The Media, The NAACP, and liberal logic... if you can call it that -Part 1

Okay, I know this is getting old fast, but I cannot let this whole thing with the NAACP and the Tea Party become history without giving my own two cents on it. As we all know, these Tea Parties attract a number of right-wing wacko’s. I’ve never personally seen any racism at these rallies, but I have seen people there with extreme ideas and suggestions such as petitioning to impeach the president or ascertain the validity of his birth certificate. I don’t align myself with either of these suggestions and find them to be a distraction from an open and candid discussion of Obama’s policies.

And yes, as we have all seen on TV, some tea party-goers have thrown out racist remarks at some of these rallies, such as those hurled at Representatives John Lewis and Emanuel Cleaver during the last major Health Care Protest on March 21st of this year.

Yet, based on a few sporadic instances, the left-leaning media and institutions like the NAACP have undergone an outrageous attempt to paint the entire Tea Party movement as racist. The thing that I can’t get over is how they keep going back and forth. First of all, the liberals do the same thing they acuse us conservatives of doing: they paint our entire movement with a broad brush that’s based off the bad experiences of a few people. Yet, whenever anyone tries to call them out on it, these liberals back down and say, “we’re not saying the entire movement is racist. We’re just trying to make Conservatives and Republicans more aware of the racist elements within their own party.” Then these liberals continue to make comments that suggest that they do, in fact, believe the Tea Party to be racist. They make comments without any kind of concession, without acknowledging how few and sporadic these instances really are. And, the back and forth continues.

Whenever liberals say that they don’t believe the racist elements within the Tea Party represent the entire movement, I say bull crap! You should either have the guts to say what you really think, or else don’t bring up the issue in the first place! If they didn’t really believe that we’re racist, why do they keep talking about it? Why do they continue to say that the Tea Party is not all racist while insinuating that the bigots within it represent all members of it? The answer is fairly simple: those who consciously put forward these kind of stories and try to make them bigger than they really are are simply interested in using race for their own benefit. They are bending over backwards to victimize themselves, and they are doing it to promote their own political agenda. Nobody is proud of America’s past regarding slavery and discrimination towards people of color. Yet, that is still no excuse for these people to turn the tables on America and use a dark part of our history to accuse today’s conservatives of racism.

Arizona Shrugged, Part 2

Two Weeks Later…

So, let me go into the second part of what I was going to say two weeks ago. When the story of Pierce’s letter was brand new, I was going to say that it wouldn’t surprise me if the liberals in the media try to twist this story and make it sound like Arizona is doing something unjust and un-American. Now, the story has obviously died down quite a bit. It seems like Arizona and L.A. are kindof’ at a standstill on this. I don’t know if L.A. really has implemented their threatened boycott.

From what I’ve heard, the media hasn’t done much commenting on this story (Maybe the liberals in the media are too embarrassed to see the irony behind this whole tension between the two states–I don’t know). Yet, it would be completely in line with their childish mentality of making choices without accepting the consequences. Too many liberals in this country make decisions without thinking of the consequences. When the consequences bite them in the back, they have a temper tantrum and try to make someone else look like the bad guy. It’s the same thing with abortion. They call it “a women’s right to choose.” (Note: When I say abortion, I am not referring to the small minority of cases where women become pregnant from rape or incest or when the life of the mother is in danger. I feel like my views on when abortion should be allowed legally are in line with the position of the LDS Church. In this case, I’m talking about the women who abort their babies because they are simply unwilling to accept the consequences of sex. Of course, it takes two to tango and it’s a shame that there’s no physical consequence for the male who impregnates the girl. But, of course, there’s not really much that can be done about that given the nature of everything.)

The simple truth is that you can’t make choices without accepting the consequences and that’s what’s going on here with everyone trying to boycott Arizona. I’ve heard there’s a buy-cott going on out there of people buying things that are only made in Arizona, or going there on vacation. Maybe I’ll do both this year. Who knows?

