Home › Blogs ›

Daniel Ruwe's blog

The Blogosphere Gap

Submitted by Daniel Ruwe on Fri, 06/06/2008 - 07:54
in
Many conservative bloggers worry about the fact that the conservative blogosphere is much smaller, less vocal, and less powerful than its liberal counterpart. The conservative blogosphere has nowhere near the level of support that progressive bloggers have—the Daily Kos, for example, gets more traffic than leading conservative blogs Instapundit and Hot Air combined. The Daily Kos has enough clout to get top Democrat presidential candidates to attend its YearlyKos convention, while the right-wing blogosphere doesn’t have enough traction to have a convention of any kind. Conservatives wonder: why does the left have such a massive online lead?
 
One reason is that most young people, when they care about politics at all, tend to vote Democratic. Since the Internet is populated largely by younger people, it is almost inevitable that liberal blogs would have a built-in advantage demographic advantage. As most young people seem to be relatively apathetic politically, this is a somewhat slight advantage, but it certainly explains part of the left’s Internet dominance.
Another, perhaps more substantial reason for this phenomenon lies in the fact that it is always easier to build a political organization when your party is out of power. During the Clinton years, the Right built up talk radio (which, outside of Rush Limbaugh, didn’t really exist before the Clinton presidency), create Fox News, and established the beginnings of the conservative online community by creating sites such as Freerepublic.com, Instapundit, and michellemalkin.com. During that time, the left did little to increase their media share.
Liberals have done the same thing during the Bush years. They have effectively taken over MSNBC (with the exceptions of Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough, it’s hard to think of a conservative on that network), created Air America (which was a flop, but not for lack of funding), and started the left-wing blogosphere. Conservatives have lagged behind—not because of some flaw inherent in conservatism or conservatives, but because movements that lack political power are always more vocal than the incumbents.
 
A final reason for the rise of the liberal blogosphere may lie in the fact that liberals don’t have a Rush Limbaugh. A liberal searching for an unashamedly liberal point of view has a difficult time of it—the networks lean left, but pretend to be unbiased (likewise for most of cable news), and liberal talk radio has always been almost wholly nonexistent. The only really unabashed liberal in media is Keith Olbermann, and his audience is very small. So liberals (who, remember, are often relatively young and tech-savvy) turn to the Internet, creating massive blog networks in which they can spread liberals views and news. The blogosphere is, in many ways, the liberal answer to talk radio.
 
But if liberals are so desperate for what talk radio can give them, why didn’t Air America succeed? The answer lies in the fact that the liberal movement is not a coherent political philosophy, as conservatism is, but rather a loose collection of allied causes. Liberals embrace many movements—they support environmentalists, feminists, and anti-war people, to name a few. But few liberals consider themselves all three, and most are content to lobby for their own pet liberal cause. The flexible blogosphere lets liberals of all stripes promote their individual causes under one virtual roof.Liberals dominate the blogosphere because conservatives don’t need it.
 
Will this Internet gap hurt the conservative movement? Not for the time being. The blogosphere really isn’t very influential. Although the number of people who actually read blogs is very difficult to pin down, the Daily Kos (which is perhaps the most influential political blog) can’t get much more than an average of 50,000 visitors a day—which is impressive, but hardly enough to make a very big difference in an election.
 
Inevitably, the blogosphere will become a more influential player in American politics, and the right will have to ensure that its share of the Internet is equivalent to that of the left. But at this time, the insignificance of the right-wing blogosphere shouldn’t worry conservatives a great deal.

 

McCain's Strengths

Submitted by Daniel Ruwe on Tue, 06/03/2008 - 20:04
in

Crossposted at Right Minds

The primary season ends tonight. As I write this, no one knows whether Hillary Clinton will concede or not—given her record, it seems reasonable to assume that she will not. But it is certain that Barack Obama will be the Democrat nominee. John McCain now knows who he will run against.
 
McCain hasn’t run much of a campaign thus far—since winning the nomination, he has preferred to let the two remaining Democrats slug it out (a safe strategy). Now he knows who his opponent is, and must start his general election campaign. Being the first candidate to win the nomination has disadvantages (the Democrats got huge amounts of media coverage, while McCain was mostly ignored), but there is at least one definite advantage—there is ample opportunity for him to set the tone of the first part of the election.
 
