Obama the War President

by Chadwick Ciocci

Anti-war Barack Obama has become pro-war President Obama, and has done so at the expense of America’s national security as well as the Constitution. America now finds itself engaged in the Libyan War for well over important 60 and 90 day benchmarks, which is in clear violation of the 1973 War Powers Act. That resolution was passed by Congress in response to President Nixon’s secret bombing campaigns during the Vietnam War, and was specifically meant to limit the President’s ability to start wars on a whim. Congress essentially asserted its own authority to have a say in when and where wars are to be started.

To continue reading, please visit Conventional Folly.

Capitalism and Christianity

The Public Religion Policy Institute has come out with a recent poll claiming that more Americans believe Capitalism and Christianity are incompatible (44%) than believe they are compatible (36%). While there are numerous issues to be taken with the methodology of the institute’s polling, it cannot be denied that there are, unfortunately, many Christians who believe their faith and the very system which permits them to practice the charitable aspects of that faith are at odds. Regardless of denomination, believing the two systems are at odds is simply bad theology.

One needn’t delve in to complicated theological tracts or have some profound understanding of the nuances between Anglicanism and the Episcopal Church. Put simply, God’s commandments are individual mandates, not government mandates, and as such are meant to be lived out through individual acts after the individual decisions of individual people. These individuals may come together (and almost always do) within their faith community to help the less fortunate or take on other projects, but these are voluntary associations which in no way dilute the moral clarity of those acting out a Biblical life.

To read more, visit The Americano.

A Case for American Exceptionalism

American Exceptionalism may just be the most misunderstood concept in contemporary American politics. Liberals seem to have absolutely no understanding of it whatsoever, and unfortunately, I fear a majority of conservatives believe the concept simply amounts to “We are better than them”.American Exceptionalism does not simply amount to bragging rights that we have the largest economy in the world, the most successful military and one of the freest countries yet to grace this earth. These observations are post facto a much larger and far more important premise which forms the foundation of American Exceptionalism: God grants rights directly to individual people, not governments, and does so in equal measure.

Of course, this is not the end of it. The concept is neither American nor exceptional (in that it is not the product of one philosopher or nation). English and French philosophers had argued this point long before George Washington presided over the Constitutional Convention. What does make this concept American and exceptional though, from our vantage point as modern people, is the fact that our Founders codified this philosophy in our most important political and governing documents, most notably the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men [people] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

To continue reading, go to Parcbench.com.

Chadwick Ciocci at CPAC

Be sure to check out this speech at CPAC 2010:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzwhfAZPyI0

Follow-up on Partisanship

Last week I wrote about partisanship- why it’s not only good and proper but quite necessary for a healthy democracy. I certainly thought I put myself out on a limb by writing it but writing about it is one thing; practicing it is something entirely different. That same week, President Obama’s excessive and expensive economic “stimulus” bill met staunch and unanimous opposition from every single House Republican (and several Democrats as well). The move was brazen, unexpected and badly needed.

Perhaps what was most beautiful about the Republicans’ unanimous opposition was that it seemed to stem from what I believe is proper partisanship, or partisanship based upon core beliefs, philosophy and bedrock principles- not merely Party affiliation (which is improper partisanship). Republicans saw this bill for what it really is:

• A waist of tax payer money
• An inefficient way to stimulate the economy
• A restriction of American economic and financial liberty
• A total embrace of ill-conceived Keynesian economics and
• Generational thievery

The list of negatives could go on and on, but these seem to me to be the five most important issues with the stimulus package.

Now why do I say that the Republican vote seems to be in line with proper partisanship? Mainly because when their opposition to the stimulus bill is coupled with other votes they have made, it becomes clear that this particular vote was not about Party but about philosophy. The House Republicans have already backed several Democratic/Obama proposals but yet found it impossible to back this horrendous stimulus package. If their partisanship were really based upon Party, then they would also be rejecting every other proposal made by the opposition, but the fact is that they haven’t.

I am keenly aware that the difference between proper partisanship and improper is not always clear, nor should it be though. Ideally, a particular philosophy aligns with a particular Party. In our American case, capitalism, individual freedom, smaller government (conservatism) with the Republicans; increased government spending and regulation, socialism and a greater trust in the role of government (modern American liberalism) with the Democrats. These lines are not always clearly demarcated, but with the election of one of if not the most liberal candidate ever to the White House and the loss of almost every moderate Republican in the House, the two major Parties seem to be more closely aligned with their traditionally associated philosophies than at any time I can remember.

Although proper partisanship itself is good, it is also somewhat scary to see the stark and very real differences between the Democrats and Republicans. The debate is no longer about bigger government or smaller government (an idea put forth by President Obama himself) but about competing economic and social systems. On the one hand we have a President and Congress who believe in “spreading the wealth” (read: a Robin Hood system of taxation) and on the other an opposition Party which finds wisdom in the knowledge and beliefs of our Founding Fathers and therefore our nation’s founding principles. It is perhaps such stark differences that make healthy and robust conservative and Republican partisanship so vitally important to our Republic.

