Start talking, or forfeit the game

I was all set to go out to breakfast this Saturday. I had tickets to an event that I was very excited about. I had friends who were going to be attending and a good friend, Dana Loesch, who was scheduled to speak.


But a few days ago, as I mentioned in my last post, a few Marines made a poor choice in Afghanistan and, as is wont to happen when Chaos Theory is applied, in O'Fallon, IL, we got stupidity instead of liberty.


After the story broke about the Marines, Dana talked about it on her afternoon radio show. She adamantly supported the Marines, saying that in their place she would "drop trou and do it too."


The storm that followed on Twitter and in the media was a conflagration of people screaming outrage at the treatment of terrorists (or perhaps it was the ethical treatment of animals they were calling for?) while calling for Dana's head on a platter. CNN quickly commented that she was allowed her own opinion but she did not speak for them.


Backed by Andrew Breitbart and others, Dana unraveled the hypocrisy of her progressive attackers.


In spite of the blatantly obvious smear campaign, the Illinois Policy Institute tucked tail and ran, dropping Dana like a hot potato. The Independent Women's Forum, which claims to "provide a voice for American women who believe in individual freedom and personal responsibility," was quick to silence Dana's. And Smart Girl Politics had no choice but to sit on the sidelines and watch it all happen.


Folks, this is our problem. "The sh*t hath hitteth the fan...eth."* What the progressives did to Dana this week is what progressives will do to silence the rest of us. They will isolate us. They will attack us. And they will do it because it works. They will do it because the Illinois Policy Institute would rather avoid negative publicity than uncover and stand up for the truth. They will do it because the voice of one person who is drawing fire is not one that the Independent Women's Forum wants to be seen as defending. They will do it because, time after time, when they do it, we pack up our balls and go home. Sure, we talk about the game being unfair. We talk about the rigged deck and about how they've got all the marbles. But when our compatriots are under fire we don't talk at all.


Start talking, or forfeit the game.


P.S. I did end up going to the breakfast. Afterward, I spoke at length with Kristina Rasmussen - Executive Vice President of the Illinois Policy Institute - about the reasons that Dana was asked not to speak. She said that the comments about the Marines were seen to be too inflammatory and that they had feared that the fervor surrounding those remarks would likely derail the purpose of the event. She didn't even seem aware of the massive attacks on Dana executed by MMfA on Twitter and other social media sites.


I should have asked Kristina if, considering the turnout, she felt that the organization had made the right call. Given the number of unclaimed nametags and the number of empty seats, she would have had a difficult time making that case.  


I am personally of the opinion that if there was malicious intent in removing Dana from the program it came from higher up than Kristina, but regardless, the damage was done. Whether or not the action was taken in response to the progressive push to get Dana fired, it looks like it was. Whether or not three independent non-partisan and conservative voices circled their wagons and threw Dana - a fellow conservative - to the wolves, it looks like they did. And whether or not MMfA won this round, it looks like they did. 


*10 Things I Hate About You

There but for the grace of God...

I'm sure by now you've heard the news. U.S. Marines made an inexplicably bad judgment call and chose to express their anger and frustration by urinating on the corpses of dead Taliban fighters. They made an even poorer judgment call to capture the entire escapade on video. 


Since then there has been a virtual firestorm of hatred flying at the Marines - from Leon Panetta and Hillary Clinton publicly condemning their actions to long Twitter streams filled with gems such as "Marines are barbaric, evil and violent. They should burn in hell." 


I'm sure that you have also heard that Dana Loesch, for having the audacity to stand up for the Marines, is the devil. I personally agree with the great Patch Adams (no, not that Patch Adams) whose response to the whole mess could be summed up in one sentence: "You weren't there, you don't know what you would have done, shut up."


I don't like what those Marines did. I think the action was deplorable. What's worse, it cuts the legs out from under us when we voice our own outrage when Taliban soldiers or terrorists mistreat the bodies of our dead. If we sink to their level, then we can no longer claim to be better than that which we fight against. (I am not equating urinating on a corpse with dragging dismembered bodies through the streets or decapitating prisoners on live video feeds, only saying that it damages our position if we claim to be better than that.) 


