Obama

Libya: Do Conservatives Have a Double Standard for Military Intervention?

Calvin Freiburger Bush, conservatism, Democrats, foreign affairs, Gingrich, GOP, Hannity, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, Iraq, Left, liberalism, Libya, Obama, partisanship, War on Terror
I’m of two minds on the subject of the United States’ current air strikes in Libya. On the one hand, I do not believe that humanitarian impulses are a sufficient justification for US military action, but on the other hand I am open to the argument that Muammar Qadhafi’s past support for anti-American terrorism and pursuit of weapons of mass destruction constitute a sufficient interest for American intervention.
Whatever the answer is, two things are clear—the nation is ill served by President Barack Obama’s inability to clearly explain our objectives, and the Right is ill served by foreign policy analysis informed more by the party affiliation of the current commander-in-chief than by coherent principles.
Watching Sean Hannity this week, I can’t help but fear the former is at work. On March 6, Hannity said:

It seems to me that it becomes a no-brainer. In other words, look, here we have a mass slaughter of people going on, and we have military jets bombing innocent civilians. The country is going down the tubes. And Qaddafi obviously has to go. And the U.S. doesn’t have the moral authority to lead and it is hesitant and it’s slow to react? I’m having a hard time understanding why?

Compare that with his words on March 21:

The president said in Rio, you know, we are going to make the world safe from tyrants. Are we going to Sudan? Are we going after Mugabe? Are we going to go in Bahrain, Yemen? Are we going to insert ourselves in Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia? Are we going to insert ourselves in Saudi Arabia? I mean, what is — how do we define success here? What is our mission here? And what is the new Obama standard here?

When — I don’t know what to make of this. Is this now the Obama doctrine? That if there is a potential humanitarian crisis about to take place and the international community is onboard, that we can’t standby with empty words, we have to take some action. Does that apply to Mugabe, Sudan, taking him out? Does that apply to, you know, Syria, Lebanon? You know, where do we take this? Is it Bahrain? Saudi Arabia? What does that mean?

So when Libyans were getting killed while Obama seemed distracted by basketball, it was a “no-brainer” that the US had to take action to stop the carnage, and Hannity had “a hard time understanding why” the White House was “hesitant” and “slow to react.” But now that Obama has taken action to stop the carnage, Hannity doesn’t “know what to make of this,” and fears that doing what he wanted done on March 6 (and what President George W. Bush set forth as one of the guiding principles of his foreign policy) might mean biting off far more than we can chew.
If that fear sounds familiar, that’s because it was one of the prominent arguments against the Iraq War, which Hannity supported. Now, I supported (and still support) the Iraq War too, because it was clearly justified on national security grounds, but recall that Hannity’s chief rebuttal to that conflict’s critics was strictly humanitarian:

If you guys had your way, the torture chambers and mass graves would continue […] Your way would appease evil.

Yes, but as 2011 Hannity inadvertently explains to 2005 Hannity, the same could be said of any number of regimes, and if the standard for force is simply the subjugation of a despot’s citizens, then the United States has a lot of catching up to do. This doesn’t make either Hannity wrong (nor does it make Obama right), but it does call into question the reliability of his analysis.
Former House Speaker and possible presidential contender Newt Gingrich’s reversal is even more blatant:
March 7: The United States doesn’t need anybody’s permission. We don’t need to have NATO, who frankly, won’t bring much to the fight. We don’t need to have the United Nations. All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we’re intervening. And we don’t have to send troops. All we have to do is suppress his air force, which we could do in minutes.
March 23: I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi. I think there are a lot of other allies in the region we could have worked with. I would not have used American and European forces.
The good news is that other conservatives are taking a less knee-jerk approach, instead assessing the conflict based on values, not partisanship:

[T]he relative lack of Tea Party angst over the no-fly zone has been surprising. There is no discussion of Libya happening at Ginni Thomas’ Liberty Central, no statement from Tea Party Patriots or the Tea Party Express.

