A No-Vote is a Vote for a Democrat

Come this November, Republicans are facing a steep hill to climb. An unpopular war (though it ought to become steadily more popular as we continue to win), a slumping economy, an extremely unpopular Republican president, etc. all contribute to a Democratic victory come November. I feel that the Republicans clearly nominated the most electable candidate. There’s really little debating that (unless you’re Rush Limbaugh and consider anyone who totally agrees with you the most electable). John McCain, as an American hero and undisputedly great persona in American politics, harbors tremendous appeal to independents.

That said, what I stated about it being a steep hill remains true. Even if conservatives were perfectly united, it would be a tough election to win, just like 2000 and 2004 were. Then why do we insist on making it so much more difficult for our candidate by refusing to support him with all we have?

Glenn Beck was saying just the other night that he’s sick of selling out, he’s sick of compromising and there’s a point where you just don’t compromise anymore. Is that point a kinda-Amnesty-ish bill and campaign finance reform? Is that really what you value more than abortion, more than the War on Terror, more than good judges, more than an effective healthcare system, more than keeping gun control minimal, more than tough foreign policy and more than free trade?

Explain to me, Glenn, how letting Hilary Clinton win is NOT compromising. You’re compromising the Oval Office by staying home. You’re compromising our nation’s healthcare system by allowing one of the 5 most liberal members of the U.S. Senate (Obama and Clinton both fall into this category) to take the White House and make a sham of it. You’re handing a massive victory to Al Qaeda in Iraq, you’re guaranteeing an ultra-liberal Democratic president to work with an ultra-liberal Democratic Congress (Lord knows what kind of new “abortion rights” and gun control bills they’ll cook up), and what are you going to do about it once they’re there? What are you going to do about it when the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq are lost, the border is totally unsecured, Al Qaeda is on offense, our foreign policy is extremely weak, Iran obtains nuclear weapons, our nationalized healthcare becomes a growing tumor, our deficit is massive even while our taxes rise, defense spending is cut, our economy faces stagflation, and the national debt continues to grow? Oh, I think I know.

You’re going to get on your little talk radio program and you are going to whine yourself into tears about how awful our elected officials are. You, Laura Ingrahm, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and all those other lauded “conservatives”.

And you know what? Republicans aren’t going to want to hear it. Conservatives aren’t going to want to hear it. Independents aren’t going to want to hear it. America’s not going to want to hear it. We’re getting sick of talk-radio as a platform to complain without offering alternatives. We’re sick of hearing people talk like if they just don’t vote, maybe there won’t be a president. Well, I got news for you all: there’s going to be a president in 2008, and it’s going to be either a man with an 83% rating from the American Conservative Union, or a woman with a 9% rating from the American Conservative Union.

You want to stay at home? That’s fine. But don’t call yourself a Republican. Don’t call yourself a Conservative. And don’t ever call yourself intelligent.

Conservatives vs. Establishment?

So, as I am wont to do occasionally while I eat, I listened to Rush Limbaugh the other day. Sometimes it’s an enlightening experience (when he’s playing sound-bytes from our shamelessly defeatist Congress), sometimes it induces hair-pulling (when he’s ranting about McCain), sometimes laughter (when he’s making fun of Al Gore).

Today, it was once again hair-pulling. Rush started off on the normal anti-McCain track, blabbering about how he would support McCain over Obama/Clinton despite the “fact” that they all have “ruinous” and “identical” economic policies. He would support McCain because he’d rather a Democrat take the fall for economic ruin than a Republican (wait, what?) Ah, that Rush, he’s as cunning as he is nonsensical.

Anyway, he went on to rant about how the Republican establishment is so eager to proclaim conservatism dead. He says the media is eager to sing it from the hilltops, too. Who can blame the media, after all? I’d be eager to proclaim anti-war defeatism’s domination of the media dead, but the facts indicate it’s not. But the Republican establishment? Who are these mysterious cigar-smoking, slightly-overweight, balding white men who play golf often and dictate so much influence over the Republican party that Rush is talking about?

The dirty little secret is that I just described Rush Limbaugh, and the reason is that Limbaugh is the core of the Republican establishment. Limbaugh, I suspect, truly believes that Rob Novak, Will Buckley, George Will, Fred Barnes and Bill Kristol are the evil Washingtonian Republican establishment, trying to destroy Reaganite conservatism. In his own little world, Rush is defending it from their evilness and wicked attempts to annihilate his Conservative movement.

The perceived difference between Rush and the wicked imposters is that Rush doesn’t just give his offerings to Reagan. He spends hours at the foot of the Reagan altar, praising him and wishing for his second coming, not content with anything less. Rush feels that the aforementioned pundits do not spend enough time kneeling at the Reagan altar with him, and therefore they are traitors, liars, phonies (which is what he called McCain) etc. and must hate conservatism.

Perhaps Rush has built his popularity so much by convincing his 20 million listeners that they really are the last vestige and hope of conservatism in America, the last army that can stop not only the wicked Democratic hordes, but the wicked non-conservative Republicans as well.