Arizona Shrugged, Part 1

The more I hear about this Arizona immigration law, the more I realize that Arizona had every right to pass this law. It’s too bad the federal government wasn’t doing their job in the first place but, at the end of the day, Arizona had not only a right but also an obligation to protect her citizens.

I can understand people’s anger over this law. Personally, I think a lot of Americans don’t want to deal with the facts when it comes to immigration. They don’t want to be the country that deports these illegal aliens. They don’t want to belong to a country that separates these families. They want to welcome everybody. At some level, I don’t blame them for being worried about families breaking apart. It shows how truly compassionate and caring we are as a country.

But Arizona had to protect her citizens. They had to do something before the violence got out of control. The federal government should have been the ones to strengthen our southern borders. But they didn’t, so the Arizona state government did what they could within their limited power as a state government over an issue of national security. Like I said, I understand people’s anger over this law. However, their anger is misguided. The people of Los Angeles and every other city that has threatened to boycott Arizona should be angry with the federal government of the United States, not the state government of Arizona. If there’s any truth to the liberal claim that this law will lead to racial profiling, then maybe liberal outrage is justified. But even in that case, their outrage should be aimed at those in the federal government who failed to do their job in the first place and, consequently, pushed the Arizona government into passing this law.

Another thing- I’m tired of hearing all this talk about how, “Well Bush didn’t do anything to protect our borders either.” I have a news flash for liberals who keep saying that: We (Conservatives) know that; we’re just as ticked off at the Bush administration and every other previous administration who failed to secure the borders as we are at the Obama Administration for perpetuating that failure. Bush’s failure in this arena doesn’t make it okay for Obama to fail on this too.

Arizona is in a really tough spot right now. If they wait for the federal government to strengthen the borders, they could see more of their citizens killed. But if they do what’s in the best interest of their state, they have to deal with punk mayors like Antonio Villaraigosa, of Los Angeles, who have threatened to boycott Arizona over their new law.

Yesterday, Arizona Corporation Comission member Gary Pierce released a letter to the mayor of Los Angeles telling Mayor Villaraigosa that he would be glad to relieve his city from continuing to receive 25% of their electricity from Arizona. http://www.cc.state.az.us/commissioners/Pierce/Documents/5-18-10.pdf I think Arizona should go ahead and pull the plug. I’ll explain why tomorrow (meaning the next time I write on this blog).

Conservatism is Compassionate

I recently heard someone defend his belief in compassionate conservatism, the same idea introduced (to a significant extent later practiced) by George W. Bush when he first ran for president back in 2000. I think I have a vague idea of what this term is supposed to mean (i.e. helping the poor and need). Regardless of that, however, I see some very negative consequences of its usage. The problem with this term is very simple: it implies that Conservatism is not compassionate by itself. Nothing, however, could be further from the truth.

Before I continue, however, I think it’s important to remember how we Americans–myself included– often define conservatism. It’s composed of some very basic principles. As Conservatives, we believe the power of the government should be limited. We believe in a free market over which the government should have very little, if any, control. We believe in upholding the traditional family, and celebrating our Judeo-Christian heritage. We believe our elected officials should strictly follow the Constitution. Of course the list goes on, but these are some of the basics. I’ve heard many conservatives say that conservative principles are simply the founding principles of the country.

As a side note, I think the free market system of allowing people to pursue their dreams without a lot of government intrusion is already compassionate. I could say the same for upholding the traditional family by recognizing kids’ need for a female mother and a male father. However, I don’t think that’s the kind of compassion that many liberal Democrats, and even many moderate Republicans, think we conservatives lack. They want to see us give to the homeless and needy. They think they see a huge contradiction between the firm way we defend Christianity and the level to which we oppose this country’s welfare system, for example. Yet, both liberals and conservatives will be surprised to find the founding principles that we conservatives embrace are just as compassionate as those specifically mentioned in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

Long before Britain decided to exercise greater control over her American colonies, Americans had already founded those principles that they later incorporated into the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Ever since the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock in 1620 and the Puritans in Massachusetts Bay ten years later, Americans had been slowly but surely practicing freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press. They had also been practicing representative government on a local level. In addition to all these, they had also been practicing compassion. A long American tradition, compassion goes back to the ‘City on the Hill’ idea set forth by John Winthrop. He, very explicitly, stated the following:

