If you read one article today, let it be this one by Ed Kaitz at American Thinker. It's titled: How Democracies become Tyrannies.
I have to say that American Thinker is slightly reactionary, even for me. However this article rings true as it contrasts Plato's Republic to the rise of socialism in America, with inferences to our current President.
It's a sober story and worth reading.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Silence is complicity
This week, I've read two articles that are particularly chilling and I'm at a loss as to what to do.
The first is this opinion piece by former President Jimmy Carter. Found in The Washington Post and titled: "An Unnecessary War," the article starts thus:
"I know from personal involvement that the devastating invasion of Gaza by Israel could easily have been avoided.
After visiting Sderot last April and seeing the serious psychological damage caused by the rockets that had fallen in that area, my wife, Rosalynn, and I declared their launching from Gaza to be inexcusable and an act of terrorism. Although casualties were rare (three deaths in seven years), the town was traumatized by the unpredictable explosions. About 3,000 residents had moved to other communities, and the streets, playgrounds and shopping centers were almost empty. Mayor Eli Moyal assembled a group of citizens in his office to meet us and complained that the government of Israel was not stopping the rockets, either through diplomacy or military action. "
The article then spends the next nine paragraphs explaining how Israel is totally to blame for the current hostilities in Gaza. If I have seen such a maniacal screed by someone of the stature of a former president of the United States, I cannot recall it. I have read Carter's writing in the past; this one has me floored.
My question is: "How do common citizens respond to things like this?" Do we simply whine about the crazy old man in the corner, hoping that no one is paying attention? Do we write the author and newspaper in order to try to set the record straight? Do we send emails to our friends in the media and ask them to write a rebuttal? At this point, none of this feels as if it's enough.
So, this blog post is one small way to not be silent.
The second article that absolutely stopped me in my tracks is a blog post from Melanie Phillips at the website of The Spectator. Very bad things are happening in Europe in regard to the rise of anti-Semitism. Ms. Phillips includes eye witness accounts of violent demonstrations in England. She ends her post with this:
"For silence is complicity, as once gentle, decent, civilised Britain changes before our horrified eyes into something very ugly indeed."
The first is this opinion piece by former President Jimmy Carter. Found in The Washington Post and titled: "An Unnecessary War," the article starts thus:
"I know from personal involvement that the devastating invasion of Gaza by Israel could easily have been avoided.
After visiting Sderot last April and seeing the serious psychological damage caused by the rockets that had fallen in that area, my wife, Rosalynn, and I declared their launching from Gaza to be inexcusable and an act of terrorism. Although casualties were rare (three deaths in seven years), the town was traumatized by the unpredictable explosions. About 3,000 residents had moved to other communities, and the streets, playgrounds and shopping centers were almost empty. Mayor Eli Moyal assembled a group of citizens in his office to meet us and complained that the government of Israel was not stopping the rockets, either through diplomacy or military action. "
The article then spends the next nine paragraphs explaining how Israel is totally to blame for the current hostilities in Gaza. If I have seen such a maniacal screed by someone of the stature of a former president of the United States, I cannot recall it. I have read Carter's writing in the past; this one has me floored.
My question is: "How do common citizens respond to things like this?" Do we simply whine about the crazy old man in the corner, hoping that no one is paying attention? Do we write the author and newspaper in order to try to set the record straight? Do we send emails to our friends in the media and ask them to write a rebuttal? At this point, none of this feels as if it's enough.
So, this blog post is one small way to not be silent.
The second article that absolutely stopped me in my tracks is a blog post from Melanie Phillips at the website of The Spectator. Very bad things are happening in Europe in regard to the rise of anti-Semitism. Ms. Phillips includes eye witness accounts of violent demonstrations in England. She ends her post with this:
"For silence is complicity, as once gentle, decent, civilised Britain changes before our horrified eyes into something very ugly indeed."
In a trip to Europe this summer, my husband and I visited the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam. The visitors to the museum slowly and silently made their way through the different levels of the home, going from the normalcy of Anne's father's business that was run from the lower floors of the building to the betrayal of the Frank's, their friends, and the whole of the Jewish population of Europe in the 1940's.
I doubt that one person in that building on that day believed it could happen again.
I do believe that we are close to it happening again.
And we cannot be silent.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
How conservative thoughts can be refined
When I was invited to contribute to this blog, I was a bit hesitant because I feel that I'm less than eloquent in expressing political ideas. However, there are some conservative writers that have helped refine my conservative thinking. Although I've not always agreed with every word they've said, these are my favorites:
Victor Davis Hanson
Jeff Jacoby from the Boston Globe
Charles Krauthammer from the Washington Post
None of these men can be considered hard-right in their thinking. Rather, they provide a center-right view that balances liberty with compassion.
