was unable to represent the same smooth, cool style for the younger generation and they essentially considered him (and still do) a country bumpkin.  Wahl feels that the worst thing the GOP could do is to ape Clinton or Obama’s tactics in hopes of finding favor with the younger generation.  In other words, trying too hard to be “cool” could actually make things worse for the GOP.  He gives examples of moments when parents have tried to “fit-in” with their children’s idea of “cool” and failed miserably.  We can all probably relate to that at some level, which makes Wahl’s warning to the GOP even more potent.

So, what is Wahl’s ultimate outlook on the current GOP situation?  To be honest, it is actually quite grave.  Wahl, as many of us, believes that the GOP needs to re-structure their agenda without compromising on their conservative values.  For the GOP to understand how to do this, they would benefit greatly from watching Wahl’s interview.  In the interim, I have a few suggestions to add.  Firstly, stand fast on conservative values.  Next, stop selling our precious liberties to the highest bidder. 

Lest anyone feel dejected by now, I shall like to point out a few things Wahl noted in his interview which are noteworthy.  He mentioned that conservatives still have a chance because of the House of Representatives and the few Republican Governors who won in the 2012 election.  Again, Wahl's observations are astute and to them I shall add my personal thoughts here.  We should also remember that Obama won his second term by a mere 3% victory over Romney, not a landslide.  Indeed, this is encouraging news and tells me that conservative values are alive and with a strong leader can find roots in America again.  Let us also consider that for every Franklin Delano Roosevelt, there was a Ronald Reagan.  How long it takes us to find a strong, conservative, and capable leader depends entirely upon how hard we are willing to work to find such a person.  In the end, to ensure our liberties remain intact, we must begin by raising our children to become conservative adults so they can carry the torch of conservatism well into the future.

*The entire credit for Mr. Ken Wahl’s interview belongs to:  BigFurHat and iOWNTHEWORLD.com.

 

 

Saturday, December 15, 2012

Union Thugs vs. Free Americans


"If there exists not a power to check them, what security has a man of life, liberty, or property?" George Washington

Power struggle between pro-Union members and workers who want the “right to work” escalated to a new level this week in Michigan.  Breitbart reported that Union supporters “shouted down members of Tea Party” in an effort to control the direction of the demonstrations near the Michigan State Capitol earlier in the week.  Tragedy struck again when Union loyalists pulled down a tent on Tuesday and then brawled with a reporter who had dared to ask too many questions.  The rioting in itself is disheartening but the true underlying problem is the Union’s lethal control over people’s lives.

Ironically, the basis of any union is to support the plight of workers.  Unfortunately, in the case of Michigan, the Union seems more interested in supporting their own pockets than the rights of the workers.  How else do they explain their behavior in the wake of the recently passed laws?  Whatever happened to discussing problems rationally?  Instead, the Union has resorted to fistfights with civilians and bullying those who challenge their unfair practices.

Response from the Democratic Party leaders is also quite telling of where these unions find their strength to suppress dissenters.  Unions are unquestionably a major supporter of the Democratic Party.  Obama’s presence in Michigan on Monday supporting the Union is proof enough.  His silence after Tuesday’s brawl is yet another indicator of a leader who is more interested in keeping the nation divided instead of solving problems for all Americans.  Another thug, Democratic Representative Douglas Geiss, warned his colleagues earlier in the week “there will be blood, there will be repercussions” if the new anti-union laws were passed.  Were the Democrats using “code” language and sending subliminal messages to their supporters prior to the passing of the legislation?  Perhaps, if we become as neurotic as the Liberals, we could consider the thought seriously.          

Incidentally, many supporters of the union come from the “pro-choice” group.  Pro-choice supporters argue that women should have a choice to get an abortion but they are unwilling to respect the workers’ right to choose whether they want union membership.  Tragically, to these “choice” supporters, the value of a human life is of less significance than the freedom to choose a union membership. 

Evidently, angry union supporters want someone to pay for daring to dismantle the history of the labor movement in America.  As a result, senators, reporters, and common folks have all become recipients of union violence and threats.  Loyalists have lamented over the disrespect towards the union’s history but they seem to have forgotten our nation’s history that bears repeating: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”  Union thugs would do well to remember that we still live in a free society where every American has a right to choose “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as they deem fit, be it in the form of a collective union or as an individual. 

