40 Years in the Wilderness

I’m tired. Very much so.

At this particular moment, I actually am a bit weary in the physical sense, but my soul feels far more weight than my body. Why?

I’m tired of abortion. Not of fighting it, no, we cannot even imagine giving up that battle. Far too much depends on it. Yet I’m disgusted, all the same, that as a society we have functionally condone such a terrible slaughter of human life for a staggering 40 years now. This mass killing has been allowed to endure ten times the length of the Holocaust and claimed countless more. Yet the land of the free and the brave goes on, seemingly oblivious to the blood on its hands.

I was reading The Brothers Karamazov with a friend recently, and she pointed out an eerie similarity between Ivan’s critique of religion and the ignorant attacks of those liberals who marginalize and disregard this issue:

“I want to forgive, and I want to embrace, I don’t want more suffering. And if the suffering of children goes to make up the sum of suffering needed to buy truth, then I assert beforehand that the whole of truth is not worth such a price.”

Even the cold, atheistic Ivan understood the utmost value of innocent life, and he also understood that humanity would do anything to rationalize away such value if it precluded their way of life.

This brings me to the fundamental problem I have with the life debate—it’s never about life.

The rational calculus of the liberal mind (9 times out of 10) will never give more than a momentary consideration to the potentiality of life. Doing so would leave the possibility open that their entire position is  flawed, and they won’t dare to get close. Instead, the logical implications of life are ignored, and end-all, be-all question comes down to the “choice of the woman.” This decision-making is basic and nothing new—when colored people, Jews, homosexuals, etc. are rendered inhuman, then any act of violence against them is justified by the simplest of conveniences.

Only in rare circumstances will the question of life ever come to life, but usually these lines of discussion pan out in a similar method of ignorance and denial. I do believe, however, that there is an ever growing strain of Peter Singers—those on the Left who finally have come to grips with the consequences of their thought, and seeing such evil face to face, embrace it for its surety and continue, no longer blind, down the road to destruction. These we should not fear so much—it is their acceptance by those still in the middle, murky mess of ideology that should concern us. Nothing is more powerful in a media-driven culture than normality, and as the progressive cause moves ever more into darkness, so too does the “center” of the political spectrum. This is what tires me, how we’ve allowed the slide to go on silently, ever reliant on the assumption that the world would wake up, all by itself, should they cross THAT line.

I think we’ve come far enough to realize that assumption is nothing more than a weapon the enemy is using against us.

So yes I’m tired. Not exasperated, but tired nonetheless. Tired of the shoddy way humanity treats reason and her offspring. Tired of the senseless way we’ve thrown away life, not merely over the past 40 years, but long before that.

But it’s ok.

I’m ready to wake up to something better.

Ways to Win #1 - The Constitution

I've decided that, in my spirit of blogging something positive every other post, describing a number of "ways to win" could be helpful in informing conservatives of the best resources we have toward successfully beating back the Left in the everyday American political arena. The Left has a plethora of powerful tools at its disposal: the media, Hollywood, unions, and all their attendant funding machines. While these are most certainly critical battlegrounds that conservatives need to work to reclaim (I, being a film student, understand that necessity clearly), our arsenal of argumentation is truly greater and more effective when properly deployed in ways that counteract the emotional ploys liberal politicians utilize to scoop up ignorant voters.

In case you hadn't guessed, today I'd like to talk about using the Constitution as a means to drive out leftist shenanigans, not only because the stakes are dire if we don't, but some of the greatest conservative minds can be found in the legal profession and serve as excellent models for each and every one of us.

Relativism, by its nature, seeks to tear apart institutions and the rule of law, particularly in their most enduring forms. This manifests in the leftist bias against age and wisdom (e.g. "the Framers were rich, Protestant white men") and as such, liberals will inevitably attempt to tear at the fabric of our greatest legal framework with their "dynamic" theories of interpretation. Even the most clear cut of statutes (look at the debates over the Second Amendment) are dissected by the Left to elevate the state and lower the standard of human expectation. Fortunately, our Framers anticipated that some of their successors might not be the brightest of folks, and subsequently ensured that their masterpiece would take quite the effort to circumvent completely. So yes, some conservatives may bemoan the progressive advances within the legal system (e.g. Roe v. Wade), yet the more that honest debates are had (and heard), the more we see the truth emerge, and often times victorious.