Quite a few liberal Democrats have come out and criticized the president. There were more Democrats who criticized President George W. Bush during the run-up to Iraq, but there have been enough to generate real heat for the White House. It was Kucinich, rather than a Republican, who first floated the idea that the strikes on Libya might be grounds for impeachment; Newt Gingrich, who mused that Obama could be impeached for failing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, hasn’t gone that far. Half a dozen Republicans who identify with the Tea Party have criticized the Obama administration’s shoot-first-ask-Congress-later approach, but most Republicans haven’t […]

There could be more Tea Party criticism of the Libya strategy if the conflict drags on. On Monday, Jenny Beth Martin of Tea Party Patriots told me that the group may poll members to determine whether they should take a stance. If CNN’s poll on Libya is right, TPP might find itself taking the pro-Obama, anti-Ron Paul line on Libya. The poll, conducted from March 18 to March 20, found 70 percent of all voters favoring a no-fly zone. Among “Tea Party supporters,” it was 73 percent. Fifty-four percent of all voters favored attacks “directly targeted at Gaddafi’s troops who are fighting the opposition forces in Libya.” That number rose to 58 percent among Tea Partiers.

There are individual Tea Party leaders, like Williams or Rand Paul, who wince at a military intervention undertaken like this. The Tea Party is libertarian in plenty of ways. But if it has one defining characteristic, it’s that it’s nationalist. If there’s a way to remove Qaddafi decades after he aided the Lockerbie bombers, then that’s more important than a debate over the deep thoughts of the founders. In a Saturday interview with Fox News, Rep. Allen West, R-Fla., one of the most popular politicians to win the support of the Tea Party, explained that his problem with the intervention was about grit, not the Constitution.

“Back two or three weeks ago,” said West, “we could have taken care of this situation if we had done the exact same thing that Ronald Reagan did back in the early ’80s to Muammar Gaddafi, when he dropped the bomb in his back yard. Muammar Gaddafi didn’t say a word for the next 30 years.”

(See here and here for more on Tea Partiers’ view of Libya.) 
In all areas, conservatism demands an allegiance to principle regardless of our affection or disdain for the people and parties involved, and nowhere is that consistency more vital than in matters of war and peace. Heaven knows there’s much to criticize in the way Obama has handled this conflict even beyond his lack of clarity, but conservative critiques won’t do much good without clarity in our own motives.

New on NewsReal – Peter Beinart Spins Walker’s Conservative Victory as a Boon for Obama

Calvin Freiburger budget, conservatism, GOP, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, liberalism, NewsReal, Obama, politics, Scott Walker, unions, Wisconsin

My latest NewsRealBlog post:

If it’s a day ending in “y,” that means it’s time for more crappy political advice from the Daily Beast’s Peter Beinart. Beinart’s kind of a one-trick pony on the subject—I’ve noted before how, no matter the situation, he advises Republicans not to govern like conservatives lest they face certain electoral doom (the right electoral strategy, coincidentally, happens to be to govern exactly like Peter Beinart would). Today, he argues that the Wisconsin GOP’s victory over public-sector unions will ultimately ensure a second term for Barack Obama:

In 2010, Republicans successfully accused Obama of abetting the extremism of Nancy Pelosi. In 2012, Obama will ask Americans if they want a president who abets the extremism of Scott Walker. By so successfully shifting the ideological debate to the right, Republicans have reframed Obama as a man of the center. And by terrifying liberals, they are helping ensure that Obama gets the large Democratic base turnout he needs […]

The 2012 Republican nominee will likely face the same problem. Embracing Scott Walker will alienate independents; rejecting him will alienate the conservative base. Parties usually win elections when their partisans are pragmatic enough to nominate candidates with crossover appeal but desperate enough to turn out for them nonetheless. Today’s GOP isn’t that kind of party. The Democrats, especially after last November, are.