Monday, December 10, 2012

Spineolessness the Deadly Scourge of Washington


House Speaker, John Boehner made some waves this week in Washington D.C.  He removed four GOP conservative representatives from two separate committees, the House Budget Committee and the House Financial Services Committee respectively.  To complicate matters further, Boehner then submitted an objectionable budget proposal to the White House without the approval of the GOP caucus – a proposal the White House duly rejected.  As the reality of the fiscal cliff edges closer each day, there is plenty of reason to believe that Obama will gladly jump over it before compromising on anything.  Why then would Boehner choose this precise moment to remove four conservative party members from financial committees created to question government spending?  Why would he consider proposing $800B tax revenue instead of demanding cuts on government spending from the White House?  Indeed, why would Boehner undermine his own position and endanger the future of millions of Americans?

Of the many possibilities available to explain Boehner’s appalling behavior, one explanation in particular bears deep consideration by all.  Boehner appears to be suffering from a disorder called Spineolessness.  Those afflicted with this malady are often unable to perform certain duties such as standing upright in the face of adversity.  Symptoms left untreated may cause these individuals to become confused, insecure, and afraid.  As time passes, patients exhibit outlandish behavior by becoming harsh and critical towards those providing support and care instead of questioning the motives of their adversary.  In extreme cases, the patient completely loses the ability to hear clear directives coming from the people who care about his or her well-being.  Instead, the patient scrambles for whatever remedy is offered quickly in hopes of finding immediate relief from the ailment.  Unfortunately, the quick relief offered by the competition is typically transitional and by the time the patient realizes their predicament, it is often too late.  Although, Spineolessness is highly contagious and spreads quickly, if caught early enough, the patient has a chance of survival.  To be sure, the only known cure for this insufferable disorder is a heavy dose of principles and plenty of faith to glug it down daily. 

Spineolessness has appeared throughout the nation at various times; however, it is currently running rampant in the Washington D.C. area.  Many of the greatest leaders of the United States have at one time or another succumbed to this phenomenon.  As such, politicians, especially the GOP representatives, should remain vigilant in carrying extra doses of principles on their person at all times to avoid becoming yet another victim of the deadly disorder. 

The recent outbreak of Spineolessness in Washington has placed the people on high alert.  As a result, they will promptly remind politicians to take the proper dose of principles to avoid a dangerous attack of Spineolessness.  Unfortunately, Boehner’s case is fast becoming dangerous and to avoid further damage, he must immediately take time away to think and gather what is left of his principles.  Perhaps if he did so, he may find himself delivered from the scourge of Washington, eventually.  

           

Saturday, December 8, 2012

Immigration Reform and the Search for Middle Ground


“The terms on which foreigners may be admitted to the rights of Citizens, should be speedily ascertained by a uniform rule of naturalization.” – President George Washington

According to an article by Cameron Joseph published in The Hill, “a coalition of business and religious leaders” joined on Tuesday to “pressure Republicans to embrace immigration reform.”  The National Immigration Forum is a bipartisan group supporting the coalition in its fight against the rigid GOP stance towards immigration reform.  They claim that the GOP needs to find some flexibility in their approach towards immigration.

Richard Land, a “social” conservative and one of the leaders of the group states that “the party’s ability to win national elections going forward depends on winning Hispanic voters, and that the party’s handling of immigration reform was hindering that.”  Furthermore, Land feels that “if they want to continue to be a contender for national leadership in this country they’re going to have to change their ways on immigration reform.”  Curiously, Land only discusses the Hispanics in his fight for immigration reform as if to say that the United States only receives Hispanic immigrants.  What about other immigrants who might be facing challenges of their own?  Clearly, the emphasis on Hispanics is for one reason and one reason only:  Votes. 

If they agree to make changes that allow an easy access to citizenship and voting rights for illegal Hispanics, what message, does the GOP hope to send to the remainder of us who have legally immigrated to the United States.  Many of us, who arrived here legally, confronted challenges of our own and had to make personal sacrifices to get here as well and we did not break laws to do so.  Should we simply ignore people arriving legally from other nations because they are unable to offer the GOP (or any party for that matter) the choice votes during the next election cycle?  What precisely does that say about how far removed we are today from the time when Washington said “foreigners” could gain citizenship in the United States through “a uniform rule of naturalization.”  Indeed, the changes are drastic as Land notes that his group is “more concerned about the result than the methodology and process.”  What precisely are the results Land and his supporters seek?  To signal to future generations of illegal immigrants about how they can achieve citizenship and the right to vote; privileges acquired by legal immigrants through hard work and perseverance. 