As Americans we do not treat others the way that we do because it is what they deserve. We do it because we hold ourselves to a higher standard even when we’ve been struck down, hurt or crippled. After all, if we sink to their level and treat their bodies the way they would treat ours - or even the way we would like to sometimes - then we are no better than those we guard ourselves against.


That being said, as much as the behavior of those Marines bothers me, the hypocrisy of those who are currently attacking them bothers me more. Dana does an excellent job of pointing out that hypocrisy, drawing attention to the fact that these same people who are furious with the Marines for letting off steam (admittedly in a fashion that is at best ill-advised) were silent when the bodies of 200 Air Force members were unceremoniously dumped in a landfill.


Even worse than that, in my mind, is the fact that these same people, who believe in their hearts that it's wrong and reprehensible to take a leak on the body of someone who until ten minutes ago was actively trying to kill you, also believe in their hearts that vacuuming an unborn child from a mother's womb is a perfectly reasonable action. 


Let me be clear: They would rather see a woman punish a helpless and innocent child for simply existing than see a few Marines take revenge on someone whose goal is to take the United States down a peg.


I guess what I'm really saying is this: While I am mad at the Marines for choosing to do something so stupid, I am madder at the culture that allows the mainstream media to get away with pointing a finger at the Marines who are guilty of bad judgment while giving a pass to people who are committing much more egregious acts on a daily basis.


And for those who insist that, if they had been there, they would not have behaved in such a manner, I have one thing to say: There but for the grace of God go we all.

Stop Buying Snake Oil!

A traveling salesman comes to town, offering a tonic that he swears will cure any problem you have. Fever, aches, pains, heartburn, rheumatism, arthritis, hot sweats, cold sweats...you get the idea.

Having suffered chronic pain for months with no hope of a cure, you jump at the chance to finally feel better. You take the tonic for a month, and though you don't notice any change you take comfort in the fact that the salesman told you that it could take some time to begin working. As luck would have it, just as you are shaking the last drops from your bottle, you get word that the salesman is back in town. You rush to his stand to refill your supply of the miracle drug.

When you arrive, however, there seems to be a bit of commotion. The salesman's assistant is doing his best to restrain a young man near the front of the crowd. 

"It's all lies!" the young man shouts. "This man promised my sister a cure and his snake oil killed her!"

Concerned that the young man will scare the salesman off, keeping you from acquiring your next dose of the tonic, you and a few others in the crowd help the assistant restrain the young man and move him away from the gathered crowd.

"You have to help me," the young man turns to you. "Let me go back and tell them the truth. I'm a doctor. I can help you if you're sick."

Angry at the audacity of the young man, you snap at him, "How can you discredit that great man. He has cured me of my chronic pain! Now, be gone! No one here needs your kind of medicine."

You stomp back to the salesman's cart, all the while fuming over the young man who nearly cost you the next month's supply of your cure. True, it really hasn't begun to work yet, but it will soon. You have no doubt of that...

Now imagine that the salesman is the GOP. For years you have been eating up their brand of big government solutions to small government problems as the only real cure for America's problems. You are the GOP voters. 

The screaming young man is the Tea Party - hated by the snake oil salesman (the GOP) because, as a legitimate doctor, he has the ability to expose him for what he really is, and hated by the patients (you, the voters) who bought the snake oil and would prefer not to see it proven that they have been made to look foolish by a fraud and a cheater.

The problem is that the screaming young man is right. But no one hates the real practitioner more than the snake oil salesman and the people he has fooled.

Intellectually Transmitted Disease (ITD) PSA

People don't think that I notice, but I do. 


I see the people shifting ever so slightly away from me when I sit down on a bus or a train. 


I see people choosing a longer line at the supermarket checkout to avoid standing too close to me.


I sit alone in the cafeteria at school while other students walk by, either avoiding my gaze altogether or immediately glancing away.


I overhear the gossip at school and sometimes even at church:


"Do you think it's catching?"


"I'm afraid she might accidentally touch me."


"Her whole family has it, you know."




Well, I'll be the first to admit that I have conservatism. And I'll probably do my best to infect you with it, to be honest. But unless you love liberty and learn to think for yourself, you're in no danger of actually catching it.

