Enough is enough. The war between the colors has got to end.
If the United States of America is ever going to heal from the wounds of her past, then we need to stop picking at the scabs. Otherwise, the injuries suffered her will become permanent scars.
I fear that they already are.
And we only have ourselves to blame.
The issue of race has been a central topic of debate since the earliest beginnings of our nation. Founding fathers John Adams and Thomas Jefferson held universal beliefs about the fundamental rights of men and recognized the suppression of those rights via the racist institution of slavery. Many founders, including slave owners Jefferson and Washington, came to see slavery as a wrong that needed to be righted. They just differed on how that was to be done. Some, like Adams, sought an immediate end to the practice, while others felt a gradual decline in the use of and demand for slave labor was necessary to avoid severe social and economic consequences.
Washington and Jefferson both believed that a sudden stop to slavery would not only cripple the economy of the American South, but would also turn loose thousands of people unprepared to take care of themselves and their families.
This perspective was paternalistic, to be sure, but it was a widely held view of the 18th and 19th centuries.
Unfortunately, Eli Whitney’s invention of the cotton gin dramatically changed the dynamics of slavery and set back its end about another 70 years. Had there been no invention that increased the demand for slave labor, then the practice could well have ended a half century before it actually did.
Regardless, racial debates increased as the notion of Civil War became an inevitable reality. Irreconcilable differences between North and South resulted in long-term social consequences that are still felt very strongly today.
During Reconstruction, bitter whites formed supremacist groups like the Ku Klux Klan to take out their anger and frustrations on former slaves and free blacks. That bitterness wasn’t just confined to the war-torn South, either. Racism spread into the industrialized North, where former slaves and free blacks competed with whites for jobs. Many white workers resented the fact that the black man was competing with them for work.
The sad reality is that black Americans found no more success up north as free men than they had on Southern plantations in bondage. Escaped slaves prior to and during the Civil War discovered that hatred and resentment toward them existed perhaps more so up north as in the south. Likewise, former slaves learned that life as free men had its share of severe consequences formidable to those in bondage.
Since the Civil War, America has made slow, gradual progress toward racial equality, beginning with Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation of 1862, which brought an official end to slavery in the United States. An amendment was later added to the Constitution, giving black men the right to vote and participate in this great republican democracy experiment. Gains toward equality would be painfully slow after that as America recovered from the deep wounds inflicted on her during the Civil War. In fact, it wasn’t until the 1950s that racial equality was looked at seriously and significant strides were made in its name.
But since then, America has been living up to its declarative promises more so than at any other period in her history. We ought to be proud of the lessons learned and accomplishments made toward racial equality, reconciliation and opportunity.
Sadly, though, we aren’t.
At a time when Americans ought to celebrate a coming of age of their nation’s enduring promises, we prefer instead to hold onto old vices, grudges and memories out of guilt and retaliation.
Many whites harbor the guilt of past wrongs inflicted by their ancestors upon others. Likewise, many blacks and other ethnic minorities brood over past wrongs done to their ancestors.
Reliving the past is no way to get beyond it. Yet, people like the Revs. Jeremiah Wright, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson want to keep pounding the nail and turning the screw tighter.
It’s one thing to remember the lessons of the past, but quite another to relive and revive wrongs that ought to be allowed to rest in peace.
Too many minority leaders today aren’t willing to do this, because racial reconciliation and lasting peace will mean an end to their individual power and influence. Who would need the Wrights, Sharptons or Jacksons of the world if people were to let go of their guilt and resentment? No one.
And that is why race continues to be a hot topic today. The so-called voices of the down-trodden need it to be if they are to remain relevant. Otherwise, they fade into history and obscurity.
We ought to be under no illusions: Racism between ethnic groups will always exist.
Racism today cuts across ethnic lines. Because of deep-seeded resentments, minorities have come to hate both the majority as well as one another. In the inner cities, neighborhoods have been divided by race and are often pitted against each other in a power struggle for racial superiority.
Contrary to what many academic sociologists have come to believe, racism is not institutional; meaning that it is a white-only problem, because the white institution is continually regarded as the majority.
Rather, racism is a personal problem that infects the heart and the mind. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines racism as (1) “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race; and (2) racial prejudice or discrimination.”
The fact that racism is a belief confirms that it is a problem of the human heart that knows no color.
The Black Panthers were a group of racist black crusaders intent on exacting revenge on white society. The Mexican group “La Raza” also seeks retribution against the so-called American “majority” for sins of the past, including the seizure of lands in the American Southwest as a result of the Mexican-American War. Oddly enough, “La Raza” translates into English as “The Race.”
In truth, racism can never be completely extinguished, because it is based upon innate human fear of change, the unknown and of differences. For this reason, we must not ignore history and its lessons.
However, we also must not fall into the trap of pessimism and cynicism by harboring unnecessary guilt, shame, resentment and hatred toward one another for the wrongs of the past.
Some of my ancestors were Southerners, and some may have even owned slaves. But what my ancestors did in their time does not reflect on my time. I’m a different person than they were, and just because there may have been a scarlet letter somewhere on my family tree does not mean I should bear it on my branch. I harbor no guilt for slavery or racism, because I know in my heart that I find slavery offensive and the idea of racial inequality unjust.
Those whites who cling to a guilty conscience in order to liberate themselves from the sins of the past are only fooling themselves. By bearing this guilt, they unnecessarily carry the chains of regret and shame along with them. Consequently, they end up living in deep-seeded misery all their lives, making themselves feel as though they are never truly free, but rather in a constant state of moral probation.
Conversely, ethnic minorities ought to be willing to let go of their grudges held over past mistreatment and injustices. Forcing whites to relive the sins of their fathers only causes resentment in the direction of hatred.
In recent years, certain minority advocacy groups have demanded reparations of the United States government over wrongs done to their ancestors. Not only is this a classic case of people unwilling to let go of the past, but it is also pure, unadulterated greed. Make no mistake: The demand for reparations is nothing more than an effort to get money, as though money will solve our nation’s racial problems. Money is like law: It is tangible, temporary relief that simply coats the wound like an ointment, making us feel better until its soothing effects subside. Then we just coat it again and again.
Unfortunately, all we end up doing is giving ourselves temporary pain relief. But we do nothing to treat the wound and let it heal. Rather, we have picked at it, and now, the wound has become infected.
If we aren’t careful and don’t seek meaningful treatment for our injuries, then the infection will spread to the point where permanent damage can occur.