But what is it about this stimulus bill that is so offensive to Republican philosophy? Perhaps it’s the fact that at one point it was proposed that ACORN (the “community organizing” group associated with Obama and under federal investigation) receive billions of tax payer dollars. Or maybe it’s the $200 million allocated to spruce up the national Mall along with the $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts (this creates jobs how?). Then there’s the $100 million to reduce the threat of lead paint (I’d rather spend that on reducing the threat of Iran) as well as the billions of other dollars that will do nothing to spur economic growth and that will simply have to be paid back with interest by the tax payers (read: you and me) in the future.

I think one of the reasons so many average citizens do not support this stimulus measure is because they realize, correctly so, that it will do nothing to stimulate the economy. Dolling out billions of dollars to special interest groups and projects does nothing but increase our already criminal levels of debt and weaken the United States long term.

Thank God some members of Congress understand this.

In Defense of Partisanship

With the recent election and inauguration of President Obama, there has been a good deal of talk and misplaced calls for bi-partisanship and “putting our differences aside”. Perhaps what is most interesting about all of this is that the calls have not just come from majority Democrats (whom one could expect this from simply so they don’t have to deal with too much Republican opposition) but from minority Republicans as well. Just this past week Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican minority leader, was quoted as saying, “Republicans will choose bipartisan solutions over partisan failures every single time.”

I wish I knew what this meant, Senator. Does it mean choosing to back a supposed “stimulus” package that the vast majority of Americans are opposed to while simultaneously dumping your conservative and capitalist values, or does it mean eschewing your responsibility to be the loyal opposition as so far Congressional Republicans have successfully done? The fact is that in the name of bi-partisanship and “coming together”, Congressional Republicans have lost their backbone and are letting far too many Democratic proposals either skate on by with their tacit consent or worse yet, have actively backed them in fairly staunch opposition to the values they supposedly stand for as well as the constituents who elected them.

Perhaps the worst of these cave-ins was President Bush, in the last few weeks of his administration, putting his stamp of approval on Federal bailouts and anti-capitalist policies more reminiscent of liberal Democrats than the conservative Republican he originally ran as. The Republican turncoats have continued with their whimsical approvals of Obama’s cabinet appointees- appointees who include a tax-dodging treasury secretary and a terrorist-associated attorney general. All of this has been done in the name of bipartisanship.

But despite the bad wrap that partisanship gets from critics both left and right, it seems to me that if anything, our nation would be better served with more partisanship, not less. In his farewell address to the House of Representatives, former Congressman and Republican leader Tom Delay made a stirring defense of partisanship. In the speech he said, “…partisanship…properly understood, is not a symptom of democracy’s weakness but of its health and its strength…”

He continued, “You show me a nation without partisanship, and I’ll show you a tyranny. For all its faults, it is partisanship, based on core principles, that clarifies our debates, that prevents one party from straying too far from the mainstream, and that constantly refreshes our politics with new ideas and new leaders.”

Delay made himself famous for his partisanship, a partisanship based upon two core principles: human freedom and human dignity. There could be no compromise on such fundamental matters, he believed, as “…compromise and bipartisanship are means, not ends, and are properly employed only in the service of higher principles.”

What Delay and other partisans- both right-wing and left-wing- are trying to get at, is that regardless of what one’s politics happen to be, one should and must posses a strongly-held set of core beliefs which dictate subsequent policy and therefore action and upon which one so strongly believes in their rightness and soundness that they form a foundation and bedrock. Without such a foundation, men are prone to fall for anything that comes their way. One day they will vote in favor of bailouts and the next day in favor of balancing the budget. Then they will vote in favor of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act but also lend their support to lifting the Mexico City policy (which bans the use of American dollars being spent on abortions and abortion-supporting activities overseas).

In the past decade or so of American politics there has been a strong demand for a “nicer” politics, one not so marred by the acrimony of partisanship. Many politicians tried to deliver this, and it was mostly these same bi-partisan politicians who lost their Congressional seats this past year and the election before that. Congressmen like Christopher Shays from Connecticut, a long-time member of the House and a man famous for compromise and bi-partisanship, lost his seat after 21 years in office because he could not resist the flood of voters who wanted fundamental change (read: not muddled moderatism, but bold policy).

Certainly Americans want to see their Democratic and Republican leaders work together to solve our nations problems- and it goes without saying that this is what our leaders should be doing- but what staunch liberal wishes to see President Obama cave-in to Republican demands for more tax cuts and what staunch conservative wished to see President Bush throw our capitalist philosophy to the side with the bailouts?

If it so happens that a particular philosophy does not actually solve our problems when it is tested- whether that philosophy be on the left or right side of the political spectrum- then it is not compromise that is needed but a new philosophy. No amount of compromise will fix bad policies or bad philosophy and in fact will actually only cover up the true effects of one policy or another.