There are two major problems with Beinart’s analysis. First, if one’s stance on public-sector unions is to be our new barometer for “extremism,” comparing Obama and Walker is hardly an open-and-shut case, even on the Left’s own terms—consider that government employees at the federal level can’t collectively bargain over wages or benefits, whereas Walker’s bill still allows some bargaining over wages. Assuming the GOP’s next presidential nominee isn’t totally asleep at the switch (which, admittedly, isn’t all that safe an assumption), he or she will challenge Obama on that very point.

Read the rest on NewsRealBlog.

New on American Thinker – Pro-Abortion Columnist Says Philadelphia’s Dr. Death Thrived Because Abortions Aren’t Available Enough

Calvin Freiburger abortion, abortionists, American Thinker, crime, evil, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, Obama, Planned Parenthood, pro-life
My latest commentary, posted at American Thinker:

Finding a pro-choice spin to the horrific charges against abortionist Kermit Gosnell — “eight counts of murder in the deaths of a patient and seven babies who were born alive and then killed with scissors” — seems like an awfully tall order, but left-wing author Michelle Goldberg is going to give it a try anyway.


Her latest Daily Beast column opens by declaring that if Gosnell “is guilty of even a fraction of the carnage he’s been charged with, he should spend the rest of his life in prison,” but goes on to argue that not only is his office not representative of the average abortion clinic, but that his crimes actually demonstrate why abortion needs to be more widely available, more respected, and even subsidized:
“[T]he difference between this gruesome killing machine and a ‘safe’ clinic is aesthetics, really,” wrote Lori Ziganto in RedState.com. “There is no denying the horror of what was found in this ‘doctor’s’ office. But it happens in every abortion clinic across the land.”


She’s completely wrong. Gosnell’s clinic was in no way representative of most abortion facilities, which is why the country’s largest organization of abortion providers, the National Abortion Federation, refused him membership and testified against him to the grand jury.
That’s nice. But it misses the point, which would have been clear if Goldberg had quoted Ziganto’s next few sentences:
Sticking a scalpel in a baby’s neck in utero has the same result as sticking it in the neck with scissors outside the womb: Death.


In this case, people can visualize the actual babies, as they were horrifically kept in jars and bottles. In “safe” clinics, they are hidden away in haz-mat disposals or chopped up into tiny pieces before being sucked out of their mother’s womb and disposed of like trash. Hidden away, allowing people to blind themselves to what is actually happening. It is easier to remain blissfully ignorant and ignore the fact that a baby is a baby, in utero or out.
The “blood on the floor,” the “stench of urine fill[ing] the air,” the “cat feces on the stairs,” and the “[s]emi-conscious women” waiting “on dirty recliners covered with blood-stained blankets” may be unique horrors, but the other things that make Gosnell’s death den seem worse than a “nice, clean” abortion clinic are morally insignificant. If you’re stabbing a baby’s spinal cord, it doesn’t matter where the baby’s body is located. It doesn’t matter how you store or dispose of the remains. You still killed a child.


(Indeed, back in Illinois, President Barack Obama didn’t see the difference-he thought full-term babies should be equally killable before and after delivery…and if it was after, then their death-starvation-was guaranteed to be even slower.)
 

