Archive for October, 2009

Outfoxing Obama

Wednesday, October 21st, 2009

Keeping A Safe Watch: 9/10 and The Age of Obama

Tuesday, October 20th, 2009

Holly Carter: This Week’s American Maggie

Tuesday, October 20th, 2009

1.  Why are you a conservative?

Growing up in a conservative home, I was taught the principles of conservative values—faith, personal responsibility, limited government, the centrality of the family, and the great blessing of being an American. However, it was not until college and starting the Network of enlightened Women (NeW) that I finally began to explore more deeply the meaning of conservatism.

When I started NeW, I realized my vague understanding of conservatism, its history, and its core principles. I realized I needed a better grasp of my beliefs, so I bought Russell Kirk’s The Conservative Mind, and immediately my eyes were opened to the meaning of conservatism, its rich history, and its important modern implication. I then read F.A. Hayek’s Road to Serfdom, and I was convinced of the need for a free market society. I realized that I was a conservative not because my parents were, but because I believed strongly in the foundational components of the ideology.

My conservative ideology rests upon my understanding of man’s human nature as flawed. Both fiscal and social conservatism are built on this knowledge.  I believe in personal initiative, competition, and personal responsibility.  Particularly as a conservative woman, I see the important distinction between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome, and the need for our laws to respect the biological differences between men and women.  My cultural views are built upon the ideals this country was founded upon: the family, the protection of life, and the importance of faith and values.

2.  When and why did you become interested in politics?

My family was always politically aware, so I couldn’t help but pay attention to the news and the political discussions at the dinner table.  However, I became increasingly interested in politics when I began the NeW chapter at the University of Florida.  Leading a group of culturally conservative women, I realized I needed a better understanding current events and issues, so I started paying attention on my own—reading the news, listening to political speeches, and even gearing my class schedule to allow for political enlightenment.

I recognized the important need for all Americans to be involved in the political process to some extent, whether it was running for office, working in public policy, or simply being an active and informed voter. During my internship at The Heritage Foundation in the summer of 2008, my love for politics grew when I realized I could influence the political process outside of simply running for office.  I saw the importance of working for a cause I deeply believed in, and this is what ultimately led me to work for NeW.

3.  What inspired you to start NeW – the Network for enlightened Women – at the University of Florida?

My dad heard about NeW when Karin Agness was on a radio show in 2006.  By the time he came home, he was so excited about me starting a NeW chapter at UF that he had all but signed me up.  I was hesitant to start an organization on campus, knowing my own feelings of political inadequacy and the liberal presence on campus.  But my dad, in his wisdom, encouraged me that the point was for culturally conservative women just like me to have an opportunity to come together and learn about the issues affecting them most. It wasn’t the knowledge we brought with us, he told me, but what we learned together.

I knew he was right, and NeW was the answer.  I was excited about the opportunity to meet women like me—women who were conservative by upbringing but desiring an outlet on the college campus to formulate their beliefs more strongly.  I had never before had a place on campus to talk about the political and cultural issues facing women, and NeW would provide that.

Looking back, my dad was more than right.  NeW provided and is still providing a forum for women at the University of Florida that encourages intellectual diversity, fosters education, and promotes the values of cultural conservatism.  Women can come together and talk about the issues affecting them, like the hookup culture and single-minded careerism, and be encouraged that others want to live by the same values.

4.  Can you comment on NeW’s significant growth over the past 5 years?

NeW started at UVA as one book club and has since spread to over 15 college campuses. Its growth is largely due to two things: the initiative and perseverance of Karin Agness and the void left on college campuses by second-wave feminism.

Karin knew culturally conservative women at the University of Virginia were not being heard, so she did something about it by starting NeW.  The book club format facilitated discussion about issues that women cared about from a perspective that was different from feminism. When others took notice and asked if they could start chapters, Karin worked to implement a system where chapters could be easily started on campuses across the country.  She worked for nearly five years with a limited budget while an undergraduate and law student to expand NeW to a national organization.