Should the Wrights, Sharptons and Jacksons have their way, the wounds of America’s decades long race war will end up claiming her life.
If there is ever to be any further progress toward racial reconciliation and a realistic end to the war, then the American people as one need to forgive and forget what has been done. When I say forget, I mean to say that we ought not hold on to bitter memories, but rather let go and move on. This isn’t to suggest that we should ignore history or forget its lessons. But certainly, there can be no forgiveness if at first a person is unwilling to forget and let go of the past.
Whites must be willing to forgive themselves and their ancestors, while minorities must be willing to forgive what had been done to their ancestors.
Without forgiveness, there can be no real, meaningful healing. There can be no peace, no armistice, no end to the war.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Monday, March 24, 2008
Separation clause not in the Constitution
Since the days of Clarence Darrow nearly a century ago, God has been systematically removed from the public eye. It began in the schools, where science curriculum adopted the theory of evolution as the basis for teaching human origin, while biblical Creationism was spurned. God would later be denied any and all access to schools, be it through curriculum, extra curriculum or even customs.
Today, public school students are not allowed to gather in prayer during school, at sporting events or assemblies. Praying around the school flag pole on the National Day of Prayer is discouraged, but it probably won’t be long before even this is prohibited.
As it is, God and His Word have not only been banned from public schools, but also the courtroom, public lands and public grounds in general.
How could this be? Who is God hurting? What is His Word offending?
The rationale behind this insanity is supposedly wrapped in the “separation of church and state” clause of the United States Constitution. The problem is that no such clause exists in America’s founding legal document.
Those whose agenda it has been to push God out of sight and mind have cited the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, specifically the clause that begins, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” as the basis for their argument.
But this clause of the First Amendment is rather explicit in its meaning: “Congress” shall make no law. Where is the Congressional law that placed the Ten Commandments in our courtrooms, promoted prayer in schools, or even instituted the invocation held to open every session of Congress?
None exists.
Yet, the so-called “separation” clause is invoked whenever there’s an issue of God and religion—read that “Christian” religion—in public.
The truth about the “separation” clause lies in some obscure papers written by Thomas Jefferson on the subject of state-sanctioned religion. Jefferson was addressing the need to avoid what happened in Great Britain, where the Church of England controlled much of what went on in government. Jefferson argued that laws passed for the purpose of establishing a state religion were in fundamental contrast to basic human rights as well as the virtues of a free republic.
What he did not say is that God should be removed from government. On the contrary, Jefferson was a spiritual man with reverence for God, his Creator. After all, it was Jefferson who penned the following in our 1776 Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Clearly, Jefferson was no advocate of either a secular society or government. What he did espouse, though, was a neutral and impartial government that neither endorsed nor sanctioned nor denied the existence of any particular religion. What he envisioned was a land that embraced religious liberty to assemble and practice with a government standing at the ready to defend this freedom. He did not want religion telling government what to do any more than he wanted government telling religion what to do.
Unfortunately today, government is telling religion what it can and cannot do, and where it can and cannot do it. What’s lacking, though, is a valid explanation of why.
Simply invoking the “separation” clause is not enough to justify restricting the free exercise of religion, which, by the way, happens to come directly after the so-called “separation” clause in the First Amendment. Separationists conveniently ignore this very important, and in fact, most significant part of the First Amendment, because it is supposed to prevent them from eliminating the very existence of religion from public life. This has been the end goal of separationists for decades.
So, all of this leads me to ask just one very important question: Why are we allowing it to happen?
Indeed, if the Constitution is supposed to protect the rights of you and me to pray and worship wherever, whenever and however we wish, then why are we allowing the government to tell us when, where and how we must practice our religion? Why are we tolerating a government that tells us we can’t exercise our religion in public?
Why are so many people silent on this issue?
The answer is ignorance.
Many Americans don’t even know what the First Amendment says in its entirety, much less what it means. We have been dumbed down in our schools, yes, the very ones that have kicked God off their premises. We aren’t taught the U.S. Constitution in depth. We don’t study its meaning.
So, when a so-called legal expert cites the “separation” clause in defense of a law banning religion, people assume that the expert must be right with regard to what the law actually says.
But I wager that if even 51 percent of the people actually took the time to read, study and learn the U.S. Constitution, many of the laws suppressing religion and God, in particular, would not see the light of day, because such legislation would be stopped before it even reached the floor for a vote.
If God and His Word are to ever be restored back to prominence in America, then “We the People” must first begin to care. We must take an interest in the law, especially the Constitution, where so many of our freedoms are secured, yet come under assault every day by those seeking to change the framework from within.
Unless we are willing to be “within,” then we can continue to expect more of the same manipulation by our leaders and the interest groups and lobbyists who lead them.
Because we have not cared, the phrase “under God” is routinely being taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance; the Ten Commandments were yanked from an Alabama courthouse and an honorable judge lost his job because he felt God’s laws were worth defending; high school students can no longer pray outloud at football games or any other school event; the Gideons are not allowed to leave their complimentary pocket Bibles on classroom desks; our children can no longer be excused during the school day to attend weekly church schools; Creation is considered scientific heresy; and kids are not allowed to pray together while in school.
I suppose we ought to count our blessings that “In God We Trust” still exists on our currency; the bailiff still requires us to swear on a Bible before taking the witness stand in a court of law; and the United States Congress opens every session with a prayer invocation.
But mark my words: Unless we begin to care, then even these things will soon disappear. Last to be touched will be worship in our own homes. Who’s to stop the separationists from going that far if they think they can get away with it? Hmmm?
Today, public school students are not allowed to gather in prayer during school, at sporting events or assemblies. Praying around the school flag pole on the National Day of Prayer is discouraged, but it probably won’t be long before even this is prohibited.
As it is, God and His Word have not only been banned from public schools, but also the courtroom, public lands and public grounds in general.
How could this be? Who is God hurting? What is His Word offending?
The rationale behind this insanity is supposedly wrapped in the “separation of church and state” clause of the United States Constitution. The problem is that no such clause exists in America’s founding legal document.
Those whose agenda it has been to push God out of sight and mind have cited the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, specifically the clause that begins, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” as the basis for their argument.
But this clause of the First Amendment is rather explicit in its meaning: “Congress” shall make no law. Where is the Congressional law that placed the Ten Commandments in our courtrooms, promoted prayer in schools, or even instituted the invocation held to open every session of Congress?