In the words of Mr. Delay, “Indeed, whatever role partisanship may have played in my own retirement today or in the unfriendliness heaped upon other leaders in other times, Republican or Democrat, however unjust, all we can say is that partisanship is the worst means of settling fundamental political differences—except for all the others.”

Round 1- Capitalism vs. Socialism. FIGHT!

In recent weeks there has been much talk about competing economic systems largely stemming from Joe the Plumber’s now famous question to Barack Obama and Obama’s telling and equally troubling response that we need to “spread the wealth”. Americans have reacted with angst and mistrust, and for good reason. Nations the world over have had little luck with socialist systems and even Europe, a place safer than most for socialism and those who support it, has largely come to see the system’s major failures and is beginning to move toward a freer, more capitalist system.

History has proven that free market systems properly administered with limited and proper regulation create more wealth for more people than highly regulated socialist systems where entrepreneurship and economic industrialism are tempered by removing rewards for hard work through suffocating taxation. Just look at the United States of America which has created far and away the largest and most successful economy on Earth and has done so through one of if not the freest market system amongst all nations. It is not mere coincidence that we both have the freest market system on Earth and are the most successful- our success is the result of our freedom.

Free market systems do better for their participants than socialist ones as unemployment rates remain lower and people are able to create more wealth for themselves by investing their own monies. It says much about the quality of our own system that we desperately fret about a possible 6% unemployment rate and call for the heads of leading politicians should it reach that point. We view 6% unemployment as a failure; many socialist European nations view it as a great success considering 8% plus unemployment is fairly average. The fact is our worst unemployment rate is usually much better than Europe’s best.

It is deeply troubling then that Democrats like Barack Obama and even many people amongst our own generation wish to backslide on a proven system with proven results. First they say they wish to reward hard work, but then when someone works hard and creates a good income for themselves, Democrats propose taxing them at a higher rate. What a great reward for hard work!

The argument in favor of socialist policies like Barack Obama’s is rarely if ever that it will create more wealth for more people. This argument is of course antithetical to the goal of socialism, which is equality, and not freedom. It aims at tearing down the successful until they are equal with the unsuccessful under some absurd proposal that being economically equal is more important than being economically free.

Instead, the argument in favor of socialism almost always rests upon an empathetic notion of altruism that socialists would have manifest itself through a crushing redistributionist taxation policy. It’s the Robin Hood theory of taxation- take from the rich and give to the poor. Why? Because the rich can afford it and the poor deserve it, as if affordability were reason enough for some tax collector to come steal the fruits of your labor.

Let it not be misconstrued though that I don’t believe there is a role for government in the economy and in the lives of our fellow citizens. Government must absolutely set rules that protect consumers against greed, corruption and other negativities of any economic system but that role should not grow larger than that. I also fully recognize that there are some people in our system that simply need help but such help should come in the form of a hand-up, and not a hand-out.

Welfare systems, despite seeming like innocent government programs that merely seek to help those who need it, are often very dangerous. They teach generations of people to rely on the government for their livelihood instead of upon themselves and in doing so make governments far too powerful as the result of citizens’ reliance. It brings to mind the old adage, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have.”

Our founding fathers understood the concept, Barry Goldwater understood it when he re-annunciated it in his book Conscience of a Conservative and I pray Americans come to a better understanding of it before it’s too late.

Reflections on the 2008 election

If it seemed strange writing about the election last week and the week before with it so quickly approaching, it’s surely even stranger now with it behind us. My candidate obviously did not win, but let me take the moment to say congratulations to all of my friends and fellow politicos on campus who I know worked hard and desperately wanted this win.

You should take pride in the work you did and in the fact that your candidate won. I wish it had turned out quite differently, but such is our democratic system. If we all wish to live in a free society where we are neither ruled by irrational mobs nor by a singular tyrant, then we are forced to take the good with the bad and concede this election.

While Republicans must concede, it is interesting to look back and see if maybe we could have done something differently to alter the outcome. The old adage, “Those who do not study history are bound to repeat it” is most applicable to politics, and Republicans would do well to follow its advice, especially if they hope to make Congressional inroads in two years and take back the White House in 2012.

If there is one fact in this election it is this: John McCain ran a terrible campaign. It wasn’t until the very last debate with Barack Obama that he finally got a message. It is infuriating to think that if perhaps there had been just three or even two more weeks in the election that John McCain might very well have pulled it off. America really grabbed on to his message about Joe the Plumber (as annoying as it eventually became), opposition to higher taxes and Obama’s socialist views. Despite the economy, Americans remain a people who wish to keep the money they earn and don’t necessarily see government as the answer to their problems.

In the two or so weeks before the election, after he had finally found a message, McCain began to climb in the polls to the point where commentators were talking about a second McCain comeback (the first being his primary campaign). Americans became more and more weary of Obama’s policies (as ambiguous and unknown as they really are) and began to find comfort in John McCain who they know and largely trust. My advice to the next Republican Presidential candidate: have a message!

