Stupid Things People Say About Conservatives

July 28, 2009 Calvin Freiburger blogosphere, civil unions, Constitution, homosexuality, Jim Doyle, law, letters, liberalism, me, Wisconsin

Unlike the Reporter’s distinguished clientele, Jay Morris’s response to my civil unions editorial manages to remain calm and address things I’ve actually written. Still, our Harvey Milk fan’s attempts to show I am “disgruntled” and “didn’t really do any research” fall flat:

Unfortunately, Mr. Freiburger apparently has not reviewed what is required in Wisconsin to obtain a “marriage license,” including the facts that: (a) once applied for, the license only has a 6 day waiting period before being effective; and (b) that only one person need reside in Wisconsin for at least 30 days. Thus, the “scant” requirement to obtain Domestic Partnership benefits in Wisconsin far exceeds the requirements to obtain a marriage license and more benefits than provided by the Domestic Partnership laws.

I fail to see the relevance here. I’m not claiming these new civil unions are easier or harder to qualify for than civil marriage; I’m saying exactly what my original point sounded like: it will be easy to scam these civil unions. Dane County Clerk Bob Ohlsen, while not predicting fraud, recently said, “even for those who already get benefits for their partner through their employer, there is a huge advantage to applying to the registry.” You could say that people can scam civil marriage, too, but the reality is that it is much more common for non-romantically-involved people of the same sex to live together than those of opposite sexes. In any event, I sincerely apologize to Mr. Morris for not devoting a larger share of my 600-word limit to a side issue.

Even when debates with liberals aren’t vicious and juvenile, they can carry a distinct air of surrealism—Mr. Morris strangely claims that my comments about “the so-called rights gay couples are allegedly denied” show that I “neglected to review Wisconsin law at all,” since the marriage amendment “includes a ban on any relationship between same-sex couples that is ‘similar to’ marriage.” Perhaps our friend shouldn’t be so quick to cast stones over insufficient research, inasmuch as he apparently didn’t even read the piece he’s rebutting in full—in which I discuss the “2006 Marriage Protection Amendment, which prohibits the state from recognizing ‘a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals.’”

Mr. Morris attempts to prove the amendment threatens gays by quoting Wisconsin’s former (disgraced) Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager. What he doesn’t mention: after the election, the AG was singing a different tune from what she said as a Democrat candidate:

In one of her last official acts, outgoing Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager has declared that Wisconsin’s recently enacted constitutional ban on same-sex marriage does not prohibit public or private employers from providing domestic partner benefits. In a six-page opinion released Wednesday, Lautenschlager also told Madison City Attorney Michael May that the constitutional amendment does not strike down anti-discrimination protections for domestic partners. Lautenschlager wrote that “it can reasonably be inferred” from the language of the amendment “that neither the Legislature nor the people intended to invalidate domestic partnerships when they adopted this provision.”

Also intolerable to our friend is the fact that gay couples seeking to arrange benefits themselves via wills and power of attorney pay much more than the cost of a marriage license. First, I still maintain that, while full replication of everything civil marriage offers may be impossible, gay couples still have access to far more than the gay lobby, such as the lying charlatans of Fair Wisconsin, would have you believe.

Second, I again reiterate my point that many of these benefits “were created to aid couples raising children on just one parent’s income, and are thus irrelevant to gay couples (as well as to dual-income straight couples).” To be completely honest, I think it would be interesting to do a full review of civil marriage in America and reassess every benefit, and see which should be preserved, which should be changed to apply only to single-income couples or couples with children, and which should be done away with entirely. So I hope you’ll excuse me for not feeling guilty for denying gay couples some provisions I don’t necessarily believe straight couples need either.

Third, as I’ve also said time and time again, it’s certainly possible to change laws and streamline processes for achieving these things in amendment-compatible ways. A few years back, Focus on the Family’s Dr. James Dobson endorsed just such a measure in Colorado. I note that Dobson hasn’t received much goodwill from the gay Left for his efforts.