Reflections on Election Day, and a Look to the Future

Calvin Freiburger 2008, America, conservatism, Democrats, GOP, liberalism, McCain, Obama, RINOs
(This post was written on November 5.)
–
Last night was a disaster for America. Barack Obama—a man whose lack of character and cultural, economic, and foreign-policy liberalism have been so extreme as to force disgruntled conservatives (myself included) into the arms of longtime foe John McCain—is the president-elect of the United States, and he will enjoy expanded majorities in both houses of Congress to pursue his agenda. Michigan voted to legalize medical marijuana and affirm embryonic stem-cell research, and pro-life referendums failed in South Dakota & Colorado (conservatives did win several marriage battles, though). Heck, Jack Murtha was sent back to the House by the same people he called racists just weeks before!
–
With conservatives’ worst fears realized, I should be upset, depressed, or scared out of my mind. But honestly, I don’t feel any of those things today.
–
Don’t get me wrong—I still fear what’ll happen to our liberties, our economy, and the continued deaths of unborn babies, and though I pray I’m wrong, I don’t doubt for a second that we’ll see the first terrorist attack on US soil since September 11, 2001, within Obama’s first term. We’re in for some mighty interesting times.
–
And yet I’m not panicky or bitter. Maybe it’s because the outcome could have been seen coming miles away (really, is anyone surprised?). I remember watching McCain win the GOP primary back in February with an unshakable conviction that I was witnessing Obama’s victory right then & there. Out of the Republican contenders, McCain may not have been the worst choice (that would be Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul, in my opinion), but I’m certain any of them (well, ‘cept the Paulestinian) would have run a better campaign. A few exceptions—like Obama’s scandals with Jeremiah Wright, his unpatriotic wife, and infanticide; McCain’s eye-catching performance at Rick Warren’s Saddleback forum, or the rise of Sarah Palin—gave me hope for a while, but ultimately they couldn’t compensate for the inherent failings of the candidate.
–
Evidently McCain got a whopping 20% of the Hispanic vote (Bush got 40%). Obviously, the gamble to lure moderates & independents to the ticket at the expense of the base worked reeeaaaaaal well, didn’t it?
–
What I’m trying to say is this: last night may have been a victory for liberalism, but (counterintuitive though it may sound) that doesn’t mean it was a failure for conservatism. It wasn’t a principled conservative candidate that Obama defeated, after all. Consider the fact that the same California that voted for Obama 61% to 37% also (narrowly) voted to defend traditional marriage. California, of all places! Seems to me a pretty clear indication that it could only have helped McCain to embrace social issues (I think I can count on one hand the number of times I heard McCain address social issues during the entire race—including when Obama’s support for the most evil extreme of abortion yet came to light).
–
It wasn’t conservatism that soured the American people to the Republican Party over the past 8 years. It was corruption, amnesty, and a White House that refused to reevaluate its Iraq strategy until the electoral winds of 2006 gave it no choice.
–
The Democrats will have tremendous power come January 21, but it’s not a blank check: Congress’ abysmal approval ratings won’t magically rebound overnight, and according to a new Rasmussen poll, voters’ confidence in the outcome of the Iraq War is increasing. If the Dems get too ambitious, they just might find they’re playing with fire.
–
Blaming the American people for not trusting the GOP won’t do any good. Throwing in the towel and proclaiming the twilight of the republic won’t, either. Now’s the time for all of us to be more vigilant than ever—towards both Obama and his pals on Capitol Hill, and our Republican representatives, who (in case they didn’t get the message) need to hear loud and clear that we demand integrity and conservatism.
–
Old Glory’s been in tough spots before, and it’s always darkest just before the dawn. But hang in there; now’s the time to get up, dust ourselves off, and prepare for the next battle.