Karin is often asked why NeW has been so successful, and I think she wisely understands that no other organization has been singularly devoted to culturally conservative college women.  By addressing issues like the hook-up culture and single-minded careerism, NeW strikes a balance and appeals to a majority of women.  NeW recognizes the empty claims of feminism and provides a positive response. NeW is a woman’s organization that encourages women in their individual spheres to hold true to their values and to pursue their passions—something that many modern campus women’s groups simply do not.

5.  Do you think NeW’s growth across college campuses over the past 5 years is symbolic of a broader movement among women? If so, why?

NeW’s growth is symbolic of American women’s shifting away from second wave feminism. I see this on both a national level and on the campus level.

Despite having more choices than ever before, women’s happiness has declined over the last 35 years. Women are waking up and recognizing that the claims of second wave feminism have proved empty.  Most women do not find happiness solely in a career and are negatively affected by a casual attitude towards sex.  NeW has found that so many young women want to talk about these issues.

One such example of the trend of women moving towards cultural conservatism can be evidenced at my alma mater.  At the University of Florida, the NeW has grown to an active gathering of 30 women at each meeting. They host speakers, perform service projects, and have become a strong network of culturally conservative women.  In contrast, the National Organization for Women campus chapter at UF, one of the first in the country with a long history of activism, has recently dissolved. This is one example of a greater national trend of women moving away from feminist ideologies of sexual liberation, single-minded careerism, and gender neutrality to a more culturally conservative worldview.

6.  Who are your mentors and why?

As a past chapter president, I worked closely with Karin Agness. Her dedication to NeW, young women, and the fostering of cultural conservatism daily inspires me.  Karin’s own life is a great example of what one looks like when they embrace who they are as a woman. She has pursued her dream of becoming a lawyer, as she recently graduated from the University of Virginia School of Law. Yet as ambitious as she is, she does not adhere to the current feminist school of thought.  Never once has she embraced the victimhood mentality that so many women currently hide behind, but she takes pride in her femininity.  She has worked incredibly hard in school and beyond, all the while maintaining her values and fighting for them.

As well during my summer internship at The Heritage Foundation, I was privileged to meet and get to know incredible female leaders in this country, many of whom receive far less credit than they deserve for the advances they are making.  I had the privilege of working for Bridgett Wagner and Becky Norton Dunlop, two women who have done incredible things for the conservative movement and mentor young leaders every day.  As an intern, both of these women treated me as a valuable part of their team.  I had the opportunity to meet with them, hear about their stories, and see why they felt so strongly about working for the conservative movement.

Also during my internship, I was mentored by Rebecca Hagelin, a champion of the pro-family movement. What struck me most about her success was how she had consistently put her family first, despite working with dedication for the conservative movement for over 20 years.

7.  Who do you believe is the most inspiring group in politics today?

Conservative women have an important role to play in politics today.  Women have an opportunity to rise up and fight for the causes that many are simply ignoring.  I have seen so many women both in office and out of office championing bravely the fundamental values our nation was founded upon.  As a young woman, I believe my generation has a chance to be a key player in upcoming elections and policy debates.  I have seen through my involvement with NeW, that many young women have something to say and want to be heard. I hope conservative women today will fight with the same integrity and principle as the women that Phyllis Schlafly inspired in the Equal Rights debate.

8.  What is the book that you would recommend every conservative woman should read?

Donald Critchlow’s biography Phyllis Schlafly and Grassroots Conservatism revolutionized how I viewed the role of conservative women in the political process.  Phyllis Schlafly inspired thousands of traditional housewives, many who were not educated, to lobby against the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in the 1970’s and early 1980’s. She opposed the measure on the grounds that it would disrupt family institutions and traditional gender roles, while simultaneously expanding the role of the federal government.