And while Christopher Hitchens can certainly not be considered "conservative" or "liberal," he, too, is one of my favorites. Mr. Hitchens understands the threat of terrorism and what it means to our freedoms.
If you're not familiar with these writers, click on the links above. They are sure to provide some very good food for thought.
Victor Davis Hanson
Jeff Jacoby from the Boston Globe
Charles Krauthammer from the Washington Post
None of these men can be considered hard-right in their thinking. Rather, they provide a center-right view that balances liberty with compassion.
And while Christopher Hitchens can certainly not be considered "conservative" or "liberal," he, too, is one of my favorites. Mr. Hitchens understands the threat of terrorism and what it means to our freedoms.
If you're not familiar with these writers, click on the links above. They are sure to provide some very good food for thought.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Free Choice?
The "Employee Free Choice Act." An innocent-enough sounding piece of legislation. But take a closer look and this legislation stands to fundamentally alter labor-management relations in the United States, and in the process destroy employee free choice.
What does the law do? Essentially, it does away with decades of established and honed labor-management law that guarantees employees the right to an uncoerced and secret ballot when choosing whether to be represented by a labor union. The current system allows the union and management to each present their respective cases about unionization, and the employees to make a free and informed choice about representation via secret ballot.
The law would replace this system with a "card check." Under the proposed "card check" system, employers would be required to recognize a labor union as its employees' collective bargaining representative when the labor union collects representation cards signed by just over 50% of employees. No longer would employees be entitled to an informed choice, or a choice made by secret ballot and overseen by the National Labor Relations Board. Instead their choice would be overseen by union bosses and union organizers. Can anyone say "coercion?"
What's driving this madness? Today, unions represent just 7.5% of the private sector work force. Unions predict that by injecting this lawful ability to subtly (or not so subtly) coerce employees to choose unionization, they can double the unionization rate in the US. That's why unions have made passage of the law priority number 1. With Democrats in Congress and the President-elect indebted to Big Labor, you can bet this bill stands a solid shot of becoming law in 2009.
Ironically, though, the very Democrats pushing hardest for the law, to include Education and Labor Chairman George Miller, recognize the importance of secret union ballots -- in Mexico! Miller wrote in August 2001 to a Mexican council: "We feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose." Can anyone say "hypocrite?"
What's right for the Mexican labor force is right for the American labor force. Conservatives in the 2009 Congress must fight this blatant attempt to usurp free choice in American workplaces.
What does the law do? Essentially, it does away with decades of established and honed labor-management law that guarantees employees the right to an uncoerced and secret ballot when choosing whether to be represented by a labor union. The current system allows the union and management to each present their respective cases about unionization, and the employees to make a free and informed choice about representation via secret ballot.
The law would replace this system with a "card check." Under the proposed "card check" system, employers would be required to recognize a labor union as its employees' collective bargaining representative when the labor union collects representation cards signed by just over 50% of employees. No longer would employees be entitled to an informed choice, or a choice made by secret ballot and overseen by the National Labor Relations Board. Instead their choice would be overseen by union bosses and union organizers. Can anyone say "coercion?"
What's driving this madness? Today, unions represent just 7.5% of the private sector work force. Unions predict that by injecting this lawful ability to subtly (or not so subtly) coerce employees to choose unionization, they can double the unionization rate in the US. That's why unions have made passage of the law priority number 1. With Democrats in Congress and the President-elect indebted to Big Labor, you can bet this bill stands a solid shot of becoming law in 2009.
Ironically, though, the very Democrats pushing hardest for the law, to include Education and Labor Chairman George Miller, recognize the importance of secret union ballots -- in Mexico! Miller wrote in August 2001 to a Mexican council: "We feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose." Can anyone say "hypocrite?"
What's right for the Mexican labor force is right for the American labor force. Conservatives in the 2009 Congress must fight this blatant attempt to usurp free choice in American workplaces.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Free Speech in America?
As conservatives, we cherish the Constitution. The Constitution arguably formed the most perfect union ever to exist, and has established the guiding principles upon which this nation has functioned for over 200 years. It remains as relevant today as it did during the days of the Founding Fathers.
Conservatives respect the Constitution, and believe that our government should operate within it. This topic deserves an extensive discussion about what this means and how conservatives differ from liberals dramatically on this point. What I want to discuss briefly today, however, is one of the most fundamental aspects of the Constitution -- Freedom of Speech. Liberals are frequently viewed as the most ardent free speech advocates. Liberal groups like the ACLU rush to court to protect even the most radical speech. Yet, are liberals truly advocates of free speech, even when they disagree with it?