Take, for instance, this latest piece of news from the New American:

"The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a pro-life legal organization that focuses on constitutional law, today applauded an order by a federal appeals court granting a motion for a preliminary injunction – an order that temporarily blocks the implementation of the HHS mandate against a Missouri business owner."

I won't recount all of my last post concerning the immature mindset by which leftists construct a right to contraception out of thin air. Suffice to say that it is here, in the battleground of the courtroom, that the true capacity to impact American life for the long-term exists. The Left's agenda is relatively linear and potentially limitless; the only question is to what degree does our court system bracket their abuse of power.

There are so many avenues by which defending the Constitution serves this purpose, and I won't go through each in detail. For me, a strong view of the commerce clause (too easily abused by big spenders from both parties) needs restoration and I was pleased with the portion of Chief Justice Robert's conclusions that dealt with Obamacare's violation of said clause. The tenth amendment is also vital in our modern age, with Roberts also being correct in striking down Obamacare's Medicaid mandate upon the states, even going as far as to describe it as "a gun to the head" of state governments. Many people I know (such as my father and roommate) are avid protectors of our right to bear arms as per the Second Amendment. I highly recommend each and every one of you go back, reread the Constitution a few times, and select a section or two you feel strikes or motivates you to action. You'd be surprised how amazing the Constitution is when you look at it through the lens of our founder's foresight and apply those concerns to our modern issues.

For so many liberals, ideals and dreams of utopia consist the basis of their argumentation, however presented as logical. Even if their arguments can appear partially true, it is up to conservatives and moderates alike to refer back to the document that governs us all and should rightly serve as a source of unity. This doesn't mean beating people's faces in with knowledge, but gently reminding them that when in doubt, our founders chose to have faith in the states over the fed, knowing that such risks will remain within our system of federalism as long as it lasts. The Constitution aids debates as it grounds the arguments in a certain field of governance and, being a neutrally-accepted standard, should serve to highlight areas in which our biases interrupt our attempts at objective interpretation. Lastly, legal theories often frame around precedent, a direct contradiction to progressive logic and a clear orientation towards past wisdom as a guide for present action. Legal precedent may be flawed at times, but where such flaws exist, there is usually a result of failure to consider prior precedent as well.

If you still need a reason to invest a few hours in our nation's most important document, just tune into Fox News or watch a YouTube segment of Jay Sekulow, a remarkable lawyer and legal theorist with excellent speaking capabilities. If every conservative dinner table conversation had one or two Sekulows, America would be a much better place. But in all seriousness, it is important that we access every resource possible (even friends in legal professions) to build a personal connection with and defense of our Constitution.

Liberals have abused court power for far too long.



No more.

Read more here: http://www.heraldonline.com/2012/11/28/4446694/aclj-applauds-appeals-court-order.html#storylink=cp

y

Immaturity, God, and the Root of Division in America

If I've been able to make any observations this last year about the current political climate in America, the most definitive relates to the dramatic polarization of opinion evident in the electorate. This claim is nothing new, here from Daniel Henninger's colum in the Wall Street Journal:

The Republicans' self-inflicted wounds, however, pale against the willingness of an American president to use his office to blow up the country itself. That, too, has a price. Drill down inside the details of that electoral map and its votes, and you find a nation severely divided. (emphasis added)

So why bother bringing this up? What can well-intentioned individuals hope to gain from this information?

In order to formulate the response we need to take our country back from President Demagogue, we need to see beyond the surface-level result of our country torn asunder and identify the cause of such radical fragmentation. It is not enough to identify blocs of voters (e.g. Hispanics, women, etc.) and attempt to beat the Democrats at their own game. We tried that. It doesn't work.