McCain must seize this chance. In a bad year for Republicans, he must attempt to steer the election towards the issues on which he is strongest. In an unpredictable election year, key issues may change, but there are two that McCain must focus on: Iraq and Obama’s inexperience.
 
Many things will change by November. The economy could improve or move into a recession, gas prices could go up or down, and the situation in Iraq could worsen. One thing will stay the same—Barack Obama will be perhaps the most inexperienced many ever to make a serious run for President. It is possible to base a whole campaign around that fact—and McCain should.
 
It is almost impossible to write about Barack Obama’s Senate career—there’s just nothing there. Obama’s biggest legislative compliment was the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. While this bill is a good and much-needed bill, which was hardly Obama’s brainchild, as Republican Tom Coburn was the bill’s primary sponsor. With the exception of this bill, Obama has done almost nothing of importance in the Senate.
 
He has been a Senator for three years—and definitely not made the most of them. Were it not for his race and his silver tongue, he would be considered nothing more than a run-of-the-mill, inexperienced Senator.
 
Whatever one’s feelings about Senator McCain, it is impossible to deny his experience. He has served in the U.S. government over thirty years. He has made some mistakes during his tenure in the Senate—the Keating Five affair springs to mind, as does the McCain-Kennedy act. But he does know Washington, and he knows the world in which we live—indeed, as one of the key movers of the most powerful nation in the world, he has had a hand in shaping it. Obama, in contrast, is three years removed from a career in the Illinois State Senate, which, while no doubt an honorable post, is not quite suitable for training the leader of the free world.
 
The other issue which McCain must focus on is Iraq. A year ago, the situation in Iraq looked very, very grim. Some on the right believed that a quick withdrawal was the only legitimate option—and almost everyone on the left thought so. Then came the surge. Now, Baghdad has been pacified, violence in the Anbar Providence is down, and U.S. combat deaths at at the lowest level since the war began. Clearly, the surge worked.
 
Unfortunately for Obama, he never thought it would. On January 30th of last year, he introduced the Iraq War De-Escalation Act, which was a direct response to President Bush’s surge. Obama displayed a clearly limited understanding of Middle Eastern politics when he declared that the bill was a “phased redeployment that can pressure the Iraqis to finally reach a political settlement and reduce the violence,” even though it is fairly obvious to most people that withdrawing troops isn’t the best way to apply pressure. Obama still believes the surge a failure. Ever since the beginning of the surge, Obama has been dead wrong on Iraq.
 
Americans are tired of the war, but they still want victory in Iraq. McCain can claim, truthfully, that he knows how to provide it. The best Obama can do is to outline a plan for retreat. If the situation in Iraq continues to get better, the war will give McCain the strongest possible issue (national security) with which to campaign against Obama. (If the situation in Iraq deteriorates, then McCain is finished. He has to try to make Iraq the campaign’s key issue).
 
When the 2008 presidential campaign started last year, things looked bleak for the GOP in general, and McCain in particular. But now the Democrats have chosen to nominate the most inexperienced (and one the most liberal) candidates in history, and McCain’s Iraq strategy is working well. Given the utter incompetence displayed recently by the GOP, McCain could not hope for a better situation going into the general campaign.

 

Why Conservatives Should Oppose Gay Marriage

Submitted by Daniel Ruwe on Mon, 06/02/2008 - 20:43
in

 
Crossposted at Right Minds

Recently, the California Supreme Court overturned California’s ban on gay marriage. The law was a referendum overwhelmingly passed by voters in 2000, but was reviewed by the Supreme Court of California. The court found a “fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship,” although such a right didn’t seem to be found in the text of the state’s constitution. Rather, the California Supreme Court relied on the equal-protection clause, which is a very liberal (in the sense of “loose”) interpretation of the clause.
 
The California Supreme Court decision is an absurd attempt to circumvent the will of the voters, but there is a good chance that it won’t matter. Conservative religious groups have submitted a petition that would set the ban on same-sex marriage as a state constitutional amendment. If passed, the amendment would overturn the new state position on gay marriage, and place the matter outside the reach of the state courts. Polls indicate that there is quite a good chance that the referendum will pass.
 