Much evidence exists to argue that they are not. One very recent example occurred at Prince George's Community College in Maryland. An instructor at the school -- Ayanna Watson -- allegedly asked students to write about the merits of Barack Obama. When one of her students, Gloria Alfonzo, voiced differences with Obama, Alfonzo says that the instructor demanded to know whether she was a Republican. When Alfonzo responded "yes," the trouble began. Her classmates, according to Alfonzo, stood up, started pointing at her and repeatedly yelled racially charged expletives (e.g., [expletive] white girl, and daughter of a [expletive]). The instructor allegedly did nothing. When reporters went to the instructor's home for further information on the story, the instructor did not answer but her political beliefs were certainly on display. She boasted a large Barack Obama sign on her front door. The traumatic experience has caused Alfanzo to withdraw from the school.
Unfortunately, Alfonzo's experience is repeated in colleges all across the country -- albeit perhaps not to the serious degree. Liberals dominate campuses and there are repeated stories of conservative students being intimated by both professors and fellow classmates for speaking in favor of Republicans or Conservatives. Even when I was in school years ago, liberals repeatedly took efforts to silence views with which they disagreed -- from staging vocal demonstrations against Conservative speakers to ripping down promotional signs for events sponsored by Conservative groups. Over the years, however, this push to silence critics has reached new levels and is evident even among the highest levels of the Democratic party.
In the late days of the Presidential race, the Obama campaign took unprecedented steps to "punish" anyone who asked tough questions or voiced disagreement with Obama. Take for example, the Florida news anchor, Barbara West, who posed tough questions to Joe Biden. The Obama campaign immediately reacted by canceling the station's already-scheduled interview with Michelle Obama, and by digging up and disseminating what they considered "dirt" about the anchor and her husband. The same thing happened with the now famous "Joe the Plumber" who simply showed up at an Obama event and raised questions about Obama's tax plans.
Going forward, liberals have advocated for reinstatement of the "Fairness Doctrine." While they attempt to wrap this in terms that make it easier to sell to the American people, the biggest effect of this doctrine will be to shut down Conservative talk radio and thereby silence some of liberals' biggest critics.
Conservatives must remain true to the Constitution. We must fight every attempt by Liberals - on our college campuses, in our communities, and within the press - to silence our voices. This is one of the most important issues domestically for Conservatives, and one that we must not loose sight of.Av
Conservatives respect the Constitution, and believe that our government should operate within it. This topic deserves an extensive discussion about what this means and how conservatives differ from liberals dramatically on this point. What I want to discuss briefly today, however, is one of the most fundamental aspects of the Constitution -- Freedom of Speech. Liberals are frequently viewed as the most ardent free speech advocates. Liberal groups like the ACLU rush to court to protect even the most radical speech. Yet, are liberals truly advocates of free speech, even when they disagree with it?
Much evidence exists to argue that they are not. One very recent example occurred at Prince George's Community College in Maryland. An instructor at the school -- Ayanna Watson -- allegedly asked students to write about the merits of Barack Obama. When one of her students, Gloria Alfonzo, voiced differences with Obama, Alfonzo says that the instructor demanded to know whether she was a Republican. When Alfonzo responded "yes," the trouble began. Her classmates, according to Alfonzo, stood up, started pointing at her and repeatedly yelled racially charged expletives (e.g., [expletive] white girl, and daughter of a [expletive]). The instructor allegedly did nothing. When reporters went to the instructor's home for further information on the story, the instructor did not answer but her political beliefs were certainly on display. She boasted a large Barack Obama sign on her front door. The traumatic experience has caused Alfanzo to withdraw from the school.
Unfortunately, Alfonzo's experience is repeated in colleges all across the country -- albeit perhaps not to the serious degree. Liberals dominate campuses and there are repeated stories of conservative students being intimated by both professors and fellow classmates for speaking in favor of Republicans or Conservatives. Even when I was in school years ago, liberals repeatedly took efforts to silence views with which they disagreed -- from staging vocal demonstrations against Conservative speakers to ripping down promotional signs for events sponsored by Conservative groups. Over the years, however, this push to silence critics has reached new levels and is evident even among the highest levels of the Democratic party.
In the late days of the Presidential race, the Obama campaign took unprecedented steps to "punish" anyone who asked tough questions or voiced disagreement with Obama. Take for example, the Florida news anchor, Barbara West, who posed tough questions to Joe Biden. The Obama campaign immediately reacted by canceling the station's already-scheduled interview with Michelle Obama, and by digging up and disseminating what they considered "dirt" about the anchor and her husband. The same thing happened with the now famous "Joe the Plumber" who simply showed up at an Obama event and raised questions about Obama's tax plans.