Politicians definitely need to tackle immigration issues but to do so by uplifting one group and minimizing the difficulties of another is un-American.  Immigration reform needs a careful analysis and must remain a fair practice for all.  As such, the GOP would benefit from remembering to stand up for solid American principles instead of bundling under pressures of the latest threat even if it comes under the guise of “conservative” supporters.

Monday, December 3, 2012

Racism the Wild Card in America


In his recent article Will the Religious Right take on GOP Racism, David Sirota claims that University of Colorado football player and a conservative “white man” Bill McCartney, “is just stating the painfully obvious about a college football world that originally made him famous — namely, that it has a serious problem with institutional racism.”  Sirota manages to present his case cleverly to his readers but he is far from an anti-racist liberator.  If the purpose of his article is to diminish racism in America, he fails miserably. 

Sirota opens his article with provocative quotes chosen to invoke a sense of outrage towards white people as the following examples prove:

 “Ask yourself: If you heard the following comments, what kind of person would you guess said them?  I think men of color have a more difficult road to tread and I think many people don’t realize it.  Now ask yourself: What would your reaction be if you discovered that those comments were made not by a civil rights activist or a liberal politician subsequently being decried as a “race baiter” by right-wing media outlets, but instead by one of the best known Christian conservative icons in America?”

Indeed, Sirota’s example is the legendary Bill McCartney of University of Colorado fame who admitted that racism remains prevalent in academic institutions.  More importantly, (and herein is the main problem with Sirota’s argument) he takes the information a step further and states that, “the scathing comments [are] incredibly important not just in the arena of college football, but also in the larger context of national politics.”  Incredibly, Sirota takes an academic incident and makes it a political situation.  Should one call it insight or clever maneuvering?  Considering that Sirota accuses the “right-wing media outlets” of being “race baiter[s]” but then himself uses the same techniques to entice his readers to target the evil white man, it is impossible to dismiss his grotesquely liberal assertions. 

Sirota touts Obama’s “winning reelection” and warns GOP to pay heed to “the biggest — and most important — internal battle that needs to be fought inside the Republican Party.”  He argues that the GOP cannot “consistently win national elections by relying almost exclusively on the white vote.”  Indeed, his plan of action calls for the “Republican coalition’s most powerful subgroups to wage a ground-up campaign to change the racial views of the party’s grassroots base.”  Lest the Tea Party think Sirota means them, consider his opinion about the Tea Party campaign:  “That initiative almost certainly won’t come from the Tea Party, a majority of whose members are so bigoted (or ignorant … or both).” 

So, is Sirota truly trying to encourage Americans to unite and drop racist attacks against one another?  He would definitely want us to believe so but his attack against white people is obvious.  Why else would he pick a hot topic such as racism in relation to whites against African Americans only?  Why did he choose to skip the Asians or Native Americans altogether?  His defense:  The article is about African Americans.  Why did he not write an article about another race?  As an Asian, should I consider Sirota a racist for his lack of concern towards Asians or does he believe that other races have never experienced racism in America?  Furthermore, is he truly that naïve to believe that racism occurs only between whites against African Americans?  With his superior knowledge on the subject, has he failed to realize that racism can also occur between people of color?  Indeed, Sirota chose his topic because the Asian and Native American groups are unable to generate the type of reaction he needs to remain a bestselling author.  Yes, in the end, Sirota’s article is nothing more than another propaganda tool meant to antagonize Americans and pit them against one another.  After all, how else would he maintain his status and collect a hefty sum for his troubles?  Sadly, for all his care towards the rights of people of color he infringes mercilessly upon the rights of whites who are also Americans.  If we follow suit, we are guilty of falling into the same trap we accuse them of committing against people of color.    