Jay has one last complaint about my “so-called article” (what does that even mean? Guess I spoke too soon about maturity…): “the rule of law is always up for debate – particularly when the law violates other laws, like equal protection clauses of the primary source, The United States Constitution.”

I’m still trying to decide whether or not this is a weak attempt to dodge my point, or if Jay is really this obtuse. His so-called analysis (see how dumb that sounds?) appears to confuse “laws” with the principle of “the rule of law.” The former means any given law on the books, be it a constitutional provision, act of a legislature, or duly-enacted referendum. Of course these are “always up for debate;” I never suggested otherwise. The latter is the principle that the process by which we make and change laws is something to be respected, that we (to quote myself again, since Jay apparently missed it the first time) “cannot pick and choose which of its provisions to enforce and which to violate, no matter what they may personally think about them.” Don’t like a law? Get it repealed. But as an American, living under the protection of the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Wisconsin, you have no moral right to simply ignore what it says. That goes double for those in public office, like Governor Jim Doyle, who swear [PDF link] “to support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Wisconsin, and faithfully to discharge the duties of their respective offices to the best of their ability.”

No matter how much I despise abortion and wish to see it banned, I don’t want such a ban to come via the Supreme Court. Because I respect and value the rule of law.

However draconian limitations on how close to Planned Parenthoods pro-lifers can protest may be, you won’t see me violate them. Because I respect and value the rule of law.

Regardless of what I may think of any given tax—because I think it unjust, excessive, or I disapprove of the purpose for which it is raising funds—I would never dodge it. Because I respect and value the rule of law.

Jay Morris gave it the good old college try, and delivered a response a cut above most of my critics. But as we see, that’s still not saying much.

The Liberal Playbook: Gay Marriage

July 28, 2009 Calvin Freiburger anger, blogosphere, civil unions, conservatism, dishonesty, education, FdL Reporter, Fond du Lac High School, homosexuality, hypocrisy, letters, liberalism, me, moonbats, propaganda, religion

The Reporter has published my latest commentary on civil unions in Wisconsin, predictably bringing angry liberals out of the woodwork. It’s interesting to note how predictable, one-note, and disinterested in what’s actually said, these guys generally are, and it’s important for conservatives to know what logical fallacies, sleights of hand, and personal attacks to expect when stepping into the ring with a liberal.

Take, for instance, the assumption that religion plays a leading role in my opinion, despite never being mentioned. Liberal orthodoxy dictates that virtually no conservative opinion, especially on social issues, can possibly be held in good faith, so there must be an ulterior motive—in this case, hatred of gays and religious dogma. Liberal orthodoxy further dictates that the slightest hint of religion (real or otherwise) in an opinion or discussion is something to be feared and immediately disqualified from consideration.

The other main objection is that, without civil unions, gays are denied equal rights. I reject this premise entirely, for several reasons, the short version being just as I said in the article: “Many of the so-called rights gay couples are allegedly denied, such as hospital visitation and power-of-attorney related issues, are either already available to gays, easily achievable without creating new government relationship statuses, or were created to aid couples raising children on just one parent’s income, and are thus irrelevant to gay couples (as well as to dual-income straight couples).” Moreover, I say “so-called rights” because most marriage benefits are not “rights” at all, but rather provisions offered as part of a contract.

I made clear that same-sex marriage was not the issue at dispute in my letter—the main topic was this measure’s constitutionality. However, you’ll find that same-sex marriage advocates tend to struggle with the concept of “staying on topic,” and will completely skip your argument, instead jumping straight to why you’re evil for not supporting gay marriage. If you refuse to let them change the subject and insist on staying on topic, you will be mischaracterized as either ducking the question or admitting defeat.

