For Conservatives it’s Not Difficult Being Green

Once again, the Republican Party faces a time for choosing. These choices on important issues are becoming more numerous as the days tick down toward the 2008 presidential election and also more opportunistic as the party finds itself in the minority in both houses of Congress. We’re already seeing the impact of abortion on the presidential campaign some 18 months before the convention will chose a nominee who may or may not be pro-choice. The Democrats have been hammering home the issue of the environment and thus far have succeeded in defining the issue on their terms. So today, Republicans have a choice as to how to combat the left on the environment and global climate change: they can either continue to claim that global warming is a myth (as the pack of talk radio hosts does) and not offer any solutions of their own or they can offer a genuine alternative to what Czech President Vaclav Klaus has called the greatest threat to human freedom since communism (and he would know!).

If you follow what the Democrats have been saying since Al Gore was putting voters to sleep instead of moviegoers, the Earth is warming at an uncontrollable and unnatural rate because of yuppies driving SUV’s. Therefore, the only possible solution to keep the seas from drowning Florida (which may or may not be such a bad idea) is to drastically change our economy and transform human habits and human nature. Tomorrow’s May Day demonstrations should remind us all how similar left-wing experiments in social engineering turned out. Conservatives are right to denounce proposals like limiting ourselves to one square of toilet paper per trip as draconian and without any basis in reality (as it turned out, it was), but so far they haven’t been offering any alternatives. They have been on this issue as they criticized Democrats three years ago of being on every other issue. They have done nothing but oppose and attack while offering no ideas of their own. This has allowed liberals to characterize Republicans as against the environment which is making it easier for them to advance their radical agenda.

Instead, Republicans can offer a package of common sense policies which balance environmental stewardship with preserving human freedom. There are simple things every one of us can do that can both save the planet and save money that don’t require increasingly ridiculous regulation and bureaucracy. Simply encouraging wiser consumer choices would not only resonate better with the American people than would finger-wagging but would also promote a sound environmental policy without destroying the market economy. If consumers realized, for example, that compact fluorescent light bulbs last longer and use less energy than incandescent bulbs (and cost a lot less in the long run), a ban would not be necessary. Homeowners are already able to receive a tax incentive for replacing their old furnaces with more efficient models. Perhaps most importantly, Republicans need to champion an energy policy that weans Americans off oil instead of taking their cars away from them. Government can cooperate with energy companies instead of penalizing them and come up with alternative sources of fuel that allow Americans to keep the cars they love and depend on.

Conservatives have a real opportunity to redefine the entire debate on climate change itself. Instead of simply denying it exists and dismissing their claims as Chicken Little hysteria, conservatives can fight the intellectual dishonesty of the left and identify what really is at issue: who or what is causing global climate change and which common sense policies should be implemented to best deal with it. To be perfectly clear, the Kyoto Protocol is NOT in any way rooted in common sense. The United States Senate knew how ridiculous the treaty was in 1997 when they voted 95-0 to not merely reject it but to not even consider it. Other socialist schemes such as carbon trading simply do not work at reducing emissions but change who is emitting them. The ozone doesn’t care which smokestack the pollution comes from, but the global left doesn’t realize this either. Conservatives have a real shot in the next year and a half to take on the left on the environment and offer their own solutions. To do otherwise is to invite toilet paper rations.

Remember Gays, Only YOU Can Prevent Forest Fires!

There have been a lot of images, statements, and actions in the wake of last week’s massacre at Virginia Tech that ought to make your blood boil. Within hours of the horror, the far-left blame machine went in to full speed screaming that President Bush was responsible for the carnage because he refused to push for a renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban some three years ago. Somehow it slipped their minds that Seung-Hui Cho used handguns to commit his slaughter, not AK-47’s. They cried out for tougher gun laws claiming gun control might have prevented the rampage. In a spectacular bit of irony, the Mayor of Hiroshima demonstrated how effective Japan’s strict gun laws worked when he was shot to death the day after the Virginia Tech massacre.

They furthered their amendment-per-week attack on the United States Constitution by braying for the repeal of the Second Amendment (by the way, Harry Reid intends to announce the quartering of American troops in red state small towns). The media did their part to infuriate their viewers by sensationalizing the brutal murder of 32 Virginia Tech students and teachers and by showing Cho’s videotaped vitriol. In so doing, they gave Cho a posthumous forum for his rage and provided inspiration to potential adolescent mass murderers across the country. Not to be outdone in making a terrible tragedy that much worse, the one and only Fred Phelps and his followers in the Westboro Baptist Church announced last week that they intended to protest the funerals of these 32 victims.