None exists.
Yet, the so-called “separation” clause is invoked whenever there’s an issue of God and religion—read that “Christian” religion—in public.
The truth about the “separation” clause lies in some obscure papers written by Thomas Jefferson on the subject of state-sanctioned religion. Jefferson was addressing the need to avoid what happened in Great Britain, where the Church of England controlled much of what went on in government. Jefferson argued that laws passed for the purpose of establishing a state religion were in fundamental contrast to basic human rights as well as the virtues of a free republic.
What he did not say is that God should be removed from government. On the contrary, Jefferson was a spiritual man with reverence for God, his Creator. After all, it was Jefferson who penned the following in our 1776 Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Clearly, Jefferson was no advocate of either a secular society or government. What he did espouse, though, was a neutral and impartial government that neither endorsed nor sanctioned nor denied the existence of any particular religion. What he envisioned was a land that embraced religious liberty to assemble and practice with a government standing at the ready to defend this freedom. He did not want religion telling government what to do any more than he wanted government telling religion what to do.
Unfortunately today, government is telling religion what it can and cannot do, and where it can and cannot do it. What’s lacking, though, is a valid explanation of why.
Simply invoking the “separation” clause is not enough to justify restricting the free exercise of religion, which, by the way, happens to come directly after the so-called “separation” clause in the First Amendment. Separationists conveniently ignore this very important, and in fact, most significant part of the First Amendment, because it is supposed to prevent them from eliminating the very existence of religion from public life. This has been the end goal of separationists for decades.
So, all of this leads me to ask just one very important question: Why are we allowing it to happen?
Indeed, if the Constitution is supposed to protect the rights of you and me to pray and worship wherever, whenever and however we wish, then why are we allowing the government to tell us when, where and how we must practice our religion? Why are we tolerating a government that tells us we can’t exercise our religion in public?
Why are so many people silent on this issue?
The answer is ignorance.
Many Americans don’t even know what the First Amendment says in its entirety, much less what it means. We have been dumbed down in our schools, yes, the very ones that have kicked God off their premises. We aren’t taught the U.S. Constitution in depth. We don’t study its meaning.
So, when a so-called legal expert cites the “separation” clause in defense of a law banning religion, people assume that the expert must be right with regard to what the law actually says.
But I wager that if even 51 percent of the people actually took the time to read, study and learn the U.S. Constitution, many of the laws suppressing religion and God, in particular, would not see the light of day, because such legislation would be stopped before it even reached the floor for a vote.
If God and His Word are to ever be restored back to prominence in America, then “We the People” must first begin to care. We must take an interest in the law, especially the Constitution, where so many of our freedoms are secured, yet come under assault every day by those seeking to change the framework from within.
Unless we are willing to be “within,” then we can continue to expect more of the same manipulation by our leaders and the interest groups and lobbyists who lead them.
Because we have not cared, the phrase “under God” is routinely being taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance; the Ten Commandments were yanked from an Alabama courthouse and an honorable judge lost his job because he felt God’s laws were worth defending; high school students can no longer pray outloud at football games or any other school event; the Gideons are not allowed to leave their complimentary pocket Bibles on classroom desks; our children can no longer be excused during the school day to attend weekly church schools; Creation is considered scientific heresy; and kids are not allowed to pray together while in school.
I suppose we ought to count our blessings that “In God We Trust” still exists on our currency; the bailiff still requires us to swear on a Bible before taking the witness stand in a court of law; and the United States Congress opens every session with a prayer invocation.
But mark my words: Unless we begin to care, then even these things will soon disappear. Last to be touched will be worship in our own homes. Who’s to stop the separationists from going that far if they think they can get away with it? Hmmm?
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Where is the choice?
I know why abortion opponents call themselves “pro-life,” which makes sense because abortion takes life.
But I do not understand the reasoning behind why abortion supporters consider their movement “pro choice.” They say it is because they support a woman’s right to choose whether to go through with her pregnancy or terminate it.
Unfortunately, pro-choicers fail to explain why they support such “choice” that denies the unborn the right to choose whether or not to be born.
The pro-choice movement considers an unborn child as belonging to a woman as though he or she was property or an organ of the body essential for function.
Well, it’s evident that a baby is neither property nor an organ. But the abortion lobby rationalizes that a fetus is not really human while in the womb, but rather a mass or ball of flesh incapable of thought, being or realization of self. Forget the fact that a fetus develops into and becomes a human baby that eventually realizes itself, thinks and is. What matters to the pro-choicer is that here and now, a fetus does not look human. Therefore, it is not human and cannot be counted as human life.
But the bare truth is that a fetus is entirely human; perhaps not yet in form, but certainly in function and biology. The fetus is an unrealized individual with a beating heart and developing brain that will soon become just like the ones we have. It is flesh, blood and bone just like us. It feels and hurts just like us. In fact, a fetus is entirely autonomous and sentient in its ability to feel, perceive and think. A developing fetus is entirely conscious of itself and its needs. That's why it kicks in the womb when it's happy or excited; it moves around when uncomfortable in order to get comfortable; and it communicates to the mother through the umbilical cord when it is hungry.
Again, I ask, what choice does an unborn individual have with regard to his or her life? What say do they have in choosing whether to live or die?
The answer is none. Pro-choice, while an advocate for a woman’s “right” to choose, denies the right of choice to the unborn.
Furthermore, pro-choice denies the right of the people to choose.
The abortion lobby has manipulated the law and used the courts—including the United States Supreme Court, the nation’s highest court—to rule in its favor and establish abortion as the law of the land.
If being pro-choice really means favoring the individual’s rights to choose, then why don’t pro-choicers support the right of individual states to choose whether or not to allow abortion? The answer is because pro-choice isn’t really about choice at all. It’s about abortion and nothing else.
Why was the will of the people, through democratic process, subverted on the way to the Supreme Court in 1973? The reason is that pro-choicers knew then as they know now that the vast majority of the people support neither abortion nor the agenda of its lobby.
If the issue of abortion was left up to the people in each state, then most states would likely limit or restrict its practice. Then again, this is why the pro-choice movement went straight for the jugular. The abortion lobby appealed its case not to the American people, but before a panel of nine judges, the majority of whom have been sympathetic to the so-called “right to choose.”
Pro-choicers argue that abortion is a right by virtue of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which begins with “The right of the people to be secure in their persons…”
In return, we got Roe v. Wade and 35 years of taxpayer-funded abortion on demand in spite of what the majority may or may not have wanted.