I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist

There has been uproar recently over a prayer banner that was removed from a public school on  judge's orders. The question, as always, was whether or not hanging that prayer banner violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. 


The question in my mind is "why is that even a question?" The Establishment Clause does one thing and one thing only: It bars Congress from writing a law that "establishes" an official religion of the United States. Since the public schools are overseen by the state, this should be a state's rights issue under the 10th Amendment rather than an establishment issue under the first. But even if you insist on applying the federal statute in this case: hanging the banner in no way establishes any religion. Period. 


You say that it affirms the existence of God? Not really. It "affirms the existence of God" in the same way that a poster of Clifford the Big Red Dog on a kindergarten classroom affirms the existence of dump truck-sized house pets. You are free to believe it or not, but the presence of the poster does not mean that the teacher, the school board or the state believe it to be true.


But the issue really goes deeper than that. What is so offensive about the presence of a prayer banner that means nothing to you if you claim to be an atheist? (Let me take this opportunity to say that that I am not out to attack those who claim the title "atheist.") The amount of offense taken suggests that the person complaining has had his own religious beliefs attacked. But wait, an atheist has no religion...right? 


Not according to the courts, anyway:

Kaufman v. McCaughtry

2005. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rules that a Wisconsin inmate barred from reading scientific books was being unconstitutionally prevented from exercising his religion - atheism - which values logic and reason and the scientific method for study.

Torcaso v. Watkins

1961. Supreme Court states that for a philosophy to qualify as a religion there need not be a deity involved. Listed in the decision as religions with no deity are Buddhism, Taoism, and Secular Humanism, among others. 


The philosophy religion known as Secular Humanism also goes by another name: atheism.

Anyone who has ever had the pleasure of conversing with a truly devout atheist knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that atheism is a religion. The dedicated atheist will be sure to tell you as often (and as loudly) as possible how illogical it is to believe in the Bible since a)there is no God and b)even if there was one, there is no way to scientifically prove that he exists and the Bible is, in fact, his word. 


He will then proceed to tell you, with a straight face, that evolution is indisputable (even though spontaneous generation can't be duplicated, there are no fossils that even sort of indicate cross-genus mutation, and carbon dating is at best unreliable). 


He will also tell you that Global Warming is real and it is all our fault because we want industrialization and cars and hairspray (even though the earth's climate changed radically multiple times before humans even existed), and while he tells you this he will be texting a friend on his iphone.

To the Atheist, the process is the supreme being. Logic. Reason. Science. That which cannot be proven empirically has no meaning. While the Christian proclaims faith in that which he does not see, the devout atheist denies that which he does not see and belittles anyone who claims that it does, in fact, exist.

The irony is that the Atheist, in making science the de facto supreme being, actually takes many more leaps of faith than does the Christian. The Christian needs only to take one: God exists. If he exists, then the rest - the fact that he created our world and gave us his word that we might understand him better - and all that follows, follows without any additional faith required. 


The atheist must take a new leap of faith every time science advances. Why? Because science is not the study of facts or ideas that have been proven. Science is the study of ideas that have yet to be proven wrong. The possibility exists that everything we know about science could change at any time. The atheist has to either be prepared to change with the science, or have faith that it never will. History suggests that depending on the unchanging nature of science is likely to be an exercise in extreme futility.


I am not a Christian because I have a lot of faith. I am a Christian because "I do not have enough faith to be an atheist." (Norman Geisler, Frank Turek)

New Hampshire Surprise

This isn't what you might think. There were no surprises in the GOP primary in New Hampshire yesterday. Romney won by a healthy margin (predictably), with Paul and Huntsman taking the second and third spots. A weakened Gingrich barely squeaked by Santorum to claim the fourth spot, and Perry (who conceded New Hampshire in an effort to campaign hard in South Carolina) drew 1% of the vote. 


As I said, no surprise there. Anyone paying attention could have predicted that spread with the possible exception of the order concerning Gingrich and Santorum. 


