Iowahawk

A while ago I created a list of Top 10 conservative bloggers. I didn't include Iowahawk, and I can't recall why. The man is brilliant.




Go see his site.

Attacking Sara Palin

I've tried to ignore the anti-Palin parade on the left. In some quarters it's infected the right. Still I've tried to ignore it. What Governor Palin does between now and 2012 will go a long way towards determining whether she was a conservative flash in the pan, or the next Ronald Reagan or something in between.

I like Governor Palin. Not because she is a plain-spoken average American and that makes her homey and relatable. I like Governor Palin because she is a red meat conservative. She embodies a lot of what the Republican party has let slip from it's grasp in the last decade. Not every position earns her a conservative 'gold star' but she certainly was spot on with respect to many issues;

• Anti-taxpayer-funded-Wall-Street-bailout
• In favor of energy independence
• Pro-life
• Firm believer in free market capitalism
• Tough views on crime
• Committed to providing strong education, including morals.
• Worked for government reform
• Pro free trade
• Lifelong NRA member
• Health care must be market-and business-driven.
• Supports a path to citizenship, but no amnesty for illegals.
• Favors tax cuts

That looks like a pretty solid batch of ideals. Not a lot on foreign policy in there, where she's deemed weaker by many. But hopefully conservatives do not fall prey to the left's groupthink on Sarah Palin - that she's a lightweight. That would be underestimating her ability, and playing into their hand of trying to discredit on of the GOP's star-power candidates.

And that's why I've stopped ignoring the Palin-bashing. She is not a perfect candidate. She may or may not be the GOP nominee for President in 2012. But she is smarter, more qualified and better able to lead than she is being given credit for in the MSM and to a lesser degree in some snobby conservative circles. My thoughts here are that the GOP and conservatives should not villify their own. There's plenty of liberals to get riled over, and we should focus our arrows at their short-comings, not our own.

Let's give Governor Palin a chance to prove herself and prep herself for her future candidacies and reserve judgement. In fact, let's reflect on the positive qualities she possesses, including her ability to connect and make a positive impression on the American public (absent the hyperbolic disdain she has and will continue to receive from the MSM).

Brit stars attack Israel under false pretenses

Oh, okay. The British entertainment industry are speaking out against Israel. It's all Israel's fault that civilians are being killed, is that it?

Singer Annie Lennox and former model Bianca Jagger joined human rights campaigners to call on American president elect Barack Obama to speak up against the Israeli bombardment of the Gaza Strip.

Former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone and the comedian Alexei Sayle also added their support to the campaign to end the violence.

I guess they weren't paying attention when Hamas was killing Israeli civilians. Aside from the obvious hue and cry that they raise and their attempt to sway public opinion towards compassion and humanity and blah, blah, blah, what's the common background of these concerned stars?

British comedian Alexei Sayle is apparently Jewish and ashamed of Israel. I didn't realize he was Jewish, but I was aware of the fact that he was an avowed socialist. Apparently Annie Lennox has some socialism in her family background, and although she claims to avoid party affiliation, she does work with Amnesty International and Greenpeace. Bianca Jagger was a big supporter of Daniel Ortega, the former Nicaraguan dictator and socialist. And Ken Livingstone, former London mayor, is definitely a socialist.


[Photo from the 2006 U.N. rally.]

There seems to be a bit of a common thread. It's all a little clearer. Anti-Americanism, anti-Israeli, but for reasons other than what is professed in public. In 2006 Arabs and communists rallied at the U.N. with chants of death to Israel. Nice. It's a common enemy thing. Just thought I should bring these facts to the table when the conversations come up.

Mumbai - more analysis

In light of the recent terror attacks in Mumbai, it seemed possible that the United States could turn the problem into a renewed relationship opportunity with India. Given the timing and the impracticality of action during a lame-duck presidency, the opportunity may have been missed. Condoleeza Rice has demanded that Pakistan come clean and co-operate. Or else? Not much. There's no carrot, and no real stick in play here. And consequently, the U.S. offers little to India that India cannot get elsewhere and more to it's advantage. Meanwhile Pakistan has gone back to the path of denial. And now InterPressService is reporting that India is seeking support from China in dealing with Pakistan.

According to sources, Mukherjee has conveyed New Delhi's dissatisfaction to Washington.

"With six American citizens killed in the Mumbai attack, we expected that Washington would apply effective pressure on the Pakistani military,’’ Uday Bhaskar, leading strategic analyst and former deputy director of the Indian ministry of defence -funded Institute of Defence Studies
and Analysis.

"That Washington could not act beyond a point proves that the U.S. dependency on the Pakistani military for the safety of its supply convoys to support its troops in Afghanistan is a greater priority,’’ Bhaskar said. ‘’There is "an understanding on both sides that there are limits to the extent to which the U.S. can prevail upon the Pakistani military to deliver apropos of
terrorism.’’

