The Media Reloads

The following column appeared in the Trojan Tribune in October.

   When Republicans shout for war, they seek the authorization of Congress, the body given the power of war declaration by our supreme law, the Constitution. When Democrats shout for war, they either lie about circumstances to forge it (are you hearing this, LBJ?) or don’t know why we should go, but agree to pay for it and hand France the reins (ahem, present situation in Libya acknowledged).

   It’s a curious thing, though, when the media declares war on conservatives. No formal declaration is issued from the commanders-in-chief of MSNBC, ABC, CBS, or CNN, but the opening salvos from the guns of libel and slander ring loud and clear each time we turn on the television.

   The assault has been ongoing for decades. In an October, 1987 issue of Newsweek, a picture of Vice President and soon to be President George H. W. Bush was captioned with the words, “Fighting the ‘Wimp Factor.’” A more treacherous headline could not have been conceived. Bush the “wimp” had not only served with distinction as vice president, CIA Director and envoy to China, but after becoming the youngest aviator in the United States Navy at the age of 19, he had completed 58 flight missions in the Pacific during World War II, earning him the Distinguished Flying Cross and three Air Medals.

   Let’s not mince words: Newsweek is an example of a leftist publication with a staff whose mission is to destroy conservatives. It was members of that very staff, Evan Thomas and Eve Conant, who penned a story called “Hate on the Right,” a shameful skewering of the Tea Party movement. The article, published on April 19, 2010, includes a timeline of disconnected acts of violence that are purportedly the doing of right-wing extremists. This list includes the Kennedy assassinations, the shooting of Martin Luther King, Jr., and attacks committed by The Weathermen, a leftist anti-war group.

   And get this--one caption reads, “Trouble in the air: Huey Long castigated the rich and Father Coughlin denounced Jews in the 1930s. Today, the microphones belong to Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.”

   You see, liberals don’t bat an eye when they compare a conservative talk show host and a Republican governor and vice presidential candidate to racist fear-mongers who believe in class warfare. In fact, you’d be hard-pressed to find two people who have greater respect for Israel and earning your keep than Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.

   But this caption delivers a new level of irony. Not only is it blatantly wrong in its assertion, but it ignores the fact that the opposite is true. It is President Obama, not conservatives, who is calling for the wealthy to “pay their fair share” in no less than $1.5 trillion in new taxes. Oh, and wasn’t it the president who stated in a speech, “If asking a billionaire to pay the same tax rate as a Jew--as a janitor--makes me a warrior for the working class, I wear that as a badge of honor”? And Newsweek has the audacity to imply that Beck and Palin have it out for the Jewish people?

   But that’s the difference between liberal and conservative writers. I know that President Obama made a slip of the tongue, not a jab at Jewish Americans. It’s beneath us to put substance behind that kind of remark and put it on the front page. But it’s not beneath a liberal.

   Whether it’s CBS publishing a story that wonders if Michele Bachmann’s headaches would interfere with her ability to be president, or every media outlet in the nation giddily and falsely reporting that Sarah Palin doesn’t know her history on Paul Revere’s ride, the media will sink to any low to paint conservatives as incompetent.

   But there are two things that render the media’s war on conservatism totally ineffective. Firstly, people don’t read liberal publications or watch liberal television. That’s why Newsweek has lost money since 2007 and more people watch the Fox News Channel than CNN, MSNBC and CNBC combined.

   Secondly, we don’t need front page magazine stories to push our agenda. Our ads can be seen everywhere, and we don’t pay for them. They’re gas price signs. They’re notices on people’s doors that read “foreclosed.” They’re unemployment lines. Every time the stock market goes down, our national debt increases and a small business closes its doors, it’s an ad against President Obama.

   The media will never offer a truce in its war on conservatism.

   And we’re not asking for one.

What's not to love?

   There’s nothing wrong with being unabashedly pro-American. As the most exceptional and honorable nation on earth, our culture is unique in ways that other countries cannot grasp or imitate.

   In fact, I would be very disappointed to meet someone who is not pro-American. Where else in the world can you own a concealed handgun, say a prayer in a public school without it being on a Persian rug facing Mecca, or own an SUV and collect a welfare check at the same time?

   In addition to our proud history and constitutional freedoms, we are a country of firsts. First electric washing machine. First role of barbed wire. First atomic weapon. First polio vaccine.

   One would think you could never run out of good things to say about America. Ever since the 1960s, however, and thanks to a rancorous group of, shall we say, “high” ideal university students that would “weed” our culture of values and make sure morality was “drug” from the school setting, it has become popular, if not promoted, to hate America.

