Conservative Musings: Sowell

Well, I wanted to write the third part to "On Choosing Life" today (well, yesterday), but after the somewhat hectic and nerve-grating news week, I just couldn't bring myself to write on anything heavy.  So instead I'll rely on other conservatives (well, conservative) to cap off the week.  Well, I guess it's more starting off the new one.

You know what, let's just get to it.

This week, I read a rather incredible series of columns by my favorite conservative writer, Thomas Sowell.  I could spend ages gushing over his writing, how it constantly brings up truths that few seem to know or are willing to bring up.  I could rant about his brilliance and his ability to get to the core of the topics he talks about.  I could even talk about how he sometimes just writes about baseball.  In the end, they would all reach the same conclusion: if there is any one conservative columnist you should read, it is Thomas Sowell.

This week, he wrote a series of articles titled "Obama Versus Obama."  It's a fascinating look at the rhetoric of Senator Obama back when he ran in 2008 (which is important, because he did not have a particularly substantial record then) and the actions of President Obama (who does have a record).  He also points out that anyone who was willing to see Obama's past and his writings could have forseen what we have witnessed in his presidency.

However, I'm prattling when you should be reading the observations of a great mind.

You can read Obama Versus Obama here.

Obama Versus Obama, Pt. II

Obama Versus Obama, Pt. III

Obama Versus Obama, Pt. IV

That's it for the week...no, wait, it's Sun...

Forget it, just read!

On That Anti-Islam Trailer

I was listening to "Hannity" on Fox News Channel not too long ago and he had a debate going about the situation in Benghazi and the Middle East.  I have so much to say on the issue frankly, with all that has been revealed in the past week.  But since recounting it all may cause me to pull my hair out (and it's finally long enough to pull), I'll just mention this.

You see, Tucker Carlson was in this debate and he made an observation that just floored me.

He pointed out that the man who made that anti-Islam trailer is a Coptic Christian from Egypt.  He came to America to be able to live and express himself freely and now he sits in prison, allegedly for a probation violation. 

A little context, as most people are unaware of this.  The Coptic Christians are a minority group in Egypt who are regularly persecuted and murdered for their faith.  So imagine coming from that environment and journeying to the United States.  The United States guarantees the ability to express yourself freely without legal repercussion.  So this man does just that.  You can find the trailer reprehensible or whatever, however, it does not change the fact that he has every right to produce a film as demeaning or insulting as he wants.

And what happens?

He is criticized by top governmental officials.  Not in Egypt or Pakistan.  No.  By American officials, who should be, rather than kowtowing to violent mobs, defending this man's right to make a film, no matter how offensive it is.  Instead, he is used as a scapegoat, blamed for causing mobs that claim to be the second coming of Bin Laden.

Then he is perp-walked when he is taken in for questioning and now arrested for an apparent "probation violation."  Only the dullest among us will fail to see that he was arrested, not for probation, but because he made this film.  It is disgraceful.  And not only is it disgraceful, it is scary, because it suggests that anyone who criticizes Islam, as long as there is a threat of violence, can be silenced.

Just as this man, who came to America to be free and now is not, merely for exercising his rights.

An Update

You may have noticed I've been a bit quiet the past few days.  There is a reason for that.  In order to increase the notoriety of this blog, I've been busy making social media sites.  It actually didn't take as long as the last post I've made, I just get nervous whenever I do new things.

Anyway, there are two sites.  You can now keep track of the blog on:

Twitter
https://twitter.com/OnConservatism

Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/OnConservatism

I know, those are the most original URLs you've ever seen.  No need to compliment me on my creativity.

I've also done some work on Google+...though I can't figure out for the life of me how it works.  Yes, I'm fully aware that makes me sound like a man 20 years my senior.  Searching for this blog's name should bring it up, though.

Look forward to the third part of my "On Choosing Life" series tomorrow.  Until then.

On the President and His Job

Earlier today, the president spoke at the United Nations before the general assembly of the world's leaders.

That's about all he did at the United Nations' headquarters.

No staying to hear other speeches and meet with other leaders, particularly newly elected ones since the previous assembly.

No face-to-face meetings with the leaders of allied nations and trading partners.