Two hundred and thirty years ago, American colonists cried out against taxation without representation and called that tyranny.
If tyranny is measured by the lack of representation in the decisions of government, then abortion is oppression in its most fundamental form.
Roe v. Wade is not only an unjust law, but also an unconstitutional one that denies the rights of states to pass their own laws concerning abortion.
The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the last of the Bill of Rights dictates, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
This is written to mean that the people of individual states have the right to govern independently of the federal government. Congress is supposed to function within the bounds of the Constitution and let the people determine the course of their respective states.
I say, let’s put 35 years of ferocious debate over abortion finally to rest by bringing it up to a vote of the people. Let each state decide whether or not to legalize the practice and under what terms within its own borders.
If a woman wants an abortion that is prohibited in her state, then she can move to or cross the border into a state that allows the practice.
Why should an entire nation—a republic no less—be forced to suffer the foibles of a few zealots who have used abortion as a means of securing power for themselves?
When you get right down to where the rubber meets the road, that is exactly what pro-choice is all about: Giving power to those few with an agenda they want to push onto everyone else—including those of us who don’t want what they are selling.
Indeed, pro-choice offers perhaps the greatest contradiction in terms and action. While the choice of some is championed, the choice of many others—most notably the unborn—is scorned.
So to the pro-choicers, I ask, what exactly is the choice? It seems like we have no other choice but to accept theirs.
But I do not understand the reasoning behind why abortion supporters consider their movement “pro choice.” They say it is because they support a woman’s right to choose whether to go through with her pregnancy or terminate it.
Unfortunately, pro-choicers fail to explain why they support such “choice” that denies the unborn the right to choose whether or not to be born.
The pro-choice movement considers an unborn child as belonging to a woman as though he or she was property or an organ of the body essential for function.
Well, it’s evident that a baby is neither property nor an organ. But the abortion lobby rationalizes that a fetus is not really human while in the womb, but rather a mass or ball of flesh incapable of thought, being or realization of self. Forget the fact that a fetus develops into and becomes a human baby that eventually realizes itself, thinks and is. What matters to the pro-choicer is that here and now, a fetus does not look human. Therefore, it is not human and cannot be counted as human life.
But the bare truth is that a fetus is entirely human; perhaps not yet in form, but certainly in function and biology. The fetus is an unrealized individual with a beating heart and developing brain that will soon become just like the ones we have. It is flesh, blood and bone just like us. It feels and hurts just like us. In fact, a fetus is entirely autonomous and sentient in its ability to feel, perceive and think. A developing fetus is entirely conscious of itself and its needs. That's why it kicks in the womb when it's happy or excited; it moves around when uncomfortable in order to get comfortable; and it communicates to the mother through the umbilical cord when it is hungry.
Again, I ask, what choice does an unborn individual have with regard to his or her life? What say do they have in choosing whether to live or die?
The answer is none. Pro-choice, while an advocate for a woman’s “right” to choose, denies the right of choice to the unborn.
Furthermore, pro-choice denies the right of the people to choose.
The abortion lobby has manipulated the law and used the courts—including the United States Supreme Court, the nation’s highest court—to rule in its favor and establish abortion as the law of the land.
If being pro-choice really means favoring the individual’s rights to choose, then why don’t pro-choicers support the right of individual states to choose whether or not to allow abortion? The answer is because pro-choice isn’t really about choice at all. It’s about abortion and nothing else.
Why was the will of the people, through democratic process, subverted on the way to the Supreme Court in 1973? The reason is that pro-choicers knew then as they know now that the vast majority of the people support neither abortion nor the agenda of its lobby.
If the issue of abortion was left up to the people in each state, then most states would likely limit or restrict its practice. Then again, this is why the pro-choice movement went straight for the jugular. The abortion lobby appealed its case not to the American people, but before a panel of nine judges, the majority of whom have been sympathetic to the so-called “right to choose.”
Pro-choicers argue that abortion is a right by virtue of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which begins with “The right of the people to be secure in their persons…”
In return, we got Roe v. Wade and 35 years of taxpayer-funded abortion on demand in spite of what the majority may or may not have wanted.
Two hundred and thirty years ago, American colonists cried out against taxation without representation and called that tyranny.
If tyranny is measured by the lack of representation in the decisions of government, then abortion is oppression in its most fundamental form.
Roe v. Wade is not only an unjust law, but also an unconstitutional one that denies the rights of states to pass their own laws concerning abortion.
The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the last of the Bill of Rights dictates, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
This is written to mean that the people of individual states have the right to govern independently of the federal government. Congress is supposed to function within the bounds of the Constitution and let the people determine the course of their respective states.
I say, let’s put 35 years of ferocious debate over abortion finally to rest by bringing it up to a vote of the people. Let each state decide whether or not to legalize the practice and under what terms within its own borders.
If a woman wants an abortion that is prohibited in her state, then she can move to or cross the border into a state that allows the practice.
Why should an entire nation—a republic no less—be forced to suffer the foibles of a few zealots who have used abortion as a means of securing power for themselves?
When you get right down to where the rubber meets the road, that is exactly what pro-choice is all about: Giving power to those few with an agenda they want to push onto everyone else—including those of us who don’t want what they are selling.
Indeed, pro-choice offers perhaps the greatest contradiction in terms and action. While the choice of some is championed, the choice of many others—most notably the unborn—is scorned.
So to the pro-choicers, I ask, what exactly is the choice? It seems like we have no other choice but to accept theirs.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Is abortion really murder?
For more than three decades, opponents of abortion have called its practice murder. Abortion supporters consider this notion extreme. Well, is it or isn’t it?
Let’s take a closer look.
Webster’s dictionary defines murder as killing a person with “malice aforethought.” This means that the taking of life is 1) deliberate (aforethought) and 2) with intention to cause harm (malice). This is consistent with the legal definition of murder.
Both definitions, however, leave a loophole for the abortion lobby. A person who commits murder does so with “intent to commit an unlawful act or cause harm without legal justification or excuse.”
The Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973 gave pro-abortionists the legal justification and excuse needed to subvert the legal definition of murder.
The same can be said for statutes on capital punishment, part of a state’s criminal code. The legality of capital punishment is wrapped in the “legal justification or excuse” clause.
But there’s a grievous difference between abortion and capital punishment, one that transcends legal definitions and framework.
