Running Around Like Liberals With Their Heads Cut Off

Not that long ago, I had never heard of Chick-fil-A. If San Francisco has one of their restaurants, it's news to me. But now that the radical left (usually posing as the "gay community") has decided that the owners of Chick-fil-A are dangerous bigots, I thought I might look into it.

Oh, the horror of it all. The company was founded in the South by a family of good old-fashioned Southern Christians. Churchgoers all, they believe in observing the day which the Lord hath made, and despite losing one day in seven of business, the restaurants are closed on Sundays so the family and all their employees can attend church. How primitive! They are also not particularly shy about expressing their personal Christian views and values, but do not make that an integral part of their business operations. Most of that didn't cause them much negative publicity.

Then they made the big mistake. In response to a question from an interviewer doing a piece on the history and growth of the company, the CEO of Chick-fil-A, Dan T. Cathy, did the unthinkable. He voiced his opposition to the liberal cause du jour. Cathy stated that his company (basically, his family) doesn't accept the concept of gay marriage. In no time at all, The New York Times and all its fellow-travelers in the mainstream media denounced the family, the company and the restaurants as homophobic. Great indignation and threats of boycotts immediately followed as the liberals discovered that the Cathy family is violently opposed to all things gay and beautiful.

What did Cathy say that so incensed the uber-tolerant left? "As it relates to society in general, I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.'" I've heard much stronger messages being thundered from Baptist pulpits, but it doesn't leave a lot of doubt as to how the Cathys feel about gay marriage. And so what?

What The Times and the leftist claque missed was what else Cathy had to say. "We do not discriminate against gays. We would never refuse service to a gay person. We appreciate their business, and welcome their patronage. We would never deny employment to a person because he is gay." That tolerance is not returned by the ever-incensed left and gay lobby. "Shut 'em down." Democrats in cities dominated by leftists who are doing their best to bring down Western civilization are looking into current Chick-fil-A business permits and are determined to prevent any future growth of the company in their oh-so-tolerant cities.

For expressing the family's personal and religious opposition to gay marriage, the left has decided to act as if the Cathys and Chick-fil-A are using their profits (which are considerable) to fund some sort of gay holocaust. Thinking that opposing gay marriage is tantamount to wanting all gay people dead, big city Democratic leaders nationwide have condemned the mote in the Cathys' eyes. They simply will not tolerate intolerance (is that some sort of internal inconsistency?). Begone, Chick-fil-A, and take your Bibles and scriptures with you!

Mayors in several of the nation's biggest cities have spoken out against Chick-fil-A, but the biggest irony comes from Chicago's mayor, Rahm Emanuel. Emanuel indignantly stated that Chick-fil-A does not reflect "Chicago values." One can only hope he's right. Chicago values seem to include rapidly-rising murder rates, crony socialism, and thoroughly dishonest politics. Still, Emanuel has an ally that he recently welcomed to town. Calypso Louis Farrakhan has brought his Nation of Islam shock troops to Chicago to stop the violence.

Emanuel welcomed Farrakhan and condemned Chick-fil-A all on the same day. How his head didn't explode is beyond me. The Cathys welcome gays, but oppose gay marriage. Farrakhan espouses a strange and cultish but fundamentalist Islamic view of gays and gay marriage. Farrakhan's best plan for gay marriage is to burn down the church in which the marriage is being performed, preferably with the groom-groom or bride-bride couple inside along with all those tolerant congregants supporting them. But hey, Farrakhan's black, so it's important to overlook his slightly eccentric views.

From a personal point of view, the only chicken I really like is the deep-fried kind, preferably with grease dripping down my arms as I savor the crispy skin and internal tenderness of a drumstick. That's not what Chick-fil-A serves. Theirs is basically a healthy menu of baked chicken and chicken sandwiches. Their waffle fries are not quite so healthy, but who cares? On Wednesday last, I had an appointment in Bakersfield, so I went out of my way to see if there might be a Chick-fil-A in the area. Sonofagun, there was one just three blocks from my appointment. I very purposefully decided to have lunch there.

For those of you who haven't tried Chick-fil-A, I highly recommend it. It's not elegant, it's just plain good food, nicely-packaged, and pleasantly served. And more than that, I am hoping that many of you are intolerant of intolerance (there we go again). Former Governor (and presidential candidate) Mike Huckabee is promoting August 1 as "Eat at Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day." It's a counter-demonstration well worth participating in. You will be supporting free speech and freedom of religion by doing so, and you don't have to oppose gay marriage to see the correctness of it.

I'm not Mike Huckabee's biggest fan by any means. Nor am I a fan of his co-sponsor of the counter-boycott, Rick Santorum. But since the Huffington Post has declared that Mike Huckabee is "not necessarily a good ally for Chick-fil-A," I will temporarily suspend my lack of enthusiasm for him.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

2012 Contenders: Recent Winners and Losers

With our Presidential hopefuls dropping like flies, it’s time to recalibrate the field. Who will get whose supporters? Who can step from whose shadow? Enquiring minds want to know. . . which means we should look at winners and losers of recent events. As usual, expect no prisoners to be taken in this contempt-riddled analysis.

1. Newt Implodes:

Loser: Newt Gingrich (candidate). Newt’s ill-advised and unfounded attack on Paul Ryan’s budget plan confirmed everything negative we feared about Newt. And his tar-baby-ish struggles to defend himself alienated the entire conservative base. This has basically sunk his candidacy.

Loser: Newt Gingrich (moronacle). Newt’s role as oracle may be endangered by this debacle. For nearly a decade now, Newt has used his flirtation with running for the Presidency to sell books and get people to come seek his opinion. His implosion has exposed the oracle as perhaps more of a moronacle, and this will likely lessen his influence on the party.

Winner: Sarah Palin (celebrity/moronacle). For every yin there is a yang, and Palin is Gingrich’s yang. She’s been trying very hard to become the female Newt, i.e. a moronacle who uses a flirtation with running to garner fame and fortune. In fact, she and Newt competed for this post throughout the 2010 election primaries by make rival endorsements. Newt’s implosion opens the door for Palin to take his place at Delphi.

Winner: Barack Obama. Obama is the big winner here because Newt’s description of Ryan’s plan as “right-wing social engineering” will be enough to allow Obama to gather leftist and squishy-moderate support to block the plan.

Loser: Medicare. Lack of reform = collapse.

2. The Huckster Drops Out:

Winner: Conservatives. Apparently, God doesn’t want the Huckster as President, which is good because conservatives shouldn't want that either. His version of conservatism, i.e. big government liberalism and leftist social theory masquerading as social conservatism, is a disastrous dead end for conservatism. Now we're spared that. And make no mistake, the Huckster stood an excellent chance of winning because of the evangelical-heavy early primaries.

Winner: Sarah Palin (candidate). Palin and the Huckster had been the prime competitors for evangelical voters. With the Huckster gone, these people will look for a new candidate. Should Palin choose to run, she should be able to pick up most of his support.

Winner: Tim Pawlenty Pawlenty apparently has been working hard to win the backing of the religious right. He’s rather bland and forgettable, but out of those who are left in the race, Pawlenty seems to be the best fit for these voters. So if Palin doesn’t jump into the race (and I think she won’t), then he could win them.

3. Mitch Bails:

Loser: The GOP Establishment. The GOP establishment settled on Daniels some time ago and they’ve been pimping him hard in the MSM as the best candidate. With him gone, they need another candidate. Sadly for them, their favored choice, Jeb Bush, refuses to run in 2012. So now they need to find someone else they can trust to not make any waves.

Winner: Jeb Bush. If Bush wants the nomination, the establishment is ready to give it to him now that Daniels is gone. He just has to say the word. But let me offer a word of caution, I (and many people I know) will NEVER. . . EVER vote for another Bush.

Winner: Chris Christie. Christie is a potential dark horse alternative to Jeb Bush. He sounds conservative and he sounds like he’s a disruptive reformer, but as Commentarama readers know, he’s a safe RINO, which is exactly what the establishment wants. If the misguided "draft Christie" campaigns succeed, expect Bush to stay out and establishment support to shift to Christie. Oh happy day.

Winner: Tim Pawlenty. Yeah, Tim’s bland enough for the establishment. If they can’t get Christie or Bush, expect the establishment to adopt Pawlenty and make him the eventual nominee.

4. Trump Fires Himself:

Winner: My Sanity. nuf said.

Winner: Barack Obama. Obama is the big winner here because Trump was causing Obama fits. Trump constantly raised issues the other Republican candidates were “too polite” to raise and he has a sufficiently large soapbox that people listened. With Trump gone, Obama can now focus on a weak Republican field.

Winner: Small Candidates. Guys like Herman Cain and other “second tier” candidates need to get noticed. The way to get noticed is to say what’s on your mind. . . the more outrageous the better. That was nearly impossible with Trump absorbing all of the media’s attention like some egotistical black hole. Trump’s departure opens the door for guys like Cain and Bolton to get some media attention.

Winner/Loser: Big Candidates. Despite the circus aftertaste found in the "Nutty Trump Bar," our bigger candidates look like duds by comparison. With Trump gone, they no longer need to face the daily comparison. This is technically a win, though it’s also an indictment as it highlights just how pathetic our current field is.

So what we have here is this. Movement conservatives lost with Newt. The religious right lost with the Huckster. The establishment lost with Daniels. And the lunatic fringe lost with Trump. That's got some perfect symmetry if you ask me.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

CPAC: Libertarians v. Religious Right

CPAC was much more interesting this year than usual. Not only did it signal the start of the Presidential race, but it signaled an interesting shift in conservative thinking, one which bodes very well for conservatives recapturing the majority of the public. It was also a change that has upset Mike Huckabee -- and he’s very wrong on this.

In the past, CPAC has largely been dominated by social conservatives. This year, that changed. This year, CPAC was co-sponsored by a gay group called GOProud. Moreover, the conference was heavily attended by libertarian-leaning conservatives, as evidenced by Ron Paul winning the straw poll rather handily.

This is a good thing. Conservative philosophy is about freedom of the individual and limited government interference in our lives. That’s why principled libertarian thinking fits so well into the conservative movement. They are a natural fit, and their return can only make the movement stronger.

Indeed, the return of a strong libertarian element to the conservative movement, and by extension the Republican Party, will help to impose the real change that is needed in the Republican Party -- a principled opposition to the continued expansion of government.

One of the problems with the Republicans over the past decade has been that they have not been opposed to the expansion of government. Yes, they opposed the expansion sought by the Democrats. But then they would turn right around and try to expand the government themselves. Indeed, it became so bad that the only way to tell a Democrat from a Republican was by looking at the direction in which they were trying to expand the government. Bush was a big proponent of this with his “compassionate conservatism,” which translated roughly into big government working to achieve social conservative and big business goals.

The reintroduction of libertarianism should help put a stop to that kind of thinking and should better align the Republican Party (and the conservative movement) with those 60% of Americans who consistently claim to share conservative beliefs, but who will not identify themselves as conservatives because they view the brand as tainted by its recent advocacy of government intervention.

And that brings us to Mike Huckabee and the Religious Right. Now before everybody gets upset, let me point out a few things. First, having a strong moral grounding is certainly a big part of conservative thinking, and there is nothing inconsistent with being conservative and wanting to see our government act in a moral and ethical manner. Nor could you argue that a belief in God is inconsistent with being conservative. Nor is there anything about conservatism that requires one to believe that the government should blindly ignore morality or religion. BUT.....

The vast majority of conservatives reconcile their belief in God and morality with their belief in individual freedom by understanding that the government should guarantee individual freedoms and should not be a tool for imposing personal views on others. A true conservative thinker would not want the government to push their religious beliefs on others any more than they would want the government imposing another’s beliefs upon them. Not only is this bad for society, but it is bad for religion (see e.g. Europe or the Middle East).

That is why libertarian thinking and social conservative thinking should, with rare exceptions, actually fit together quite nicely. If both respect the principle that the government should not get into the business of imposing beliefs, then everything should be harmonious between the two groups. It’s only where either group violates this principle that the problems arise.

For example, on the religious side, public education should not teach religious doctrine. Nor should the government fund church activities -- though it should not discriminate against religious groups either by, for example, allowing a group like ACORN to receive federal contracts to do community work but excluding a similar Catholic group. Nor should the government be involved in regulating (or criminalizing) “bedroom issues.” It’s just not anyone’s business. You have the right to speak and to persuade, you do not have the right to use government force to require compliance.

On the libertarian side, libertarians must tighten up their thinking and understand that libertarian does not mean libertine (“anything goes”). The relevant question is "will government force be applied" not "does somebody want it." For example, as I pointed out before the advocacy of gay marriage that many libertarians have undertaken is actually inconsistent with libertarian principle because it requires imposing the beliefs of gay advocates onto religious people. Moreover, libertarian thinking does not mean anarchical thinking (“no government”). For example, libertarians are wrong about legalization of drugs, though the reasons will need to wait for an upcoming post. The fact of the matter is that for society to function, some level of regulation is required, and laws, by their very nature, are based on moral judgments.

Both groups are vital to the conservative movement. And if both groups respect this boundary of respecting individual rights, then they should be able to form a powerful partnership that will finally bring together that 60% of Americans that we just haven’t been able to connect with.

But, disturbingly, listen to Mike Huckabee when he was asked why he didn’t attend CPAC, as he has done repeatedly in the past: “CPAC has become increasingly more libertarian and less Republican over the last years, one of the reasons I didn’t go this year.”

Therein lies the problem. Mr. Huckabee and others like him (several leaders of the Religious Right became almost hysterical when they learned that GOProud was a co-sponsor) need to learn to respect libertarian thinking and views. Libertarians are not out-of-line with conservative thinking, it is Mr. Huckabee who is out of line with conservative principles. Indeed, as you may recall from my prior article about his pardons, Huckabee has already demonstrated that he has a dangerous, unprincipled belief that his own personal beliefs are superior to the rule of law. That’s not conservative thinking. That is, in fact, the worst kind of far-left thinking.

Unfortunately, implicit in Huckabee’s dismissal of libertarians is more proof that he is not comfortable with individual rights, that he prefers a government that imposes favored views. This is not conservative thinking. This is the kind of thinking that created the recent RINO problem and discredited the brand. This is the kind of thinking that needs to be excised from the movement.

I encourage Mr. Huckabee and others to meet with the libertarians, to learn from them, and to come to an accord. If not, do not ask for my support any time soon.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Pardon Me, Governor

This week saw the likely end of any presidential aspirations Mike Huckabee may have had when a man he released from prison killed four police officers in Washington state. This wasn’t the first time someone Huckabee released went on a murderous crime spree, but it appears to be the final straw. But while many are upset that Huckabee pardoned this guy, this is really only one example of a much deeper problem with the way Huckabee handled pardons. There are some good lessons here.

Pardons have been a part of the justice system since at least ancient Rome. One of the benefits of Roman citizenship was the unqualified right to appeal directly to the Emperor for a pardon. That right exists today in virtually every country and under virtually every system of government.

Before you say, “we should get rid of it, dirty criminals,” consider that there are very valid reasons to allow governors or presidents to hold the power to commute a sentence or issue a pardon. First, sometimes trials are merely political theater, e.g. any prosecution of Bush officials you can think of. Pardons can be used to undo an unfair result in such circumstances or can even be issued preemptively to prevent the harassment associated with such show trials.

Secondly, juries are not perfect. Even recent history is full of examples of people who were convicted because they were the wrong race or they angered the wrong accuser -- the system is very poor at distinguishing real and false accusations. Every day there are more and more scandals of labs mishandling or even faking evidence. There are corrupt or biased judges, judges worried about re-election, prosecutors worried about re-election, prosecutors who set out to make a name for themselves regardless of right and wrong, and defense attorneys who can’t find their rear ends with a map.