Regardless of whether or not you actually said anything demeaning towards homosexuals, no matter how much you insist you also want gay people to be able to visit their ailing partners in the hospital, you should still expect condescending lectures about how gays are people too, how homosexuality is predetermined (both propositions I accept, by the way…not that these armchair psychiatrists care), etc. You will be psychoanalyzed with utter certitude, your opinions attributed to fear, hatred, or ignorance. References to violence against gay Americans, black segregation, and even al-Qaeda will be thrown about with reckless abandon.

How do they know? They just do. They care, you don’t. Bigot.

Also be prepared for raw hatred & childishness, such as casual references to “half-baked turd[s] of imflammatory mush” (this gem, incidentally, is from the author of the Daily Kos entry linked above, and once responded, badly, to another of my letters, noteworthy for its hypocrisy: she claims she doesn’t “want to write in anger.”).

You may even have outright lies told about you, and you may see long-simmering grudges boil over—bravely aired behind veils of anonymity, naturally. “FDL54935” says:

Mr. Freiburger got his 15 seconds of fame since his parents went WAY overboard on a school issue. The man (Calvin) is one of the weakest writers in this community. If my sources are correct, he is barely making it through community college. I know times are tough and this is an issue that needs to be debated, but please limit editorials to those with an IQ over 75.

The issue to which our zip code refers is the case when a Fond du Lac High School teacher complained about my saying “God Bless America” over the school intercom, which the administration subsequently lied about.

Now, maybe Mr. Code was misled by news outlets that falsely reported my family was angry over the school’s speed in handling the matter, rather than their dishonesty. Maybe he’s been lied to by propagandists whose sham reporting completely distorts the incident. Then again, perhaps he’s the one doing the lying…after all, he’s angry enough about it to lie about my education, citing “sources” that probably don’t exist. The real school I attend isn’t a community college, is nothing to sneeze at, and I think making Hillsdale’s Dean’s List for the second year in a row is a little better than “barely making it through.” (By the way, if you have the audacity to defend yourself by citing such facts, you can probably expect to be accused of bragging at some point, too.)

Hmm, it almost makes you wonder whether or not FDL54935’s got some kind of personal connection to the Fond du Lac School District…(crazy thought, I know. The educational community is much too professional for that sort of thing, right?)

Hatred, anger, condescension, childishness, demonization, and persecution are all the rage (no pun intended) among the modern American Left, including the gay marriage movement. For some liberals, I suspect, the root cause may be an insecure need for self-affirmation; for others, it is a manifestation of the liberal impulse to delegitimize opposing speech as soon as possible, to give it as little consideration as possible. The Left wants to intimidate, not deliberate.

Don’t let them. Don’t let yourself be shamed or silence by a movement that’s not exactly pure as the new-fallen snow itself. Never apologize for believing that marriage matters.

Birthers Go Home

July 25, 2009 Calvin Freiburger Barack Obama, birth certificate controversy, conspiracy theories, dishonesty, moonbats, scandal, stupidity

This week, it came out that John McCain’s campaign conducted an internal investigation into the rumors that Barack Obama was not really born in Hawaii, and is therefore ineligible for the presidency:

While they ruled out any chance of the ‘birther’ lawsuits holding up in court, lawyers for the McCain campaign did check into the rumors about Obama’s birth and the assertions made by Berg and others. “To the extent that we could, we looked into the substantive side of these allegations,” said Potter. “We never saw any evidence that then-Senator Obama had been born outside of the United States. We saw rumors, but nothing that could be sourced to evidence. There were no statements and no documents that suggested he was born somewhere else. On the other side, there was proof that he was born in Hawaii. There was a certificate issued by the state’s Department of Health, and the responsible official in the state saying that he had personally seen the original certificate. There was a birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser, which would be very difficult to invent or plant 47 years in advance.”

Granted, McCain hardly had the best judgment when it came to attacking Obama, but they were right to skip this foolishness. As John Hawkins has pointed out, it’s got no legs:

– The people at FactCheck.org have seen the certificate of live birth provided from the state of Hawaii to the Obama campaign and it is genuine.