I have some happy news for Limbaugh. The happy news is that there are few Republicans that aren’t conservatives anymore. Rush would want to hear my definition of conservatism, and I can sum up its political implications in three phrases: pro-life, strong national security, fiscal responsibility. There are other conservative issues, but none more important than those three. Can you find me a Republican that is pro-choice, anti-defense spending, and pro-debt? If so, I can find you Bigfoot.

Rush also attacked McCain today for not being ideological enough. He says that McCain simply does what he feels is best for the country, regardless of ideology.

Wow, Heaven forbid our politicians put aside partisanship and hopelessly-rigid ideology sometimes to do what’s best for the country! It’s blasphemy!

What really angers Rush about McCain is this: McCain, unlike Romney, will not purposefully bow to any part of the Republican establishment, which Limbaugh is the true heart of. McCain does what he does, Rush Limbaugh or not, and it drives Rush nuts. The insolence to not bow to the torch-bearer of Reagan! Limbaugh’s ego has gotten hopelessly carried away with him, and his rants on McCain are evident of this.

Meanwhile? Meanwhile, the other wing of Conservatism, the wing I associate myself with more readily, is writing mature, intelligent, realistic, controlled articles such as this one by Bill Kristol (try to ignore the fact that it was written in the New York Times).

There are two kinds of conservatives: the ones who accept all conservatives and welcome moderates’ votes, and the ones who don’t on the grounds that it’s not ideologically pure. You can take a guess at which wing wins elections, or you can watch when John McCain is accepting the Republican nomination this summer and Mitt Romney is on the couch with the potato chips.

I leave you now with an adage from a Republican President who’s not particularly popular anymore, and for good reason, (though this shouldn’t blunt the unrelenting truth of the statement,) who lived the adage to the end:

“Losers don’t legislate.”

The Iranian Problem and the Choices it Presents

It seems like every decade or two a new, pesky third-world country pops up, running its mouth at the United States and acting tough. All of them know, of course, that they don’t stand a chance in open combat. Like Rome’s enemies in the ancient world, they merely hope to pick at the U.S. slowly and steadily and present a moderately-united front (with friendly, large and powerful countries like China and Russia helping out) against their enemy.

Lately, Iran has been leading the charge. Their leader, a fellow by the name of Mahmoud Amendenijad, tends to agree with Bin Laden regarding America’s status as the Great Satan, and Israel’s as the Lil’ Satan. Amendenijad poses a threat in a couple of ways. First of all, he’s just a gulf away from one of America’s largest oil suppliers: Saudi Arabia (Iran has enough conventional means to be able to damage Saudi Arabia’s oil-production some). Second of all, he’s continually been supplying Shiite militias in Iraq with IED bombs to attack American soldiers with. Third of all, he’s actively seeking nuclear weapons.

Iran is a country of some 90 million people. It has a pretty good military, for a Middle Eastern nation, mainly due to its Chinese and Russian ties. If it were to obtain nuclear weapons, it would become the third nation in the Muslim area of the world to do that (the other two are Israel and Pakistan, both U.S. allies). Syria, Iran’s neighbor on the other side of Iraq, is also seeking nuclear weapons, as evidenced by an Israeli airstrike on a nuclear weapons facility in southern Syria.

Iran is overwhelmingly Shiite, (most Muslims, including Saudi Arabians, Al Qaeda, and Syria, are Sunni) and its governmental structure is highly theocratic. It has a few “Ayatollahs” that virtually control the entire government. Though it can’t be said for sure, it’s almost certain that Amendenijad is tied around their fingers.

Amendenijad talks a lot about wiping Israel off of the map, due to their status as the greatest insult to collective Muslim honor in existence. The reason is that the radical Muslims feel that it’s their land (obviously, it’s not, seeing as the Jews held it long, long before any Muslim existed) and they should get it back. Muslims/Arabs have been repelled from many areas they conquered or tried to conquer: Spain, Sicily, Greece, southern Russia, the greater Balkans area, and India, for example. Though of course the radical Muslims would like to have these lands, it does not anger them like Israel does.

There are two reasons for that: first of all, Israel is in their backyard. One of their holiest sites is located in Jerusalem, the Dome of the Rock (that neat golden dome you’ve probably seen on TV). Second of all, it’s just more anti-Semitism. Many radical Muslims idolize Hitler for what he did in the Holocaust, and wish they could’ve done it themselves. Others deny it happened, but wish it did, and take it upon themselves to try.

Amendenijad denies the Holocaust, but claims to not hate Jews. Chances are that this is wrong, seeing as Israel “not having a right to exist” (the claim he always makes) doesn’t justify driving its inhabitants into the sea and killing 20 million people, something he says he’d like to do.