The second glaring issue with the McCain campaign is something that was completely and totally within John McCain’s control: Sarah Palin. I won’t criticize her nearly as much as many other Republicans will because I realize that while she may have hurt my Party with independents and other groups, she rallied our base and brought in much needed donations. I do not know of a way to quantify this, but it seems likely that Palin may have helped us rally our base as much as she did repel other groups and in doing so can not be called a great running mate nor a terrible one.

The problem with Sarah Palin is though that- and I don’t think there is any other way to state this- she simply said stupid things on the campaign trail. Why in the world wasn’t she able to answer Katie Couric as to what newspapers she reads? Why in the world would you say that foreign leaders flying over your state counts as foreign policy experience?

The list could go on, but the point is that Palin needed to be prepped much, much more than she was for her encounters with the press. She was great in her debate with Joe Biden. The McCain campaign should have ensured she performed that good all the time.

But as fascinating as the past is, the future is infinitely more so. It is interesting to note that starting on election night and continuing almost every day since, Obama and his cohorts have steadily been lowering the bar. “The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term…” said Obama on election night. “There will be setbacks and false starts.” So much for the optimism of just two weeks ago.

Whereas the Obama campaign was run on a slogan of “Yes we can!”, it seems the new slogan is “Well, maybe we can.” The optimism of campaigning has given way to the realism of actually having to be the President. The turn around in message was almost as quick as Obama first promising he would accept public financing for his campaign and then reversing himself and effectively destroying the public financing system in this country.

I won’t comment on what I believe will happen in an Obama presidency as I have essentially written about that since September, but suffice to say that if Obama’s actions in the White House are as muddled and contradictory as his words on the campaign trail, then America is in for four more years of Jimmy Carter. Here’s to change!

American Capitalism- R.I.P.

This past week President Bush and Treasurery Secretary Henry Paulson announced a staggering $700,000,000,000 (yes, that’s eleven zeroes) economic bailout plan intended to rescue flailing financial firms, banks and other institutions, all at the expense of the meager American tax payer. Apparently it is the job of the average American citizen and tax payer to bail out gigantic lenders who made stupid decisions and won’t seem to reap any consequences as their result.

Don’t worry lenders, you are no longer subject to the Free Market where occasionally ventures actually fail. The Federal Government, whose executive branch is supposedly run by conservatives and Republicans, has decided that absolutely unprecedented and massive interventions in to the free market are OK, even if it will send our already criminal level of national debt to an unbelievable precipice of $11,300,000,000,000 (that’s pronounced eleven-trillion, three hundred billion dollars). At this point I’ve come to believe we’re dealing with Monopoly money.

Eric Margolis of Edmonton Sun put it great when he wrote this week, “The “free market” Republican administration has ended up nationalizing nearly $1 trillion worth of businesses, including the federal mortgage agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Bear Sterns, and global insurer AIG. Welcome to Wall Street socialism.”

My only bone of contention with Margolis might be his characterization of socialism. The Federal government’s actions in the past weeks strike me more as fascism, or big government colluding with big business at the expense of the tax payer. Be the government’s actions fascist or socialist though, I sure as Hell know they’re not capitalist, and no citizen should support them.

Despite my political affiliation and role within my Party, I know that many of my fellow Republicans will be furious with me for this column, but let me say this: there is nothing inherently special about the Republican Party. Blind partisanship based upon Party affiliation alone is simply stupid. Partisanship based upon philosophy, however, is both honorable and desirable for a healthy Republic. The Bush administration, while obviously Republican in name, can not hope to ever be called truly Conservative.

There is nothing conservative about infringing upon personal freedoms and civil liberties. There is nothing conservative about expanding the size and scope of the Federal government more so than any President since Franklin D. Roosevelt. There is nothing conservative about war.

There is nothing conservative about not trusting the Free Market. There is nothing conservative about cutting taxes while simultaneously and massively increasing spending on socialist programs such as Medicare that conservatives and Republicans have traditionally been opposed to, or at least questioned. There is nothing conservative about proposing a plan which would have allowed millions of illegal immigrants to remain here and eventually become American citizens.

Simply put, there is almost nothing conservative about this Administration whose foreign policy most resembles the misguided idealism of Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat) and the domestic policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt (another Democrat). I can only hope that John McCain can save this Party.

While this column was originally meant to be about the current economic crisis, it has largely helped me realize what I believe is the last straw with the Bush Administration whose economic incompetence has brought us to the point of what many people consider insolvency.

If ever there were a dark time for America, surely it is around the corner, and all because the most successful civilization to ever have lived didn’t have the discipline to control its own spending. American capitalism- R.I.P.

Best and Worst of the Bush administration

The following is a speech I gave against the Fordham College Democrats on the best and worst of the Bush administration:

I would like to thank everyone for coming out tonight and listening to this debate. With any luck, you understand several pertinent issues better and will now use that information to make an educated vote on November 4th. But as we turn our attention now towards a new administration, it seems appropriate to close the chapter on the Bush administration. Surely there have been many ups and downs throughout the last eight years, but in my opinion, two issues stick out as this President’s best and worst.