What I find most compelling about Schlafly and her leadership is that she appealed to these women on the basis of their common identity and encouraged these women to embrace their femininity and their traditional values.  These housewives worked tirelessly to stop the Equal Rights Amendment from being added to the US Constitution. How did they do it? Quite simply and very traditionally: with hospitality.  They would take homemade bread and baked goods to their legislators while they lobbied against the ERA.  They were ultimately successful in convincing legislators of the negative implications of the ERA for American families. I believe Schlafly’s counter to the ERA laid the groundwork for future generations of conservative women to embrace their values while simultaneously fighting actively for conservative principles.

9.  What is the best advice you’ve ever received and that you would pass along to other conservative women?

When I worked for Becky Norton Dunlop, she daily encouraged her interns to “be principled.”  As conservative women, we should seek to live up to this challenge.  As women, we should embrace the principle of being feminine.  As we all affect our various spheres of influence—the political realm, the home, the corporate world, the office, or the classroom—we should encourage one another to pursue our passions.  We have all been gifted in different ways, and whatever way we choose to serve, we should be governed by the principles of hard work, honesty, and service.

As conservatives, we ought to live out the principles we espouse—the values of personal responsibility, faith, the family, and moral integrity.  We should take great comfort in living by principles that existed long before we were born.  These principles should challenge us daily to live with attitudes that extend beyond ourselves.

10.  Can you tell us the most inspiring moment or story you’ve experienced since starting NeW?

For me, every moment of my involvement of NeW has been inspiring—my own political growth, the success stories of individual conservative women across the country, and the growth of NeW on the national level.  However, I think I’ve been most inspired to see how NeW at the University of Florida has grown.

I say this not as any credit of my own, because as many can attest, I felt very inadequate in starting an organization on campus. So NeW at the University of Florida was not so much an outgrowth of my efforts but of those around me.  I was blessed with several key factors: good friends to start the chapter with and encourage me in the process, parents who wisely saw how great this opportunity was, and Karin Agness to provide the framework for this group.

I felt alone at UF during my freshman year. I could not challenge the statements of my liberal professors or classmates for fear they would attack my arguments. I stayed quiet and contributed to the silent majority on campus.  NeW provided a forum for so many women like me to articulate their viewpoints and take that knowledge back to the classroom.

Over three years, NeW has grown to 30 members at UF.  All of the founders have graduated, but the chapter continues to grow and thrive. This is a great testimony to the mission of NeW: fostering the education and leadership of culturally conservative women and filling a void on campus.  Women have an opportunity to come together and talk about the issues affecting them from a perspective not offered on the college campus. And daily, I hear similar success stories from NeW chapters across the country. True enlightenment is inspiring.

Humpty Dumpty Health Reform

Tuesday, October 20th, 2009

Obama’s Dumb War on FOX News

Tuesday, October 20th, 2009

Memo to Anita Dunn: Mao Would Have Had Mother Teresa Shot

Monday, October 19th, 2009

It’s difficult to decide what is most revolting about White House Communications Director Anita Dunn’s coupling of Mao Tse-Tung and Mother Teresa as her “two favorite political philosophers.” Was it Ms. Dunn’s cheap tactic of using such an obnoxious juxtaposition? Or was it the way in which Dunn’s manipulation of words seemed to degrade the memory of Mother Teresa?

Dunn now claims to have intended “irony” in citing Mao—an irony obviously absent to anyone who has seen her speech. Combining the respected with the repulsive is a technique that hearkens back to Saul Alinsky, who would use such methods to overcome resistance to unpopular ideas. Could it be that Dunn sought to put the discredited ideas of Mao (for example, change through force without regard to rules or political boundaries) in the same league with those of a much admired modern day saint? Wittingly or not, Dunn’s speech also attempted to redefine Mother Teresa and what she stood for.

Dunn says her main point was just to look at finding creative ways to achieve big things, like, for example . . . hmmm . . . like taking over a big country. Hence, her use of a Mao misquote: “You fight your war and I’ll fight mine.” Actually, the closest Mao quote is something akin to “If you can win, you fight. If you cannot win, you don’t fight.”