Phelps blames the slaughter on the university itself for its leniency toward homosexuals (i.e. treating them like human beings) and said those killed last week are in hell for not being “true Christians.” They claim Cho was sent by God on a mission to punish those he killed for their tolerance of homosexuals. Also, they claim Cho is with his victims in hell because he broke God’s commandment not to kill. In case that confused you, Shirley Phelps-Roper cleared it up in an interview with CBS: “he is in hell, but he was also fulfilling the word of God.” I’ll give you another moment to think about that one.

These actions and statements are as bigoted as they are idiotic, and are to be expected from a group made famous for its protest of military funerals and for its websites “GodHatesFags.com” and “GodHatesAmerica.com.” Phelps and his followers (mostly relatives through blood or marriage) believe each soldier’s death is God’s punishment for America’s tolerance of gays, and Phelps even made overtures to Saddam and paid tribute to his regime before the war. They also praise disasters around the world, both natural and artificial, and blame them on gays (AIDS, 9/11, the Asian Tsunami, and Hurricane Katrina are just a few recent high-profile examples). They even go after other churches and denominations as well as the likes of Billy Graham for refusing to preach their hatred of homosexuals. They refer to Graham as a “hell-bound false prophet.” Last October they also planned protests for the funerals of those killed in a horrific Amish schoolhouse shooting, armed with signs calling the grade school girls “whores.”

Thankfully, this exercise in shame was narrowly averted by radio talk show host Mike Gallagher who offered the group his entire program this Tuesday in exchange for a canceling of their protests. He made the same invitation in order to stop the protests of the Amish funerals. While he could not disagree with the Wesboro Baptist Church more strongly, Gallagher believes as I do that giving them airtime is preferable for these grieving families as well as the Blacksburg community who can simply turn off their radios. Gallagher is a Catholic and thus a target of Phelps’ message of hate as I would assume I am for being an Episcopalian. The Episcopal Church as you recall recently began ordaining gay clergy.

I personally disagree with this and other policies within the church, but that hardly means that our gay priests and bishops (as well as those who elected and ordained them) are doomed to eternal damnation in hell. If anything, hell should be just as full of homosexuals as it would be liars, thieves, adulterers, idolaters, and the Godless. Even if homosexuality is a sin, Christians are taught to hate the sin but love the sinner. Phelps and his ilk do not follow this belief in forgiveness and I dare say they are the ones who are not “true Christians.” They are to Christianity what Al-Qaeda is to Islam and should be discredited and condemned by Christians and non-Christians alike.

Campus Left Reveals “Obsession” of Their Own

DISCLAIMER: This entry is about radical leftists, particularly those centered on college campuses. Most liberals are peaceful. They are reasonably committed to democracy and freedoms found in the First Amendment and a few like America. A couple of them even told me the United States ought to be able to defend itself when attacked. This entry is not about those two liberals.

Last week the South Campus Gateway Drexel theater played host to “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West.” The movie was surprisingly well-attended and perhaps even more surprisingly co-sponsored by the College Democrats. The film portrayed the threat posed by radical Islam worldwide, often doing so through prominent use of Nazi imagery and comparisons with the warning of history repeating itself. However, the message was not as important in this case as how it was received by the audience Wednesday night. As could be expected on this and other campuses, the screening was attended not just by students interested in learning more about the threat posed by radical Islam or those seeking further discussion of the issue, but by agenda-peddling radicals who are at the very least sympathetic with and at the very worst supportive of these terrorists, their views, and their actions.

Several members of the crowd gathered in the back of the theater talked, snickered, and even laughed out loud as points were being raised during the screening that were not consistent with their worldview. Indeed, their true thoughts on the matter were brought out later during a moderated discussion. These radicals raised the same points and asked the same questions that we’ve frankly come to expect from them: “this wouldn’t be happening if George Bush wasn’t elected President/if America hadn’t invaded Iraq/if Israel didn’t exist!” You the reader should feel insulted that I should have to tell you that terrorist attacks committed by radicalized Muslims- and militant Islam itself- predate the current war in Iraq, the Presidency of George W. Bush, and the establishment of the State of Israel.