Not even twenty-four hours spent in New York City and part of that was spent taping for "The View" last night.

"Thank God I don't have anything to do right now except pal around with these fine ladies...."

Keep in mind that Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, specifically requested a meeting with the president in New York this week.  He was even flexible enough to offer to fly down to Washington in lieu of that.  He was refused, however, because the president's itinerary was too crowded to make time for him.  I'm sure he's not the only leader who requested to meet with the president either, though his rejection received the most play.

When the president's schedule includes a fundraiser with Beyoncé and Jay-Z, an appearance with David Letterman and a hour with the ladies of "The View," well who can blame him for not having enough time to meet with the leaders of the world?  There are campaign events to go to, after all!

I think it's pretty clear that what we have here isn't a case of a packed schedule, but a badly-prioritized schedule.

Now, let me be clear, I'm not criticizing the president's fundraising.  As he's running for a second term, he should take time to raise funds (even if he hasn't really stopped since being elected).  However, he is also the leader of the free world, a role which comes with responsibilities.  He is neglecting those duties when he prioritizes fundraisers over rare, face-to-face meetings with other leaders.

That reality is only compounded when one considers that the leader who was shown being snubbed was Prime Minister Netanyahu, who clearly has reason to speak with the president.  As the leader of the only truly pro-Western democracy in the Middle East, who could very well be facing a nuclear neighbor in a short time and, thus, possibly a second Holocaust, it's obvious he has a clear reason to meet with the leader of the most capable military force in the world.

"Yes, Mr. President, nothing to do at all...."

Also, keep in mind I haven't said a word about the president's incessant campaigning and apologizing while the Middle East burned.  Nor have I said a thing about the fact that the Benghazi consulate was not secured immediately after the attack, allowing CNN journalists to discover Ambassador Stevens' journal.  There is still little indication it has been secured.

Fret not, however!  The president has everything under control.  After all, he knows how to deal with the hard truths of international crises.  His campaign volunteers have taught him that hard lesson, sacrificing daily for his cause, just like the soldiers and diplomats overseas sacrifice for America!  These problems in the Middle East, including four dead Americans, are just "bumps in the road!"  Netanyahu's concerns?  Just "noise" in some far off, irrelevant corner, clouding his vision and judgement!

Or perhaps the president, instead of being sure he's ready to deal with the world's problems, is instead preferring the company of celebrities.  All of which he does in lieu of being at his desk, ensuring that terrorist attacks are investigated and no more sensitive intelligence is lost in our consulate.

He has a job to do.  He should be doing that first and, in so doing, prove to us that he deserves to be re-elected.

On Christian Radicals

Yesterday, while perusing the front page of my local newspaper, my eye was drawn by a rather large story about the opinions of local people on the presidential election.  I noticed that a lot of those opinions were liberal, which, by itself, is not really a problem.  Despite being local (and regardless of what the chief editor once told me), the paper is a fairly liberal publication, so it is just something I've come to expect.

However, there was one quote that caught my eye.  It said, "We have Christian evangelicals in office in Congress, who are in very influential positions, who are just as radically religious as those in the Middle East.  The only difference is, they happen to be Christian."

I read those words and I thought, "You know, this man is well-informed and completely right."

An angry, white Christian runs from a car he lit on fire.

After all, I remember the terrible Sunday after the first display of the image "Piss Christ," when an artist took a crucifix and submerged it in a jar of his own urine.  I can still smell the burning of leather and gasoline as enraged Methodists and Lutherans took to the streets and set cars ablaze.  The artist had to flee to Saudi Arabia for safety, taking his precious work with him.  He lingers there to this day, but has recently taken the big risk of allowing "Piss Christ" to make the rounds in art circles again.

(As an aside, I am not very privy to modern art, but how does urinating on a cross qualify as art?)

 Who remembers the violent hordes of baptists after the death of Jerry Falwell?  I can see so vividly these...Christians as they burned effigies of the many cartoonists who, instead of memorializing a public figure, mocked his beliefs post-mortem.  These brilliant theologian artists, who know so much about the Bible, showed Falwell encountering a heaven where sinners of all stripes were present.  These artists also were forced to hide themselves, or risk being beheaded by the senseless savages who filled the streets.