I believe that the worst decision of the Bush administration has undoubtedly been the “amnesty in disguise” immigration proposal- a plan that completely misses the very point of immigration and awards illegal activity. While immigration is what this nation was founded on and is a valued principal, it also must be done within a legal framework that does not harm the American economy, American workers, and the American way of life.

I fully recognize the need for cheap labor in this country. Many of our farms, restaurants, builders and other enterprises depend upon cheap labor from nations south of the border, but to provide such labor through a broken immigration system and one which from the start teaches people coming to this country that you can break the law and still build a better life for yourself is not only unjust, but dishonest with our American selves.

A temporary worker program instituted with the amnesty which President Bush sought would send a message to potential illegal immigrants all over the world that as long as you can get on to America’s soil and stay there for a little while, the Americans will soon forgive you and eventually start paying for your children’s’ education, provide you with a job and cater to you in ways that only Americans do. If you doubt this, simply look to President Reagan’s illegal immigration amnesty in the 1980’s. It still hasn’t seemed to solve our little problem today, has it?

It is finally time to institute a concrete strategy to protect our border including the fence that is currently being built as well as electronic surveillance and a mix of tried but true techniques. In addition to this, we must streamline the process for legal immigrants who wish to come here and perhaps raise the overall number of legal immigrants allowed in to this nation every year.

While President Bush’s worst was certainly his amnesty plan, I would submit that his best has been his handling of home land security since 9/11. By this I mean the very fact that America has not experienced a terrorist attack on her soil since that fateful day seven years ago.

Through actions both bold and public, but often times secretive and certainly controversial, this President, despite his many, many flaws, can say that he kept the American people safe during his time in office, and that is something he should certainly be proud of.

We can rant about invasions of privacy and losses of civil liberties. We can bemoan the invasion of Iraq. We can complain about water boarding and treating vile, America-hating terrorists a little too rough. We can lose sleep over America’s reputation on the world stage and we can chastise the Administration for hubris. But, my friends, if the primary responsibility of government is to protect its people as I and I hope all of you believe, then damn do we owe this administration a lot.

I’ve been as critical of the Bush administration as even some members of PSJ have and certainly more so than most of my fellow Republicans would permit, but as I’ve reflected on these past eight years, I have to say that I feel a degree of indebtedness to the President; that I feel comfortable enough to go to school in New York City where just a couple miles away 3,000 people were killed; that I don’t worry about family members being killed on American soil by some terrorist with a divine mission from their god; that I can live life as normal as possible considering the times we live in.

Ladies and gentlemen, criticize this administration up and down. Lambaste their policies and protest against their actions. But give them this: we are safe and secure and the terrorists have not won.

Thank you.

The issue of Patriotism

It is perhaps representative of the sad state of our national politics that we ever need to question the patriotism of candidates for political office. That their love and commitment to the nation they seek to serve is in any degree of doubt is deeply troubling. It forces one to ask the question: if our own elected leaders’ patriotism is in doubt, can we hope to posses any firm belief in the integrity of our government and its commitment to the People?

Some persons might be upset that others question candidates’ patriotism ever, but I would submit that a candidate’s love for their nation is of paramount concern to our survival as a civilization, and thus open to great scrutiny. If one’s patriotism were to be found as less than complete, then I believe this would be an automatic disqualifier for anyone seeking the Presidency.

That is not to say that merely because one’s patriotism is questioned or questionable that they are disqualifiable, for the mere fact that something is questioned is not evidence of the merit of an accusation or inquiry. However, if a candidate’s patriotism were to be found less than fitting by examinations of their philosophy, ideology and through their actions, words and affiliations, then we should have good reason to believe they are unfit to lead a nation which they might not even love.

Before I comment on Barack Obama, I would like to comment on John McCain’s military service and specifically his being tortured in Vietnam. Unlike many conservatives, I do not believe McCain’s unfortunate experience with torture is concrete evidence for his patriotism. In fact, one can easily conceive that being tortured could have a terrible adverse psychological effect on a person resulting in them loving their country less than before the torture.

The strongest evidence for John McCain’s incredible sense of patriotism is his many years of military service after his being tortured as well as his turning down release from the Hanoi Hilton in deference to those captured before him. This represents absolute commitment to one’s country and comrades in my opinion and thus perfectly enshrines our concept of patriotism.

Before I completely turn to Barack Obama though, let me say that I do not believe one has to serve in the military to be patriotic nor to prove their patriotism. Certainly the vast majority of people reading this right now have not served in the military nor have any intentions to, yet their patriotism is not called in to question. I say this then because I do not believe people who claim Barack Obama is less patriotic than John McCain because he does not have the same or similar military experience as the latter really understand what patriotism is.
Patriotism in my opinion is a belief in the values of one’s nation held in both the mind but also the heart. It is an understanding that our nation is not perfect and never will be but having the love a parent does for their child when the latter errs.