– Although Hawaii “state law prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record,” the director of Hawaii’s Department of Health [a Republican appointee] has certified that Obama does have a legitimate birth certificate on file in Hawaii.

– In a print copy of the 1961 Honolulu Advertiser, there’s a notice that Barack Obama was born. In and of itself, this is a game, set, match conversation-ender on this subject unless people want to argue that this isn’t genuine or that there was a conspiracy going all the way back to the day of Obama’s birth to make him President.

Unfortunately, this isn’t enough for the Birther crowd, spearheaded by WorldNetDaily. When you point this stuff out to them, they posit all sorts of hypothetical scenarios about how a birth certificate or newspaper clipping could have been issued to a non-resident, and so forth. But that doesn’t cut it. We could talk all day about how the moon landing might have been faked, or how World Trade Center Seven could have been destroyed by controlled demolition, but since the magnitude of the allegation is so severe—that the President of the United States is constitutionally illegitimate—it is morally irresponsible to give them serious consideration in the absence of affirmative reasons to believe Obama was born somewhere other than Hawaii.

Birthers claim to have such evidence, in the form of testimony from Obama’s grandmother that he was born in Kenya. But that claim doesn’t withstand scrutiny either:

During the interview, which was conducted through a translator by a street preacher named Ron McRae, Sarah Obama does in fact say she was present. But it’s clear that there was a mistranslation, because as soon as McRae very excitedly starts to try to get additional details, the people on the other end of the line realize what’s happened and say, over and over again, that Obama was born in the U.S.

For some reason, the transcripts of the interview that have been posted on various right-wing Web sites all seem to cut off right after Sarah Obama says she was there when her grandson was born. So does this YouTube video with the audio of the interview. But as The Economist points out, McRae also released the full audio, in which the key parts of the conversation can be heard. Here’s part of it. (The other person speaking is translator Vitalis Akech Ogombe.)

MCRAE: When I come in December. I would like to come by the place, the hospital, where he was born. Could you tell me where he was born? Was he born in Mombasa?

OGOMBE: No, Obama was not born in Mombasa. He was born in America.

MCRAE: Whereabouts was he born? I thought he was born in Kenya.

OGOMBE: No, he was born in America, not in Mombasa.

MCRAE: Do you know where he was born? I thought he was born in Kenya. I was going to go by and see where he was born.

OGOMBE: Hawaii. Hawaii. Sir, she says he was born in Hawaii. In the state of Hawaii, where his father was also learning, there. The state of Hawaii.

When the house of cards all but collapses, the Birthers play their trump: “All Obama would have to do to satisfy us is release his original birth certificate. Why doesn’t he? That proves he’s hiding something!” Hawkins gives the answer, which should be obvious:

Well, why would he at this point? He has a significant number of conservatives wasting enormous amounts of time on a side issue that can never bear any fruit and, as an added bonus, it makes them look somewhat unhinged to many Americans. When your political enemies are making fools of themselves, why stop them?

Heck, that’s what I’d do in this situation if I were Obama! The Birthers undermine the Right’s credentials on honesty, intellectual rigor, and moral seriousness, which we need to maintain if we are to stand up to the Left’s real lies.

Rave Reviews!

July 25, 2009January 4, 2019 Calvin Freiburger anger, blogosphere, dishonesty, hypocrisy, liberalism, me, misc, moonbats, Rave Reviews, stupidity

See what the critics are saying about Calvin Freiburger:

“Typical know nothing conservative…” – Sheldon

“…Mr. Didn’t-Really-Do-Any-Research…” – Jay Morris

“As a resident of Wisconsin, I am embarrassed by Mr. Freiburger…” – Jude Noble

“Calvin Freiburger is not very bright…damn you’re stupid.” – bhd8ball

“…half-baked turd of imflammatory mush…Mr. Freiburger may be a legal adult, but he writes like a ten year old.” – cobweb1780, AKA Pan Zareta