And we can't forget how every Easter, legions of Evangelicals will march on Washington, demanding the enshrinement of the Bible as the only law of the land, the raising of the Southern Baptist Convention as our congress and Pastor John Hagee as our president.  They demand that all rape victims and homosexuals be stoned and blasphemy against Jesus and God punished by beheading.

It is a dangerous world we live in...

...when people walk around comparing Islamic radicals with Evangelical Christians.  Now, don't get me wrong, the Rosie O'Donnell's of the world have every right to speak, but never without a firm counterargument waiting on the lips of those who are slandered and libeled by those words.

In no way are people like me anything like Islamic radicals.  Remember, they wish to see criticism of their faith banished and critics imprisoned or killed.  These are people who wish to see Islam codified worldwide in law and forced upon people of all stripes and traditions.  No mainstream Evangelical Christian believes anything of the sort.

Now, we most certainly believe that our values should be reflected in society, particularly if society agrees with those values.  The same goes for secularists and anyone else with differing beliefs.  However, in no way does this reflect a desire to have a theocracy or to force our faith down others throats. 

Comparing Christians participating in the political sphere with radicals hell bent on destroying all which is not Islamic is laughable at best.  It is dangerous at worst, as it causes people to see a villain where there is not and ignore the one at their very doorstep.

On Choosing Life, Pt. II

This article is part two in a series.  You can read part I here.

Last week, I posted about abortion and how, in essence, I think it is wrong.  I contextualized it in a way that I hope has some meaning to anyone reading it.  This week, I want to be a little more specific than I was last week.

For the attentive, you might have noticed that I said I was perfectly fine with the "extreme" Republican platform, even though it doesn't give any exception regarding rape and incest.  Congratulations, you have discovered my position on abortion.  There is no time, no place and no circumstance in which it is acceptable to me.

For the more liberally-minded among you, you are probably wondering, "No rape exception?  What is he, insane?"  For the more conservatively-minded, you might be thinking, "You'll never convince anyone to become pro-life if you aren't willing to give a little."

To me, however, innocent, unborn life deserves our utmost, unwavering support. 

In order to explain this further, I'm going to list off the various "forms" or "types" of abortion and give my argument for why I oppose each.

First and Second Trimester Abortions

These abortions are likely what people think of first when the topic comes up, being the most common.  Generally, I hear these abortions justified by several arguments, which I touched on briefly in the last article.  One argument is the viability of the fetus/baby.  In other words, because it is too small and cannot survive on its own, aborting is justified.  Others claim (in an argument tied into viability) that because the baby cannot feel pain or lacks a detectable heartbeat, aborting it is, again, justified.  The most prevalent argument is the "choice" argument itself, where abortion proponents argue that a woman can choose to do what she wishes with her own body.

The first two arguments tie into a much bigger question: when does life begin?  Put differently, when does the fetus become a baby?  Personally, I believe that the fetus is always a baby, from conception forward.  I believe this for three reasons.

Think about it: Once upon a time, we were all tiny aliens like this.

One: The fetus is made of living tissue; at no point is it inert or dead.  That makes it alive.  Viability is irrelevant when it is accepted as alive.  It is dependent, yes, but dependency does not justify killing the innocent.

Two: On conception, the fetus has a fully replicable human genome.  Otherwise, the fetus/baby would never be able to develop further.  Again, this is evidence that it is alive.  It does not stop being human merely because it is microscopic.  We were all at this stage once.  Would you, my reader, say that your life has so little value that you should be exterminated?  You meet both of those criteria for now, just as you did then.

Three: From a perspective of faith, there is a particular verse which is vitally important to understanding the importance and value of life.  In Jeremiah 1:5, God tells Jeremiah "'Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations' (emphasis mine)."  This verse tells me all I need to know.  First, I know there is a life beyond the physical, that we have immortal souls.  Not only that, but this verse also tells us that God has a plan for our lives, whether we choose to follow it or not.

When you have faith, there is undeniable confirmation that our lives hold importance long before the day we are conceived and, thus, ending those lives on a whim is unacceptable not only to humans but to God Himself.