Most conservatives oppose gay marriage—but many of them don’t seem to know exactly why. Some (many fundamentalist Protestants seem to fall into this category) seem to be under the impression that homosexuality is some great, unprecedented evil, which must be resolutely opposed at every turn. This idea is absurd. To Christians (or at least to Roman Catholics, which are the only branch of Christianity I can speak for), homosexuality is a serious sin—but not quite as serious as some believe.
 
In Catholic ethics, homosexual acts are considered wrong because, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “they close the sexual act to the gift of life.” This is precisely the same reason that the Church considers birth control immoral—and most Christians (including most Catholics) have absolutely no problem with birth control. So it is not as if homosexuality is a crime so dreadful that no society could even dream of countenancing it.
 
(Other Christian churches may have other reasons for opposing homosexuality, but any other grounds for considering homosexuality are beyond me, other than the simple fact that the Bible forbids it. But that doesn’t answer the question of the underlying reason for such a prohibition.)
 
Social conservatives consider homosexuality wrong, but why is it worth opposing legal recognition of such a relatively (note the use of the word “relatively”) minor transgression? Only a tiny proportion of the population is gay, and only a small proportion of them want to marry. So why trouble?
 
Because an official recognition of gay marriage would destroy the concept of marriage. Marriage is a remarkably stable civilizational concept—it is quite similar around the world. One of marriages most important purposes is to provide a stable family unit, and to provide children with a stable home.
 
A state recognition of gay marriage negates this concept. If gay marriage is recognized, then marriage is a meaningless idea—any combination of individuals wishing to get married would have that right. There would be logical basis upon which to prohibit polygamy or polyandry. Even incestuous relationships could be justified, since as, the California Supreme Court pointed out, there is a “fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship.” A case (not a very good one) could even be made that bestial marriages could be recognized if someone wanted to build a “family” with his pets. Homosexual marriage probably would have little initial effect (remember, the number of gays whom actually wish to be married is fairly small), but such recognition would ensure that marriage would become meaningless as a legal and social concept. There would be no identification of the long-established purpose of marriage.
 
Of course, homosexual marriage is hardly the greatest threat to traditional marriage. In many Western nations, it could be argued that marriage already is a meaningless concept. In many European countries, illegitimacy rates are sky-rocketing, many couples are electing to forgo marriage for a permanent state of cohabitation, and many view the very idea of marriage an old-fashioned and outdated concept. Even in America, the federal government contributes to the breakdown of traditional marriage by increasing government handouts to single mothers, which means that many couples forgo marriage for federal funds. Gay marriage is indeed a threat to marriage—but hardly the only such threat, and not nearly the most serious one.

 

Obama Quits Trinity United

Submitted by Daniel Ruwe on Sat, 05/31/2008 - 19:15
Obama has officially resigned from Trinity United Church of Christ, apparently in the aftermath of Father Michael Pfleger's incendiary comments about Hillary Clinton and race. This really couldn't be better for Republicans--Obama will more or less have to admit that he attended a church that preached racism, people will wonder why he didn't leave Trinity a long time ago, Jeremiah Wright gets back into the news cycle, and Obama is forced into the defensive (again). Perfect.
UPDATE: Two observations about Obama's speech: a) he speaks much better with a Teleprompter (I'm watching the Q&A part), and b) he is wearing (gasp) a substitute for patriotism on his lapel. Hmmm.
UPDATE II: Obama refuses to denounce Trinity United: "I will not denounce the church. It is not a church worthy of denouncing." He says that the nation has seen "caricatures" of the church. Sorry, Obama, but direct quotes aren't "caricatures."

 

Random Thoughts

Submitted by Daniel Ruwe on Fri, 05/30/2008 - 18:34
in

Just a few random thoughts…

It seems that conservative bloggers are almost unanimous in their abhorrence of John McCain. In the first days after he won the nomination, I thought that anyone who was seriously considering voting for a third party candidate was crazy; now, it seems that there are basically two kinds of conservative bloggers—those who absolutely refuse to support McCain and will vote for a third party candidate, and those who will do so, but only extremely reluctantly. Sometimes it seems that I am the only conservative blogger who actually likes McCain as a candidate. And really, with the exception of Fred Thompson, who among the GOP candidates was any better?

If you said Mitt Romney, remember that he supported amnesty for illegal aliens before he was against it, supported some forms of gun control, and believed in climate change.