To be sure, racism exists in all avenues of life but to say that it is only towards people of color is hardly true. It is evident that as long as the Sirotas of the world thrive on promoting such prejudice towards fellow Americans, racism will remain alive.  Sirota suggests that “more grassroots religious leaders” should behave as McCartney to break the “code” which defines racism in America today.  He notes that if the GOP hears “the call and seize[s] those opportunities [it] could determine the future of the GOP – and the direction of race relations in America for the long haul.”  We shall see if the GOP will actually follow Sirota’s advice.  In the interim, I have a simpler suggestion:  how about we treat all individuals with the same respect, regardless of their color?  After all, why should anyone have to be ashamed of his or her race?      

 

Saturday, December 1, 2012

The Benghazi Affair and the Search for Truth


Julian Pecquet’s recent essay Rice leaves GOP senators 'significantly troubled' on Benghazi published in The Hill on November 27, 2012 informs readers about the latest development in the Benghazi hearings.  Perhaps the most disturbing part of the essay is the statement:  The trio of hawkish senators didn't definitively rule out voting for her if she's nominated, however.”  After meeting with United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice for more than an hour in a behind closed doors session, the senators remained unconvinced of Rice’s innocence in connection with the Benghazi affair.  If anything, Senator McCain was “significantly disturbed” by Rice’s responses and both Senators Ayotte and Graham remained “more troubled.”   

                Considering Rice “failed” to “convince” the senators of her complete innocence in connection with the Benghazi affair, it is confusing as to why they would still consider “voting for her if she’s nominated” to fill the position as secretary of State.  Exactly, how much proof is enough to make a determination that Rice was at least negligible and therefore unworthy of becoming secretary of State?  As the senators toss over the evidence in hopes of finding answers, the families of four dead Americans continue to wait for the truth. 
 

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Mother Teresa and the Destruction of Christianity


I am not Catholic but I am an Indian. Having lived in India for more than a decade of my life, I know a thing or two about the poor who continuously struggle with abject poverty and hopelessness every day. Thus, an attack against the character and reputation of Mother Teresa is incomprehensible to me. Yet, the ongoing onslaught against Christianity is hardly surprising at all.

The Atheists Humanists Agnostics (AHA) of Dartmouth College plan to consider Mother Teresa’s character by looking through the lenses of Christopher Hitchens’s Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice. According to Hitchens’s Mother Teresa was anything but “good.”[1] Her love and commitment to the poor was simply a façade. The title of the book itself is a strong indicator of Hitchens’s (err) position. Hitchens uses cheap, vulgar, and double meaning to make his case and it is obvious that his interest is merely in selling his book and bagging the funds. Unfortunately, Dartmouth College students blinded by anti-Christian rhetoric are more than happy to support his pathetic cause. It would be interesting to see how many of them have actually done anything to help the poor in their own communities let alone abroad.

It is easy to cast the stone on a woman, now gone forever, who gave up everything to help those who were in deep need. Perhaps these wonderful atheists should consider taking a trip to India and spend one day doing what Mother Teresa did gladly for most of her life. Life in India is hardly as glamorous as Bollywood would have one believe. For the "enlightened" ones who follow Hitchens and listen to the Deepak Chopras of the world, no, the beaches of Goa do not equate to the slums of Calcutta. The heat in itself is enough to make one insane and that is nothing to say of disease, oppression, congestion, filth, or death.

Of course, the idea would hardly occur to these thinkers since the plight of the poor in India is hardly the objective of their gimmick. Indeed, in this case, their idea is to extend a “healthy debate” sitting atop the cushioned seats of Dartmouth College where they rip Christianity to shreds.  After all, how dare Mother Teresa think she could give up everything, travel halfway around the world, live (and die) in the midst of strangers?  How dare she show compassion and love to the poor, an unfortunate group shunned shamelessly by their own society? Such a notion is apparently inconceivable to these godless students. It is unimportant if the poor in India themselves loved Mother Teresa or were grateful for her service.  What is important is that people should have the freedom to debate, defame and destroy Christianity at any cost.  Yes, we should all listen to these great, godless thinkers of Dartmouth College and follow suit without fail. Right.



[1] “Dartmouth atheists to skewer ‘lying, thieving Albanian dwarf’ Mother Teresa,” The Daily Caller.com, last modified November 19, 2012, http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/19/dartmouth-atheists-to-skewer-lying-thieving-albanian-dwarf-mother-teresa/.
 