This list, while it does address the life of the unborn child, does not address the final argument I mentioned: "choice."  I believe that arguing "choice" is the last refuge of the abortion proponent who has failed to convince the opponent of the baby's lack of person-hood and right to live.  Instead of appealing to the head, this argument appeals to the heart.  It claims that abortion is a woman's right, that she has the right to do what she wishes with her own body and that curtailing said rights will set back the women's movement forty years.

This is, however, purely emotional blackmail.  It attempts to guilt the abortion opponent by making him or her think solely of the mother-to-be and not the helpless human being developing inside of her.  The baby is not her own body; dependent though it may be, it is still a separate being with every right to live as the rest of us do.  Abortion ultimately is a punishment to the unborn purely for existing.

Next week, I will address the rest of my list, including late-term abortions and the "rape exception."

On Obama's Policy Failure, Pt. II

When the news broke that both the Cairo embassy and the Benghazi consulate were assaulted and people killed in the latter, it was disheartening to say the least.  How could something this awful happen?  Unfortunately, there was a terrible truth to be revealed.

On the anniversary of 9/11, the Obama administration had done nothing to improve security at these sites.

For years, radical Islamists have drummed up those sympathetic to their cause for demonstrations on that day, celebrating the successful murder of 3,000 people.  The fact that any embassy did not have additional guards posted, whether from the host country or detachments of marines, is beyond dangerous.  It is disgraceful.  And this disgrace killed four good men in Libya.

The administration attempts to hide behind excuses, claiming that the Benghazi consulate was too small to have a larger security detail.  In addition to being a far too literalistic interpretation of regulations, our ambassador was in that building that day.  Even if the compound itself did not warrant additional security, would not Ambassador Steven's himself at least deserved a group of well-armed marines to protect him and deter attacks on his person?

They also claim they had no "actionable intelligence" prior to the assault.  Another day, another excuse.  Again, I point to the date and the lack of marines.  I also argue that the president might have been more inclined to increase security if he actually attended national security briefings with intelligence experts telling him what they know and what they feel.  A non-expert "reading the briefing himself" instills absolutely no confidence in me that he is any more informed when he finishes those briefings.

Finally, there's the creator of the anti-Islam film, which is only a trailer that has existed for two months.  When fanatics and savages burn our embassies and kill our diplomats, allegedly over a film, the president failed to do the one thing he should have done.  Assuming the film is the root cause of all the protests, which I do not believe for a second, no one in this administration actually defended the filmmaker's right to make stupid movies.

Instead, they condemned him.  Our government condemned him for exercising his right to free speech   They investigated him.  They leaned (and continue to lean) on YouTube to take the video down which, to its credit, it has not.  They've taken him into custody (apparently on unrelated charges), in a manner more appropriate to a newly-discovered Nazi war criminal, surrounded by police (police who might have been better off surrounding the ambassador.  Better someone than no one at all).  Unrelated or not, however, this is clearly for making a film.

This is scary.  The government is using its power to suppress speech it doesn't like.

Now, by no means do I condone making fun of people's religion.  However, this is no excuse to condemn legitimate free speech behavior or justify violent, murderous rioters.  I don't recall violent riots when an "artist" submerged a crucifx in urine.  I'm pretty sure it's not okay to defame Christ or His sacrifice, just as it is not okay to defame Muhammad, but Christians do not kill people over it.  So how can you now justify riots over something like this?  All we do by punishing the man who made this film is tell the radicals that we will enforce their laws and beliefs when they riot a little.  That's all it will take.

I say it again: this administration's response to murder and assaults all over the world is disgraceful.  If President Obama can not be relied upon to protect our diplomats and our freedoms, he does not deserve his office.

On Obama's Policy Failure

"Which one?"

A cheap shot, I know (though that doesn't make it any less true).  I waited until now to see if the demonstrations would die down after the weekend, but as they haven't, I have decided to write this post.

While, in general, I find this administration actions to be either weak or harmful, I've found the timeline of responses to the Middle East situation be utterly contemptible.

You've seen how I feel about the president and his campaigning in the immediate aftermath of Tuesday's news.  However, now I'm bothered by the fact that the administration and a complicit media are seeking to cover this up by obsessing over every irrelevant detail instead of asking serious questions and becoming introspective.