It’s been a while since Mike Huckabee said something stupid, but he hadn’t stopped working at it, he was just resting. His latest:
 

“The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it's this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it's a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says "look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government.”

We sure dodged a bullet with that guy, didn’t we? Imagine if he was the Republican nominee.

Barring any attack tomorrow, May will have had fewer causalities than any month since the Iraq War began. Harry Reid might want to rethink his “the war is lost” statement. Conditions in Iraq could change quickly, but right now, it is indisputable that we are winning that war.

And Obama might want to rethink the notion that Iraq is actually a recruiting tool for Al-Qaeda. They don’t seem to be very effective right now, do they?

Many people claim to be “spiritual,” but dislike “organized religion.” What is the other kind of religion?

Trinity United Baptist (Barack Obama’s church) had a guest preacher in on Sunday, and he is perhaps the only person alive crazier than Jeremiah Wright. He’s Father Michael Pfleger, a Catholic priest who apparently moonlights as an occasional preacher at Wright’s old church. (I’m not sure, but I’m pretty sure that Catholic priests aren’t, as a rule, allowed to take part in the religious ceremonies of other faiths). To appreciate the full extent of the Pfleger experience, you really have to watch the video, but if you don’t, imagine a pasty white guy in a Roman collar trying to imitate Jeremiah Wright. Watching Pfleger is almost surreal. (Transcript and video of Pfleger’s remarks is at Michelle Malkin).

Obama responded by denouncing Pfleger’s comments. It’s starting to become habitual for Obama to be forced to disown yet another crazy acquaintance.

Former White House spokesman Scott McClellan published a book that supposedly tells “What Happened” during his time in the Bush White House. He claims to regret his role in pushing the Iraq War, and feels that the Bush administration deceived him during the Place affair (which it actually did). Many conservatives are angry about the book, but really, there haven’t been any lurid allegations made. McClellan’s book doesn’t seem to have any new facts—just his personal thoughts about old ones.

A lost tribe has been discovered in the Amazon. There are apparently over 100 such tribes, and there is a great deal of debate over whether we should contact them. In my view, not contacting these groups is racism of the worst kind—we would rather that they live their lives as “noble savages” then enjoy the benefits of our technology. True, their culture would irrevocably altered, but most cultures are constantly changing. Why should we doom these people to a Stone Age existence?

Blacks in the GOP

Submitted by Daniel Ruwe on Thu, 05/29/2008 - 20:12
in

 

 Crossposted at Right Minds

 

There are 199 Republicans in the House of Representatives. Not one of them is African-American. There are 49 Republican Senators. Every one of them is white. There are 22 Republican governors. None of them are black (though in fairness, there is only one elected black Democrat governor). The Republican party does not have even one black Congressman, Senator, or governor. African-Americans vote overwhelmingly Democrat, which explains some of the disparity, but that situation is intolerable.
 
Making this situation all the more incredible is the fact that so many of the conservative movement’s most influential thinkers are black. Thomas Sowell is arguably the most influential living conservative economist. If he isn’t, an argument could be made that Walter Williams is. Michael Steele is one of the most popular politicians among conservatives in the nation. Hoover Institute fellow Shelby Steele is very much admired among conservatives, Jesse Lee Peterson is very influential on race matters, and Deroy Murdock, Star Parker, and Armstrong Williams are all widely read conservative columnists. Larry Elder has a large talk radio audience. Black thinkers form a crucial segment of conservative thought.
 
Many liberals respond by saying that black conservatives are little better than Uncle Toms; that they simply repeat what their white masters tell them to say. But that is obviously wrong. Thomas Sowell’s word is law in conservative economics, Walter Williams is one of the most read columnists on the conservative website townhall.com, and Deroy Murdock is one of the most popular writers in National Review. Black conservatives don’t parrot conservative talking points—in many cases, they create the conservative talking points
 
And Republican leaders select many African-Americans as political appointees. The only current black Supreme Court justice is conservative Clarence Thomas. The first black Secretary of State was Colin Powell, and the second was Condoleezza Rice. The Republican party does not lack for blacks in appointee filled offices—only electoral ones.
 
If blacks are not held back by conservative racism, and are some of the conservative movement’s most influential scholars, why can’t they get elected as Republicans? There are at least three reasons.
 