Keep in mind we’ve seen this group before. For anyone who did not stay on campus during the war in Lebanon, these agitators were gathered on 15th and High standing in solidarity with Hezbollah and protesting Israel’s “war crimes.” They go above and beyond the “Blame America First” crowd described by the late Jeane Kirkpatrick. They hate Israel just as much as America and shovel just as much blame for terrorism on the “Zionists” as they do on Americans. Mercifully, one troublemaker who was disrespecting the moderator and insulting the intelligence of the audience was kicked out of the theater. What’s more, criticism of the film and its central message was not limited to the left-wing fringe but was even levied by members of the co-sponsoring College Democrats.

“I felt the movie itself was propaganda, and the movie itself shows propaganda as fueling hatred, so it’s hypocritical,” Ingrid Babri, minority affairs director of the Ohio State College Democrats told The Lantern. This should tell you everything you need to know about her party’s stance on terrorism. Indeed, Michael Moore was shown during the film delivering perhaps a far more articulate view from the more mainstream left in this country: “there is no terrorist threat.” The more liberals on the blogs demand their Democrat servants in Congress press for a troop withdrawal tomorrow if not sooner, the more those Democrats continue to undermine the President’s prosecution of the War on Terror (even attempting to ban the use of the phrase), and the more assertive the left becomes in their explicit desire for America to fail in this war, the more apparent it becomes that liberals either don’t know about radical Islamic terrorism and the threat it faces to themselves, to America, and to all of western civilization or they flat out don’t care. In this case, the difference is irrelevant.

Returning to the film itself, “Obsession” describes through interviews from experts on the subject as well as first-hand video from the Arab world the threat Islamic terrorism poses to the world. Indeed, people like Hassan Nasrallah and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are quite clear in their goals to wipe out the infidels- the “kafirs” as they’re called- and impose an 11th century-style Islamic state on the world. There were men throughout history who thought as they did, who sought to impose a new way of life on the world and slaughter those who stood in their way. Adolph Hitler was one of them, and was featured prominently in the film. Stalin and Mao also killed millions in their attempts to remake society in their twisted image. Today’s terrorists and their state sponsors are evil men who cannot be reasoned with, cannot be talked to, and cannot be taken lightly. Unfortunately, the quest continues on college campuses like this one to make half the country realize this.

Gullible’s Travels

How many foreign policies does the United States have? I found myself asking that question as Queen Nancy led a delegation to suck up to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. The current President of the United States (who traditionally is responsible for crafting American foreign policy) has said he won’t talk to Syria because they are a state sponsor of terrorism (including Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad), they continue to dominate the politics of Lebanon, and they are as committed to the destruction of the State of Israel as they ever were. Oh, and they are also supporting and supplying the insurgency currently killing our soldiers in next-door Iraq. The recent trip by Her Majesty, and the show she put on for the benefit of the local media, demonstrates the left’s continuing commitment to the cause of appeasement. Then again, Neville Chamberlain never put on a pair of lederhosen when he met with Herr Hitler.

Since apparently one anti-Semitic terror-sponsoring Middle Eastern dictator wasn’t enough, the Queen’s entourage is now considering a trip to Iran. That’s right, they want to have “a dialogue” with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the same man who said he wants to wipe Israel off the map, the same man who called the Holocaust a myth (and even held a meeting of the world’s leading anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers on the subject), and the same man who is also responsible for supporting and supplying the insurgency currently killing our soldiers in next-door Iraq. Perhaps the most ironic part of this whole proposed business is that one of Queen Nancy’s fellow travelers Tom Lantos (D-CA), who said he would get on a plane and meet with Ahmadinejad today, is himself a Holocaust survivor! Was one Holocaust not enough, Congressman?

In the midst of these Democrats continuing to meet with our enemies (to be perfectly clear, if they’re killing our soldiers they’re our enemies), they still refuse to meet with President Bush so that the current funding crisis can be solved. Queen Nancy has repeatedly refused to meet with the president (of this country anyway) and Harry Reid refused to do so yesterday. So they’ll meet with Bashar al-Assad but they won’t meet with George W. Bush. They’ll go on Syrian television clad in headscarves but they won’t appear on Fox News to debate each other in the lead-up to their own primary. Is it just me or are Democrats treating conservatives the way they ought to be treating terrorists, and vice-versa?