First there is State Department's attempt to create a revisionist timeline of the Benghazi attack that the Libyan government and anyone with common sense knows is untrue.  They're trying to claim that the attack was an outgrowth of a protest at the embassy.  This fails logically, since I've never seen members of a spontaneous demonstration tote RPGs and launch suspiciously coordinated assaults in an attempt to assassinate civilian officials.  Even the Cairo attack merely stormed the grounds, burned our flag and replaced it with an Islamist one.  On top of that, there are reports indicating there was no demonstration prior to the attack.

To top it off, it was the anniversary of 9/11.  It doesn't get any more obvious than that.  What better day to plan an attack than on the anniversary of Islamic radical's most successful terrorist attack to date?

Which brings me to my next point.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the State Department in general seem to be obsessed with this video on the internet.  Clinton herself disgracefully used the service for our fellow countrymen on Friday to criticize the film again.  That was neither the time nor the place for such statements.  Four men lay in caskets behind her and all she could do was repeat the same absurd line.

Keep in mind, this video is a trailer that has existed since July.  Apparently it used a slow-burning fuse on the powder keg that is the Middle East.  Well, that or it's just a distraction.  It has most certainly been used to inflame passions, but that's not the root cause for what happened on 9/11/2012, merely a convenient excuse.

You see, I believe the administration isn't constantly trotting out the video or this alternate timeline because they actually believe either to be a cause or true respectively.  I believe that this White House and the media that coddles them is looking to deflect attention from the president's Middle East policy.  Recall in 2008-2009 he sought to "reset" relations with the Muslim and Arabic world.  He sought to change our relations with them through the power of his personality.

This past week has proven that policy has failed.  Polling indicates that region of the world hates us more than ever and the rioters have been shown burning pictures and even effigies of the president.  These distractions serve merely to divert attention from the fact that killing Usama bin Laden isn't a foreign a policy, merely a blip on the radar set in motion long before he entered office.  These riots prove that the president's reset did nothing to fix relations with that region of the world.

Return tomorrow for my final and what I believe is the most frightening points regarding the administration's response to the chaos in the Middle East.

Conservative Musings: Middle East Edition

The Middle East is on fire currently and all the media can focus on is Mitt Romney.  I have a lot to say about this, particularly because the media's obsession with focusing on Mitt Romney has overshadowing dozens of valid questions about President Obama's Middle East policy.  However, as I wish to avoid copious amounts of swearing, I will instead turn to other conservative writers to voice my feelings.

First off is Stephen Hayes, senior writer for The Weekly Standard, a conservative opinion magazine.  I know him primarily through his role as a Fox News contributor, however.

In this article, he challenges the media's assertion that Mitt Romney has been political in the chaos of the new 9/11 attacks and the week following.  He lists off just how [infuriatingly] political President Obama (or more to the point, his campaign) has been on both the day of and the days following 9/11/2012.  Both his article and the facts speak for themselves, so give it a read and judge for yourself.

You can find Steve Hayes' article, "Wait, Who's Political?" here.

Next up is David Limbaugh.  Yes, that's right, another Limbaugh, the brother of the more verbose Rush.  Unlike Rush, however, David focuses more on writing than speaking.  Don't mistake his preference for the pen as a sign of weakness, however.  He is just as aggressive in his defense of conservatism as his more famous brother.  And perhaps a little more articulate.

In his column this week, Limbaugh more directly addresses the media bias that is less directly criticized by Steve Hayes.  He calls out the media's obsession with Romney's comments while simultaneously pointing out President Obama's abdication of leadership by preferring a campaign stop in Vegas to the Oval Office in a time of crisis.  However, since I'm writing this post so you'll read the articles themselves and no my ramblings, I'll stop here and let you find out for yourself.

You can read David Limbaugh's article, "Liberal Media Might as Well Wear Obama Buttons" here.



The final article today is written by Hugh Hewitt, a radio talk show host and a Catholic.  I generally find his writings informative and insightful.

His article is similar to Limbaugh's, but approaches it from a slightly different angle to reach the same conclusion about the media's reaction.   I don't have as much to say about this one, so I'll just give it to you without the extra commentary, besides saying it's worth reading.




You can read Hugh Hewitt's article, "Which Is Melting Faster: America's Position in Middle East or MSM's Position in America?" here.