The first reason lies in the fact that well over 75% of blacks vote Democrat. This limits the number of possible black Republican politicians—only a tiny fraction of people have the skills and the inclination to enter politics, and the fact that three quarters of the black population are staunch Democrats narrows the field still further. This means that there really aren’t many black Republican politicians to begin with.
 
Another reason for this disparity lies in the fact that most politicians are politicians first, and ideologues second. It is much easier for a young black politician to gain party support and funding if he is a liberal Democrat. In fact, being anything can hurt an aspiring black politician’s career—black Republicans are often taunted as “Uncle Toms”, pelted with Oreo cookies (get it? Black on the outside, white on the inside), and are sometimes referred to (in Condi Rice’s case) as “house n*ggas”. Being a black Republican politician is like crime—it doesn’t pay.
 
One of the reasons it doesn’t pay lies in the fact that the Republican party does not make much of an effort to find strong black candidates. While Ken Mehlman’s Republican National Committee made an effort to attract black candidates (many blacks ran as Republicans in 2006, although they ran mostly in long-shot races), many GOP strategists believe that such efforts never became an important part of the RNC. After Mehlman left the chairman post of the RNC, these efforts were mothballed.
 
The Republican party has few black politicians—and that is a pity, both for the GOP and the African-American race. The Republican party is missing out on some strong leaders whom would strengthen the party. The black community is losing an opportunity to lift itself out of the culture of government dependency in which so many blacks are enmeshed. (This is hardly a phenomenon unique to blacks—many, many whites are entangled in the same culture, as are many members of other races). The lack of black Republicans hurts both blacks and the GOP—and the Republican party should seek to change that. The black community has much in common with the conservative movement (many are religious social conservatives, and blacks form a large part of the military), and the Republican party should take advantage to this common ground.

 

The Case for McCain

Submitted by Daniel Ruwe on Thu, 05/29/2008 - 10:28
in

Whenever either major party nominates a candidate, there are invariably those who find fault with that candidate and threaten to withhold their support. Usually, these people represent the extreme right or left wing of their party, and are the sort who could never be satisfied. They usually (but not always) represent the party’s extreme lunatic fringe.

The nomination of John McCain is an exception—many mainstream conservative leaders dislike him intensely. His biggest detractors in the Republican Party are not loons like Michael Savage; rather, they are respected conservative voices like Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin. Many of McCain’s most vocal detractors are pillars of conservative ideology; people whose opinions are universally respected across the movement.

They certainly have legitimate reasons to oppose McCain. His lapses have ranged from unconservative (greenhouse gas caps and penalties) to stupid (the Gang of 14) to potentially disastrous (the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill). He favors closing Guantanamo Bay, giving due process rights to terrorist detainees, and opposed the Bush tax cuts, all, stupid, inexcusable mistakes. Conservatives should vote for him anyway.

Why should conservatives vote for him? Three words: President Barack Hussein Obama. (Yes, you read that right. Liberals tell us that it is forbidden to even think about Obama’s middle name, so that word doesn’t count). That thought alone should be enough you send you running to vote for McCain.

Apparently not everyone agrees, though, as many conservatives still are seriously withholding their support because of McCain’s conservative transgressions. There is no excuse for these blunders—quite simply, John McCain is not a full-fledged conservative. Anyone who wants another Reagan will not get their wish.

Conservatives need McCain because there are at least three key issues that must be addressed in the next four years. First, we must win in Iraq; second, we must succeed in putting another pro-life justice on the Supreme Court; and three, we must (at least) start cutting federal spending. McCain will accomplish the first, and will probably complete the second. The third issue is more doubtful, but he will be better than the Democrat nominee.

Since Roe v. Wade was decided, the pro-life strategy has been based on appointing enough constructionist Supreme Court justices to overturn that ruling. Rove vs. Wade was decided by a 7-2 margin, now, the margin is a meager 5-4. Pro-abortion justice John Paul Stevens is almost ninety—it is almost a certainty that he will retire in the next four years.

If a pro-life justice is appointed, there would be an excellent chance that Roe v. Wade could be overturned. If a pro-life justice is not appointed, then the pro-life cause would be set back decades. If McCain is elected, the pro-life cause will have an excellent shot at an inspiring victory; if not, it will be dealt an absolutely devastating blow.