Iran’s interaction with Israel, however, is mostly rhetoric, I think. Iran knows that if they somehow obtain nuclear weapons, using the one or two they would have at first would be totally foolish. It would take a lot more than 2 small nukes to neutralize Israel, and Israel would respond with a lot more than 2 small nukes. The United States would likely respond with its own attacks and doubling up protection in Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

If Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, like North Korea, it would not use it. It would continue to build its own little arsenal and play the power game, trying to pry the United States out of the Middle East using its terrorist groups and ties. Iran wants to become the Middle East’s dominate power, and it can’t do that while the United States has massive presence in Iraq and Saudi Arabia, and Israel is still at full strength.

The good news is that Iran is unlikely to obtain a nuclear weapon. If Iran’s program moves too far along, Israel will take action (and under Bush, McCain or Romney, the U.S. likely would as well) against them.

This, really, makes it all the more important that the U.S. elect a Republican in 2008. Jumping out of the Middle East fixes nothing, and simply emboldens Iran and likely guarantees another Six Day War (though this one could last longer and could involve nuclear weapons) between Israel and multiple Muslim nations. It also guarantees Al Qaeda gets a massive poster that says, “we defeated the United States in Iraq! Join us, and we can do it in Afghanistan as well! After that, we get to follow them home!”

What Democrats simply don’t realize is that nations of the world like Iran aren’t swayed by sweet-talk, liberal democracy, U.N. resolutions of condemnation, and lovin’. They’re swayed by forceful winners. Pulling out of Iraq and making America look like a pansy that couldn’t control a small country and crush a few terrorists would be awful for America everywhere (not to mention just how little we evidently care for our allies, when they’d all be executed in Iraq like they were in South Vietnam). It also would make every country on earth more hesitant to align themselves with us. How much confidence will Taiwan have that we’ll protect them against China? How much is Musharraf of Pakistan going to count on America being loyal to him? Is Israel going to have any faith in us? What about the Saudi Arabian royal family?

On the flip side, how emboldened will China be? How about Russia? North Korea will fear little. Syria and Iran will fear much less as well, and Islamic extremists everywhere, including Al Qaeda, will be greatly empowered.

America gets to choose whether they want all of that in 2008 or not. Sadly, at the moment, I have little confidence they’ll see the repercussions of quitting in Iraq.

Freedom vs. Islamists

I just read a disturbing but intelligent article in The Weekly Standard regarding a Canadian magazine editor who is being sued for “advocating hate” or something along those lines, by an Islamic fellow who is a member of the Supreme Islamic Council of Canada. The crime? Reprinting the Danish cartoons, in his magazine, that so offended Muslims everywhere. He reprinted them to show his readers the cartoons that they had often heard of but never seen, and let the readers make their judgments on the level of offense.

His case is pending, and he will likely be vindicated, as public support is overwhelmingly for him ever since he posted his attempted-grilling by a Canadian government bureaucrat on Youtube (this interrogation was evidently turned into a vehement defense of free speech by the Canadian editor). This is a disturbing pattern of the hatred for free speech amongst the more radical elements of Islam. This isn’t just Al Qaeda, though: many, many Muslims feel this way.

When the Danish cartoons were released, there was an uproar amongst all Muslims. Death threats were issued, marches were created, banners were everywhere… all for what? The “insult” of Islam? It’s ridiculous. But they have a right to march and protest, I suppose (though not to issue death threats). I’d just like to ask the idiots who did march and protest just why they don’t protest every time Al Qaeda sets off a car bomb killing Iraqi women and children. What’s worse: drawing a picture of Mohammed or murdering innocent Muslims? I’m wondering where these people’s priorities are.

A more disturbing incident still was when a Dutch movie director who made a film about the repression of Islamic women, he was stabbed to death by a Muslim fanatic, who left a note pinned to his chest threatening the life of the Somali woman that had acted as a consultant in the director’s moviemaking, having experienced the Islamic repression of women herself.

A closer-to-home event was when a Texas Islamic immigrant killed both of his daughters for intermingling too much with non-Muslim friends and standards. This leads me to think we must make a statement (not in a literal hand out, but in an effective way) as a country, and as the West, to any and all Islamic immigrants coming to our society, and I would make it something like this:

“In America, we have a long-held tradition of free speech. People are free to say and do as they please, for the most part, barring the repression of others’ freedom. This freedom ensures that any and all can express themselves, and these expressions will sometimes be offensive. They may be offensive to your race, your gender, your ideology, your lifestyle, your preferences, or your religion. We ask you to endure any indignities that do no bodily harm to you, your goods or your family. You have a freedom to argue with those who insult you, you have a freedom to protest it in legal ways, you have a freedom to insult them back, but there is no guarantee whatsoever that you will not face things you find to your disliking. If this is too much for you, we ask that you leave this country, as the freedoms of expression and speech are two of the cornerstones our society is built upon.

‘Happiness depends on being free, and being free depends on being courageous.’”

Above all, we cannot repress the freedom of expression for anything or anyone. The right to bash Islam in a reasonable manner is the same as the right to bash any religion: it is your opinion, and you are free to say it. As a Christian in America, I must be able to tolerate hearing that my religion is terrible. It is the same with a Jew, a Buddhist, a Hindu, or a Muslim; and for the last to be good Americans and good members of society, they must learn to take it.