That's it for the week.  Hopefully there will be less Middle East next week.

Weakness in the Face of Murder

I'm so sorry that...you're destroying our flag?

Yesterday, on the 11^th anniversary of the worst terror attack on United States soil, a violent mob attacked the U.S. embassy in Egypt, tearing down our nations flag and, in it's place, raising a black one that said there was no other god than Allah. Not long after, a group of armed men attacked the U.S. embassy in Libya and murdered our ambassador and three other people.

What was the State Department's response?

They apologized.

They apologized for a private citizen making a film critical of the prophet Muhammad. That's right folks. Their immediate response was to apologize on Twitter for the actions of a person they had literally no control over. And who did they apologize to? A bunch of people who murdered an American diplomat. Not a combatant. A civilian.

First of all, these riots had nothing to do with that film. The Egyptians had flags eerily similar to those of Al Qaeda and the Libyans had guns. Generally, people don't store those away for spontaneous protests. These were both organized attacks on the United States on the anniversary of 9/11. Second, that filmmaker, no matter how distasteful his mockery of Muhammad is, has every right in this country to do that. To even be cowed into apologizing for our freedoms to people who have attacked and burned our consulates is beyond weak. It is reprehensible.

Then our president comes out this morning and says we condemn these actions “in the strongest terms.”

What does that even mean?

I condemn you fire!  Condemn you in the strongest terms!

If you want to condemn these actions in the strongest terms, use the damn terms. Tact doesn't matter to people who barge into places of diplomacy and peace, American soil in a foreign country, and tear down our flag and murder our citizens. When you are president, you should take a stand. You need to call out the rioters and defend American freedoms. You need to call out the murderers and condemn their evil.

And where is the president off to now? Vegas, for one of his big fund-raising events. Our president, instead of being in his office, keeping a close eye on the situation following violent attacks on our embassies, is off at a fundraiser.

I have no words.

I have had enough of this weak-kneed response to evil. Every time there is some sort of violence or rise of radicalism in the Muslim world, this administration gives, at best tepid response, devoid of courage and passion. At worst, they justify and support it, as with the Arab Spring and the rise of radical regimes in both nations. Our government is devoid of the defense of our values and beliefs that we, as Americans, deserve from our leadership.

On Choosing Life

With the conventions over, we now have a taste of the party platforms for the coming years. There's one issue I would like to dive into regarding that.

You see, the Republican platform, like previously, seeks to end the practice of abortion in our country. What caught the media's eye was that there was no exceptions for rape or incest. It was immediately jumped on, supporters of abortion claiming that the Republican position on abortion was “extreme” and “against women's rights” and their “health” and their “reproductive choices.” Of course, they would have said so with or without the exception.

The following week, the Democrat's presented their platform. In it, the party spelled out a desire to end all restrictions on abortion and to make available through taxpayer funding. In a country in which half of its citizens find abortion morally wrong and a vast majority believe that some sort of restrictions should be codified in law, this position is naturally the opposite extreme of the Republican position.

The media, ever the careful watchdog, reported on it...oh, right, this is the mainstream press we are talking about. Which means that, instead of reporting on it, they glossed over it, so that only the part country that has the time to pay close enough attention to the platforms is actually aware of it.

Nice.

Personally, I'll take that Republican platform over anything the Democrats present.

You see, I'm against abortion in all of its forms. I believe it is just as wrong at conception as it is on the day of birth, whether natural or induced. I believe it is wrong no matter how the child was conceived. I believe it's wrong no matter how much feminists and progressives preach to me about the “rights” of women to do what they want with “their own bodies.”

I think those arguments are false, plain and simple.  The fetus, no matter how old, is a human being. It isn't just some clump of tissue nor is it, at any point, dead or inert. Once, you and I were both that small, that helpless. Now we've developed into fully functional human beings. Yet those who favor abortion favor the ending of those lives, whether they openly consider it in those terms or not.

They favor the deaths of people long before they ever take their first breath of fresh air.

Before they can see the face of another human being.

Before they can smile, cry or speak.

They are for the right of the mother to consent to the death of their child, but not for the right of that child to live.

Pro-child, eh?  Only if lying in a puddle of one's own blood is in its best interest.