   Jane Kim of California, (now there’s a state with “high” ideals) for example, says she doesn’t “think our flag represents a nation where there's liberty and justice for all.” Kim is Supervisor of San Francisco’s sixth district and as such serves on the city’s board of supervisors at City Hall. She refuses to recite the pledge of allegiance before city meetings.

   Naturally, Kim is within her constitutional rights. But do any misgivings about our government give cause for lack of patriotism? Should the disapproval of our politicians lead to the disapproval of the basic principles on which our country was founded? And where is the lack of justice or liberty?

   Maybe she would prefer living in China. I hear there’s lots of justice there. And liberty, well that’s about as prevalent as their child labor laws. 

   Or maybe Saudi Arabia would be her destination. She’d be freed from the burden of driving, deciding who to vote for, and shielding her face from sunlight (I’m not sure much gets through the Burka). 

   And then there’s Iran. The most she would have to worry about there is getting stoned to death for being in the same room with a man who’s not her husband. I mean, you only need four male witnesses to testify in court that you were raped and not committing adultery. I’m not sure what American statues says on that subject, but I want to say it’s something like five or six.
   Anyway, Ms. Kim isn’t alone. WikiLeaks, the online organization run by alleged rapist Julian Assange, has been nominated for the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize for “disclosing information about corruption, human rights abuses and war crimes.” Not to mention all the work they did to kill Afghan civilians, undercover agents overseas, and American soldiers. 

   Do you know what we did to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg after they gave secrets about the atomic bomb to the Russian government? We graciously gave them a final meal before frying them in the electric chair. How mad Julius and Ethel would be to know that in today’s world they would be in contention for the world’s highest honor. (But I guess that isn’t saying much--after all, you only have to be president for less than 10 months to win it.)

   To be fair though, WikiLeaks isn’t the only thing responsible for the deterioration of American prosperity. Since the beginning of the Egyptian revolution, socialist and communist radicals have capitalized on the political upheaval at home. Protests have been held from New York, to New Jersey, to Washington, D.C. calling for a revolution--not in Egypt, but here in the United States.

   A screwball at a Code Pink protest was caught on tape screaming, “Revolution now!...This is what we need more of in America, this kind of street heat...what’s happening now in Egypt, same thing needs to happen here!” 

   The Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) also hosted protests. One spokeswoman for PSL declared, “Only by building the party can this capitalist state be overturned by a revolutionary party...”.

  Like Jane Kim, these protesters are are completely within their constitutional rights. I wouldn’t want to change that. It’s ironic though that these people use the system that allows them to protest, and then abuse it by calling for its destruction.

  It’s a good thing, then, that I am within my constitutional rights when I say, “If you’re going to burn the American flag, then wrap yourself in it first.”  

Hypocritical thinking

The following column appeared in the Trojan Tribune last month.