Barack Obama has been at the center of or closely connected with a number of instances which bring his love of country in to question. The two primary instances of this are remarks made by his pastor and wife which first damn America and then show evidence that despite having lived in this country for over forty years, not until the nomination of Barack Obama had his wife been proud of the nation that gave her so many opportunities.

Before I am accused of claiming that John McCain is more patriotic than Barack Obama, and thus becoming laden with criticisms from Obamaniacs on campus, let it be known that my contention is merely that John McCain’s patriotism is apparent and without questions, and Barack Obama’s, while possibly as strong or stronger than John McCain’s, is not nearly as apparent, especially when considering what his close associates have said about this nation.

I am open to the idea that Barack Obama is even more patriotic than John McCain, but his commitment to the values of this nation have so far been in question, and rightly so.

Sarah Palin: The Right Choice

Much has been made of Barack Obama and John McCain’s vice-presidential candidate picks, and for good reason. Both men have sought to allay the public’s most intense fears: Obama’s utter lack of experience, and McCain’s age. In Senator Joseph Biden, Obama chose a seasoned and largely well respected politician whose lengthy experience many perceive to make up for Obama’s lack thereof. In Governor Sarah Palin, John McCain chose someone who is clearly much younger than he but perhaps much more significantly, is a highly capable executive.

While both Presidential candidates seem to have chosen partners who appear to make up for their most significant shortcomings, Palin is an infinitely better choice than Joe Biden.

What I find most ironic about Obama choosing Biden is that despite the formers preaching about change and chants of “Yes we can”, he has chosen a Washington insider of some 20 plus years of experience whose slogan should be, “I could’ve but I didn’t”. That is, despite all of Obama’s change-talk, he has chosen a man who is quintessential Washington and a leading member of our current do-nothing Congress.

Governor Palin on the other hand completely upended the Alaskan political establishment and has since crusaded against excessive government spending, corruption and has finally put Alaska’s government back on the side of the people. She primaried a sitting Republican Governor, handily beat a former one in the general election and now enjoy an 80% approval rating amongst Alaskans. That tells me she’s been doing something right.

I would like to touch on two matters though which some people bring up as Palin disqualifiers: her pregnant daughter and the current ethics charges against her. I will readily admit that Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy is unfortunate- not because she is pregnant, but because she is pregnant at such a young age. I can see how some people might view this situation as a poor reflection on Palin’s parenting abilities, but I would kindly remind them that she is now running for Vice-president of the United States and not for the family nanny.

Additionally, there is a real beauty in her daughter’s situation. Instead of adding to the ranks of the millions of babies aborted already, the Palin family is fully supporting their daughter, allowing her to choose the best option: life. Here then the Palin family- already with impeccable pro-life credentials- might just show America how a strong family unit can properly handle an unplanned pregnancy without resorting to the knife, and with any luck, set an example to follow.

The second major concern most people have with Palin is the ethics charge against her. Undoubtedly red flags should always shoot up when we hear about an ethics violation, but it is very important to understand the context in which this charge has been raised. Palin has uprooted a corrupt Alaskan political system, passed major ethics reforms and lead with an unblemished record. It is my opinion that the current ethics charge against her is retaliation by upset Alaskan politicians unhappy that they can no longer have their free way with such a stellar Governor in office.

This particular charge stems from Palin’s firing of her commissioner of public safety who oversaw her former brother-in-law, a state trooper. Essentially people are accusing Palin of abusing her power by trying to have her former brother-in-law fired (read: a man who drove his police car drunk, threatened his family and even tasered his own ten year old son) as well as the commissioner of public safety. In short, Palin once again stood up for ethics and standards in government and now the people she had to dispose of are coming back to get her.

At the end of the day though, Palin is infinitely more impressive than Joe Biden. She has proven herself an adept executive and a principled citizen and leader. That’s the type of woman I want by my President’s side.