The surprise came in the primary that no one was watching. While everyone was paying attention to the infighting and name-calling that the GOP was more than happy to provide, there was also a democratic primary held in New Hampshire yesterday. Incumbent President Barack Obama ran virtually unopposed, and claimed a hefty 82% of the vote. The important thing to notice here is that 18% of democrats went out of their way to make a statement by voting against him. 10% of those were write-ins. 


For a little comparison - in 2004, George W. Bush faced the New Hampshire primary as an incumbent President. He got just over 79% of the vote. But wait, it sounds like he did worse than Obama did this year... until you realize that in the New Hampshire GOP primary in 2004, George W. Bush faced 13 challengers, none of whom received more than 1.2% of the vote. In 1992, facing one or two token challengers, Bill Clinton also won primaries with approximately 80% of the vote.


The difference? Clinton and Bush received around 80% of the vote with other candidates challenging them. Current President Barack Obama is winning by the same margins - with no challengers. Perhaps that bodes well for those that would challenge him in the future.

Convictions for Sale? Vote Romney!

Pragmatism: a philosophical movement or system having various forms, but generally stressing practical consequences as constituting the essential criterion in determining meaning,truth, or value.

Hmm. Given that definition, I would have to agree with those who say that Mitt Romney is a pragmatist. But while Michael Gerson of the Washington Post praises him for it, I cannot do the same. While I agree that some decisions must be made with a certain degree of pragmatism or practicality, there is a danger in allowing all decisions to be made only considering pragmatism and practicality. 

The risk inherent in being a pure pragmatist is that no new venture can truly be undertaken. Every new idea will be hamstrung by the claim that the old ways work, and even modification of the old ways would likely lead to failure. Pure pragmatism leaves America undiscovered and humanity unevolved.

Pragmatism in politics is the same, except it's worse. The pragmatic approach to elections is to determine which candidate is likely to offend the fewest number of people - making him/her "electable." The problem here is that truth is very often offensive. The candidate that strives for truth then becomes the least electable because people find him offensive. The candidate that seeks to obscure truth in order to offend fewer people becomes the most electable. In the case of Romney, Gerson makes the following point:

"Romney has this advantage: In supporting him, no Republican is called upon to surrender his or her deepest ideological convictions. Romney is temperamentally conservative but not particularly ideological. He reserves his enthusiasm for quantitative analysis and organizational discipline. He seems to view the cultural and philosophic debates that drive others as distractions from the real task of governing — making systems work. 

His competitors have attempted to portray Romney’s ideological inconsistency over time as a character failure. It hasn’t worked, mainly because Romney is a man of exemplary character — deeply loyal to his faith, his family and his country. But he clearly places political ideology in a different category of fidelity. Like Dwight Eisenhower, Romney is a man of vague ideology and deep values. In political matters, he is empirical and pragmatic. He studies problems, assesses risks, calculates likely outcomes. Those expecting Romney to be a philosophic leader will be disappointed."

And Gerson may be right. Romney may indeed be a man of exemplary character...at home. But the voting public needs to be concerned with the character he shows when holding an elected office. For example, Romney explained away the criticisms of RomneyCare by suggesting that he had weighed the outcome and done what was practical and sensible - he went along with the majority lest they go along without him. Thus he did what was practical and pragmatic for Romney, not necessarily what was sensible for the people - after all, RomneyCare proceeded to bankrupt the state of Massachusetts, leading them to request a federal bailout in 2008.


Gerson also suggests that Romney is not terribly "ideological." So let's look at what the dictionary has to say about that:


Ideology:the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.


If pragmatism becomes the "body of doctrine" that is guiding Mitt Romney - as his time in office would lead us to believe - then pragmatism, is in fact his ideology. An ideology based solely on what is most practical at the time will give us a leader who waits until the chips start to fall before he places his bet - a Commander in Chief who waits to see which side is likely to win before he declares allegiance. It give us a President whose understanding of principle extends only as far as the political expediency of a given principle.

The risk inherent in electing a pure pragmatist is that we do need to surrender deep ideological convictions to do so. We place our power in the hands of someone who claims no such convictions. We give our voices to someone who has told us - in actions if not in words - that our convictions will be bought and sold in the name of political convenience.