The State & Marriage

Calvin Freiburger 2008, blogosphere, California, culture, gay marriage, homosexuality, marriage, Obama
Boots & Sabers regular commenter Mr. Pelican Pants has a great explication of the case for traditional marriage on this post about Obama and Proposition 8 in California:
–
1. No one has the “right” to marry anyone – straight, gay, whatever. Marriage is not a right afforded to anyone.
–
2. The institution of marriage is a social tenet and institution to serve one, fundamental purpose: the perpetuation of the human race.
–
3. Marriage, as a legal contract, is sanctioned by the states. Thus, the states should have the ability to decide who may and may not be allowed to be legally recognized as a married couple. Anyone is certainly free to “marry” anyone they want. Just don’t expect the state to officially recognize that marriage.
–
4. Back to point #2 on pro-creation, while gay couples may certainly adopt a child, or use artificial insemination to create a child, the fact remains that, at a minimum, three people are needed to achieve this act of pro-creation. As a society, we believe that no more than two people should be needed.
–
5. Marriage is not about hospital visits, health care benefits, or income tax breaks. Those are not rights, but rather legal side effects that have been created over time to maintain the traditional two-parent, man and woman, marriage. Thus, any gay couple claiming to be denied those rights is on very weak ground, as those are not rights, and as stated previous, marriage is not a right either.
–
Finally, the problem with Obama’s argument is that a. he wants it both ways; and b. he is not properly describing the problem. The reason for the constitutional amendment, as it was here in Wisconsin, was not to “deny people from being with someone they care about”, but rather reaffirming the statutory guidelines for marriage, so a judge can not arbitrarily and unilaterally make a decision of what he/she believes was the intent of the Legislature when the Legislature crafted the statutory marriage language.
–
The people of the state have their interests vested and represented in the appropriate state Legislature. Whether you agree or disagree with gay marriage, the majority of state residents, over a very lengthy period of time, believe that a marriage between one man and one woman is the most appropriate functioning unit to promote the family. Representatives in the Legislature have responded by crafting language that meets that long held belief.
–
But where gray areas may exist in statute, is where many pro-gay marriage individuals make their challenges. Which then leaves a justice of the court in the position of trying to decide what the Legislature meant when those words were crafted.
–
The constitutional amendment is appropriate, as there is generally no dispute or controversy as to what the Legislature intended. In addition, because it requires adoption by the people of the state in a referendum vote, the intent of the people is reaffirmed.
–
The very process of constitutional ratification upholds the sanctity of a democratic society, one which may not be tinkered with by a single, activist justice who believe he/she is in a better position to decide the will of the people.

Major Bush Mistake Endorses Obama

Calvin Freiburger 2008, dishonesty, Iraq, Obama, Powell, RINOs
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell has endorsed Barack Obama for president. Michelle Malkin’s got a great post on just how much Powell’s “thoughtful, independent-minded” decision is worth, to which I would just add one thing: Mr. Powell, Obama claims the White House you worked for “misled” the nation into the Iraq War. Presumably this includes the case you personally presented before the United Nations. How can you, in good conscience, support a man for the presidency who demeans you, your colleagues, and the president you served, especially when you were there, and know better?

Around the Web

Calvin Freiburger 2008, Colmes, Democrats, guns, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, Madison, Michelle Obama, misc, Noonan, Obama, public schools, scandal
Yes, thanks to the ol’ college grindstone, blogging has been, and will probably continue to be, a little on the light side. But I’ll still try to update every now and then.
–
It would appear Barack Obama has executive experience after all—an 8-year stint as director of the Joyce Foundation. David Hardy dissects the organization’s attacks on the Second Amendment during Obama’s tenure.
–
The vile Alan Colmes (who received a well-deserved berating at the hands of Dick Morris the other night) has stumbled across the story of Greg Howard, a Florida middle-school teacher who told his students that Obama’s “Change” tagline was an acronym for “Can you Help a N***** Get Elected.” Howard has betrayed the public trust, is unfit to educate the community’s children, and should be fired. Period. Not that the Left will recognize intellectual consistency, or abandon their double-standards on public-school propagandists.
–
More evidence that Michelle Obama is going to be just a terrific First Lady.
–
Peggy Noonan isn’t sure who she’s voting for. Sorry, Peggy. We’ll have to ask you to turn in your Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy ™ membership card and decoder ring.
–
The UW Madison Marching Band “has been suspended while allegations of hazing, alcohol abuse and sexual misconduct are investigated.” I did competitive marching band in high school, and almost went to Madison. While I miss marching, I’m gladder than ever that I chose Hillsdale instead.
–
Guess the Obamas knew Bill Ayers a little better than they claimed (just don’t tell anyone about it. What are you, a racist?).