American politics has been described as a contact sport. Aspiring statesmen worry about the effects entering public service will have on their families, because everyone knows that once you jump in, the consequences are immediate. If it’s too rough for you, then get off the field, they’ll tell you.
Candidates accept the fact that when they run for national office, every minuscule aspect of their lives will be investigated and published on the front page of the largest newspapers in the country. I guess politicians will have to accept that. But when it comes to the type of violence Arizona witnessed on Saturday, the reality that “politics is a contact sport” no longer suffices as an excuse.
On January 8, Representative Gabrielle Giffords, a Democrat, and 19 other innocent bystanders, were shot in Tucson by deranged gunman Jared Lee Loughner. Giffords survived the shooting, but the injury to her head put her in critical condition.
The tragic incident set off a firestorm of controversy among pundits over the motives of Loughner, and has started a heated discussion about the political climate of the country.
So far, two dangerous conclusions have been made by liberals since the shooting: the first is that the second amendment is to blame, and the second is that this horrifying outburst of hatred is endorsed by Tea Party Republicans. Saturday brought accusations that the Republican party is an evil institution that uses assassination and violence to reach its goals.
But when I looked over a story on Giffords on the New York Times website, the comments below it were not filled with hopes for goodwill in politics, nor were condolences given to Giffords’s family. The messages were shocking:
“For political gain, the Republican Party has encouraged this rhetoric. They deserved to be shunned.”
“We Democrats have been saying that for over a year that, if bulls-eyes, threats, gunslinging, and other calls to arms by (Sarah) Palin, (Michele) Bachman, (Rush) Limbaugh, (Glenn) Beck and others did not cease, somebody was going to get hurt.”
On assassinating Sarah Palin: “An attempt on Lincoln right at the end of a bloody war didn’t bring the republic down. I think it will be OK.”
“Is that Nazi (Dick) Cheney dead yet?”
“And lastly: why shouldn’t we be honest and admit that this is caused by right-wing extremism, an extremism mined for all it’s worth by Republicans for 30-odd years? How often in history have people been killed by Democrats? How often are Democrats killed? Why is it so hard for us to just admit this?”
If there is one vice that kills an argument, it’s hypocrisy. These comments by left-wing rabble-rousers are filled with not only factual inaccuracies, but brim with the very hatred that consumed Jared Lee Loughner.
We watched with devastation as an honest and talented congresswoman was shot in the head, and what do these people have to say? What is their solution? To ban Republicans from engaging in politics, as if this event was orchestrated by the GOP? To assassinate Sarah Palin in return? To call a former Vice President a Nazi? To label Republicans murderers, thugs and gun-toting hate-mongers? If Giffords could watch the news or read the comments under that New York Times story, she would be heart-broken.
It’s a dangerous thing when people try to turn a time of mourning into an opportunity for political gain and disgraceful retribution. We can’t allow our public officials to be the targets of such violence, and we mustn’t blame each other for the actions of one insane fanatic who begged the world to care that he existed.
When I turned on the TV on Sunday morning and heard about the catastrophe in Tucson, I was reminded of day in English class three years ago. We had been assigned to write and present a demonstration speech about anything our middle school minds could think of. Two students walked to the front of the room, cardboard pistols in their hands, and demonstrated how, if given the chance, they would assassinate President George W. Bush. I watched in horror. No one said a word of disapproval.
Hate exists in every political faction. Democrats and Republicans have their share of zealots, and we let these extremists win by refusing to look hatred in the eye and correct their incendiary statements.
For the sake of Gabrielle Giffords, let us argue with facts, and not ignorant fury.

It's about Respect

The world had just witnessed the disastrous carnage of war at its worst. Lifelong friends had converged on the crest of a remote hill near Gettysburg, Pennsylvania with clenched teeth, thrusting their remorseless bayonets, not knowing if their bullets might be killing a classmate or a brother. The Civil War was in full swing, and when the onslaught ended after three long days, nearly 8,000 soldiers had died on the battlefield of broken unity.

President Abraham Lincoln, in one of the most monumental displays of leadership the world has ever known, delivered his Gettysburg Address to help heal a bleeding nation. But he did so much more than praise the sacrifices of the troops that fell at Gettysburg—he memorialized the very ground on which they had died:

“The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.”

Americans had died for a sacred cause—the battlefield, Lincoln told us, is holy. It is to be respected. It is to be remembered. And the day we forget it is the day we will twice be forced to pay the price of survival.

Since that chilly November day in 1863, when Lincoln delivered his immortal address, the ground at Gettysburg has been left undisturbed, a tribute to the fallen.

Just across the border in the larger city of New York, a similar hallowed ground is not being given such peace.

In May of this year, the American Society for Muslim Advancement and the Cordoba Initiative announced plans to build a 15-story mosque near Ground Zero, one of the sites of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The debate over whether or not the mosque should be built still rages.

President Obama, who has failed to be as supportive of our Jewish friends in Israel, threw his support behind the plan.

Just last year at a press conference in Turkey, Obama stated of the United States, “We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation…”

Founding Father Patrick Henry must have had a different view when he said this:

“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

President Obama is right about a different statement he made, however: Muslims have the right to worship where they want to do so. We live in a nation in which the supreme law protects that right. Religious oppression has never held a place here.

But this debate isn’t about whether Muslims have the right to build a mosque at Ground Zero; it’s about whether or not they should build it there.

It’s about respect. The leaders of the American Society for Muslim Advancement and the Cordoba Initiative should have the understanding and moral decency to build their place of worship in a place that is not so close to the hearts of those who lost loved ones on 9/11.

“The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.”

Ground Zero, like Gettysburg, is consecrated ground. Should we not dedicate it, as Lincoln did, to those who gave their lives? September 11, 2001 was my generation’s Battle of Gettysburg, and so we must remember how that ground came to be hallowed.

We will forever debate whether or not we are a “Christian nation,” but that’s not what this controversy is about. It’s about being a compassionate people.