But whether you quote or misquote Mao, there is nothing new here. In fact, Mao’s philosophy is old and status quo and all about centralized control: “Political power comes from the barrel of a gun.” That’s all. And, of course he acted on it millions of times—about 70 million times– after he “took over China against all odds” as Ms. Dunn so approvingly stated.

The truly revolutionary philosophy – or way of life — in human history is the One followed by Mother Teresa: to see Christ in every human being, to take care of others one by one, and to expect nothing in return for doing so. Thus, Mother Teresa began her ministry by tending to any abandoned individual in her path. She picked up the near dead – whose rotting flesh sometimes stuck to the streets of Calcutta — just so that they could live their last hours in a clean bed and experience the love of someone unconditionally ministering to their needs.

Of course, this sort of behavior is considered the height of bourgeois subversion by central planners, and described by Mao himself as “an extremely bad tendency.” Naturally, Mao would have had the likes of Mother Teresa taken out and shot. In response, the likes of Mother Teresa would forgive Mao and his executioners as they did so.

Dunn never mentioned anything substantive in what she erroneously terms the “political philosophy” of Mother Teresa. Instead, she tried to match a line about Mao fighting his own war with Mother Teresa’s advice to an “affluent” young person who just wanted to help out in Calcutta. According to Dunn, we are to believe that Mother Teresa told the woman in so many words to simply “go find your own Calcutta!” As in: make your own choices, find your own unique path for yourself, be creative, etc.

In fact, Dunn’s interpretation greatly distorts Mother Teresa’s advice to anyone who would wish to help on a global scale. Here is Mother Teresa’s prescription for a better world:

First, serve your own immediate and extended family. Focus on the needs right in your own home.

Second, once you have done the work God has given you to do in your own family, look in the community just outside your home to serve the needs there.

Third, only after you have done what you can to serve the needs of your family and community – in that specific order and thoroughly — should you venture away to shift your focus to a global scale.

This – not Dunn’s crass and misleading attribution – is the heart of Mother Teresa’s position on truly effective means to achieve real social and economic justice. The truth Dunn attacks through her manipulative words and omissions is this: that charity must always begin at home.

******

Stella Sophia is a writer from Maryland.

Behind Closed Doors: Health Care Reform

Monday, October 19th, 2009

Many individuals have argued the topic of health care reform on the basis of party lines. However, a recent article published in the Washington Post highlights a new argument in the current debate: following through with one’s promises.

During Obama’s campaign for the White House, he stressed the importance of a transparent government. Today it appears that he has retracted such a commitment. As the debate on health care reform progresses we are seeing the renunciation of more and more assurances. The most recent is Obama’s pledge to conduct the health care debate in an environment that is open to the public. One may argue that there is a multitude of open dispute on the issue. Yet, as the Senate vote on the bill draws near, three Democratic lawmakers continue their discussions behind the veil of closed doors.

Senators Reid, Dodd, and Baucus have spent the past week, not in the view of American citizens, but rather in a room with two other senators, deciding the future of Americans. This is not an issue of who is deciding the future of our nation’s health care policy, but rather how politicians are proceeding in the debate. Secretly adjusting the bills to wed opposing arguments is not a democratic form of the legislative process.

As of yet there are no plans to televise the roundtable dialogue on CSPAN, as President Obama once pledged. And while chairmen will continue to regularly brief lawmakers about their arguments, there remains no actual public disclosure of what is concretely said inside the chamber.

The health care bill is a form of legislation that directly affects citizens of our nation. It is not a proposal which has indirect impacts on Americans, but rather, is a measure which has the potential to greatly impact our generation and generations to come. Obama did not have to guarantee constituents complete access to the health care debate. He was not coerced to run his campaign on the pledge of full transparency. However, he did, and for a President who prides himself on fighting for the people of the United States, it only seems justified that he should follow through with his promise.

******

Kathleen Someah previously attended Kenyon College where she studied English and Political Science.  She is currently an intern with a political think tank where she focuses primarily on issues relating to homeland security.