So an opportunity has been squandered. At least in the short term, since I'm sure there's more the United States government could do in the region that would be of more benefit to India. And there is urgent reason to do so. The Cato Institute in an article from the Dallas Morning News, touches on the implications of reliance on Pakistan.

After months of increased attacks on supply trucks, U.S. and NATO officials are scrambling for alternative routes to sustain its forces in land-locked Afghanistan. Today, three-quarters of NATO provisions bound for Afghanistan must travel through the deteriorating security environment in neighboring Pakistan. If U.S. and NATO leaders intend to establish new routes
for the mission, they will have to make concessions to surrounding countries including Iran and Russia.

...

For the time being, the U.S. and NATO will have to rely on Pakistan. America's foreign policy in the region remains hostage to events in that increasingly unstable country. Washington would be wise to take steps immediately to repair relations with either Tehran or Moscow if it wishes to have another feasible option for sustaining the Afghanistan mission.

Stemming the rising tide of violence in Afghanistan is crucial to America's "war on terror." Success requires the ability to supply U.S. and NATO forces in that country, which in turn, requires the wisdom to engage in effective diplomacy with key powers, especially Iran and Russia.

Clearly the alternatives are unsustainable. Iran, Russia? Not good bets. Being able to leverage forward bases in India would be a way to mitigate the problem, but it requires considering their interest instead of just America's - the relationship has to be mutually beneficial. As it could be.

Instead, it appears India will look elsewhere for support, a supporter of Pakistan in the Kashmir dispute, and a competitor to the US on the world stage. Not a good triangulation for the US or India. For the US this seems like a lose, lose, lose scenario. They lose a potential relationship builder with India, they lose the opportunity to open a new forward supply station for Afghanistan-based troops and they drive a potential ally towards a potential economic and military threat. There's triangulation worth working around.

Atheists suing Warren, Roberts

Alright, this is a just taking the separation of church and state doctrine beyond the pale. An atheist groups is reportedly suing pastor Rick Warren and Chief Justice John Roberts for among other things inclusion of the phrase "So help me God" in the oath of office, according to the Washington Post

Michael A. Newdow, 17 other individuals and 10 groups representing atheists sued
Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., several officials in charge of inaugural festivities, the Rev. Joseph E. Lowery and megachurch pastor Rick Warren. They filed the complaint in U.S. District Court.

and Fox News.

"We're hoping to stop prayer and religious rituals at governmental functions, especially at the inauguration," Barker told FOX News Radio."The inauguration is not a religious event. It is a
secular event of a secular country that includes all Americans, including those of us who are not Christians, including those of us who are not believers," he continued.

Barker, who said government's not picking sides on the issue of religion is "hard wired into our Constitution," called the 29 members of the suit all atheists and agnostics who love their country and participating in the inauguration.

"Yet we are subjected to someone else's religious views with the endorsement of the government, which makes us feel like second class outsiders," he said.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is the same group that wanted the phrase "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, and worked to have atheist displays next to holiday displays in Washington state. Their argument in this case?

Barker argued that by allowing religious phrases to be used in the ceremony as well as inviting Revs. Rick Warren and Joe Lowery, who are named as defendants in the suit, to participate in the inaugural festivities, the government is picking a winner in the dispute over religion and
atheism.

Was anyone aware that this was a 'dispute'? Whatever happened to respecting each other's beliefs (or non-beliefs)? I thought that's what they were supposedly after. Apparently not. Apparently they are a militant special interest group bent on removing God from society, starting with the government. How long before they start wanting to remove "In God We Trust" from the currency?

Now respecting each others' beliefs is probably the pinnacle of their argument. Given that God is only referenced in the Constitution once in respect to the date ('in the year of our Lord'), why is it so prevalent in some areas of government (like the oath of office), and isn't unfair that it should be that way? The fact of the matter is that the United States was founded as a Christian nation, by Christians. Opponents of this view will often site the Treaty of Tripoli , Article 11 as proof that this is not the case.

Although the Treaty of Tripoli under agreement only lasted a few years and
no longer has legal status, it clearly represented the feelings of our Founding
Fathers at the beginning of the American government.

The problem with that argument is that it is signed by John Adams, who clearly felt that Christianity played an important part in the founding principles of the United States. Besides, basing your argument on an obscure short term treaty, that 'no longer has legal status' makes a pretty weak case compared to the religious affiliation of the Founding Fathers. There is a clear difference between between having a separation of church and state and advocating a theocracy. The latter is what the separation intends, not the former. There is also a big difference between the government having a separation of church and state and being openly hostile to religion.

If President-elect Obama is a religious man and wants there to be a religious component to his inauguration, that is a personal choice and infringing upon that would seem to be a violation of his first amendment rights.