Abortion is the deliberate taking of an innocent human life with intent to cause harm to that life. Capital punishment, on the other hand, is the deliberate taking of life that has been adjudicated, convicted and condemned by the rule of law; with intent to cause harm to that life.
Individuals facing capital punishment have been found guilty of usually heinous and violent acts against humanity. They’ve been Constitutionally served with a fair and impartial trial by peers. They’ve been tried, convicted, sentenced and otherwise processed in a court of law. They’ve been remanded to the criminal justice system for punishment and execution of sentence.
Condemned persons have committed crimes against others worthy of the penalty of death. These include murder, rape, molestation and other acts of a cruel, violent nature.
The bottom line is that capital punishment is about dispensing justice to those who have acted unjustly toward others. It is also about protecting the public against violent individuals who are at risk of re-offending.
In stark contrast, abortion is the taking of life that’s guilty of nothing but being conceived. Unborn children are the consequential by-products of selfish human choices. They are innocent victims of self-serving intentions to deny life.
Likewise, murder victims are also the by-products of self-serving and deliberate choices. Their lives were unjustly taken by another, whose intent was to deny life.
Abortion is about as close to murder as any act can get without actually meeting the legal standard.
Yet, leave law books and dictionaries out of the discussion and the only things separating abortion from murder are just words.
But actions can neither be distinguished by definitions, nor aptly described by words how they are similar or different. Rather, action must be compared and contrasted against itself.
If the only distinction between murder and abortion is the insertion of a single legal clause, then I see no difference between the two actions themselves.
I’d say anti-abortionists have a pretty strong case for calling abortion murder, because, the legal definition notwithstanding, it really is.
Consider that for any abortion to happen, there must first be a plan: by the individual seeking the abortion, the clinician at intake, the nurse in surgery prep and, of course, the physician performing the procedure. This is aforethought.
Abortion is not merely a medical procedure; the result is termination of a human life always full flesh and blood with a beating heart and developing brain. The intent of the abortion is to cause harm to the life inside the womb. This is malice—or the intent to cause harm.
Put the two together, and you have the fundamental elements of murder.
Action by action, there’s no practical difference between abortion and murder—just what is written by lawyers.
What a strange ethical paradox abortion is to the medical profession: The Hippocratic Oath dictates that a doctor’s first duty is to DO NO HARM and save life. Yet, hypocritically, that very oath is violated with every abortion performed. While some tools of the trade are being used to protect the life of the woman for whom the procedure is done, others are destroying the unborn human life insider of her. The irony here so plain and the conflictions so thick, one couldn’t cut it with a scalpel.
But in spite of the obvious medical contradictions, thousands of abortions are performed on demand each year simply because the pregnancy was unplanned and is unwanted. Precious few abortions are performed to save the mother’s life or are the result of a sexual crime. The woman, empowered by laws pushed by social advocacy groups, is granted ownership of the unborn life just because it grows within her body.
There is no autonomy for the unborn; only for the born.
So, why don’t pro-abortionists just stop dancing around the issue of whether or not abortion is murder and admit that they support the intentional taking of human life? I mean, all legality aside, that’s exactly what abortion is.
If unborn life is not as important to us as life already born, then let’s just be forthright about it and not make any excuses.
No rationale, no legal clause, and no definition can change what abortion is or what it isn’t.
It is what it is.
Can you handle it?
Let’s take a closer look.
Webster’s dictionary defines murder as killing a person with “malice aforethought.” This means that the taking of life is 1) deliberate (aforethought) and 2) with intention to cause harm (malice). This is consistent with the legal definition of murder.
Both definitions, however, leave a loophole for the abortion lobby. A person who commits murder does so with “intent to commit an unlawful act or cause harm without legal justification or excuse.”
The Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973 gave pro-abortionists the legal justification and excuse needed to subvert the legal definition of murder.
The same can be said for statutes on capital punishment, part of a state’s criminal code. The legality of capital punishment is wrapped in the “legal justification or excuse” clause.
But there’s a grievous difference between abortion and capital punishment, one that transcends legal definitions and framework.
Abortion is the deliberate taking of an innocent human life with intent to cause harm to that life. Capital punishment, on the other hand, is the deliberate taking of life that has been adjudicated, convicted and condemned by the rule of law; with intent to cause harm to that life.
Individuals facing capital punishment have been found guilty of usually heinous and violent acts against humanity. They’ve been Constitutionally served with a fair and impartial trial by peers. They’ve been tried, convicted, sentenced and otherwise processed in a court of law. They’ve been remanded to the criminal justice system for punishment and execution of sentence.
Condemned persons have committed crimes against others worthy of the penalty of death. These include murder, rape, molestation and other acts of a cruel, violent nature.
The bottom line is that capital punishment is about dispensing justice to those who have acted unjustly toward others. It is also about protecting the public against violent individuals who are at risk of re-offending.
In stark contrast, abortion is the taking of life that’s guilty of nothing but being conceived. Unborn children are the consequential by-products of selfish human choices. They are innocent victims of self-serving intentions to deny life.
Likewise, murder victims are also the by-products of self-serving and deliberate choices. Their lives were unjustly taken by another, whose intent was to deny life.
Abortion is about as close to murder as any act can get without actually meeting the legal standard.
Yet, leave law books and dictionaries out of the discussion and the only things separating abortion from murder are just words.
But actions can neither be distinguished by definitions, nor aptly described by words how they are similar or different. Rather, action must be compared and contrasted against itself.
If the only distinction between murder and abortion is the insertion of a single legal clause, then I see no difference between the two actions themselves.
I’d say anti-abortionists have a pretty strong case for calling abortion murder, because, the legal definition notwithstanding, it really is.
Consider that for any abortion to happen, there must first be a plan: by the individual seeking the abortion, the clinician at intake, the nurse in surgery prep and, of course, the physician performing the procedure. This is aforethought.
Abortion is not merely a medical procedure; the result is termination of a human life always full flesh and blood with a beating heart and developing brain. The intent of the abortion is to cause harm to the life inside the womb. This is malice—or the intent to cause harm.
Put the two together, and you have the fundamental elements of murder.
Action by action, there’s no practical difference between abortion and murder—just what is written by lawyers.
What a strange ethical paradox abortion is to the medical profession: The Hippocratic Oath dictates that a doctor’s first duty is to DO NO HARM and save life. Yet, hypocritically, that very oath is violated with every abortion performed. While some tools of the trade are being used to protect the life of the woman for whom the procedure is done, others are destroying the unborn human life insider of her. The irony here so plain and the conflictions so thick, one couldn’t cut it with a scalpel.