This is the current state of the Democratic Party whose priorities are backwards. If there’s any indication the “Blame America First” crowd ever left the Democratic Party, this should be it. There’s no ass this party won’t kiss, especially if that ass belongs to an America-hating dictator. How many of them has Jimmy Carter sucked up to since he left office? Appeasement is an integral part of the liberal ideology and it’s on display right now with these visits. I can’t imagine anything productive that can emerge from meeting with an enemy committed to your country’s destruction, and I can’t imagine what Queen Nancy might say to Ahmadinejad (other than “what are your orders, sir?”). If they really support our troops and this country as they no longer say they do, they should be meeting and working with the president of this country on how to win the war and continue the fight against terrorism.

If they were serious in their desires for bipartisanship and cooperation with the administration, they wouldn’t be trying to go behind the president’s back trying to forge a competing foreign policy. They wouldn’t be trying to pull the rug from underneath our soldiers and doing so with spinach subsidies. They would instead be meeting with President Bush in order to resolve the current crisis they started over the funding of our troops. Queen Nancy’s visits with terrorist-supporting dictators that President Bush refused to meet because they are terrorist-supporting dictators are undermining this country. Perhaps more importantly, there can be no more destructive policy of an opposition party during wartime than telling your nation’s enemy to pay no attention to that man in the Oval Office.

Do Republicans Need a Bad Godesberg?

Looking at the current crop of Republican presidential candidates one has to wonder what Louisville basketball coach Rick Pitino must be thinking. While coaching the Boston Celtics, Pitino gave a rather infamous press conference where he told fans that Celtic greats Larry Bird, Kevin McHale, and Robert Parish were “not walking through that door,” and if they did “they’re going to be gray and old.” Much to the dismay of my fellow conservatives, Ronald Reagan is not walking through the door of the Republican National Convention in a year and a half, and Barry Goldwater isn’t walking through that door. In fact, if things continue as they are, it doesn’t look like Newt Gingrich is going to walk through that door either.

The fundamental question then is what kind of party we Republicans really want this election season. Indeed, the factionalism that many were warning about after the 2004 election consumed the party by the time the midterms rolled around last November. Today fiscal conservatives, traditional fundamentalists, moderates, libertarians, and conservatives of the “neo” and “paleo” variety all want something different from the Republican Party. This problem becomes all the more complex when you consider the current frontrunner for the 2008 nomination is pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and pro-gun control. On the opposite side of things, the one candidate whose unrelenting social conservatism no one doubts is himself failing to attract any attention at all.

Perhaps then it would be easier for Republicans to simply abandon the baggage of being an explicitly anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage party supposedly held hostage by the Christian Right. It is indeed possible to defend traditional American values without running on issues that might get 40% support on a good day. Requiring able-bodied welfare recipients to work, putting America’s interests before those of an international organization, and requiring all American citizens to learn English are just a few issues on which at least seven in ten Americans agree. I dare say most Americans are sick and tired of hearing about abortion and gay marriage. I know I am. In fact, I personally am calling upon my readers to give the first Republican candidate who mentions “defending traditional marriage” a swift kick to the gonads.

In 1959 at the Bad Godesberg Conference, the Social Democratic Party of Germany, plagued by a series of defeats at the ballot box, finally abandoned the explicitly Marxist elements of its platform that had scared and driven away potential voters for so many years. What resulted was a moderate party of the center-left that won four out of the next six German elections. In 1995, Tony Blair brought the Labour Party to the center kicking and screaming by re-writing Clause IV of the party constitution which had pledged to nationalize the means of production. The rest, as they say, is history, with Blair and "New Labour" in the middle of an unprecedented third term in office.

The lessons of these shifts in party policy show that by ditching divisive elements of the platform a party can still win elections and stay connected with key groups on more important issues. In 2006, the Republicans overemphasized abortion and gay marriage out of desperation since it had nowhere else to turn and nothing else on which to run. The result was clear enough with Karl Rove’s get-out-the-vote strategy falling short and moderate voters fleeing to the Democrats. Overemphasizing divisive social issues elected Bill Clinton twice (I still don’t know what we were thinking when Pat Robertson was made a keynote speaker at the ’92 Convention) and, of course, Queen Nancy. With that in mind, perhaps it would be best to forget about banging the abortion and gay marriage drums for a while and recommit the Republican Party to fiscal responsibility, a leaner federal government, a coherent and common sense immigration strategy, and a redoubling of our effort to win the war against radical Islam. Truly these are issues that can unite the party and carry us to victory.