We will not force Muslims to build their mosque away from Ground Zero--we can only ask them for the consideration to help us, in the words of Lincoln, "...dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this."

Asking the wrong question

The joy in the air was electric, pervasive, and long overdue.

It cannot be described with mere words.

There were 140 million sighs of relief followed by unrelenting tears. But they weren’t timid tears, the kind you quickly wipe off your cheek in embarrassment. They were tears of victory. Everyone had them.

V-J Day had arrived, and the curtains had finally closed over the Second World War, a stage for the greatest generals, the most tumultuous battles, and the most heroic acts of courage known to man.

The Greatest Generation had left its mark on history. All the sweat, blood and unlimited determination had finally ended a war that we had no intention of starting.

War has a negative connotation, and rightly so. But out of the depths of our losses, hadn’t mankind displayed more good than evil during those six years of conflict? Isn’t it just possible war had brought out the best in us?

There is no question that patriotism was our greatest weapon against totalitarianism. And Americans did not look to the definition of patriotism in order to learn how to fulfill their wartime duties, but their actions ended up defining patriotism.

If you were five years old you gathered cotton from milkweed pods to put in life vests for sailors. If you were 10 you collected rubber, aluminum and glass. If you were 18 you joined the service.

If you were a mother, you rationed. If you were 4F, you sold war bonds and worked the factories. If you were too old to fight, you wrote letters, distributed leaflets or served as air raid wardens.

We won World War II because we wanted to.

George Patton told us that, “In war, the only sure defense is offense, and the efficiency of the offense depends on the warlike souls of those conducting it.”

We are at war, so we must ask ourselves:

What is the condition of my soul? Is the fiery desire for victory stirring within my heart, or are they fading embers?

Maybe the fire was never there.

Members of our Armed Forces are not the only soldiers in the War on Terror. We, too, must be warriors. It’s time for us to put our helmets back on.

The battlefield has switched from Germany and Japan to Afghanistan, and our faith has been shaken. Americans are asking, “Can we win this war?”

Reporters ask the White House, “Can we win?”. The White House asks our generals, “Can we win?”. The generals ask their soldiers, “Can we win?”.

And the soldiers, who know they can, look at us, the ones they fight for. Politicians say they believe in the ability of our troops to win in Afghanistan.

But why should our soldiers believe in us?

Wars are won by an unshakable desire to crush the enemy and provide a safe future for the lives of our children, as well as the life of freedom.

If the flame flickers, it fades. When Americans, people of the greatest nation on earth, ask about a war, “Can we win?”, then it is a war we have already lost.

So let’s get with it, America. We’re going to win this war. The question we should be asking is, “What am I doing to help us win?”

This column will be continued next week.

A Man of Many Guises

President Obama is a man who cannot help but hold a grudge. (Isn’t that right, Hillary?) That is, until the person dies.

This became apparent during the funeral of Senator Robert Byrd, the West Virginia extremist who openly supported the Ku Klux Klan and opposed civil rights legislation. Despite Byrd’s outrageous history as a racist bigot, the president praised him for possessing, “that quintessential American quality, and that is a capacity to change.” (Right. Byrd was an angel. It’s Arizona we should be condemning.)

Obama likes to talk about change. It is an attribute he clearly admires most in people.

And maybe this is why he adores himself so much: he has a greater capacity to change than any president that has preceded him. His wardrobe of personalities, which changes almost as frequently as Howard Dean’s mood swings, is endless, it seems. He is a man of many guises.

Professor Obama is the one we see at press conferences. He lectures at the podium, and with an air of arrogance and condescension, regurgitates long, drawn-out defenses of his agenda, such as the classic, “I didn’t ask for this mess. We may still be in a crisis, but we’d be a lot worse off if we hadn’t taken these drastic measures.”

Maybe he should wear a t-shirt that says, “I’m awesome!” Then he won’t have to waste time saying it anymore.

It was Doctor Obama that showed up to sell his pitch on health care. But instead of being the wise, reassuring doctor we all like, he scared us with his prescription: a hefty dose of socialism.

A lot of Americans are wary of Doctor Obama. He’s the doctor that printed his degree off the internet, is covered in cat hair and smells like cooking sherry. You’re just not sure if he’s capable of life-saving treatment.

General Obama decided it was wrong to try to make an ally out of Iraq, which has an educated public, a well-trained army, and is capable of democratic and economic stability. Afghanistan, he says, is a more realistic target. (Uh-huh. And North Korea would probably become an ally just as easily as South Korea, too. I mean, what’s the difference, they’re right next to each other?)

And of course, when he wakes each morning, he must decide between “cool Obama” and “angry Obama.” He likes to be suave, but after discovering Americans are upset with his administration, he now attempts to manufacture anger to seem more human. (Do you think that if Matt Lauer had asked George Bush why he wasn’t more angry about Hurricane Katrina, his response would have been, “Well Matt, I’m gonna fly down to New Orleans, grab that hurricane by the throat and kick its ass!”?

But let’s be fair—sometimes the president’s anger is real. The sputtering economy is taking a heavy toll on his approval rating, and I’m sure his senior officials are taking some heat from him.

Do you remember the scene from It’s a Wonderful Life when Uncle Billy loses eight thousand dollars, and he and George Bailey are frantically searching for it? George gets upset with the blundering, forgetful Uncle Billy, whose nerves are shot, and yells at him.

I think a confrontation between President Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner would be very similar:

Obama: Where’s that bailout money you silly, stupid old fool?

Geither, crying: I don’t know Mr. President, one minute it was here, and the next it was—

Obama: Do you realize what this means? It means bankruptcy and scandal and prison. That's what it means. One of us is going to jail - well, it's not gonna be me!

Yes, the president is a man of many guises. He can switch between liberal and moderate, calm and alarmed, patriot and global citizen.

It’s a shame he doesn’t wear the “commander-in-chief” costume so well.

Why we must care

I wrote the following column, which appeared in the Argus Leader on July 4, 2010, about this famous sentence from the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men 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."

Things change.
Or at least that’s what the world so often takes the time to remind us, sometimes just as we’re getting used to old habits.
Theories, cultures, and ideas: they’re constantly evolving, and our lifestyles must adapt to accompany them. No one wants to live in the past.
But today gives us one of those rare opportunities when we can look at Mother Nature and tell her that in this case, the rules just don’t apply. On this 4th of July, we remember that the immortal words of the Declaration of Independence, the ones guarding “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness,” are not altered by the onslaught of time.
Those words are indeed living. But the only aspect of them that fades is the ink with which they were written.
What meaning does that sentence hold for a 15 year-old? It means that regardless of whether you toil in the fields of the Midwest, or you work in a Manhattan office; whether you pursue a life of grandeur and splendor in a bustling city or you hail from the quietest street in the smallest town, you hold an equal piece in the vibrant patchwork quilt of the American dream. All you need is the desire to join.
But apathy exists: perhaps the saddest question that comes from people my age is the familiar, “Why should I care?”
So why should I, an American teenager, reflect on the words transcribed by men who lived in a world so different from mine?
I care because they made my world possible.
I wake each morning in my bed, and not the barracks of a labor camp. I can find employment without the government telling me what my wages will be. I have the option to pledge allegiance to my flag, but I am not forced to swear an oath of loyalty to a czar, an emperor, or a religious ideologue.
I care because the survival of a great nation requires great actions from its citizens. That is why we must all care.
Unfortunately, there are people in this world who do not share the views of Thomas Jefferson and his 54 colleagues. As you read this, evil forces, both known and covert, attempt to perpetrate the demise of our republic.
So we fight back.
Our nation has always been at war—officially or not—every day, since the Declaration of Independence was signed. Our Armed Forces have stormed the plains of Gettysburg, the beaches of Normandy, and the oil fields of Kuwait.
And sometimes we wonder: Why have we always been forced to sacrifice so much? Why do our enemies hate us?
They hate us for what they see in these very pages: free people remembering the words that gave birth to our nation, and paying tribute to generations of Americans whose blood has christened the freedom of others.
All men are born good, but in the course of human events, some hearts are inevitably warped and poisoned by the fear of freedom, and our enemies, too, sacrifice their lives to destroy that freedom.
But therein lies the difference: our soldiers did not lay down their lives for a ruthless dictator, or die for the expansion of evil, but for something greater than themselves; they died for each other, and for each and every one of us.
At the bottom of the Declaration of Independence is an unseen postscript written with the blood of our fallen soldiers. It reminds us what undying devotion truly is.
We must always remember: the cornerstone on which our glorious republic rests is not invincible, so we must rely on the strength of our backs, the resolve of our spirit, and the courage from deep within our hearts to uphold it—and this labor, it is not one of slaves, but one of patriots.
Many things change in this world. And as for the meaning and status of those 35 words—well, I guess there are some things that stay the same after all.