The Left Loathes the Military

Now, I would never consider questioning the patriotism of the Left. They might oppose the war, but they support the troops, right?

Hmmm.

Consider the following story from the Contra Costa Press.

Berkeley Council Tells Marines to Leave

"Hey-hey, ho-ho, the Marines in Berkeley have got to go.

That's the message from the Berkeley City Council, which voted 8-1 Tuesday night to tell the U.S. Marines that its Shattuck Avenue recruiting station "is not welcome in the city, and if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders."

In addition, the council voted to explore enforcing its law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation against the Marines because of the military's don't ask, don't tell policy. And it officially encouraged the women's peace group Code Pink to impede the work of the Marines in the city by protesting in front of the station.

In a separate item, the council voted 8-1 to give Code Pink a designated parking space in front of the recruiting station once a week for six months and a free sound permit for protesting once a week from noon to 4 p.m.

The Marines have been in Berkeley for a little more than a year, having moved from Alameda in December of 2006. For about the past four months, Code Pink has been protesting in front of the station.

"I believe in the Code Pink cause. The Marines don't belong here, they shouldn't have come here, and they should leave," said Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates after votes were cast.

Now, were this simply one aberrant incidence of a small faction of the loony toons, nutcase Left demonstrating its true colors, one might let it pass. Berkeley, after all, boasts a quasi-Soviet political culture, well to the left of, say, Cuba.

But this is not some isolated case. It’s part and parcel of a pervasive, anti-military – and, it seems, profoundly anti-American – attitude endemic on the Left, even in its more "mainstream" manifestations.

Consider, for instance, the ACLU. In numerous cases, that august defender of the rights of the downtrodden has taken to opposing military recruiting efforts among students. (Apparently, it’s somehow worse to receive information from the military than to be buried under a deluge of college solicitations) The NYCLU even sued, contending that the military outrageously collected information about students’ gender and ethnicity. This is truly news, as the Left routinely demands that everyone engage in ethnic/gender beancounting. All over the country, the various ACLU affiliates display active hostility to military recruiting and offer advice on how to counteract it.

Our own NJCLU complains that the military has targeted "poor students and students of color". This might be a first: the ACLU opposing opportunity for the poor and minorities.

Oh, the horror!! Students subjected to recruiting by the military and offered the chance to (gasp!) DEFEND THE COUNTRY!! Can’t have that. The poor bairns might not comprehend that, in a time of war (or, indeed, in times of peace), soldiers sometimes get hurt.

Apparently, the Left regards the very idea of recruiting by the military as problematic. The ACLU offers advice on how parents might protect their impressionable youngsters from even so much as hearing from the military.

Then, of course, should the military miss a recruiting quota, the Left is all over it, lamenting how the standards have declined, etc.

I venture a small wager that few, if any, Members of the Berkeley City Counsel ever served in the armed forces. Ditto the leadership of the ACLU. Not that such is necessarily dispositive; many folks coming of age after 1974 or so lack that experience. But most of us profoundly respect the military and understand the necessity of its mission. Most of us would be profoundly honored, and extremely proud, if one of our children chose to enlist. Not the Left. Apparently, the ACLU believes that legal process suffices against our enemies, that faced with an injunction, armed aggressors would meekly run off to seek counsel.

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should immediately be asked to specifically repudiate both the ACLU and the actions of wacky Leftists like the Berkeley City Council. If they can’t find it in their hearts to condemn the actions of those who refer to the military as "uninvited and unwelcome intruders", they have no business serving as Commander in Chief.

Romney for Pres

The depth of the Republican Presidential field puts into stark relief the lack of same in the Democratic Party. Not in recent memory have the front runners for a major Party’s presidential nomination been so singularly unaccomplished. Neither of these candidates would have gotten past the vanity candidacy stage were she not a woman and he not black, as rarely have two serious candidates boasted such thin resumes.

While "experience" tends to be somewhat overplayed in political races, between them these two candidates boast a total of roughly 1 year’s executive experience: Hillary’s term as President of her class at Wellesley. Neither candidate brings extensive political or business experience to the table, either (Hillary’s business dealings are things she’d rather people forget). Neither of these candidates boasts sufficient governmental seniority to warrant chairing a New Jersey Assembly committee, yet the Dems intend to nominate one of them for the nation’s highest office.