Just Once

Calvin Freiburger 2008, blogosphere, Chuck Currie, debate, Democrats, dishonesty, evil, feldstein, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, infanticide, Obama, pro-life
Just once in life, I’d like to see a liberal admit he’s wrong when he loses an argument—especially on an issue on which the truth and the humane position are not ambiguous.
–
Although, I suppose it’s not as atrocious as ignoring the issue altogether.
–
UPDATE: Yup, if you’re looking for integrity from Scott, you’ve come to the wrong place. He’ll preen all day long demanding others distance themselves from their candidate’s lies. His guy? Not so much. Just another day in the life of a cheap shill, I guess.

Biden?

Calvin Freiburger 2008, Bayh, Biden, Democrats, good news, GOP, Hillary, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, Jindal, McCain, Obama, Palin, Pawlenty, Richardson, romney, scandal, Sebelius, stupidity, VP
Seriously? He chose Biden?!
–
Joe Biden is recognized as having a fair amount of foreign policy experience, which was very probably the main reason Barack Obama picked him, but Bill Richardson has a more-than comparable resume (UN Ambassador, Energy Secretary, Governor), plus is Hispanic and, most importantly, doesn’t have a reputation for being a walking embarrassment dispenser.
–
I mean, good grief! Mere days after the announcement, and even the most casual scan of the blogosphere (most of these stories were found on Hot Air alone) have provided a treasure trove of ready-made opposition research. Apparent conflicts of interest, lobbyist issues, a casual acquaintance with the truth, arrogance issues all his own (those should nicely complement Obama’s preexisting problems on that front, eh?), contempt for the concerns of gun owners, some, uh, interesting praise for his own running mate…oh, and did I mention his foreign policy credentials are vastly overrated? How ‘bout issues with speech worthy of the Left’s number-one boogeyman, George W. Bush? Or maybe apparent confusion about who he actually thinks would be the better president? And then, of course, we can’t forget the plagiarism thing…
–
Just imagine what goodies we’ll discover once they start trying. Not to mention the brand-new blunders in store on the campaign trail.
–
Sure, Richardson is a fairly-unremarkable lefty, and I’m sure he’s got a skeleton or two in his closet, but I can’t imagine this much crap would have come out this soon. As a minority candidate, Obama probably doesn’t have to worry too much about the Hispanic vote, but Richardson’s race would have to have been worth at least a few points, and again, he’s arguably got a more impressive resume than Biden.
–
Tim Kaine and Evan Bayh probably wouldn’t have brought much to the ticket, but (assuming Team Obama doesn’t have the exclusive scoop on some juicy info) nor would they be constant sources of stress for the campaign. Kathleen Sebelius, as a female Democrat who isn’t Hillary Clinton, would have been asking for trouble. And Hillary? It’s a pretty safe bet she and Barack hate each other’s guts.
–
Obama’s been fumbling big-time lately, with a crappy performance at Saddleback, his disgraceful support of infanticide returning to haunt him, and now this, coupled with John McCain’s surprisingly-excellent (even conservative!) Saddleback showing and a willingness to hit The One where it hurts, and I’m optimistic about this election for the first time since Mitt Romney dropped out.
–
Now it’s especially important that McCain not squander his momentum with a bad VP pick of his own (that means you, Tom Ridge and Joe Lieberman—now is not the year of the pro-choicer). I find Tim Pawlenty unremarkable, but he’d be a fairly safe choice. Bobby Jindal can fire up the stump, but I still think he needs time to build experience (and atone for this profile in courage).
–
My choice would either be Mitt Romney (surprise!) or Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Romney has framed himself firmly to McCain’s right, has abundant economic expertise, and has proven himself an aggressive campaigner and an excellent debater. It can be said that Palin should have more experience, sure, but she’s been a successful and conservative governor, and, of course, is a woman, which could make for a mighty interesting election, what with all these disgruntled Hillary supporters running around (granted, this may smack of identity politics, but there’s no reason not to see race or sex as a selling point, provided—and this is the key—that you’re not doing so at the expense of qualification or principles).
–
Come on, John. As much as I hate to say it, I’ve seen and accepted the need to support you. Don’t let us down.