“I expect in the future you will write articles about taking away rights from non-christians. Good Day Sir!” – ciretower

“Calvin you’re a nitwit.” – Matt

“Ah, yes, dear Mr. Freiburger and his little neocon fantasies.” – Prof. Omer Durfee

“Mr. Freiburger seems to devalue debate and disagreement within the American political sphere.” – Brent Schmitz

“What makes me afraid is his self-righteousness and implied superiority in his writing.” – Daniel Sitter

“You, my friend, are a metaphysical laughing stock. You are a literal will-to-nothingness. You slave. You nihilist.” – Anonymous Fark.com user

“You must be a fag. Do you have a wide stance?” – Mike

“…rude, insulting and just not someone we want to associate with.” – Alex Habrock

“Ideology-driven nutjob…crazy anti-sex, anti-woman…I am certainly willing to admit that you are capable of making sound arguments, when you’re not being hyperbolic and offensive.” – Brittany

“Scumbag…nosy and controlling neo-christian…cultist…bully…” – Aryeh

“… why haven’t you joined the armed forces yet? Put that money where that mouth is, chicken-boy.” – Anonymous

“20 years old + writing letter to editor = massive life fail.” – Etchy333

“Angry teenager alert…Why the hell would you want that sack of crap to endanger the lives of others when he’s crying in the middle of a firefight?” – NewportBarGuy

“Well with any luck he’ll continue on his way and turn out a repressed gay Republican.” – Generation_D

“His world is like a mirror opposite of reality. A Conservative Fundamentalist, you could say.” – Javacrucian

“Reminds me of that jackass David Horowitz…” – Necrosis

“I know many see this as funny, but people laughed about the funny little guy with the funny little moustache making hate-filled speeches too. It’s just a slow creeping change from sane to insane until the totally insane becomes reality.” – Befuddled

“Is it me, or does this kid look like a Hitler Youth member? Seriously.” – alternative girlfriend

“I do find it funny that a socially inept kid that believes in a Sky Ghost thinks he can chide our education system…” – Shaggy_C

“…and he’s a racist to boot!” – AndyMan1 (based solely on a disparaging remark about gangsta rap)

“This child comes off like a product of Hate Radio madrasas.” – SherKhan

“That kid is teh uglay!” – hachijuhachi

“note that this douchebag is going to Hillsdale College, a bastion of right-wing nuttiness.” – gregario

“He sounds like a douche and was probably ridiculed at school for being an asshat!” – Torque420

“That’s what happens when you can’t argue successfully. You resort to cheap name calling. And like I said, I love it.” – Jayce Commo

“People like calvin have been around a long time…. For example, those who though blacks didn’t deserve the same rights as whites…Some people (ex. Calvin) really enjoy feeling like they deserve more liberties than others.” – Adam Kempf

“…kiss my liberal American butt…I don’t think you have the balls to say any of this stuff to my face…morally inferior.” – Scott Feldstein

“… a mouth-breathing sycophant with all the intelligence of a particularly dim species of refrigerator mildew.” – Chet

“…dubious, bordering on dishonest…” – AnotherTosaVoter

“…stop being an extremist…you’ve been touching nerves for a couple comments now, with your disregard for the truth…Sounds to me like you get your history from the pulpit.” – Eneasz

“Calvin is clearly such a bigot, especially since he has amply displayed his own bigotry in this forum.” – martino

“Go to hell article writer.” – jake3988

The verdict is in, and the Left agrees: Calvin Freiburger is precisely the kind of ignorant, intolerant, rightwing extremist scum your Homeland Security Secretary warned you about! Calvin Freiburger Online: shouldn’t you be reading?

Must-See Video: Steven Crowder Exposes CanadaCare

July 22, 2009 Calvin Freiburger Barack Obama, bureaucracy, Canada, capitalism, healthcare, liberalism, media, propaganda, socialism, Steven Crowder, video

Pajamas Media’s own Steven Crowder takes a trip up north to get an up-close, undercover look at Canada’s nationalized health care to answer the big questions: Is it cheaper? Is it more efficient? Does it help people?