In 1983, President Reagan ordered U.S. troops to withdraw from Lebanon after they were hit by terrorist attacks. Those responsible were emboldened, and struck again and again. In 1993, President Clinton left Somalia after the Black Hawk Down episode—again, those responsible gained confidence and respect, and struck again. If we leave Iraq, it will be a PR coup for Al-Qaeda that would dwarf any previous victories. It would be definite proof that the United States can indeed be defeated, that those who extremists who died did not do so in vain. It would be a devastating, perhaps fatal, blow to the United States fight against radical Islamic terrorism.

John McCain was right on Iraq at every step of the way. In the darkest days of the war, while most conservative politicians skirted the issue, McCain embraced it and dared to make it his signature issue. When most politicians debated the best way to take troops out of Iraq, McCain expressed the need to put more troops in. He advocated the surge long before it become popular, and spoke out against the failed Rumsfeld strategy.

Now, McCain is vindicated, as violence in Iraq is down and Al-Qaeda seems to be on the run. If this trend continues into a McCain presidency, the United States will probably win the war.

On the other hand, if Obama is elected president, America’s chances don’t look so good. I’m not sure exactly what Obama’s plan for Iraq is, and I’m not sure that he is either, but is does involve withdrawing troops, even in the absence of victory. An Obama presidency would be a disaster for American foreign policy.

America currently faces a massive national debt (around 9 trillion), and owes trillions more in entitlements. Eventually, the United States must get its entitlement system under control. Is McCain the man to do it? Probably not. But would his presidency make the job of the president who does do it (if there ever is one) easier? Yes. John McCain is death on wasteful spending. If nothing else, he will ensure that wasteful pork barrel projects are unfunded. It will not solve our fiscal crisis—but it would be a start.

When pondering whether to vote for McCain, project four years into the future. In the McCain future, another pro-life justice sits on the Supreme Court, Iraq becomes an American victory, and the worst of wasteful spending no longer exists. In the Obama future, one (or perhaps even two) pro-abortion justices are appointed, we lose in Iraq, and pork barrel spending goes through the roof. The stakes are too high to demand a perfect candidate. McCain isn’t perfect—but he is good enough.

Guns in Britain

Submitted by Daniel Ruwe on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 23:09
in

Crossposted at Right Minds

Britain is an anti-gun liberal’s dream. It is illegal to own a handgun, with a penalty of five years in prison for unlawful possession. No more than 4% of homes in England contain guns. Those few who are gun owners are subject to draconian gun laws, including laws regarding “safe gun storage,” even though the gun would probably then be inaccessible at short notice. Not that that matters to the British gun authorities—self defense is not considered a legitimate reason to own a firearm. Even imitation guns are banned.

And the British system works—there are very few guns in Britain. The police still go unarmed. Even criminals have trouble finding guns. Gun crime in Britain is far less than in the United States. There is no serious opposition to Britain’s effective ban on all weapons—the pro-gun movement in England is practically nonexistent. British law is the embodiment of every gun control advocates dream.

I read a great many mystery and crime novels, from writers both in the United States and England. And there is a difference in the role guns play in the plots—in the American stories, guns are literally everywhere, and both the police and the villains are heavily armed. In the British books, guns are rarer—the police rarely carry, and even the villains don’t pack near as much heat as there American counterparts.

But the American books are fairly optimistic—the villain usually gets caught (or shot), and even the darkest American mysteries usually have a glimpse of restored order in the conclusion. The British books often lack that optimism—the police spend pages agonizing at their inability to stop crime; the villain often escapes justice; and there is a sense of escalating lawlessness and anarchy. In American crime literature, the system, though flawed, works; in British detective novels, it is utterly broken.

But can you really judge two justice systems by comparing mystery stories? Perhaps not every time, but in this case, such a comparison is right on. British gun control advocates have succeeded in making guns illegal—but they also ensured that the only gun owners are violent criminals. Violent crime has exploded.