Lindsey Graham’s Blind Bipartisanship

Monday, October 19th, 2009

Think John McCain is the real maverick of the GOP? Think again. The 2008 presidential candidate never co-authored a New York Times op-ed with Sen. John Kerry about the need for climate legislation. But Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has. That’s right. Graham is the new face for bipartisanship and what those on the Hill call “reaching across the aisle.”

 Graham, who recently said in town hall meeting in his home state that he wasn’t going to let the GOP be “hijacked by Ron Paul,” is no stranger to compromising with Democrats on what many of his constituents consider big government legislation and liberal stances. There was his support of amnesty for illegal immigrants (not a popular position in S.C.), his support of TARP, and his public support of Sonia Sotomayor.

 Now, Graham has made it clear that he will support the cap and trade of the Waxman-Markey bill if Democrats include provisions that support nuclear power expansion and off-shore drilling. So what was it that caused the southern Republican to compromise on cap and trade with the Democrat from the north, who is the Senate front man for the bill?

 Graham’s reasoning is simple. For him, curbing carbon emissions to stop global warming goes hand in hand with energy independence and national security. “You can’t look at it in isolation […] What if I took something you agree with, that this country had a lot of resources that need to be explored and extracted, and every barrel of oil that we can find off South Carolina with South Carolina’s permission, and natural gas deposits, make us more energy independent?” said Graham in an interview with the New York Times. “What if you married those two things up? And took some of the revenue from oil and gas exploration and put it toward reducing our carbon dependency?”

 The energy independence argument sounds reasonable enough. The United States sends millions of dollars every day to hostile countries in the Middle East. Who wouldn’t want to find a way to reduce that dependence by exploring U.S. oil reserves? The question now though, is whether a cap and trade bill is the best way to go about bringing that independence.

 According to a recent report in the Wall Street Journal, the Congressional Budget Office doesn’t think so. Testifying before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf warned that a cap and trade bill would force a shift from emissions-intense industries like oil and refining to low-carbon businesses like wind and solar power.

 But the net effect of that, says Elmendorf, is a rise in unemployment, since labor markets “don’t move that fluidly.” That’s not good news when the national unemployment rate is teetering just under 10 percent. According to Elmendorf, the bottom line with the cap and trade bill is that while new jobs might be created for some, that doesn’t mean significant costs won’t be born by people in other industries.

 Elmendorf also pointed out that the Environmental Protection Agency’s estimate of the expansion of nuclear power plants- which is part of Graham’s compromise- is cause for a lot of uncertainty in the success of Waxman-Markey. The EPA’s analysis of the bill assumed 100 new nuclear facilities in the next two decades, but no new power plants have been commissioned in the last twenty years. And even if new nuclear plants are planned, the government only has the authority to guarantee loans for just four. That means that even if Senator Graham pushes really hard for the expansion of nuclear power in the name of national security, the likelihood of that happening anytime soon is slim to none.

 Graham’s efforts to compromise on climate change may be applauded by some, but facts and reality say that his approach is more than a little misguided. As a recent Washington Examiner editorial astutely noted, regardless of what the Democrats agree to in regards to nuclear power and off-shore drilling, that won’t stop the efforts of environmental activists and federal bureaucrats from stalling such action. Meanwhile, the cap and trade bill will “almost immediately begin inflicting devastating economic consequences…”

 The U.S. economy currently depends on carbon-based fuels. No piece of legislation will be able to change that without significant negative consequences like a rise in unemployment, higher prices at the pump, and an increase in household’s electricity bills. Graham would do well to recognize this since the people of South Carolina won’t care if Graham was a champion of bipartisanship if they’re losing jobs while paying $4 a gallon for gas. Perhaps, to borrow a phrase from the other S.C. senator, this will eventually become Graham’s own “waterloo.”

******

Amanda Carey is the Editor of The Tiger Town Observer at Clemson University.  She has previously worked for Robert Novak and has been published in Reason Magazine and The American Spectator.

Drill

Friday, October 16th, 2009

A GOP Agitator Not Named Palin

Friday, October 16th, 2009