“wee must be willing to abridge our selves of our superfluities, for the supply of others necessities, wee must uphold a familiar Commerce together in all meekenes, gentlenes, patience and liberallity, wee must delight in eache other, make others Condicions our owne rejoyce together, mourne together, labour, and suffer together, allwayes haveing before our eyes our Commission and Community in the worke, our Community as members of the same body, soe shall wee keepe the unitie of the spirit in the bond of peace, the Lord will be our God and delight to dwell among us, as his owne people.

While the progressives in this country believe everyone is entitled to some kind of government-backed security blanket though welfare, social security, health care, etc, Conservatives have a little bit more faith in each other. When the economy goes south temporarily, we conservatives turn to our churches and local charities for help. Those of us lucky enough to ride out the storm make donations through those same churches and local charities. Where liberals are willing to sacrifice the entire American experiment of freedom from tyrannical government during times of economic distress, Conservatives remember that allowing ourselves to become more dependent on the government diminishes our freedom, which, in turn, provides us with fewer resources to help the poor and the needy through the most effective means possible. When bad times come, as they always do, liberals (out of fear) begin believing that the American experiment of free market economics has failed and that government should step up to the plate. Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that they themselves should be consistently choosing to step up to the plate because choosing to help others in economic distress is a significant part of our national identity. I’ll touch on more of this later, but the key difference between the two mindsets is in choosing.

Freedom Breeds Confidence

For those of you that did not hear, I have a shocking news story that could only happen in California. However, I still would not have believed it unless I had heard it for myself:

Daniel Galli and his four friends were wearing Patriotic T-shirts to school as they do on a frequent basis. They were sitting at Lunch when the vice principal approached them and asked them to turn their shirts inside-out, because it was Cinco de Mayo and the vice principal said that their shirts were insensitive to Mexican Americans. He said this was supposed to be their holiday. When the boys refused, they were sent to the principal’s office. The principal then threatened to suspend them if they didn’t comply. So, the five of them returned home and changed their clothing. When interviewed by the News Media, one Mexican American girl said, “I think they [the boys] should just apologize… We don’t deserve to get disrespected like that. We wouldn’t do that on the Fourth of July.” (http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local-beat/Students-Wearing-American-Flag-Shirts-Sent-Home-92945969.html)

When I was watching this story online yesterday, I wanted to walk right through my laptop and scream at this girl: “You airhead! What kind of logic do you call what you just said? These boys (who largely represent Conservative America, in my opinion) wouldn’t care if you did wear a Mexican shirt on the Fourth of July.” I wanted to tell her that we conservatives are not self-conscious like she is. We are not self-conscious as she insinuates we would or should be. This girl’s family likely came to America, the land of opportunity, to seek a better life. They came to a land that is the land of opportunity because it’s based on certain principles. One of those principles, among so many others listed in the Constitution, is freedom of expression.
The principal, vice principal, this girl, and many like them don’t seem to understand the way our patriotism and our pride in this country give us the self-confidence to recognize other people’s rights. At Utah’s annual Veteran’s Day Conference every November, anti-war protestors stand outside and shout offensive and ‘insensitive’ things at the men and women who have and are putting their lives on the line so these protestors can stand outside and be jerks. When they do this, the veterans and those of us with family members and friends who have served, or are serving, in the military have the self-confidence to ignore the protestors and recognize their right to protest. We have the self-confidence to realize that what other people think of us does not determine our happiness.
Yet, when four boys want to exercise their Constitutional right to, in a sense, say how grateful they are for that Constitutional Right, the school administrators and this girl start whining like spoiled bratty little kids and saying that they don’t like American shirts on their holiday, and that these boys should have to give in to their temper tantrums. These people don’t value freedom. They don’t value it because they’ve already surrendered their freedom to other people to determine how happy they are.