Since the legalization of abortion in the United States in 1973, nearly 55 million babies have been killed in abortion procedures. In context:

• Though estimates vary widely, World War II killed somewhere from 50 million to over 70 million people in the war itself.
• The Holocaust killed somewhere between 11 million to 17 million people.
• The famine created by China's first Great Leap Forward killed between 15 million and 43 million people.
• The Rwandan Genocide killed anywhere from 500,000 to 1 million people.
• The Darfur Conflict has killed approximately 400,000 people.

How can we call ourselves a moral and civilized society when we have killed more defenseless, innocent human lives than some of the most violent wars and horrendous violations of human rights in recent history?

The short answer: We cannot.

Remembering 9/11

Do you remember where you were when you first heard the news of the attacks on the World Trade Center? I do.

It was seventh grade and I was doing...something in Mr. Castanzo's geography class. Whatever it was has been erased by the events of the morning. In particular, the announcement that came over the intercom. In what may have been the least sensible instruction they could have given, the voice instructed teachers to not turn on their TVs. No reasons or justifications were issued. Just a simple request...that likely caused every teacher in the building to turn on their TVs. Mr. Castanzo did, at least. That's when I first saw the images.

When I was a child, prior to moving to Pennsylvania, I grew up in Irvington, New Jersey, a suburb of the city of Newark. Thus, I lived fairly close to relatives in nearby Kearny and Jersey City. Visiting them often, sometimes weekly, I grew up with the New York City skyline. The high placement of my grandparent's house on the Passaic Ridge in Kearny made the city clearly visible on a nice day. The Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in particular would glint in the distance, grand and impressive despite being several miles away. With my uncle in Jersey City and our visits to the piers and Liberty State Park, I could almost reach out and touch them across the Hudson. I even visited them once.

To see those towers, in many ways symbols of my childhood, burning on that screen was surreal. The class just watched, stunned. Some of us, myself included, tried to continue working, but the image of billowing smoke on the New York skyline kept much from getting done. Many students in our school had parents and relatives who worked in the city and they were now beset by confusion and fear. Then the signal went dead. After the clever “don't turn on your TVs” announcement, they shut off the cable, leaving us all in the dark.

I only heard sporadic rumors in the building for the rest of the day until I got home, at which point I found out the towers had outright collapsed, the Pentagon had been attacked and a fourth plane had crashed in my own state. I watched as the normally unflappable Peter Jennings broke down into tears while reporting on the attack.

The nation had changed. Life as we had known it had changed. Before, it seemed that the world was on track into a period of peace and ever-growing prosperity. Instead, in one single act, that naïve assumption was dashed and we were reminded we had enemies in the world and likely always would.

Yet, I feel that people are already forgetting that reminder. I see so many today willing to complacently sit by. They assume that there is no threat to our safety and liberty waiting to strike at us from the shadows. They assume that we were attacked because of who we, as a nation, are rather than who they, as homicidal radicals, are.

“Never forget.” Those words don't only remind us of the people who died that day.

They remind us that complacency invites death.

On Trivializing Race

I promise hope and change...just like four years ago.

Well, the conventions are over and the election season now begins in earnest.

I decided to listen to President Obama's acceptance speech last night and, much to my surprise, was not tempted to throw something at the TV. Not that I do otherwise. I normally just yell at the screen in frustration. Then again, since I'm a conservative and hate all that is good in the world, I murder a puppy to vent my rage. All in a day's work.

Sadly, I didn't see the Barack Obama of 2004 or 2008 on my screen. The one who inspired hope in people (which I was immune to) was absent. All I saw was a whiny and petulant man, frustrated with his failures and, in his anger, lashing out at others for them.

As I listened to the speech, I wondered: do we really want another four years of this guy's administration?

After four years, all I see is a country that is underemployed (myself included) and stagnant. It is a country that is increasingly dependent, not on itself, but on the food stamp and welfare benefits encouraged under this administration. The anemic growth of the economy prevents people from strengthening on their own and, even worse, keeps them mired where they are.