Saturday, November 10, 2012

The Presidential Election of 2012

“At its core, the Republican Party suffers from whipped-dog syndrome.” – Andrew Breitbart

 

On Tuesday, November 6, 2012, Americans sent a clear message across the world with the re-election of Barack Hussein Obama:  The liberals are here to stay.  The devastating loss for the Republican Party raised many questions as all grappled to find answers after hearing the shocking news.  Obama’s re-election in itself is disturbing enough but the fallout between the supporters and members of the GOP boggles the mind.      

The tally of the last votes had barley arrived before the finger pointing began in the GOP camp.  Perhaps if Mitt Romney had targeted young women better, he would have won the election, argued some.  Others felt that Romney made a poor calculation by remaining passive about the Benghazi affair.  Still more squabbled about Romney’s neglect of the Hispanic voters.  Many ridiculed various political gurus for their overtly positive predictions of a Romney win.  They pondered for days on what change would have been most effective.  Through it all, the liberals gloated, scoffed, and watched the Republicans fall apart at the seams.

Indeed, the GOP needed a change in strategy before the election but now it needs a major overhaul.  For one, they are far from the paragons of virtue.  Consider for instance, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who unashamedly went out of his way to band together with Obama in the wake of hurricane Sandy.  Yet, the state of New Jersey still suffers from the after effects of the storm.  So, what happened to all the money and help Obama supposedly gave to Christie to restore New Jersey?  People in New Jersey continue to suffer and remain without food, housing, and power but at least Obama is back in the White House and Christie still has the Governor’s Mansion, a nice political maneuver for both indeed. 

In another incident, House Speaker John Boehner called Obamacare “the law of the land.”  Excuse me Mr. Speaker but as far as I recall, the United States Constitution IS the law of the land.  What messages are these leaders sending to Americans?  Do they even care?

Evidently, politicians think that Americans are imbeciles and incapable of seeing the truth.  In this, we the people are partly responsible because we have allowed them, Republicans or Democrats, an enormous advantage over us by entrusting them with safeguarding our rights.  Sadly, the only interests many politicians hold dear are the ones that serve their own purposes.  Once they taste power, it becomes virtually impossible to deter them from sharing it with anyone else-least of all with those who put them in office.  Many such politicians go to great lengths to hold onto this power, even at the expense of hurting the fundamental values that once made our nation great.

If the GOP ever wants to resume a place in the White House, it would do well to remember to make the people their priority.  Indeed, treating people respectfully and listening to their issues would go a lot further than lowering their standards and compromising on principles that conservative Americans hold dear.  In the end, giving in to the outrageous demands of liberals may win the GOP the White House temporarily but the problems within our nation will only compound without a true cleansing of the internal system.  Perhaps it is time to consider Breitbart’s suggestion to clean out the “core” and end the “whipped-dog syndrome.”

 

 

Andrew Breitbart, Righteous Indignation:  Excuse Me While I Save the World (New York:  Grand Central Publishing, 2011), 303-304.   

Sunday, October 28, 2012

The Ohioan: President Grant & the Republic


            In an interview given on August 29, 1877 to curious Europeans during his trip overseas, President Ulysses S. Grant explained his view of Americans:

You can always depend upon the good sense of the people of the United States.  They believe in the Republic.  Their flag is to the fore, with strong arms behind it always, and they are sentimental, loyal and brave.  They will never elect a high official except upon a common sense basis.  For that reason I believe – the republican and democratic parties of late being so evenly divided – that the people will be compelled to vote in large majority for the republican candidate, no matter who he may be, because the democrats will do some silly thing that will drive the thinking people from their ranks at the last moment.[1] 

Could Grant have known that just over100 years into the future, his words would resonate with Americans struggling under the worst democratic administration in United States history?  To be sure, in 2008 Americans elected a Democrat, Barack H. Obama, to become President of the United States.  Some Americans would argue today that Obama has successfully taken America further away from the “Republic” Grant once envisioned.  For example, our enemies who once feared us now freely attack and kill Americans abroad because they consider us powerless.  Our currency has lost the strength it once enjoyed; instead, we now live under the heavy burden of debt so enormous that it will continue to affect our children in the future. 

            If re-elected, the future of America under this President would only become worse.  For instance, instead of enjoying a free market enterprise system that would encourage competition and growth, ideas that once built this nation, Americans will need to share their wealth or pay penalties.  Americans will need to forfeit their right to choose basic needs such as healthcare and education because Obama will continue to encroach upon our liberties as he has already done for the last 4 years.  Indeed, Americans will do well to remember that under the Obama administration, the only “pursuit of happiness” which will occur in America will be at the disposal of the President himself.    

            As we edge closer towards Election Day, we must consider our future and choose our President wisely.  Are we using our “common sense,” as Grant suggested, in voting for a candidate who best represents our interests at home and abroad?  Are we voting for someone who carries our “flag to the fore, with strong arms behind it always?” On the other hand, are we voting for a leader who bows his head to lies and apologizes to our enemies?  Does he watch casually as our enemies tear down and burn our flag even as they kill our brethren?  Does he have the courage and character to accept responsibility for his failures in leading the nation or is he quick to blame others around him for his shortcomings?  Indeed, does he place the needs of Americans before his own selfish pursuits? 

            Careful analysis of the last 4 years shows that the democrats have had the opportunity to try many “silly thing[s]” and given another chance, their silliness will only result in more troubling times for all Americans.  Now is the time to rise up from our “ranks” and make a clear choice.  President Grant once called us the “thinking people” and showed a high level of faith in Americans.  Now, we the people must put that faith into practice for ourselves, our children, and for the future of our national Republic.



[1] Ulysses S. Grant, The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant, Volume 28:  November 1, 1876-September 30, 1878 (Carbondale:  Southern Illinois University Press, 2005), url:  http://digital.library.msstate.edu/collections/document.php?CISOROOT=/USG_volume&CISOPTR=26263.
 

 
           

Friday, October 26, 2012

Women's Sexuality & the Great Obama Campaign

 
           The Obama campaign reached a new low today with their latest advertisement meant to persuade young people to vote for the Obama ticket.  In this advertisement, Lena Denham discusses her “first time” and encourages other (presumably) women to vote for Obama because he is a “great guy” who is also “beautiful,” and “someone who really cares about and understands women.”  Complete with sexual innuendos, the advertisement is lewd and offensive to the extreme.  For someone who supposedly “cares about women,” it is sickening to see that President Obama will use any means possible just to win a few votes. 
            Some people may think the advertisement is perfectly acceptable, but precisely what kind of message is the President sending to young voters through such disdainful advertising?  In keeping with his image of the “suave” and “hip” President, he unashamedly allows the use of suggestive language to promote his campaign objective.  This “great guy” neglects to discuss the heavy debt that college students carry and the lack of jobs available to those who have graduated, but uses students freely to promote his agenda. 
            The distasteful advertisement used by the Obama campaign should be offensive to all American women.  Instead, many women find it liberating and support Obama anyway.  It is rather shameful that the women who defend Obama’s campaign are the very same women who would scream sexism if Mr. Romney used the same methods for his campaign.  Obviously, the Obama campaign feels that applying a double standard is completely acceptable whether in regards to gender, race, or class issues as long as it comes from within their folds.  Unfortunately, whether or not American women choose to see the advertisement for what it is, a shameful tactic to promote Obama’s election ticket, rather than to benefit women’s rights, is quite another matter.     


Monday, October 22, 2012

"Join or Die"