Part of the answer can be revealed in a little known story I read last week in the New Oxford Review (an excellent choice for wholesome, intelligent journalism). The lovely folks down at the United Nations Population Fund have now determined for us, based on their latest report, that family planning is a "human right" which must be provided for by the state. Most interesting is the fact that their premise  for advocating this newly-discovered right stems not from any sort of rational justification but rather from the need to bolster support for such agendas through rhetorical alignment with past efforts to secure human rights.

I couldn't help but scratch my head and wonder how the right to determine the size of one's family equates with "the state needs to fund my contraception." It wasn't long before the report indicated, however, that one of the principle causes of this gap in logic rests in their definition of reproductive health:

Reproductive health therefore implies that people are able to have a satisfying and safe sex life and that they have the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so.

Here we begin to see the beginning of liberalism in its most deceptive incarnation: greed and pride combined into what we old-fashioned conservatives call "immaturity." Fundamental to this immature ideal is a selfish attitude of entitlement (where does that lead us?) and stubborn failure to see the consequences of our actions. This truth is evident everywhere, from the child who can't see why eating candy every day is harmful to the childlike politician who can't see why tens of trillions of debt is harmful. To put this in the context of the UNFPA's ridiculous worldview:

Even when services exist, social norms and practices can limit individual access to them.
The subordination of the rights of young people to those of their parents, for example,
can limit access to information and services and the capacity to act.

How dare we conservatives and our ancient social norms "subordinate" young people under the guardianship of their parents!

What this travesty boils down to is actually more simple than one might imagine: where do rights come from? According to our Founding Fathers, these rights were God-given and protected against the tyranny of any state or individual. Yet in the eyes of U.N. elites, man has become God, and the best way we can worship our own enlightenment is in the worship of the transcendant state.

You're pregnant? Why bother with familial love and mentoring, or (God forbid) responsibility when the state can save the day, destroy your "unwanted consequence," and all behind your parents' backs?

The state becomes our personal salvation; our all-loving parent and god, but at the price of our liberty, our relationships, and ultimately, our identity as people "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights." Unfortunately for our friends at the UNFPA, they recognize that their utopia of unrestricted sex and secular statism isn't going to be recognized anytime soon, but they've charted a course of action that uses another perversion of truth to eat away at conservative resistance--a strategy we see working for their cause in too many other arenas of life:

Partnering with faith-based organizations can alleviate the religious and social pressures on women who practice child spacing.

Because, of course, religious guidelines for healthy living are nothing more than "pressures" trying to constrict our youthful and sacred desire for happiness as guarded by government.

I won't say that this report didn't scare me, especially considering that many of my friends would easily accept and advocate positions in line with this ideology. Having rupture the closest bond we have as humans, the family, the leftist political agenda has little difficulty severing the populace from our religion and then our neighbors (see the divisiveness of politics I referenced above). When politics becomes a selfish act, the state has already won. Tocqueville couldn't have put it better so many years ago when he wrote:

When the taste for physical gratifications among them has grown more rapidly than their education . . . the time will come when men are carried away and lose all self-restraint . . . . It is not necessary to do violence to such a people in order to strip them of the rights they enjoy; they themselves willingly loosen their hold. . . . they neglect their chief business which is to remain their own masters.

The key to regaining these liberties, the key to regaining unity in American politics, has to be found in the family as a means to maintain God and godliness (that is, the renouncement of immaturity). The best tactic liberals have (and the key to so many of their arguments) is to renounce isolated examples of human failure and failed families (e.g. "If the Kardashians can 'marry' why can't gays?" or "Why not abort if the child is going to suffer anyways?") The logical response, and the one we as conservatives have failed to expound well enough, is to not throw the baby out with the bath water. Yes, families can fail! That is a reason to strengthen and support them, not redefine them with the opinions of statist elites.

Once we can regain our self-restraint, our faith, and our families, we can turn the page on division and reconnect with that age moderates and conservatives alike hold in nostalgia: the prosperity of the post-war generation. That was a people who, through the struggles of war and depression, proved themselves capable of relinquishing their selfishness and, in many cases, dying for what they believed in. Their blessed children took these things for granted, and in their immaturity have ripped so many communities and families asunder.