But in spite of the obvious medical contradictions, thousands of abortions are performed on demand each year simply because the pregnancy was unplanned and is unwanted. Precious few abortions are performed to save the mother’s life or are the result of a sexual crime. The woman, empowered by laws pushed by social advocacy groups, is granted ownership of the unborn life just because it grows within her body.
There is no autonomy for the unborn; only for the born.
So, why don’t pro-abortionists just stop dancing around the issue of whether or not abortion is murder and admit that they support the intentional taking of human life? I mean, all legality aside, that’s exactly what abortion is.
If unborn life is not as important to us as life already born, then let’s just be forthright about it and not make any excuses.
No rationale, no legal clause, and no definition can change what abortion is or what it isn’t.
It is what it is.
Can you handle it?
Think twice about trading liberty for rights
When the founders framed the U.S. Constitution with the Bill of Rights, their purpose was to put in writing the limits of government. They were less concerned with what individuals should be allowed to do and more concerned with what the government should or should not be allowed to do.
These rights that we claim as ours aren’t really rights at all, but rather guarantees of what the government is not allowed to do to us.
When the United States Constitution was ratified in 1787, the meaning and purpose of its “rights” were understood. But somewhere along the way, the Bill of Rights became less about what the government cannot do and more about what “We the People” should be able to do.
Lost now is the notion that a limited government equates to individual freedom. Missing is a sense of liberty from government restraint.
Somehow, “We the People” have come to want our cake and eat it, too.
We want our rights, but we also want government to do more and more things for us. Essentially, what we are saying is that we want an unrestrained government that also respects our rights.
Only in a perfect world.
In reality, we can have one or the other, but not both.
No government can ever just give away liberty the way a philanthropist gives away money. Freedom is not a commodity. It cannot be bought. It cannot be given. It is not bestowed upon or granted out of patriarchal good graces. Rather, liberty must be earned through restraint and a willingness not to do.
When we are not willing to restrain ourselves, then we can expect more laws passed under the guise of protecting us from ourselves.
Freedom is not a selfish endeavor. Yet, today we cling to it the way a miser does his money. We regard our liberties as our “rights” to do or have things, when they are really supposed to be freedoms from something called government oppression.
Today we have groups of people demanding their “rights,” as though they are entitled to the freedom secured by the Bill of Rights. Nobody is entitled to freedom; not even Americans, who take it for granted every day. Liberty is not to be gained, but rather received. It must be contested, fought for, preserved and protected before we can claim it as our own. And even then liberty belongs to no one person, but rather to everyone graced by its touch.
But threatening liberty are rights groups invoking its very namesake. Gay rights, women’s rights, ethnic minority rights—knowingly or not, all have been squeezing liberty dry with their demands.
What rights are they seeking that they do not already have? The right to speech, assembly and worship; the right to keep and bear arms; protection against military quarter; the right to privacy and property; the right to due process of law; the right to a fair and speedy trial; protection against cruel and unusual punishment; the right to have our rights protected; and the right to participate in the making of laws independent of the government.
These essentially are the Bill of Rights, and they are the only rights I have. Besides the added amendments, such as the Fourteenth, they are the only rights any American citizen has.
Which of these rights do women, ethnic minorities and gays not have? If they are American citizens, then they already have the full compliment of Constitutional rights; no more and no less.
But apparently the Bill of Rights is not good enough.
No, we want the “right” to health care, education, a job, benefits, insurance, a house, a car, toys and even money. Gays want the “right” to be legally married under law. Women want the “right” to receive equal pay for equal work. So-called ethnic minorities want the “right” to be regarded as human equals to the so-called ethnic majority.
Equality is not a “right” at all, but rather an obligation and a courtesy extended by one person to another. It is charity of the heart, and no amount of laws or government mandates can make it happen.
In fact, none of the so-called “rights” we demand today exist or are even implied in the Bill of Rights. Yet, we insist on them. Furthermore, we demand the government secures these “rights” with more laws, more legislation, and more regulation—in short, more government.
What we don’t understand is that by empowering government to make more laws, enact more legislation and enforce more regulations, we are allowing government to act and grow unrestrained. In the end, the only thing being restrained is freedom.
Once upon a time, men believed that men—not government—were capable of righting wrongs. Those men crafted the Bill of Rights, so that men of today could operate under the assumption that man cannot be trusted to solve his own problems and instead needs government to do it for him.
Just bear in mind that each teeny, tiny little insignificant right we insist upon means one more law, one more regulation and one less freedom than we had before.
Liberty is as fragile as a sand castle on the beach. Each wave of the tide, every gust of wind and every blowing breeze takes with it a little bit of the castle until eventually nothing but trodden sand is left.
Every time government makes a law in the name of a “right,” we lose a little bit of liberty.
There’s a reason why our revolutionary ancestors adopted the phrase, “Don’t Tread On Me.” This is it.
Are more rights than what we already have really worth the price of less freedom?
Think about it. Hard.
These rights that we claim as ours aren’t really rights at all, but rather guarantees of what the government is not allowed to do to us.
When the United States Constitution was ratified in 1787, the meaning and purpose of its “rights” were understood. But somewhere along the way, the Bill of Rights became less about what the government cannot do and more about what “We the People” should be able to do.
Lost now is the notion that a limited government equates to individual freedom. Missing is a sense of liberty from government restraint.
Somehow, “We the People” have come to want our cake and eat it, too.
We want our rights, but we also want government to do more and more things for us. Essentially, what we are saying is that we want an unrestrained government that also respects our rights.
Only in a perfect world.
In reality, we can have one or the other, but not both.
No government can ever just give away liberty the way a philanthropist gives away money. Freedom is not a commodity. It cannot be bought. It cannot be given. It is not bestowed upon or granted out of patriarchal good graces. Rather, liberty must be earned through restraint and a willingness not to do.
When we are not willing to restrain ourselves, then we can expect more laws passed under the guise of protecting us from ourselves.
Freedom is not a selfish endeavor. Yet, today we cling to it the way a miser does his money. We regard our liberties as our “rights” to do or have things, when they are really supposed to be freedoms from something called government oppression.
Today we have groups of people demanding their “rights,” as though they are entitled to the freedom secured by the Bill of Rights. Nobody is entitled to freedom; not even Americans, who take it for granted every day. Liberty is not to be gained, but rather received. It must be contested, fought for, preserved and protected before we can claim it as our own. And even then liberty belongs to no one person, but rather to everyone graced by its touch.