 
            In 1800, Americans confronted a unique dilemma.  The heated competition between Alexander Hamilton’s Federalists and Thomas Jefferson’s Republicans had reached a new height in the State of New York.  Under Aaron Burr’s cunning manipulations, the Republican Party in New York underwent extreme changes to the surprise of many Federalists.  Historian Susan Dunn notes that despite the fact that Burr was involved with the Republicans, he “left little evidence of his political convictions or principles.”[1]  Suffice it to say that by the time Burr had worked his “magic” in New York, the results were astounding:  Republicans were far ahead of their Federalist rivals. 
            Burr’s hard work paid off and he became Jefferson’s running mate in the election of 1800, but this did not stop his adversary Hamilton from working diligently to find a way to block Burr’s machinations.  In a letter written to John Jay, Hamilton urgently requested:
 I shall not be supposed to mean that anything ought to be done which integrity will forbid---but merely that the scruples of delicacy and propriety, as relative to a common course of things, ought to yield to the extraordinary nature of the crisis…The reasonable    part of the world will I believe approve it.  They will see it as a proceeding out of the common course but warranted by the particular nature of the Crisis and the great cause of social order.[2]        
Unfortunately, for the Federalists it was too late to change the outcome of the election.  The Republicans had a decided victory over the Federalists with Jefferson and Burr leading the way.  Jefferson took it upon himself to mark Burr as the Vice President by writing a congratulatory note to him in December of 1800.  In this letter, Jefferson promised Burr a position of authority upon his inauguration.[3]   Burr, at the time at least, seemed grateful and willing to oblige with Jefferson’s plans.  While the clash between the two parties was complete, anxieties over the Jefferson/Burr ticket were just becoming clear.  It was obvious that both men had won with equal electoral votes but only one could become the President.  More importantly, according to the Constitution, the House of Representatives would break the tie and select the next President of the United States.
            The Federalists, always afraid of Jefferson’s plans, frantically tried to garner support for Burr in an effort to offset his opponent’s possible win.  Hamilton abhorred the idea of any party supporting Burr and stated disgustedly, “that if the Party Shall by supporting Mr Burr as President adopt him for their official Chief---I shall be obliged to consider myself as an isolated man.”[4]  Hamilton argued that although he felt Jefferson was “crafty” and a shameless “hypocrite,” he was not “an enemy to the power of the Executive” or “capable of being corrupted.”[5]  Both Hamilton and Jefferson understood Burr’s personality very well.  Burr was notoriously selfish and only had his own best interests at heart.  Historian Gordon Wood notes that to both men Burr “violated everything they had thought the American Revolution had been about.”[6]
            By 1800-1801, Hamilton had suffered personal heartache to last a lifetime.  The death of his eldest and most beloved son, Philip Hamilton, in a duel had rendered him a broken man.  Furthermore, after the exposure of the “Reynolds Affair” in 1797, his political life had taken a battering and suffered gravely as well.  Yet, in a way only Hamilton could, he worked energetically to bring the Federalists together and stressed that, “If there be a man in the world I ought to hate it is Jefferson.  With Burr I have always been personally well.  But the public good must be paramount to every private consideration.”[7] 
            On February 17, 1801, Thomas Jefferson became the third President of the United States of America.  On March 4, 1801, in one of the most riveting speeches in our nation’s history, Jefferson declared:
But every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists.  If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.[8]
Clearly, by combining their efforts and joining hands with each other, Jefferson and Hamilton, indeed the Federalists and the Republicans, unified the nation and uplifted the objective of the American Revolution in one clean sweep. 
            As we head to the poll booth this election year, it would do us all good to remember the sentiments behind the American Revolution.  Today, as it was in the election of 1800, the mayhem of party politics remains present.  The question we must ask ourselves then is not which Party to vote for, but which candidate best preserves the true meaning behind the beliefs of “We the People.”  As with Hamilton and Jefferson, perhaps it is time that we “join or die” for those principles which celebrate our fundamental beliefs, for in the end we are all Republicans, we are all Democrats, we are all Tea Partiers, we are all Libertarians, and indeed we are all Americans.              





[1] Susan Dunn, Jefferson’s Second Revolution:  The Election Crisis of 1800 and the Triumph of Republicanism (Boston:  New York, 2004), 179.


[2] Alexander Hamilton, “An Electoral Stratagem,” in Hamilton Writings, ed. Joanne B. Freeman (New York:  Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 2001), 923-924.


[3] Thomas Jefferson, “The Anas. 1791-1806 Selections,“ in Jefferson:  Autobiography, Notes on the State of Virginia, Public and Private Papers, Addresses, Letters, ed. Merrill D. Peterson (New York:  Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), 692.


[4] Alexander Hamilton, “Burr Has ‘No Fixed Theory’ To James A. Bayard,” Hamilton Writings, 977.


[5] Ibid., 978.


[6] Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty:  A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815 (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2009), 284.


[7] Alexander Hamilton, “Jefferson Over Burr to Gouverneur Morris,” Hamilton Writings, 972.


[8] The Avalon Project, “Thomas Jefferson First Inaugural Address,” avalon.law.yale.edu, last modified 2008, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/jefinau1.asp.