I see an administration that could care less about the limits placed on it by the Constitution. I've seen the Justice Department, created to enforce the laws of the land, ignore its obligation to enforce laws it doesn't like, such as the Defense of Marriage Act. I see a president who, by executive decree, declares that certain illegal immigrants should not be deported based on unverifiable claims.  I see a man who believes himself to be king, fighting proxy wars with the Central Intelligence Agency, deploying soldiers without our knowledge and keep a “kill list,” far beyond any power the Constitution has vested in his office.

I see a man who drags the specter of Chicago corruption with him. He has attempted to bully and shame the Supreme Court time and again, despite it being a separate and equal branch of the government. Most recently, in his own convention, nearly half of the delegates in his party were railroaded in a fixed “vote” over the presence of God and Jerusalem in the platform. 

Do I find the “no” votes to be scary? Yes. Do I think they deserved better treatment? Yes.

In the end, I believe that President Barack Obama is far more interested in improving his golf game than leading our country.

Now, you're probably saying, “Wait a minute, this post is supposed to be about race, isn't it? It's in the title and everything! And what's with all of this underlining business?”

You see, I've decided to write this post in code. All of those underlined words don't have the meaning you think they mean. They are actually all racially tinged “code words;” dog whistles, as it were. I use these words to trigger the inherent, unchanging racist sentiments of white people, who only see color in everything.

And now you're probably asking, “Are...are you stupid?” To which I answer, “Nope, but the liberal media is.”

I've had enough of the race-baiting this election and it's only just beginning. You see, there is such a thing as real racism. It is not, however, commonplace in America today. Yet, liberals and progressives want us, the American people, to believe it is and that it is just as prevalent and widespread as it was in the glory days of Jim Crow.

Uh...who are the racists again?

I find this despicable. Racism is a serious charge and not one to be leveled lightly. It implies that someone feels irrational hatred for another purely because of their ethnicity or the color of their skin. Hatred is a scary thing and the last thing we should be doing is ascribing it to people who do not feel it. Not only does it heinously insult the accused, but it also lessens the character of the accuser.

It also diminishes the impact and meaning of real racism. Racial hatred has a long and storied past. Outside of this country, it is a harsh reality. Just ask the Jews, the Kurds, or the Sudanese. How is it justified for anyone to charge it recklessly?

Then again, I suppose it's just a classic case of projection as I've seen time and again.

On Restoring Love

So, after a hiatus (writer's block is really, really frustrating), I'm back. This time, to talk about love.

How do you not even give this a mention?

Today, the TV was on to TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network), a Christian television network. To my pleasant surprise, their flagship program, Praise the Lord, was not the usual affair, but a special presentation of “Restoring Love.” For the unaware (whom I don't blame, considering the media somehow ignored a gathering of tens of thousands of people in Dallas), Restoring Love was an event back in July hosted by Glenn Beck. It was the third and final of his “Restoring” series of rallies.

Unfortunately for me, I was unable to view it back then.

Suffice it to say, seeing it today was wonderful.

Now, there are many things I could discuss about it, however, one thing stuck in my mind. When Beck referenced the “American Dream,” he said it wasn't about material things. Now, keep in mind, I have not thought it was about material things for years. However, he defined it (which I paraphrase) as, “service to God and to our fellow man.”

When I look on the world today, I see people seek out “love” and the “American Dream.”

I believe believe that many fall well short of the mark for both.  Americans, particularly younger ones like myself, who have been mired in a culture obsessed with sex and things.  We forget that love, true love, is selfless. Instead, we seek love in things that make us feel good, regardless of the consequences, both to others and ourselves.

For years, we, as a people, have been bombarded with imagery and ideas that miss the purpose of that dream. We seek love and fulfillment in things and other people.

True love comes from selfless service, first to God, and through our service to God we serve our fellow man. Whether we help the needy through our own time and devotion, as we are commanded, or share the gospel, we serve our fellow man. In many ways, it is a loop, for through our service God, we serve our fellow man and by serving our fellow man, we serve and glorify God.

God is first, but the ultimate outcome is both.

If we, as a country, could return to an understanding of this basic truth, then not only would we gain an understanding of love...but we would also achieve the American Dream. Through our hard work and devotion, we can meaningfully serve others, whether we preach, volunteer, or just work in our jobs and our businesses. Because it is commitment to God and hard work for others in His name where people find true contentment.