But threatening liberty are rights groups invoking its very namesake. Gay rights, women’s rights, ethnic minority rights—knowingly or not, all have been squeezing liberty dry with their demands.
What rights are they seeking that they do not already have? The right to speech, assembly and worship; the right to keep and bear arms; protection against military quarter; the right to privacy and property; the right to due process of law; the right to a fair and speedy trial; protection against cruel and unusual punishment; the right to have our rights protected; and the right to participate in the making of laws independent of the government.
These essentially are the Bill of Rights, and they are the only rights I have. Besides the added amendments, such as the Fourteenth, they are the only rights any American citizen has.
Which of these rights do women, ethnic minorities and gays not have? If they are American citizens, then they already have the full compliment of Constitutional rights; no more and no less.
But apparently the Bill of Rights is not good enough.
No, we want the “right” to health care, education, a job, benefits, insurance, a house, a car, toys and even money. Gays want the “right” to be legally married under law. Women want the “right” to receive equal pay for equal work. So-called ethnic minorities want the “right” to be regarded as human equals to the so-called ethnic majority.
Equality is not a “right” at all, but rather an obligation and a courtesy extended by one person to another. It is charity of the heart, and no amount of laws or government mandates can make it happen.
In fact, none of the so-called “rights” we demand today exist or are even implied in the Bill of Rights. Yet, we insist on them. Furthermore, we demand the government secures these “rights” with more laws, more legislation, and more regulation—in short, more government.
What we don’t understand is that by empowering government to make more laws, enact more legislation and enforce more regulations, we are allowing government to act and grow unrestrained. In the end, the only thing being restrained is freedom.
Once upon a time, men believed that men—not government—were capable of righting wrongs. Those men crafted the Bill of Rights, so that men of today could operate under the assumption that man cannot be trusted to solve his own problems and instead needs government to do it for him.
Just bear in mind that each teeny, tiny little insignificant right we insist upon means one more law, one more regulation and one less freedom than we had before.
Liberty is as fragile as a sand castle on the beach. Each wave of the tide, every gust of wind and every blowing breeze takes with it a little bit of the castle until eventually nothing but trodden sand is left.
Every time government makes a law in the name of a “right,” we lose a little bit of liberty.
There’s a reason why our revolutionary ancestors adopted the phrase, “Don’t Tread On Me.” This is it.
Are more rights than what we already have really worth the price of less freedom?
Think about it. Hard.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Obamism spreading like a dangerous wildfire
Every now and then, a charming and charismatic individual comes along to capture the imagination of the simple masses. As a kid, I remember the self-aggrandizing exploits of the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, who built a religious shrine to himself in my home state of Oregon and attracted a rather large, devoted following of disciples who made up a physical commune called Rajneeshpuram. Of course, it turns out that the Rajneesh was only using his followers and their money to buy himself a lot of expensive toys—namely several Rolls Royces. He was also developing biological weapons to poison people with. But there was no way anyone could have convinced the Bhagwan’s loyal subjects of his deception. The Baghwan could do no wrong in the blind eyes of his followers.
I see many parallels to the Rajneeshi when I regard the public’s reaction toward democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL.
Here’s a guy who was a virtual unknown when he was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004. He was considered little more than the “flavor of the month” and even dubbed a “rock star” candidate by major print media when the presidential campaign season kicked off in January 2007. In fact, up until this year’s Iowa Caucus, the presumed democratic presidential nominee was New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, a so-called candidate of destiny. Since then, Obama's spark caught fire instantly and his popularity has spread like a raging wildfire.
His public addresses and campaign speeches have the same effect as an aphrodesiac: extraordinarily pleasurable and uplifting. People seem to come away from one of his rallies the way Deadheads left a Grateful Dead concert: high and hallucinating. Traveling peddlers and charlatans got the same rise out of crowds gathered around to see a demonstration of some sort of wonder tonic. So have these so-called miracle healers who place their hands on people’s heads and claim to cure what ails them.
Don’t get me wrong: Hope is a fine thing and a great notion upon which to campaign. But in order for hope to mean anything, there has to be substance behind it. There is nothing but powerful words behind Obama’s brand of hope. He really doesn’t know what impact his plans and ideas will have on the United States of America. But his words sound good, people respond to them, so he has taken the ball and run with it—untouched so far and on his way to the end zone.
I’m just concerned that people are taking Barack Obama more seriously than a presidential candidate; almost as though he is some kind of messianic cult leader. I read a quote earlier this week by actress Halle Berry, who said she would scrub the floors beneath Obama’s feet just to be a part of his campaign.
Now, Obama seems like a decent guy. But a messiah he is not.
He’s a presidential candidate, for heaven’s sake, not a shaman or medicine man. He doesn’t have any magic up his sleeves, no spells to cast and no bewitching potions with which to cure our ills. He’s just a guy; a flesh and blood man…with a law degree.
But you can’t convince Obama’s loyal supporters that he’s got any faults at all, much less any bad ideas. He can do no wrong in the eyes of a growing number of people. Heck, he might as well be the Second Coming. A scary notion is that some people—more than I care to admit—probably think of him in that way.
I suppose the next thing his followers expect is for him to walk on water. To avoid utter embarrassment, though, I suggest Barack attempt it at about an inch depth. That should give illusion enough to fool even the most skeptical of Obama worshippers. Besides, I don’t think their shallow brains could handle deception in anything deeper.
I see many parallels to the Rajneeshi when I regard the public’s reaction toward democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL.
Here’s a guy who was a virtual unknown when he was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004. He was considered little more than the “flavor of the month” and even dubbed a “rock star” candidate by major print media when the presidential campaign season kicked off in January 2007. In fact, up until this year’s Iowa Caucus, the presumed democratic presidential nominee was New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, a so-called candidate of destiny. Since then, Obama's spark caught fire instantly and his popularity has spread like a raging wildfire.
His public addresses and campaign speeches have the same effect as an aphrodesiac: extraordinarily pleasurable and uplifting. People seem to come away from one of his rallies the way Deadheads left a Grateful Dead concert: high and hallucinating. Traveling peddlers and charlatans got the same rise out of crowds gathered around to see a demonstration of some sort of wonder tonic. So have these so-called miracle healers who place their hands on people’s heads and claim to cure what ails them.