Our people will soon reap the harvest of Obama's America. I can only pray that our tongues are not so numbed by our media and our culture that we cannot taste refuse when it is forced down our throats.

Now What?

It's been far too long since I've had the opportunity to blog, and I blame no one but myself (maybe George Bush, but even that will go out of style soon enough). Given all the buzz filling conservative intellectual circles about our electoral defeat, my intent is not to add to the mix. We're all frustrated, discouraged, and a bit tired from all our efforts over the past four years. Why didn't things end up the way they did back in 2010? How could our country be so blind to the reality of the abject failure that is our current administration?

I'm not discounting the need to go back and retrace our steps. Learning from the mistakes we've made this last campaign cycle will be vital so we don't repeat our errors in 2014 or 2016. But to aggregate and analyse all the potential causes for Barack Obama's reelection would take far too much time for something I would do far more sloppily than the many other pundits currently on the job. So why am I back?


In the words of Gandalf the White from the Two Towers:
"I come back to you now at the turn of the tide.


So am I really saying there's optimism?

You said it.

This is by no means a guarantee that we can overcome the obstacles that brought us down this past election, but what I'm presenting now are several signs for hope that we didn't have going into November 6th:

1) Bush is Gone

Four years from now, Barack Obama will desperately try to find blame for the continued failure of his policies, but unlike this past year, George W. Bush will be another four years into the past and out of people's memory. The impact of the 2008 recession will have blurred with the continuous rise in unemployment and what now could potentially become a double-dip recession. Will Obama be able to spin a new excuse? Probably, but its credibility should be much easier to pick apart (hint: Romney should have done a better job of doing that this time around, but that's another story).

2) The Party of...No-resistance?

In a similar vein, John Boehner's recent comments regarding the potential for gridlock in the House have removed another falsehood Obama will no doubt try to expound down the road from now: the GOP is the party of "no." Boehner still has yet to clarify how far he will compromise in order to accrue new sources of "revenue" (read: taxes), but his acceptance of the political climate is not only genius in that it shows character but it will further center blame for the next 2-4 years on the man in the White House.

3) Benghazi STILL isn't done

As successful as the liberal media was in ignoring the disgusting cover-up that seems increasingly apparent in Libya, Hurricane Sandy isn't working as a top story anymore, and the Petraeus scandal has thrown fresh chum into the media waters here. The persistent questions about why so much information has been strangely witheld from Congress or the public are about to be answered, and don't be surprised if their magnitude would have changed the election were they transparent a mere few weeks ago.

4) Remember the Governors

Despite the majority of Americans (including those in Wisconsin) having missed the boat on what Obama means for the common worker, the battle between unions (and other liberal special interests) and conservative governors is long from over. Scott Walker's victory in Wisconsin may not have been predictive of the way in which his state turned out on election day, but it proves that a deep skepticism of unions is prevalent and waiting to be untapped. My home state of California may be under the yoke of organized labor for some time to come, but in battleground states, the rising cost of collective bargaining is beginning to weigh in on the minds of average citizens. This, alongside the immigration issue, can be cast as bipartisan measures to protect our budgets and force Democrats into a corner. Even New Jersey still has Christie.

5) Catholics are Waking Up

...slowly. Obama still won this demographic 50-48, but the gap is considerably closer from the 54-45 advantage he had in 2008. This trend is clearer when you look at white Catholic voters, who went for Romney 59-40 versus 52-47 for McCain four years ago. Latino Catholics are what threw a wrench in this pattern, holding out for Obama by a 3-to-1 margin. What does this mean for conservatives as a whole? The emerging outrage at the healthcare mandate covering contraceptives needs to be fanned into a flame as it begins to take effect all across the country. As lawsuits mount and slowly are resolved, we need to be lighting this issue up in the media to confront those Catholics who swung left with the grim reality that their faith is under direct assault from the current administration. The bishops have done as much as they can without outright endorsements, so it's up to the laity to keep this positive trend going while the hierarchy strips power from liberal dissenters like the Leadership Conference of Women Religious and the so-called "Nuns on a Bus."


This battle is long from over, and the Democrats may very will win consistently for the foreseeable future. I've always said that there are three political archetypes I dislike:
-liberals
-disengaged citizens
-pessimistic conservatives

Guess which one I despise above all? PESSIMISTIC CONSERVATIVES. Why? Because comments like "America is doomed" or "Let's move to Canada" are nothing more than justifications to do nothing in the face of despair. This, above all else, is what our foes desire and what we must rebuke in every instance.

So yes, it's going to be a tough four years ahead. But here at thatotherconservative, you will be sure to find a mix of optimism and urgency that we will need to keep fighting the good fight as time wears on.

Stay tuned. God Bless. Good night.

A Vision of Optimism

The one thing the liberal media attempts daily to portray to the masses: optimism. Whenever I read the title of an MSNBC headline on Google News, this artificially-inflated confidence is so easy to pick up. Whether it's Democrat analysts dissecting a "favorable" poll, or liberal commentator triumphantly proclaiming the impossible task of getting average Joes to relate to Mitt Romney...the level of arrogance  therein is rather disgusting. But it's not exactly surprising or stupid, given that there are apparently enough viewers to keep these stories consistently at the top of the political sections of major news outlets online. If they were, heaven forbid, about to lose an election, moping about it wouldn't exactly do much to rally uncertain Dems out to the ballot box, now would it?

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I feel as if there is a subtle yet powerful connection between this "campaign strategy" and Obama's suave sense of assurance that he attempts to project into every other aspect of his presidency. Egypt falling to Islamists? Eh, no big deal. Unemployment still a nightmare? "The private sector is doing ok." Pardon me folks, but when it comes to being out of touch with reality, Obama is out of Romney's league. Well, of course with enough audio editing, even Romney can appear like a total air-head, but hey that just demonstrates the creativity of MSNBC's sound crew, right?

My point in all of this is that we conservatives, as a collective (no, that's not a strictly communist term) have to interject an increased sense of optimism into our discourse, especially on the national media scene. Disparaging Obama gets old after a while...yes, I said it. I love Fox News to death, but instead of the same old doomsday predictions, let's get more scenarios of growth, hope, and dare I say...change?

In the world of policy debate, debaters are intensely focused on research and answering the "line-by-line" as best as possible (responding to each and every point). Yet equally important is the need to frame all these arguments within a general framework for how to evaluate the final decision at the end of the round...the bigger picture, as it were. In a similar way, I wouldn't mind seeing a clearer road map from anyone, particularly Romney, about the prioritization of policy initiatives in the future. Now, this doesn't mean we have to show our full hand to the Dems, but a timeline accompanied by analysis of potential benefits goes a long way towards improving the general appeal of a campaign platform and rendering it competitive with Obama's failures. FDR was able to use his charm to trick America into believing in his grand dream for a more progressive nation, and his successors have done their best to do the same.

Fighting fire with fire can and will work, but we need to take the high ground for American unity and pride. From that vantage point, the contrast with Obama's divisive, last-ditch grasps for an electoral comeback will begin to make all the more difference.

Divide and Conquer

I was having a conversation with one of my "moderate" friends over his choice of voting in November's numerous elections. As this would be his first opportunity to participate in our democratic system, I was eager to hear how his rather shifting worldview would manifest itself at the ballot box. How was my genius friend going to determine who would be worthy of his endorsement?

"I'm probably going to flip a coin," he humorously speculates.

"So you don't care that other people will decide how your government works?"

He paused, then replied, "It's not like I would make a difference anyway."

This, my friends, is the tragic reality of why California is often considered "that blue state" which will never awaken from its long, liberal stranglehold. Much talk amongst conservative commentators has been directed towards Obama's admittedly brilliant if not destructive ploy of exploiting class, race, gender, and other differences in order to bring a rough coalition of votes in for his party. Yet I would like to identify one final division that our political culture is creating that will ultimately favor liberal politicians: that between the politically minded and un-minded.

One of the most often cited statistics with regards to elections is the terribly low level of confidence Americans have in their government. As a result, an overwhelming number of our citizens have become discouraged over their prospects of actually making a difference in the political system. And hey, it's not like politics has any real effect on our lives right?

Here is where our left-leaning friends have the advantage: as more and more Americans, especially our youth, have little to no understanding of broader political culture, all it takes is one emotionally-energizing cause to swing their undecided vote into the Democratic camp. Take, for instance, the Occupy Movement. With college unemployment levels at record highs, our otherwise pampered and spoiled young generation has had serious difficulties making ends meet. When faced with the prosperity that some of our elders, such as Mitt Romney (and the Obamas, for that matter) have been able to attain through hard work and perseverance, our un-focused "adults" are only too eager to demand their "fair share."

Dennis Prager's new book Still the Best Hope correctly identifies emotional zeal as a conduit for much support of Leftist causes, and I have been personal witness to far more secular firebrands throwing the word bigot at those opposed to abortion, gay marriage, and the like than any hate-filled "Bible thumpers." But hey, maybe I'm just a sheltered conservative, right? In any case, this sort of emotional passion is igniting segments of our young population who would otherwise be "bystanders," if you will, to the political process. After all, isn't "denying the right to love someone" more effective a political tool than "supporting business freedom and smart economics?'

While I greatly admire Mr. Prager and others' work in bringing clarity and common sense to those tuning in on the radio or on TV, conservatives as a whole must find more outlets to reach the younger generation. Twice in the past two months I've been a guest at speaking events by Anne Coulter, Hugh Hewitt, and Mr. Prager himself. In not one of them have I been able to identify anyone else in the audience of comparable or younger age to myself.

It is not enough to convince yourself American values are the best in the world. Those following in your footsteps most likely are oblivious. And if they don't care about politics now, your local DNC body will be more than willing to make them care later.

I'm Back!

Senior year of high school has been much more difficult than I imagined-not because of work or even the college search but rather just the continuous chore of balancing my time. As such, I apologize for taking a rather lengthy holiday from blogging, but I am making it my goal to, from now on, ensure that I post something new once a week, at the very least. Once again, I remind you that it's my intent to balance out the harsher edge of my "critical" commentaries with a positive or encouraging story every other post.

This morning, in particular, I was delighted by the news that numerous Catholic institutions have finally banded together to bring legal complaint against the absurd Department of Health and Human Services mandate that would force them to cover numerous treatments and services that violate Catholic social and moral teachings. As of now, the magic number of institutions or diocesan bodies of Catholic faithful that have filed lawsuits against the government is 43, and I hope and pray that number continues to rise. I've personally bashed Notre Dame University in particular for its occasional violation of a wholesome, Christian identity, yet I give them a pat on the back for joining in this great movement. I encourage anyone reading this to send support, written or otherwise, to Notre Dame's administration for boldly breaking from their somewhat inconsistent reputation.

On the other end of the spectrum is, of course, the infamous Georgetown University, which went forward with plans to have HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius speak at their commencement ceremony despite widespread outcry from Catholics nationwide, including their home diocese of Washington, D.C. Despite the rather gloomy course our friends at Georgetown seem to have set themselves on, I am nonetheless spirited to hear that William Peter Blatty, the author of none other than The Exorcist, has come out against his alumni, Georgetown, and is suing them under Catholic Canon Law on the question of their status as a "Catholic" college. May this wave of pressure continue to rattle the school whose proud past is done shame by their current missteps.

Yet whatever denomination or creed you profess, even if you profess none at all, the very right of religious freedom so sacred in this country has been attacked and the Obama administration has refused to back down from this assault. Whatever Georgetown and other Catholic schools decided to do, it is up to the Catholics, Christians, and others who make up them and this country to never waver in their efforts to change the course of this country and our academic institutions therein.

The spark is alight, my friends. Keep it roaring through Election Day and beyond.