Sarah Palin: The Right Choice

Much has been made of Barack Obama and John McCain’s vice-presidential candidate picks, and for good reason. Both men have sought to allay the public’s most intense fears: Obama’s utter lack of experience, and McCain’s age. In Senator Joseph Biden, Obama chose a seasoned and largely well respected politician whose lengthy experience many perceive to make up for Obama’s lack thereof. In Governor Sarah Palin, John McCain chose someone who is clearly much younger than he but perhaps much more significantly, is a highly capable executive.
While both Presidential candidates seem to have chosen partners who appear to make up for their most significant shortcomings, Palin is an infinitely better choice than Joe Biden.
What I find most ironic about Obama choosing Biden is that despite the formers preaching about change and chants of “Yes we can”, he has chosen a Washington insider of some 20 plus years of experience whose slogan should be, “I could’ve but I didn’t”. That is, despite all of Obama’s change-talk, he has chosen a man who is quintessential Washington and a leading member of our current do-nothing Congress.
Governor Palin on the other hand completely upended the Alaskan political establishment and has since crusaded against excessive government spending, corruption and has finally put Alaska’s government back on the side of the people. She primaried a sitting Republican Governor, handily beat a former one in the general election and now enjoy an 80% approval rating amongst Alaskans. That tells me she’s been doing something right.
I would like to touch on two matters though which some people bring up as Palin disqualifiers: her pregnant daughter and the current ethics charges against her. I will readily admit that Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy is unfortunate- not because she is pregnant, but because she is pregnant at such a young age. I can see how some people might view this situation as a poor reflection on Palin’s parenting abilities, but I would kindly remind them that she is now running for Vice-president of the United States and not for the family nanny.
Additionally, there is a real beauty in her daughter’s situation. Instead of adding to the ranks of the millions of babies aborted already, the Palin family is fully supporting their daughter, allowing her to choose the best option: life. Here then the Palin family- already with impeccable pro-life credentials- might just show America how a strong family unit can properly handle an unplanned pregnancy without resorting to the knife, and with any luck, set an example to follow.
The second major concern most people have with Palin is the ethics charge against her. Undoubtedly red flags should always shoot up when we hear about an ethics violation, but it is very important to understand the context in which this charge has been raised. Palin has uprooted a corrupt Alaskan political system, passed major ethics reforms and lead with an unblemished record. It is my opinion that the current ethics charge against her is retaliation by upset Alaskan politicians unhappy that they can no longer have their free way with such a stellar Governor in office.
This particular charge stems from Palin’s firing of her commissioner of public safety who oversaw her former brother-in-law, a state trooper. Essentially people are accusing Palin of abusing her power by trying to have her former brother-in-law fired (read: a man who drove his police car drunk, threatened his family and even tasered his own ten year old son) as well as the commissioner of public safety. In short, Palin once again stood up for ethics and standards in government and now the people she had to dispose of are coming back to get her.
At the end of the day though, Palin is infinitely more impressive than Joe Biden. She has proven herself an adept executive and a principled citizen and leader. That’s the type of woman I want by my President’s side.

Summer break

Please check back in September when I will resume posting on the race for President, the merits of conservatism and the like.

- Chadwick

Jimmy Carter is totally out of Line

I almost fell off my seat when I read this one: “Former President Carter angered Israel's government Tuesday by embracing a Hamas politician during a visit to the West Bank, ignoring Israeli and U.S. designation of the Islamic militants as a terror group. Israel accused Carter, the broker of the first Arab-Israeli peace accord, of ‘dignifying’ extremists. But Carter vowed to meet Hamas' supreme leader this week in Syria.” (AP)

What on God’s green Earth is Carter thinking? This lone man (and one of the worst Presidents this country has ever seen) is over in the Middle East literally embracing our enemies and playing unofficial diplomat in direct opposition to American and Israeli policy. By doing so, he is in fact undermining his own country and one of her closest allies: Israel.

If you’re not convinced of the evilness of Hamas and therefore Carter’s idiocy, their charter reads in part, “There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.” (http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm) This then, is an organization 100% dedicated to the destruction of Israel through Jihad- an organization whose leaders have almost deified Hitler in the past and denied the Hollocaust.

Great, Carter, go meet with the intellectual and moral inheritors of Naziism. I’m sure your smile will do the trick.

Coming soon: Fordham's very own conservative magazine!

That's right! Some of you probably thought you'd never read something like this coming to a college in NYC, but on April 21st, the College Republicans will be publishing the Liberty Forum- Fordham's first conservative magazine. I’m really excited for its publication for two reasons: firstly, it will enhance political discourse on this campus and get a conservative message out to our fellow students and secondly, it represents how far along the College Republicans have come this year.

Last year the CR’s turned out MAYBE six people to a meeting, had very few if any events and basically was a defunct club. This year though we average 40 members at meetings, are planning on multiple speakers a semester for next year, go on trips, debate the College Dems (whose leaders are legit awesome people), have fundraisers for the troops and a lot of other stuff. I couldn’t do it without the help of the CR exec board though so thanks guys!

But back to the Liberty Forum. Get ready to read whether Fordham has a liberal bias in the classroom, how free we really are on campus as far as speech is concerned, about the future of Cuba now that Fidel has officially handed over power (a guest column by Humberto Fontova) and about those annoying hate free zone signs next to people’s dorm doors.

We’ll be passing copies out by hand all over campus so be sure to pick one up.

Fidel Castro's daughter coming to Fordham!!!

The American Age Lecture Series is hosting Alina Fernandez Revuelta, the daughter of Fidel Castro. Before you get all up in arms as I did at first, she is actually a huge critic of her father’s regime. She escaped Cuba by pretending to be a Spanish tourist. Once she reached Spain, she moved to Miami where she now hosts a radio show where she denounces her mass murdering father and his Communist thugs.

While the CR’s aren’t hosting this event, it is nonetheless a great one to have on this campus, especially considering we hosted Humberto Fontova last semester. Last semester we exposed Che Guevara and now Fidel Castro has it coming to him. You’ve got to love a college that actually brings people who stand up for freedom and American values instead of the terrorists (I mean presidents) of Iran and Libya.