Sure atheist groups and gay rights activists have every right to be unhappy with his decision to include pastor Rick Warren in the ceremony. But they have no right trying to ban him, and to try to change the oath of office wording thereby infringing on the rights of the President-elect. If the President-elect had chosen to have an entirely secular inauguration ceremony, many Christians would be angry and indignant too. But they would not have taken up a legal challenge against the ceremony. To do so would be (and is) petulant and unbecoming. What they would do is if they were incensed enough is work harder to ensure he does not get re-elected. That's how a democracy works - your currency is your vote. Use it. Attempt to sway others with sensible discourse. DO NOT try to use the courts to impose your view of fairness on everyone else. The courts are their to interpret the laws of the land in light of the Constitution, they are not there to govern. Take that liberal playbook somewhere else, because the method of your efforts are the grossest distortion of American democracy, not the inclusion or exclusion of God and the marginalizing of atheists. Atheists are a marginal portion of the population already, deal with it.

Hispanics for School Choice

Without an elections strategy that leverages demographic trends, conservative Republicans are doomed to repeat the failures of the past. Conservatives tend to be students of history - the past can offer terrific insight into the future dangers and opportunities. One of the confluences of two emerging trends offers the GOP a great opportunity for improved electoral performance. Failure to recognize the opportunity, failure to capitalize on it will turn the opportunity into an electoral threat. There are two trends to consider (1) educational standards and reforms and (2) the rapidly growing Hispanic demographic.

School choice is a fundamentally conservative concept. The free market, everywhere it is applied, provides for the highest instance of innovation, the greatest success stories and is the most effective tool for weeding out the unsuccessful or transforming the unsuccessful into successful out of the necessity of survival. School choice is a logical application of this concept. Allow parents to select which school their child or children will attend and they will pick schools that are successful or best suited to their individual circumstances. In A Nation At Risk in April 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education stated the following;

Our Nation is at risk. Our once unchallenged preeminence in
commerce, industry, science, and technological innovation is being overtaken by
competitors throughout the world. This report is concerned with only one of the
many causes and dimensions of the problem, but it is the one that undergirds
American prosperity, security, and civility. We report to the American people
that while we can take justifiable pride in what our schools and colleges have
historically accomplished and contributed to the United States and the
well-being of its people, the educational foundations of our society are
presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very
future as a Nation and a people. What was unimaginable a generation ago has
begun to occur--others are matching and surpassing our educational attainments.

If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the
mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it
as an act of war. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselves. We
have even squandered the gains in student achievement made in the wake of the
Sputnik challenge. Moreover, we have dismantled essential support systems which
helped make those gains possible. We have, in effect, been committing an act of
unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament.

Our society and its educational institutions seem to have lost sight of the basic purposes of
schooling, and of the high expectations and disciplined effort needed to attain
them. This report, the result of 18 months of study, seeks to generate reform of
our educational system in fundamental ways and to renew the Nation's commitment
to schools and colleges of high quality throughout the length and breadth of our
land.

[Emphasis added]

The authors of the study made key recommendations around class content (i.e. emphasis on math, science, English) , standards and expections (e.g. grades should be indicators of academic achievement), time (i.e. more homework, longer school days, a longer school year), teaching (e.g. standards, salary guidelines) and leadership and fiscal support (e.g. State and local officials, including school board members, governors, and legislators, have the primary responsibility for financing and governing the schools, and should incorporate the reforms we propose in their educational policies and fiscal planning).

Predictably these ideas, recommended some 25 years ago, have been met with resistence from various quarters. Everything from teachers unions, ebonics, No Child Left Behind, to Obama's call for more art and music instead of tougher educational standards, and more hard work to a myriad of other reasons NOT to do it, has stood in the way of educational reform and the reemergence of educational excellence. American scholastics are still succeeding, but not in the ways they did in the past.

The other trend that is occuring is the rapid growth of the Hispanic population in the U.S.A. The chart below is the 2006 Census Bureau data;

Census Hispanic Hispanic
Year Pop (Millons) % Total Pop
1970 9.6 4.7
1980 14.6 6.4
1990 22.4 9.0
2000 35.3 12.5

Projections

2010* 47.8 15.5
2020* 59.7 17.8
2030* 73.0 20.1
2040* 87.7 22.3
2050* 102.6 24.4

How do these two trends, education and Hispanic population growth, intersect? It really isn't all that much of a stretch for conservative thinking to uncover it. Hispanics must be a part of any future Republican thinking and electoral strategy. In order to win, we need to have dialogue with this group and understand where we have common ground to build on. And one thing in common in every demographic is wanting the best education for American children. It's easy.

I've argued in the past about grassroots and outreach being key for GOP future strategy. Luckily, some of this ground up work has already been done within the Hispanic community.

The group Hispanic CREO is an organization arguing for school choice. From their website, they appear to be non-partisan, but even if they are Democrat-leaning, it's a potential wealth of opportunity for the GOP given our belief in what the are fighting for. In fact, there's an article on their site about Bobby Jindal's efforts in Louisiana. We don't need to rally Hispanics around the idea of better education - they are self-moticated on the issue and wanting improvement already. We just have to show them we mean business about it.