Wholly leaving aside their astonishing lack of actual governmental service, the politics of these two Democratic candidates should terrify rationale Americans, let alone anyone from New Jersey. Economically, each considers New Jersey residents seriously undertaxed, and vows to correct that problem as his/her first order of business. Give Hillary some points for (probably inadvertent) honesty; she expressly promises "to take things away" from "rich" taxpayers – that is, people who live in New Jersey – to spend on Big Government. Obama finesses the issue somewhat, but as NJ residents (should) understand, Democrats simply cannot be trusted on fiscal matters.

Both Democrats practice the destructive politics of identity and the idiotic politics of envy. To them, ancestry or sex matters; in their group-think mentality, that which comes before the hyphen trumps that which follows it. (Some Democratic sites actually debated whether Obama is actually "black", because his father was really an African, averring that only the descendants of west African slaves can properly lay claim to that descriptive) And each promises to redistribute the existing economic pie rather than making the slightest attempt to increase its size. New Jersey taxpayers should run screaming into the night before supporting either.

Indeed, the best qualified Democrat candidates – by far – were Bill Richardson and Joe Biden, but neither of them satisfied the loopy Moveon Left, which refuses to permit mere qualifications to enter into the discussion.

While the Democrats decide between two raw rookies, Republicans face truly difficult choices among candidates with vast experience, running on what they believe rather than on accidents of birth.

The MSM considers Ron Paul flaky, but his no-nonsense advocacy for small, limited, constitutional government resounds with many voters. While a tad too isolationist for my tastes, who can doubt that America would be freer and more prosperous with Ron Paul guarding the pursestrings and venerating the Constitution?

Mayor Giuliani offers a wealth of executive experience; he understands how to actually run a government. And while his statements on matters economic have been mostly exemplary, he continues to trouble many social conservatives – justifiably so. His vision for American liberty includes some aspects that many Americans find deeply problematic.

Ditto John McCain. Unquestionably the candidate with the best understanding of national security matters – and one who paid a huge personal price to defend America’s freedom – he deserves exemplary marks for his refusal to bow to the politically correct – and, apparently, popular – view on the Iraq war, even if that cost him his election. That kind of principle is rare in government, and completely absent from any top Democrat.

But while he’s come around somewhat lately, his economic instincts have been often wrong, and his willingness to restrict political speech is deeply troubling. Of even greater concern is his immigration policy, which places insufficient emphasis on showing those who break the law the exit door. And, of course, McCain lacks any executive experience.

That leaves Mitt Romney. Romney served as Governor of Massachusetts, a fairly substantial state, and, with caveats, served it well. His economic policies focus on growth, including tax reform, tax cuts, spending cuts and restraint, and regulatory reform. His energy plan unabashedly uses the word "nuclear" – essential for anyone who even wishes to think about energy independence (let alone anyone with a concern about global warming). He’s decent on immigration, and would reorient federal education policy toward kids and away from systems, promoting greater parental freedom. While his social views once mirrored those of his Massachusetts constituents, he seems to have sincerely matured over time (cf Bush pere, Ronald Reagan, etc.) and now advances views well within the conservative mainstream.

Romney also brings a wealth of real-world economic experience, having succeeded in business as well as in the not-for-profits sphere. Unlike either of th Democratic frontrunners, he understands how to run a government. He will appoint judges to read the constitution rather than make it up as they go along; NJ residents know all too well the baleful results of a judiciary run amok.

Put simply, Romney brings the best combination of philosophy and experience to the table. While any of the remaining Republican candidates stands head and shoulders above the socialist beginners the Democrats are considering, Romney represents the best of many good choices. He deserves to be the Republican nominee, and the next president.

The Lost Cause (Wait ... Didn't We Win?)

While I always read BlueJersey.com, I approach it strictly for entertainment. Somewhat akin to The New York Times editorial page, it should be read for comic relief: do people, allegedly intelligent, really believe such things? (I was going to write "think like that", but, obviously, thought rarely enters into the exercise). I make such observations not to stoop to their level of gratuitously insulting their political adversaries, but to – yet again – lament the fact that most leftists (certainly those with access to computer keyboards) betray an astonishing lack civility -- or thought -- in political discourse.

Bluejersey’s contributors, apparently incapable of entering into a civil discussion with folks who hold contrary views, routinely resort to ad hominem attacks. Their arguments amount to little more than playground snits, befitting a ten year-old who knows no better, but impossible to credit as the product of any serious thought.

Apparently having nothing better to do with our time, the New Jersey Assembly intends to address a resolution officially apologizing for its role in slavery.