Er…not exactly.

His findings aren’t pretty, to say the least. There’s a reason that, as Crowder pointed out, even “the father of Quebec medicare” has changed his views and now says the system is in a “crisis,” which he believes requires “a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice” to alleviate.

Every American needs to see this video. Share it with friends, family, anyone you can. It’s accessible, comprehensive, and eye-opening—just what we need to cut through the Left’s spin and the media propaganda on the joys of socialization before they demolish health care on our side of the border.

Pat Toomey & Arlen Specter: Neck and Neck

July 22, 2009 Calvin Freiburger 2010, Arlen Specter, campaigns, conservatism, David Frum, liberalism, Pat Toomey, Pennsylvania, polls, Republican Party, resercons

I’ve written before about how the anger resercons like David Frum have for Pat Toomey is both unprincipled and foolish. Today, with the 2010 midterms still over a year off, Arlen Specter’s once-profound lead has disappeared: Quinnipiac has Specter at 45%, Toomey 44%, “and voters say 49 – 40 percent that Sen. Specter does not deserve reelection.” Anything could happen between now and Election Day, but there’s plenty of reason to be optimistic that Republicans can regain Specter’s seat—and do it by putting principle over (faux) pragmatism.

No wonder the guys at New Majority haven’t mentioned Toomey in a while…

Undermining Constitutionalism in the Name of Fairness

July 21, 2009 Calvin Freiburger civil unions, homosexuality, Jim Doyle, law, liberalism, Wisconsin

Thanks to false stereotypes about social conservatives peddled by so-called agents of “tolerance,” I’m sure many liberals expect us to explode into flames over the insertion of same-sex domestic partnerships into the state budget, as if bigotry were our motivation. Sadly, they’ll have to settle for reasoned argument and serious concerns instead.

With its requirement that participants live together for a scant 30 days to qualify, the measure is begging to be scammed by any two people sharing a residence, not just gay couples. But that’s not why Wisconsin should be offended.

Many of the so-called rights gay couples are allegedly denied, such as hospital visitation and power-of-attorney related issues, are either already available to gays, easily achievable without creating new government relationship statuses, or were created to aid couples raising children on just one parent’s income, and are thus irrelevant to gay couples (as well as to dual-income straight couples). But that’s not why Wisconsin should be offended, either.

Wisconsin should be offended because this action was unconstitutional, and the Democratic lawmakers and governor who enacted it, knew it. It violates the democratically-enacted 2006 Marriage Protection Amendment, which prohibits the state from recognizing “a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals” (the WI Constitution has no “Unless We Really, Really Want To” clause).

Governor Jim Doyle and Democrat apologists claim that, since these new unions have only 43 of civil marriage’s 200-plus benefits, they are not “substantially” similar to marriage and thus constitutional. Nevertheless, every politician in Madison knows the clear intent of the law—to keep Wisconsin from creating same-sex marriage by another name.

There are many important considerations in the debate over same-sex marriage and civil unions: equality, the best interests of children, religious liberty, and more. Exploring them could exhaust many Reporter pages, but one principle should never be up for debate in a constitutional republic like America: the rule of law.

Free societies have constitutions to limit what governments can do to their people. We have an amendment process for when we decide our constitution needs to be changed, but unless and until it is amended, a constitution is the law of the land. The entire concept of a constitution is that government officials cannot pick and choose which of its provisions to enforce and which to violate, no matter what they may personally think about them.

No matter how unfair or oppressive you believe the marriage amendment to be, I ask you to heed this warning: if you allow our leaders to get away with ignoring the constitution on one issue, you are, in effect, endorsing the principle that any constitutional provision may be ignored if a leader claims he has a good enough reason. That’s a terrifying prospect, and precisely what our Founding Fathers sought to prevent.