And while convicted defendants usually get at least one appeal, appeals often can’t help solve these problems. What most people don’t realize is that appeals deal almost exclusively with questions of whether or not the judge applied the law correctly, not whether or not the facts were decided correctly. Indeed, in most cases, the moment you start talking about facts to an appellate court, they will tell you to stop. The only real exception to this requires you to show that no reasonable jury could have reached the conclusion reached by this jury. . . a nearly impossible standard.

Moreover, many times evidence does not come to light until after the conviction, but getting a new trial based on that evidence is extremely unlikely and difficult.

This is where pardons come in. In instances where there has been a miscarriage of justice and the system does not allow the miscarriage to be corrected, governors or presidents should step in and issue a pardon or commute a sentence. However, these decisions should be rare -- pardons should be issued only after great care and upon a solid basis.

And this is where Huckabee enters the picture. Huckabee apparently handed out pardons like they were candy. In ten years as governor of Arkansas, he issued 1,033 pardons and 163 commutations -- twice as many pardons as the previous three governors combined (507 in 17.5 years). This works out to nearly one pardon every four days. It is clear from this volume alone that Huckabee did not understand the concept. And this is borne out by further details.

Apparently, Huckabee was prone to releasing prisoners at the urging of pastors. Said prosecutor Robert Herzfeld in 2004: “It seems to be true at least anecdotally that if a minister is involved, (Huckabee) seems likely to grant clemency." Rev. Charles Williams told newspapers that he helped win “many, many” clemencies from Huckabee. A pastor who promoted Huckabee among black voters claims he got Huckabee to release John Henry Claiborne, who was sentenced to 100 years for armed robbery.

But pardons should not be a tool of sympathy. Issuing pardons just because you feel sorry for someone or you think they are reformed or you think they are a good person is completely improper. This is the worst kind of judicial activism. In such instances, the governor is substituting their own judgment for the judgment of the people, the legislature, the courts, and the juries. It is the equivalent of a judge saying: “I don’t think this law should apply to you.”

Huckabee also acted at the request of acquaintances: Samuel Taylor (a drug dealer) went to school with Huckabee’s sister; James Maxwell (who killed a pastor) worked at the Governor’s Mansion under a prison-work program; Donald Clerk (thief) had a stepmother on Huckabee’s staff; Robert Arnold (murderer) had a father who was a casual friend of Huckabee’s. This flies in the face of equality under the law and brings us very close to a patronage system.

In 2004, Huckabee commuted the sentence of murderer Denver Witham even after it was revealed that Witham lied on his pardon application by failing to mention some of his prior convictions.

What this shows is a man who believed his emotional instincts were superior to the rule of law, and a man who had no qualms using the power in which he was vested to benefit his friends and their friends.

It is thus no surprise that Huckabee released people who should not have been released, people who were dangerous and went on to commit other crimes. Here are the two notorious examples:

• Maurice Clemmons, whose felony record included a string of aggravated robberies and assaults, was released from his 108 year sentence by Huckabee in 2000. His post-release career included child rape and now the murder of four police officers. Huckabee’s reason for releasing him was as follows:

"If he were a white kid from an upper middle-class family, he would have gotten a lawyer and some counseling. But because he was a young black kid, he got 108 years."

This is cynical, liberal identity politics of the highest order. This is a despicable claim, particularly without proof of unfairness. Moreover, if it is true, then why didn't Gov. Huckabee reform the system? Why did he just commute the one sentence and leave other poor blacks in prison? Incidentally, while in prison, prior to Huckabee’s release, Clemmons had more than two dozen rules infractions, many of them for fighting. He was described by prison officials as hostile and anti-social.

• Wayne DuMond, a convicted rapist, was set free by the Arkansas parole board at Huckabee’s urging. DuMond went on to rape and then murder a mother of three in Missouri shortly after his release. Huckabee denied any role in DuMond’s release, but this denial was refuted by the parole board and members of Huckabee’s own staff. It was also subsequently revealed that Huckabee had met secretly with the board, going so far as to meet without the presence of the stenographer who customarily records all board meetings. Huckabee knew DuMond’s wife.

Let’s hope this becomes a lesson to other governors that pardons should not be used on a whim. And let’s hope the voters realize that a person who places themselves above the law has no place in elected office.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...