According to a November 2002 Reason magazine article (note that these statistics are slightly outdated, but there is no reason to believe that British crime rates have dropped significantly), violent crime is out of control. Britain enacted its handgun ban in 1996, by 2001, crime rates had doubled. By 2002, your chances of being mugged in London were six times higher than in New York City. 53% of burglaries took place while the victims were at home, compared to a mere 13% in the United States. According to the 2003 International Crime Victims Survey, Britain suffered from a crime rate three times that of the United States. By 2002, a UN study stated that England and Wales had the Western world’s worst record of criminal offenses. And British crime rates are artificially low—after the fifth crime against an individual, the government stops counting, which means that an extra two million violent crimes go unrecorded each year.

How do criminals get around Britain’s gun laws? This may come as a shock to liberals, but government is not omniscient. Many guns get through, and every one falls into the hands of violent criminals. And those criminals who can’t get guns just use knives—knife crime is a major problem, accounts for much of Britain’s violent crime. And no, you can’t use a knife for protection in England—carrying knives longer than three inches is a crime.

Gun control has been a total disaster in Great Britain. It is truly mind-boggling that so many liberals want to try it here. No matter how efficient the police force (and our police forces are often underfunded) or functional the prison system (and our prison system is very, very poor), a defenseless citizenry will always remain vulnerable to crime. They have found that fact out in Great Britain—and if the gun control zealots ever get their way, we will find that out in America as well. Crime novels aren’t always a good indicator of a county’s success in fighting crime—but this time they are.

I went to a lot of sites to get infomation for this post, and you can find them here, here, here, and here.

Barack Obama: Gaffe Machine

Submitted by Daniel Ruwe on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 06:48
in

Most politicians occasionally say dumb things. Dan Quayle, who was famous for his absurd remarks, once declared that Mars was home to canals, water, and oxygen. George W. Bush is notorious for inventing new words (misunderestimate), mispronouncing real ones (nukular), and botching quotes (fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again.") Hillary Clinton recently applied the circumstances of Robert Kennedy’s assassination to the 2008 presidential race, drawing parallels between his position and that of Barack Obama. But for sheer number and stupidity of gaffes, it’s hard to beat Barack Obama.

 Some of Barack Obama’s verbal miscues are merely amusing: he has given the U.S. ten more states (he visited 57, and had three more to visit), declared that his “racist” grandmother was a “typical white person”, and thought he saw some “fallen heroes” in the audience for a Memorial Day speech (fallen heroes are dead, so it would be hard for any of them to make his speech). Others illustrate his radically liberal worldview—he doesn’t want his daughters to be “punished with a baby”, and described his discovery as a young man that white people were only satisfied “if you [as a black man] made no sudden moves.”
 
However, other Obama quotes seem to come from a man who is far more liberal than he claims to be. His statement that “we can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK” is terrifying. It implies that Obama would impose limits on the amount of food we food, and enact thermostat controls to ensure that no one uses too many resources. Obviously, he wouldn’t be able to do all that as president—but it seems he wishes he could.
 Another revealing Obama quote is his answer to a debate question regarding a hypothetical terrorist attack on an American city. (Remember when there was a presidential debate about every two weeks? That seems so long ago). Obama’s answer: “the first thing we’d have to do is make sure we’ve got an effective emergency response, something that this administration failed to do when we had a hurricane in New Orleans. And I think we have to review how we operate in the event of not only a natural disaster but also a terrorist attack. The second thing is to make sure that we’ve got good intelligence. . . . But what we can’t do is then alienate the world community based on faulty intelligence, based on bluster and bombast.”
 If that answer still is Obama’s position (Obama’s views are maddeningly hard to pin down), then he clearly has not the vaguest idea of how to respond to a terrorist attack. The emergency response required for a terrorist attack is completely different than that required for a natural disaster—for example, natural disasters are handled first by state and local governments, while terrorist attacks fall squarely into the federal government’s bailiwick. In addition, terrorist attacks are preventable.
 
Also, Obama might want to consider retaliating against those who attacked us, a concept missing from his reply. Lack of retaliation against America’s enemies seems to be a premise of his foreign policy—if we talk to them, they won’t attack us. He seems to base his opposition to the Iraq War not so much on the strategic reasons behind it, but because he seems to think that war in general is almost always unacceptable. This quote is revealing because he rarely enunciates this idea so openly.
 For someone who is supposed to be a Reaganeque, silver-tongued speaker, Barack Obama commits a lot of verbal gaffes. Some are stupid but harmless—but others reveal his true worldview, and it’s not a pretty sight.

 

Syndicate content