Ms. Revuelta will be speaking on Thursday, April 24 at 7:00 PM in Keating 1st auditorium. I hope a lot of people will come to this event. Despite what we know about Castro, it seems as if many liberals in this country still don’t view him as the murdering dictator he is.

Here is more information on Revuelta: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alina_Fern%C3%A1ndez

As a side note, watch for a featured article on the future of Cuba by Humberto Fontova in the first issue of the Liberty Forum, which will be coming out on April 21st.

Indoctrinate-U a must see

Indoctrinate-U is a documentary on the sad state of modern American academia. It thoroughly documents how liberals have taken over our universities and basically eliminated any conservative voice. While liberals always claim to stick up for free speech, Indoctrinate-U documents a number of cases where conservative students and professors were harassed, sued and forced to undergo disciplinary hearings just for being Republican or conservative.

In one scene, a conservative professor was told how she would not have been hired if the hiring committee knew she was a Republican!

Indoctrinate-U really does a great job at exposing the intellectual hypocrisy of liberals in academia and I hope to show it on Fordham's campus either this semester or next. I've always maintained that Fordham is much better off than Columbia or NYU, but we still have our fair share of liberal biases.

Visit http://www.indoctrinate-u.com/intro/ for more information on the film.

Jonah Goldberg- even better than expected

Last night (April 9, 2008) the Fordham Colleege Republicans hosted Jonah Goldberg- author of Liberal Fascism and notable conservative commentator. He addressed about 130 students and faculty on his contention that fascism- often labeled a right-wing ideology- is in fact left-wing and a liberal ideology. Even the liberals in the audience loved what he had to say and a number of them even said they were convinced by Jonah's argument. I wasn't very aware of Jonah before this speaking engagement but have become a big fan.

He was not only funny, but had a clear academic and intellectual side to him. I often gripe about conservative commentators' idiocy (read: Ann Coulter) but Jonah is the exact opposite. While he caters to red-meat conservatives, he also possesses the ability to convert the un-saved to conservatism- an ability very much lacking in too many commentators.

Be sure to pick up a copy of his NY Times best-seller, Liberal Fascism.

On Eliot Spitzer

Eliot Spitzer’s recent demise surprised very few people. Such is the sad state of American politics. We can easily add him to a growing list of American politicians who have been felled or near felled whence caught in sexual scandal: Larry Craig, David Vitter, Jim McGreevy and of course, the great stain maker himself: Bill Clinton.

I will not attempt to philosophize about what makes so many politicians cheat on their wives because at the root of it I believe they are people just like ourselves (except in Bill Clinton’s case. Who wouldn’t cheat on Hillary?) They are just as apt to sin and fall short of our moral models as you or I are. The only difference is since they are in prominent political offices, their scandals make the front page of the New York Times. If the guy down the street cheated on his wife, no one would know about it unless his wife took some unfortunate revenge. Fortunately for most male politicians, they have incredibly loyal wives.

But what causes some cheating politicians to fall when the veil is lifted and others to seemingly become more popular? Certainly legality has much to do with it. Spitzer’s hiring of prostitutes and transporting of women across state lines for sexual purposes was a clear violation of the law and warranted his punishment (being forced from office) if not more. Likewise, McGreevy’s shady financial dealings with his homosexual fling (remember, he was married with multiple children) was a clear ethical and legal violation. It appears then that what people really hate is politicians breaking the law.

But what about Bill Clinton? While his lying to Congress was clearly illegal and he was impeached for doing so, there was nothing inherently illegal about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, and few apart from the religious right really cared about the actual trysts. What people cared about was his lying to Congress and more importantly the American people about his actions. But why did he survive the Congressional onslaught and judgment of the American people? Because no one expected much better of him.

Bill Clinton was a man known to have had affairs before and never once preached about morality or sexual purity. Even the most liberal of us would have to laugh if Clinton had suddenly started preaching about monogamy or faith to one’s spouse. So, when push came to shove, the American people were more than willing to forgive Bill Clinton for his affair(s) since this is what they expected of him.
Bill Clinton’s scandals though pale in comparison to Eliot Spitzer’s for one main reason: Spitzer is a hypocrite, Clinton is not. Before he was Governor of New York, Spitzer was the Attorney General and at least in part made his career out of prosecuting prostitution rings and such. He also campaigned on a platform of impeccable ethics and so when he was caught with his pants down, people simply weren’t willing to look the other way.

It would seem then that the American people are willing to forgive a lot. They are willing to forgive egregious moral slips and even minor illegalities (Clinton’s lying to Congress). What the American people are not willing to forgive though, and rightfully so, is hypocrisy. Politicians be-ware: you can lie, cheat and steal, but don’t tell the American people one thing and do the other.

This is of course an oxymoron, however. How could a person be a politician if they weren’t the least bit hypocritical? One must devote themselves to public service but who knows a governor or president without an ego? At least we can rest assured that this isn’t an American problem only. Just take a look at Nicolas Sarkozy- the president of France. Just recently he dumped his wife and married an Italian super-model.

Ah, Eliot Spitzer- the first French Governor of New York.