Now, normally, the mere fact that a resolution is profoundly silly merits little attention; much of what we do, alas, is profoundly silly. As a student of history, I strongly encourage its study. Although I get nervous around people with "causes", who nurse historic grievances for political purposes, I supported the formation of the Amistad Commission and profoundly wish that more people read ante-bellum history. Perhaps, if they did, they would discover the calamitous consequences when government attaches importance to race. Perhaps, if they did, they would understand the horrifying consequences of writing an entire group of people out of humanity, because you find them inconvenient.

But this resolution is not merely silly; it’s pernicious, for precisely the reasons that the Sponsor asserts it should pass. He contends that it would "give comfort" to Black people.

Oh? And why is that? Not a single one of them spent a minute in chains. In all likelihood, neither did their great-great-grandparents. (Depending upon which source one believes, the last former slave died in 1979 at the age of 137) Furthermore, not a single bondsman remains alive. If any present resident of New Jersey feels entitled to an apology, the possibility of securing one from any guilty party probably evaporated more than a century ago.

No one can "apologize" for history; we simply acknowledge it and study it for the lessons it might offer. This resolution is clearly aimed at nursing a sense of historic grievance, designed to support an agenda of racial victimization. Otherwise, it makes no sense to bother with it.

But, onto the merits of BlueJersey’s comments. I stand accused of "perversely racist" commentary because I averred that if slavery was the price one’s ancestors needed to pay to make one an American, one should be grateful they paid it. Had they not been dragged here against their wills, with the result that one would not be an American, that would be a personal calamity. Whatever price my ancestors paid – starvation, oppression, privation, discrimination – and, as Irish immigrants in the 1850s, they faced all of that, I’m happy they endured it. Not because it was desirable for them to do so, or that it was in any way justifiable, but because their confronting and overcoming evil gave me the chance to be an American. From my perspective, whatever they needed to endure to make me an American was worth the price they paid.

But, alas, apparently this argument passed over the heads of the BlueJersey folks. Invective represents their typical fare. Unable to meet the substance of an argument, they resort to insult. For the Left, charges of racism represent the first refuge of the scoundrel.

But let’s take Mr. Melli – a somewhat more sober commentator – at his word, and take the continuing enterprise theory of liability seriously. That is, NJ government took execrable actions and, as the successors of those who so acted, we, presently, should express remorse.

Government acts only through representatives and those representatives usually belong to a political party. NJ, from the ante-bellum period through the Civil War years, was, as today, reliably Blue. We have a word to describe the people who made those horrible policies: DEMOCRATS. Democrats were wholehearted and vociferous advocates of slavery and even attempted to undermine the abolition motivation of the war as late as 1864. Despite this shameful history, an internet search fails to reveal that the DNC or the Democratic State Committee ever officially apologized. Perhaps they should put their own house in order first.

As one correspondent pointed out when I raised that point, the parties are different today. Just so. It’s highly unlikely that Assemblyman Payne – or any Democrat – could be considered soft on slavery. Obviously, the Republican Party, founded on the principle of abolition, and consistently opposed to drawing any distinctions whatsoever based upon race, need offer no apology. So, precisely who would be offering the apology, and to whom would it be directed? Just as the parties are different, so, too, is the government.

Melli’s Galileo/Catholic Church analogy avails him not. From what I can gather, no Galileo family, nursing ancient grudges and muttering about "reparations" from the Church, exists. Were this proposal nothing more than a harmless, albeit frivolous, exercise, it would pass unremarked, no more substantively troubling than (say) a St. Patrick’s Day resolution.

But this resolution is NOT harmless. Instead, it panders to and encourages an unfortunate sense of racial oppression, encourages wholly inappropriate anger over historic grievances. Far from "comforting" anyone, it would simply encourage that culture of victimization. Indeed, it’s not much removed from the proposal in Congress – co-sponsored by Assemblyman Payne’s brother – setting up a commission to study whether the descendants of slaves are entitled to "reparations". If, after all, government is a "continuing enterprise" and, hence, should properly "apologize" – today – for historic wrongs, should it not also make recompense? Said Commission is expressly empowered to consider whether "... any form of compensation to the descendants of African slaves is warranted."

Were such a commission ever formed, is there even the slightest doubt about the results at which it would arrive? Akin to the Death Penalty Study Commission here in NJ, it would be rigged from the start to arrive at the Politically Correct result.

No one alive today owes anyone else alive today anything for events 150 years removed from the present. Those events are HISTORY; no one alive today possesses the slightest right to take them personally. To the extent that America or NJ owed an "apology" for slavery, the 650,000 Federal soldiers who bled in a war fought to end slavery paid that debt in full. New Jersey contributed 52 regiments to that fight. That service, and that blood, conveys more remorse than any politically contrived "apology" 143 years after the final chains were broken.