Going forward, liberals have advocated for reinstatement of the "Fairness Doctrine." While they attempt to wrap this in terms that make it easier to sell to the American people, the biggest effect of this doctrine will be to shut down Conservative talk radio and thereby silence some of liberals' biggest critics.
Conservatives must remain true to the Constitution. We must fight every attempt by Liberals - on our college campuses, in our communities, and within the press - to silence our voices. This is one of the most important issues domestically for Conservatives, and one that we must not loose sight of.Av
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Vigilance
Before November 4, certain friends and I shared concerns about what an Obama presidency combined with a Democratic Congress would bring. We worried about higher taxes and a declining standard of living. My husband and I had discussed restrictions of 2nd Amendment rights. We stocked up a little extra home-grown home-canned food this year and have made plans to head for the cabin if needed. Some would say that we overreacted. Sometimes I think I've been a little silly.
Then comes a video like this:
This is quite creepy. The plan is to impose mandatory "civil defense training" upon every citizen somewhere between the ages of 18 and 25. If you listen through to the end, you would think that Rahm Emanuel is spoofing a mafioso. It should make your stomach turn.
I know that this is supposed to be a place of positive discussion. Frankly, I'm finding it difficult to find much hope for the next four or eight years.
In the absence of optimism, I think vigilance will be necessary to guide our way.
h/t Ace
Then comes a video like this:
This is quite creepy. The plan is to impose mandatory "civil defense training" upon every citizen somewhere between the ages of 18 and 25. If you listen through to the end, you would think that Rahm Emanuel is spoofing a mafioso. It should make your stomach turn.
I know that this is supposed to be a place of positive discussion. Frankly, I'm finding it difficult to find much hope for the next four or eight years.
In the absence of optimism, I think vigilance will be necessary to guide our way.
h/t Ace
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Veteran's Day
Hey Y'all. As a little introduction, one of the bloggers here sent me an invitation to contribute to Fight On...and I cannot think of a better way to develop the skills needed to speak up for freedom than to hang around a bunch of positive conservatives. So...thanks, I hope to be able to contribute in a positive way.
Today is a special day. I called my son, wished him a happy Veteran's Day and thanked him for his service to our country. As I write this, I can see his wedding photo that shows him in his dress uniform - at twenty-three years of age, he was married ten days before being deployed; the photo sits next to a crystal container with all his letters from war. On the wall is a collage of pictures from a memorial service after the 9/11 attacks. In it, he appears in his uniform, a very young National Guardsman, standing proudly at attention and quite unaware that he would be called to war two years later.
Words cannot describe the pride that a mom has for a son who answered the call and spent a year in Iraq as a prison guard, treating the detainees well - even learning their language.
The young men and women whom I have come to know personally and through reading about their service in the current conflicts are amazing human beings. When peace comes to Iraq and Afghanistan, they will be remembered fondly and seen as equals to the "greatest generation."
On this day, we pause to thank our veterans of the major conflicts of WWI, WWII, the Korean War, and especially the Viet Nam war. We thank those soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who have fought in places like Panama, and Bosnia, and Somolia in attempts to bring freedom to those who are unable to fight for themselves. We thank all veterans, from the cooks to the generals, who all work together to complete the mission to keep us free.
Today is a special day. I called my son, wished him a happy Veteran's Day and thanked him for his service to our country. As I write this, I can see his wedding photo that shows him in his dress uniform - at twenty-three years of age, he was married ten days before being deployed; the photo sits next to a crystal container with all his letters from war. On the wall is a collage of pictures from a memorial service after the 9/11 attacks. In it, he appears in his uniform, a very young National Guardsman, standing proudly at attention and quite unaware that he would be called to war two years later.
Words cannot describe the pride that a mom has for a son who answered the call and spent a year in Iraq as a prison guard, treating the detainees well - even learning their language.
The young men and women whom I have come to know personally and through reading about their service in the current conflicts are amazing human beings. When peace comes to Iraq and Afghanistan, they will be remembered fondly and seen as equals to the "greatest generation."
On this day, we pause to thank our veterans of the major conflicts of WWI, WWII, the Korean War, and especially the Viet Nam war. We thank those soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who have fought in places like Panama, and Bosnia, and Somolia in attempts to bring freedom to those who are unable to fight for themselves. We thank all veterans, from the cooks to the generals, who all work together to complete the mission to keep us free.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