Abraham Lincoln famously remarked that “reverence for the laws” should “become the political religion of the nation,” a basic principle that should unite us all and preserve our liberties. Jim Doyle and the lawmakers in Madison who allowed this to pass have made clear how little regard they have for the rule of law, and have demonstrated they are unfit to hold the offices with which we have entrusted them.

Sarah Palin and the Quitter Factor

July 16, 2009 Calvin Freiburger 2012, conservatism, Republican Party, Sarah Palin, scandal, strategy

Following up on my first and second posts about Sarah Palin’s departure from the Alaska governorship, there’s one remaining element to be considered: the “quitter factor.” Is she abandoning her obligation to her state by not completing the term of office she was elected to?

In theory, you could say so, but in practice, Alaska is still getting the administration they voted for—incoming governor Sean Parnell seems to share Palin’s views and priorities. Palin argues that stepping down is best for her state, as doing so will spare Alaska the financial strain of further ethics woes (these frivolous charges have cost Alaska nearly $2 million so far, and they’re still coming), and Parnell will be able to focus on state business rather than these investigations. Again, in practice this is all probably true. I don’t think Palin’s decision hurts Alaska at all, but it may have other unintended ramifications.

Predictably, some are questioning whether Palin can take the heat of modern American politics. Unfair though it may be (she showed admirable resilience during the 2008 campaign, and at a minimum, we know she’s going to hit the campaign trail for conservative politicians and speak out against Obama’s policies, subjecting herself to more attacks), it’s a line of argument Palin herself has invited by citing the attacks as one of her reasons for resigning. Only time will reveal her true mettle, though—if the pit bull in lipstick remains in the thick of the fight, whether campaigning for like-minded pols or especially as a presidential contender herself, it ought to put this meme to rest for good.

Perhaps most problematic is the message her departure may have telegraphed to the Left. There is a danger that they will look at this and conclude, “we managed to get a sitting governor to resign,” and feel emboldened to repeat these tactics across the country. That’s the last thing any of us should want, and even if the attacks did factor into Palin’s decision, it was a mistake to publicly attribute her resignation to them in any part. These people will pounce upon even the slightest appearance of weakness.

I would love to see Sarah Palin prove the critics wrong and to see her post-office contributions to America dwarf anything she could have done as governor of Alaska. But right now, the best I can say is that time will tell.

More Thoughts on Sarah Palin

July 9, 2009 Calvin Freiburger 2012, conservatism, Republican Party, Sarah Palin, strategy

A few days have passed since Sarah Palin announced she’s leaving the governorship, more pundits have thrown in their two cents: Mark Steyn seems to think she’s really out of politics for good, while Victor Davis Hanson advances the 2016 theory. I’d like to expand upon my initial reaction with a closer look at each theory, as well as the pros and cons of what she’s done so far.

Theory: Preemptive damage control for a new, major scandal

We can probably dismiss this one without much concern. The FBI has said they have “no investigation into Palin for her activities as governor, as mayor or in any other capacity,” and really—what more can be said that hasn’t already been said about her? I mean, once we’ve crossed the “you didn’t give birth to your own son” threshold…

Theory: She’s leaving politics behind for a permanent return to private life

Steyn floats this theory on the basis that Palin entered public life in a very different, less cutthroat political culture than the one she found at the national level:

In states far from the national spotlight, politics still attracts normal people. You’re a mayor or a state senator or even the governor, but you lead a normal life. The local media are tough on you, but they know you, they live where you live, they’re tough on the real you, not on some caricature cooked up by a malign alliance of late-night comics who’d never heard of you a week earlier and media grandees supposedly on your own side who pronounce you a “cancer.”

Then suddenly you get the call from Washington. You know it’ll mean Secret Service, and speechwriters, and minders vetting your wardrobe. But nobody said it would mean a mainstream network comedy host doing statutory rape gags about your 14-year old daughter. You’ve got a special-needs kid and a son in Iraq and a daughter who’s given you your first grandchild in less than ideal circumstances. That would be enough for most of us. But the special-needs kid and the daughter and most everyone else you love are a national joke, and the PC enforcers are entirely cool with it.