Don’t get me wrong: Hope is a fine thing and a great notion upon which to campaign. But in order for hope to mean anything, there has to be substance behind it. There is nothing but powerful words behind Obama’s brand of hope. He really doesn’t know what impact his plans and ideas will have on the United States of America. But his words sound good, people respond to them, so he has taken the ball and run with it—untouched so far and on his way to the end zone.
I’m just concerned that people are taking Barack Obama more seriously than a presidential candidate; almost as though he is some kind of messianic cult leader. I read a quote earlier this week by actress Halle Berry, who said she would scrub the floors beneath Obama’s feet just to be a part of his campaign.
Now, Obama seems like a decent guy. But a messiah he is not.
He’s a presidential candidate, for heaven’s sake, not a shaman or medicine man. He doesn’t have any magic up his sleeves, no spells to cast and no bewitching potions with which to cure our ills. He’s just a guy; a flesh and blood man…with a law degree.
But you can’t convince Obama’s loyal supporters that he’s got any faults at all, much less any bad ideas. He can do no wrong in the eyes of a growing number of people. Heck, he might as well be the Second Coming. A scary notion is that some people—more than I care to admit—probably think of him in that way.
I suppose the next thing his followers expect is for him to walk on water. To avoid utter embarrassment, though, I suggest Barack attempt it at about an inch depth. That should give illusion enough to fool even the most skeptical of Obama worshippers. Besides, I don’t think their shallow brains could handle deception in anything deeper.
Don’t like McCain? He won’t win anyway
Those who are less than enthusiastic about John McCain as the republican presidential nominee needn’t worry what he may or may not do as president of the United States, because he isn’t going to win.
Sorry to burst the bubbles of “Mac” supporters, but the veteran Arizona senator and war hero is poised to go down in political history the way his long-time colleague, former Sen. Robert Dole, R-KS, did in his 1996 presidential campaign. The republican powers-that-be had decided that 1996 was Bob Dole’s turn at party glory. The presidential nomination was his reward for many years of party loyalty. Like Mac, Dole was also a war hero. But it didn’t suffice against incumbent President Bill Clinton.
This year is evidently Mac’s time to shine after 25 years in the U.S. Senate. But being the pick of the establishment isn’t enough to get Mac elected. And it certainly isn’t good strategy for the Republican Party, which may very well find itself having to compete against the insane popularity of junior Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL.
Even Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, just a few months ago considered the democratic presidential front-runner and more or less anointed as the next president of the United States, now finds herself trailing in polls, delegates and states to Obama and his swelling number of followers.
Mac will have an uphill battle against either Clinton or Obama, but much more so with the latter. Mac represents the status quo of the current administration. Obama, by contrast, has billed himself as the ultimate change agent.
Many people, including republicans, are suffering from Bush fatigue. Mac can be drawn along similar lines as Bush. He has vowed to continue fighting the War on Terror pretty much in the same fashion Bush has thus far—a strategy not all too popular even among Republican Party faithful. He also appears ready to deal with illegal immigrants the way Bush has: by encouraging them to stay illegally.
Unfortunately for Mac, I think enough undecided and swing voters may vote for the democratic nominee out of protest against the status quo and end up defeating him at the ballot box. There will also undoubtedly be a number of conservatives who either strike their ballots for a third party candidate or simply won’t vote at all just because Mac is the republican candidate.
I remember all too well what happened to former President George H.W. Bush in 1992. He lost his re-election bid because conservatives were upset over his “read my lips, no new taxes” gaffe that he unwittingly reneged on prior to the 1992 presidential campaign.
I fear Mac will suffer the same fate as Bush did at the hand of conservative wrath, because of his co-sponsorship of the infamous amnesty bill in 2007, which upset a lot of people.
His only shot at the presidency is if Hillary Clinton wins the democratic nomination over Obama—a task that only months ago seemed a mere formality, but now appears to be a daunting feat.
There may well be more animosity toward Hillary than Mac, by virtue of the rather obvious impression she leaves as a power zealot.
But then again, Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 out of anger. His wife may just as well be, too.
Sorry to burst the bubbles of “Mac” supporters, but the veteran Arizona senator and war hero is poised to go down in political history the way his long-time colleague, former Sen. Robert Dole, R-KS, did in his 1996 presidential campaign. The republican powers-that-be had decided that 1996 was Bob Dole’s turn at party glory. The presidential nomination was his reward for many years of party loyalty. Like Mac, Dole was also a war hero. But it didn’t suffice against incumbent President Bill Clinton.
This year is evidently Mac’s time to shine after 25 years in the U.S. Senate. But being the pick of the establishment isn’t enough to get Mac elected. And it certainly isn’t good strategy for the Republican Party, which may very well find itself having to compete against the insane popularity of junior Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL.
Even Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, just a few months ago considered the democratic presidential front-runner and more or less anointed as the next president of the United States, now finds herself trailing in polls, delegates and states to Obama and his swelling number of followers.
Mac will have an uphill battle against either Clinton or Obama, but much more so with the latter. Mac represents the status quo of the current administration. Obama, by contrast, has billed himself as the ultimate change agent.
Many people, including republicans, are suffering from Bush fatigue. Mac can be drawn along similar lines as Bush. He has vowed to continue fighting the War on Terror pretty much in the same fashion Bush has thus far—a strategy not all too popular even among Republican Party faithful. He also appears ready to deal with illegal immigrants the way Bush has: by encouraging them to stay illegally.
Unfortunately for Mac, I think enough undecided and swing voters may vote for the democratic nominee out of protest against the status quo and end up defeating him at the ballot box. There will also undoubtedly be a number of conservatives who either strike their ballots for a third party candidate or simply won’t vote at all just because Mac is the republican candidate.
I remember all too well what happened to former President George H.W. Bush in 1992. He lost his re-election bid because conservatives were upset over his “read my lips, no new taxes” gaffe that he unwittingly reneged on prior to the 1992 presidential campaign.
I fear Mac will suffer the same fate as Bush did at the hand of conservative wrath, because of his co-sponsorship of the infamous amnesty bill in 2007, which upset a lot of people.
His only shot at the presidency is if Hillary Clinton wins the democratic nomination over Obama—a task that only months ago seemed a mere formality, but now appears to be a daunting feat.
There may well be more animosity toward Hillary than Mac, by virtue of the rather obvious impression she leaves as a power zealot.
But then again, Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 out of anger. His wife may just as well be, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