A Few More Words on Immigration

A couple more things: I am tired of people on the Left suggesting that those of us on the Right, especially the people of Arizona, are racist for supporting this recent law. I will acknowledge that it does seem like there is more racism towards Latinos in this country relative to other ethnic groups. To put it bluntly, it is relatively safer, politically, to stereotype them than it is to stereotype Blacks or Muslims, for instance. At the end of the day, though, the people of Border States like Arizona and Texas need to act if the federal government is unwilling to do so.

At the same time, though, our motive (as Conservatives) for solving this problem should not be political, even though that is much easier said than done. Every so often, I hear someone suggest that one of the reasons the GOP should oppose amnesty is that the overwhelming majority of Latino’s in this country vote for the Democratic Party. I have no doubt that the liberals in this country try to pander to Latino’s as they do with many other ethnic groups and minorities. I believe many of these liberals want minorities dependent on the federal government. Yet, by suggesting that we want an immigration crackdown in order to curtail the power of the Democratic Party, we are only lowering ourselves to their level. It also gives the Democrats more ammunition to play the race card against us.

If we, as Conservatives, are so concerned about the Democrats hijacking of the Latino Vote, the Black Vote, the Asian Vote, etc, we should convince the Republican Party to adopt the Big Tent Philosophy that Ronald Reagan did in the 1980’s when he welcomed all into the Grand Old Party. Rather than lowering ourselves to the Democrats’ level, the Republican Party should make a more solid effort to remind all Americans (while not singling out any one group, obviously) that they are more conservative than they are prone to, or often led to, believe. I believe many of them would see the light if we showed them how their lifestyles -- of working hard, going to church, and loving their families – are more Conservative than they are liberal. But we can't just passively think they'll one day wise up if we don't actively help them understand the Truth.

Humility: An Important Ingredient to a Person’s Intelligence

Let me preface that what I am about to say is based on nothing but pure speculation. However, let me also say that I think it falls completely in line with LDS Theology, even though I am obviously not some kind of spokesperson for the LDS Faith.
From my reading of The Book of Mormon, it seems like The Book of Heleman and the first part of The Third Book of Nephi seem to focus on the pride theme more than any other section. Recently I was reading in Heleman, Chapter 12, where Mormon gives his famous treatise on Pride. After stating that men are “quick to do iniquity” and “slow to remember the Lord their God”, Mormon compares men to the natural elements of wind, water, earth, etc. and says that these elements are far more obedient than man is (Hel 12:4-5). He then says something that, at first glance, looks like an aside to what he is really talking about. In Heleman 12: 15, he states the following:

And thus, according to his word the aearth goeth back, and it appeareth unto man that the bsun standeth still; yea, and behold, this is so; for surely it is the earth that moveth and not the sun.

I stopped after reading this verse, because I had so many questions going through my head: Why is Mormon going off on astronomy? Was a geocentric view that the earth was the center of the Universe common on the ancient American continent? (It was certainly common for a lengthy period in Europe, given the way philosophers, astronomers, the clergy and many others persecuted Galileo for asserting a Hellenistic view of the Universe.) It then hit me that maybe Mormon was ahead of his time. Maybe he was an incredible scholar in addition to being the Lord’s prophet. It was not that I have ever doubted his intelligence or anything, but the thought just had not occurred to me before. Now that it has, it makes perfect sense. If The Modern-Day Leadership of the Church is composed of men who have been doctors, lawyers, professors, scientists, etc. then why not the same thing in the ancient world?
Finally, maybe it’s not a coincidence that Mormon’s intelligence comes through in a chapter on Pride. I think there’s a very general but still common misconception out there that people who believe in God or belong to organized religion stifle their minds by worshipping a Being more intelligent than themselves and by humbling themselves before him. Yet, it is just the opposite. When men follow God and humbly keep his commandments, their ability to think, analyze, synthesize, and create are enhanced. Whether or not Mormon had this intent in mind when he wrote this chapter, it still serves as a good example of how people’s minds expand when they humbly and consistently recognize the source of all Light and Truth.