It’s a possibility we certainly can’t dismiss—she’s got a family to care for, and heaven knows she’s been put through hell by the Left—but then how do you account for the fact that her explanation (which, sorry, had a lot of room for improvement) is chock-full of references to taking her fight in new directions and such? If you believe she’s permanently retiring, then you also have to believe she’s misleading a whole bunch of people whom she knows adore her, and will be crushed to see her disappear.

I’ll have to see more before I accept that. Sarah Palin’s planning something. But what?

Theory: She is not interested in the presidency, but believes she can better fight for the country in some other, as-yet unspecified way

Possible, but unless she’s got something very specific in mind, most of the usual non-office routes she could take (book deals, speaking tours, etc.) seem to me a waste of her star power if that’s the extent of her long-term plans. That sort of thing is good for building goodwill and keeping your image out there, but honestly, I don’t know if its audience would include more than a handful of new converts. In other words, they can be means to an end, but if Palin intends them as the end, I’m afraid her efforts will yield less than she hopes. A Senate run? Maybe, but I don’t think an early leave for one Alaska office is exactly the best foundation for seeking another one…

Whatever she has in mind, I think it’s vital that she reveals it sooner rather than later. If she wants to be a Republican or conservative leader, she can’t leave her followers in the dark as to her intentions. They can’t be left waiting in the wings for a cause that’s never going to materialize, and if they’ll need to look elsewhere for leadership, they need to know.

Theory: She plans to run for president

I still think this is the most likely. But when? Hanson says:

In the long run, she can lecture, earn a good income through speaking, develop a coterie of advisers and supporters, take care of her family, not have the constant political warring on all flanks, and invest time in reflecting and studying issues, visit the country, meet leaders, etc. She’s not looking at 2012; but in eight years by 2016 she will be far more savvy, still young, and far more experienced. It matters not all that the Left writes her off as daffy, since they were going to do that whatever she did; the key is whether she convinces conservatives in eight years of travel and reflection that she’s a charismatic Margaret Thatcher-type heavyweight.

I don’t think so. Getting a head start on the next race is one thing, but eight years is overkill—she can still do a lot towards building her credentials and her ally list in three and a half. Hanson’s comments do highlight the fact that she’ll have ample opportunities even if the upcoming election doesn’t pan out. But I think that the stars are aligning for 2012, if she wants it. The Right is clamoring for a true leader to stand up to Obama’s disastrous agenda, and none of the other would-be names in the field are distinguishing themselves (though, for reasons I may elaborate on in a later post, I think Mike Huckabee could be surprisingly formidable). With the numbers looking worse still for Obamanomics, a charismatic, passionate voice that can unite the opposition and articulate conservative alternatives is The One’s worst nightmare. Sarah Palin has a gift for communication that could give her just the edge she needs to take him down.

Yes, she’ll need to work on her policy expertise in areas in which she’s had less experience, chiefly foreign affairs and the judiciary. But that’s certainly doable, as is surrounding herself with high-caliber advisors. She’ll have to be careful who she listens to—just because some conservatives have constructive criticism to offer doesn’t mean they have sinister ulterior motives (the last thing we need is a repeat of the Fredhead fiasco). And again, she’s got to make her intentions clear soon. Forget the conventional wisdom—if you’re running for president, say so.

There’s a lot we don’t know, and it’s too early to crown her the new queen of the conservative movement. But if Sarah Palin’s willing to put in the effort, Barack Obama’s reign of error could come crashing down sooner than he thinks.

Happy Independence Day

July 4, 2009 Calvin Freiburger Founding Fathers, history, liberty, music, patriotism, video

Happy birthday to the greatest nation in human history! Amidst all the hot dogs and fireworks, please take a moment today to reread the document at the heart of our celebration – our Declaration of Independence:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn