Right Blog

2003-01-08T08:20:00.000-08:00

Ideas Have Consequences
By Adam Graham

Most readers on Amazon.com who gave Pat Buchanan’s latest book a negative review dismissed “The Death of the West” as a 21st Century sequel to Mein Kampf, viewing that as superior to responding to Pat Buchanan’s ideas and argument in a serious manner.

Indeed, to many it is simply enough to declare a book racist or politically incorrect rather than facing the facts it presents. Buchanan mentions this tendency several times in the book to simply dismiss those who question the nation’s affirmative action and immigration policies. A well-researched and well thought-out book deserves better than what it has gotten.

Buchanan proceeds in a logical manner from one point to another to explain what he views as the biggest threats to Western civilization. Chapter 1 gives the readers population numbers and UN projections of what the future holds for the Industrialized World which according to UN population figures are shrinking rapidly while the third world grows.

Chapter 2 focuses on the West population decline’s biggest cause: falling birth rates. Buchanan mentioned the increased presence of women, particularly married women, in the workforce which leads many women to delay having children or to have less of them for the decline. In the course of this, the “family wage” was eliminated. It was the belief of society that businesses should pay married men more so that they could support their wife and children. This has since been considered sex discrimination.

Of course, Buchanan’s suggestions will cause many bristle at what they view as pure sexism. The greatest lesson to be learned from Buchanan’s book is that “ideas do have consequences”. One can have a world where men and women work together in the workplace, where the married man makes the exact same wage as the single woman, and where people forego having children or have a seriously small number. However, they’re not going to maintain replacement rates of population growth nor be able to support a strong and healthy Social Security system. Such systems depend on a large growth rate in population, not the tiny increases that we’ve experienced in recent years.

While gender equality laws have promoted the freedom of women to work in the workplace, making the option not only economically viable but also inviting, they’ve limited the freedom of women to choose to stay home with their children by barring their husbands’ employers from even considering their marital status and economic situation in paying their salaries and making the decision to stay home hard if not impossible for any family.

In Chapter 3, Buchanan discusses the ideological roots of America’s cultural revolution, and in Chapter 4, its key players. Chapter 5 provides a key overview of Ethnic tensions and migrations that threaten Europe. In Chapter 6, he turns to America and the country’s growing Chicano population.

While many of Buchanan’s controversial quotes about Mexican immigration made it into press, but this one somehow hasn’t. Buchanan writes, “…any man, woman, or child from any continent, (sic) can be a good American.”

Buchanan’s problem with the Mexican Immigration is not that he hates Mexicans. Rather, he believes that unlike prior immigrants, most new Mexican immigrants have no interest in assimilating into American society. He describes the average Mexican immigrant as a proud Mexican who has no interest in becoming part of American society but still remains loyal to Mexico.

Chapter 6 is called “La Reconquista” in which Buchanan alleges that Mexicans do want to see Mexico reacquire the US South West from California to Texas. He quotes members of Mexican nationalist groups and a Mexican government official to back-up his claim in addition to a Mexican-American college professor. I’m not certain how many Mexicans really share these ideas. Indeed, the largest organization Buchanan cites has 400 chapters nationwide. Even if each chapter has 100 members, that’s still only 40,000 people. Does this thought really represent the majority of Mexican Americans?

I don’t know and Buchanan doesn’t give us much proof that they do. He does mention one small majority-Mexican town that made Spanish its official language and made helping the border patrol a crime. His theory of Mexicans retaking the Southwest finds its strongest argument in history. He points out how Sam Houston and thousands of other Americans migrated to Texas and then were able to claim the territory as their own.

Much more substantial is the general argument that American society can’t survive if a growing percentage of the population has no respect and in effect detests the people and culture that have made this nation great. Buchanan fears that America will no longer be a melting pot but is set for the Balkanization that many Canadians experience with the French-speaking province of Quebec. Buchanan’s concern is that Mexican immigrants (legal and illegal) are a concentrated population group that thanks to a liberal education establishment and Mexican Nationalism are not being assimilated into American society but rather remaining separate from Americans while obtaining growing political power across the country.

In Chapter 7, Buchanan takes on the war against America’s past and our country’s heroes. While Buchanan does spend time talking about the denigration of Washington and Jefferson and the reduced role of real history-makers in national history, he spends an inordinate amount of time defending the Confederacy. Perhaps, this is because there have been so many attacks on any attempts to honor and remember the Confederate dead of the Civil War.

To take the view that many take, that the entire South hated blacks and that’s why we had the war is idiocy. For most of the South, they weren’t thinking about slavery but rather Southern nationalism. Like it or not, the Confederacy is part of many people’s heritage and to demand that people not be allowed to honor that heritage is absurd. What if a White American were to declare that Blacks should not honor their African heritage because their ancestors committed atrocities. We’d suggest they were short-sighted racists who couldn’t see the evils committed by their own culture, the exact same can be said of those who decry the evils the South committed, in arguing that the Confederate dead and past shouldn’t be honored while forgetting Sherman’s march to the Sea and other Union atrocities.

Buchanan is not a Confederate fanatic as many allege. He believes that both sides in the Civil War should be viewed as heroes (with the exception of General Sherman) as part of our proud American past. Indeed, if Buchanan were a racist who longed for the days of slavery, how do you explain his closing the book with a quote from the abolitionist John Brown?

Chapters 8 and 9 Buchanan explains “the Dechristianizing of America” and presents Nixon’s silent Majority argument for the 21st Century. These chapters are interesting but they’re mostly review for Conservatives who have read books like Bork’s “Slouching Towards Gomorrah”.

In Chapter 10, Buchanan presents his solutions to the problems he’s discussed in Chapters 1-9. I’ll examine each solution and dissect it:

---Amend the Civil Rights Act to allow businesses to pay parents more than single people (including single fathers and mothers).

A good idea. America is a free country and people ought to be free to put their values in place in the workforce. It is a matter of choice on the part of employers as well as employees. Companies that choose to pay their parents more would have an edge in retention of employees. If an employee didn’t like the policy, he or she would be free to work elsewhere.

---Eliminate the Tax Deduction for Day Care and Increase the Federal Tax Credit for children to $3000 per child in order to allow women the choice of staying at home.

---Give Employers Tax Incentives to pay higher wages to parents:

I have a problem with the Income Tax and a problem with using the tax code as a means of social engineering. Lets be clear, though. As long as we have an income tax, social engineering is going to be going on and I would rather see it being used to promote conservative values than those of feminism and the left. Until Americans realize that what we really need is freedom to live our lives without government using a cattle prod to push us towards a certain outcome, we might as well be prodding people in the right direction.

---The Burden of Corporate Taxation should be shifted off family businesses and farms and onto the larger corporations.

This suggestion is part of the reason why many Conservatives ceased to support Buchanan as his leaning towards labor often turn into full-fledged class-warfare rhetoric. To take more from large corporations in the hopes that it will improve the lot of smaller businesses is absurd and goes contrary to proper economic theory. Larger taxes are passed off to consumers and family farms and hurt the Economy in general.

---Legal Immigration should be scaled backed 250,000 per year:

This is common sense and more likely to be accepted than Buchanan’s prior proposal of a 20-year moratorium.

---“The H1-B Visa program, expanded to benefit Silicon Valley, under which 200,000 professional workers are brought in yearly, should be suspended.”

While I’d agree with a scaling back in the program due to economic hardship at this time, this proposal has NOTHING to do with “The Death of the West”. These visitors are immigrants from mostly industrialized countries who are working in the US for a few years. They have nothing to do with anything Buchanan has said in the book but just a protectionist idea included for the heck of it.

---Oppose Amnesty for Illegal Aliens and deport Illegal Aliens

Amnesty is way too costly in terms of the economic price that would be paid and it must of course be opposed. To work to do a mass deportation of illegal immigrants would be hard, but it is necessary and delaying what needs to be done won’t make it any easier. Any deportation is not about racism but the rule of law. If our borders aren’t secure and we merely pardon those who violate them, do our laws really mean anything at all?

---“Immigrant Children Should be Immersed in English”

Absolutely. This is key to assimilation is that we all speak one language. The Bible tells us in the story of the power of Babel that when God wanted to divide a strong and united people, all he did was change their language and then everything fell apart. In addition, English is the language of opportunity and those children who don’t know English will be the ones to suffer in the American economy.

---“The Republican Party’s drive to make Puerto Rico a state should be defeated.” And Puerto Rico should become Independent.

First, I’ve never heard of a serious attempt to make Puerto Rico a state. Sure, there’ve been congressional resolutions on the issue but it always comes back to the same thing, about a quarter of Puerto Ricans want to become a state, about a quarter want Independence and half are happy to remain a Commonwealth. I agree that Puerto Rico shouldn’t be a state and so do 75% of Puerto Ricans, which is why it’ll never happen. However, I don’t think Independence will happen anytime soon either.

---“The US Border Patrol should get the manpower it needs to police our borders”

This would be a costly proposition but the cost of not doing it in increased entitlements to Illegals has been much larger.

---“Businesses that repeatedly hire illegal immigrants…should be prosecuted”

Another good point, if we’re going to have laws, lets try enforcing them and in addition to that lets level penalties for non-compliance. I know these are revolutionary principles but maybe we’re at last ready for them in the 21st Century.

---Any expansion of NAFTA should be opposed

Yes, free trade with Central America has less benefits and more risks than free trade with Canada and Mexico.

To protect American sovereignty, he opposes funding for the IMF and World Bank. He also urged the president to send the Kyoto Protocol and International Criminal Court treaty to the US Senate to be rejected as a sign of America’s defiance. He also says America should get back to bilateral trade agreements and get out of the WTO. He also opposed further expansion of NATO and called for a withdrawl of US forces from Europe and Asia, warning that many empires had collapsed by over-extending themselves as the US has done. I’m not sure I’d go as far as Buchanan did on everything (particularly troop withdrawls from South Korea) but everything else is a good idea.

On politics, Buchanan suggests the GOP abandon what have been fruitless efforts to gain minority support and focus on gaining the support of White voters by advocating a tightening of immigration laws and ending racial preferences and quotas.

I think that if nothing else Buchanan errs strategically in the plan. White voters aren’t concerned about these issues. In addition, GOP attempts heretofore have not been successful because the party has not dedicated itself to explaining how conservative positions and ideas will make their lives better but rather has been based on cheap, “we don’t hate you” rhetoric and tokenism.

Buchanan proposes what many conservatives may find abhorrent due to our law abiding and law-respecting nature that we must encourage and support public officials who take stands against unconstitutional court decisions, citing Judge Ray Moore’s defiance in the state of Alabama. He also urges Congress to use its Constitutionally-given power to circumscribe and limit the jurisdiction of federal courts.

Buchanan proposes the passage of pro-life laws, however the restrictions he proposes are hardly imaginative and have been proposed by leaders for decades.

More interesting is Buchanan’s proposal of the use of boycotts as a weapon in the culture war. Many would point to the failure of Southern Baptist boycott of Disney but Buchanan sees a problem with the Southern Baptist boycott of Disney. Disney is a huge conglomeration that includes ABC, Disney, ESPN. Disney is so big that even those trying to take part in the boycott were probably inadvertently supporting the company one way or another.

Instead Buchanan proposes, “If traditionalists and Republicans would unite, select a single product being advertised on one particularly offensive TV show with weak ratings, and everyone would boycott that one product they could force the advertiser to pull his (sic) ads. Then follow up on the next product until no one is willing to pay the cost of advertising on a TV show so offensive.”

Most of Buchanan’s suggestions are of a more common sort (using initiative and referenda to effect political change, de-funding federally-funded ideological interests such as Planned Parent and returning power to communities and localities). Buchanan’s most superfluous suggestion is holding a national history bee as part of an effort to improve America’s knowledge of American history. I’d point out that we hold an annual geography bee and most kids still can’t locate Iraq on a map.

Having read through Pat Buchanan’s book, I don’t find it racist, nor do I find it hateful. Buchanan’s opponents have slandered a thoughtful book in order to avoid addressing the serious problems Buchanan presents. Leaders can ignore Buchanan’s concerns at this country’s peril. We can put off problems until they become crisises—after all that’s the American way, or we can address them forthrightly.

I personally recommend Buchanan’s book as an insightful examination of the challenges that face conservatives at the start of the twenty-first century.

2002-12-14T19:01:00.000-08:00

A couple thoughts on the Catholic Church. As a married minister, I'm obviously not a huge fan of celibacy.

That said, the Catholic Church is free to make its own determination on this issue. Indeed, one thing that can be observed from the Randall Terry incident is that there is a lack of cross-denominational respect in America. Terry, rightly disciplined by his church in upstate New York, merely joined himself to the Charismatic Episcopal Church which welcomed him in with open arms despite his awful personal conduct.

I view the "ending celibacy requirement" as a simplistic solution to a much larger problem. The first question we must ask ourselves is, "Do we see this same rash of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church worldwide?" The answer is no. Then, if we don't see the same epidemic worldwide, the American Catholic Church's problem isn't celibacy rather it is a cultural problem.

We have seen a huge cultural decline and a growing coldness of many in the Catholic Church. Despite repeated admonitions from the pontiff, American Catholics continue to vote for politicians who are pro-abortion and disregard church teachings on numerous issues of morality. Nancy Pelosi, Edward Kennedy, and Joseph Biden can comfortably call themselves Catholics despite their far positions on the moral issues.

Catholics find themselves involved in a country that is filled with pornography and sexually explicit movies where the homosexual lifestyle is constantly pushed.

Will "ending celibacy" solve such a complex problem? No. We may have forgotten this but all pedophiles are not priests. Some are coaches, teachers, protestant ministers, and camp counsellers. Indeed, a primary reason for becoming involved in the priesthood for many pedophiles is the opportunity to get close to children.

The Catholic Church's problem is not that they have celibacy but that the church at the level of the pew from which every priest comes has suffered an ever-increasing corruption. It must solve its most dire moral problems and seek to revive its members from the point of spiritual death. I agree that Fabian Bruskewicz would be a good choice (isn't he the one who began excommunicating pro-aborts)?

2002-12-14T17:21:00.000-08:00

The Greatest Generation

They’ve all been liars,

Thieves, and murderers,

But don’t you know,

We’re better in the 21st Century,

We’ve got it all figured out,

We’re the most moral,

Most righteous Generation

That has ever been

Columbus slaughtered the Indians,

The Pilgrims held the Salem witch trials,

Washington and Jefferson owned slaves,

America went and fought imperialist wars

Of invasion in Mexico and Cuba,

They persecuted Germans during World War I,

And the Japanese during World War II,

And until the 1960s women and blacks

Were treated as second class citizens

Now we know better,

Our generation is pure and holy,

And those from the past are guilty of

The most horrible sins

That can never be pardoned,

And from their lives and sacrifices

We can learn nothing

As we are holy and perfect

We may eviscerate our unborn children,

But that’s just a matter of choice,

We may stop public prayers,

But that’s just to protect religious freedom,

We may create poverty plantations that

People never escape,

But that’s just to help the poor,

We may trample on the constitution every day,

But we’re just doing what’s best for the country

Future generations will look upon us with

Gratitude for achieving the moral perfection

Of humanity,

Something that no generation before has done.

--Adam Graham

2002-12-14T17:18:00.000-08:00

Firing Squad of the Future

By Adam Graham

The Senate Majority Leader stood in the oval office.

Senator Susan Johnson had dark shadows under her eye. The President looked at her with pity in his eyes. Thirty years of public service had to come to an end. After sixteen years in the house and fourteen in the Senate, she had disqualified herself from political leadership.

"You've got to go," said the president.

"I made a few mistakes when I was younger," she said. "And I was just trying to be nice at Senator Bergin's retirement."

The president snapped.

"Nice!" said the president angrily. "I don't call what you did nice. I call it suicidal! You said that Senator Bergin won your state's primary and that you were proud of it. You said that America would have been better off with Senator Bergin!"

"He's a great man," she said.

"That doesn't matter," said the president. "When this guy was a Democrat, he voted for Clinton for crying out loud! Worst yet, when he was running for President, his primary issue was getting Roe v. Wade reinstated."

"Look," she said. "He's sorry about all that, and since then he's been a great Senator with knowledge on a number of issues."

The president shook his head.

"We both know it doesn't matter," said the president. "All that matters is the media and they refuse to forgive him, no matter how much he repents, nor how much he gives to crisis pregnancy centers. They still won't forgive him for one simple reason. He's a Republican."

"But, I was just paying him a compliment," said Senator Johnson.

"If it were just that," said the president, "it could be forgiven. But Time just uncovered the fact that when you were in college, you were an organizer for a NOW rally."

"I was young," pleaded the senator. "I was raised up in New York. It was what I was taught. I've been good since then."

"No," said the president. "I'm sorry that's not enough for the media. There's no room to understand you or forgive any of your past transgressions. You see in order to be successful in politics, you must have perfect moral insight at all times and instantly rid yourself of any beliefs that may sometime in the future become politically damaging."

"But Democrats get away with this all the time," said the senator.

"Yes, but they have the media on their side so the rules don't apply to them," said the president.

With that the senator left to write her resignation speech.

2002-12-14T17:17:00.000-08:00

How the Lott Falls

I've never been a big fan of Trent Lott. Indeed, the one word that comes to my mind when I think of the Mississippi Senator's four and a half years as Majority Leader is "squandered". Simply put Lott wasted dozens of opportunities and was easily outmanuvered by Slick Willy. Despite my serious and severe problems with Senator Lott, I have to stand up when he is being attacked unfairly as a racist for suggesting that America would be better off if Strom Thurmond had won the 1948 presidential election.

There are a couple of key facts, everyone seems to miss. First, how would America have been different had Thurmond won in 1948 instead of Truman? What great Civil Rights laws were passed during the Truman administration that Strom Thurmond would have prevented? Logically, if Thurmond had won the 1948 presidential election, he would have done most things little different from what Harry Truman had done. American Blacks would be no worse off if Truman'd lost the 1948 election. Period. End of story.

What Lott was talking about was the character of Strom Thurmond and the type of person he was. He wasn't talking about a desire for the reversal of the progress of Civil Rights (which wasn't made in the Truman Administration). Here's a good question for open-minded liberals. Was Thurmond a virulent racist or simply fighting for a principle of States rights? Remember it was this man who was the first employer of Armstrong Williams, the black syndicated talk show host.

Second, Time Magazine has run a nice little hit piece on Lott for his role as a Southern leader of a college fraternity who opposed integration of his fraternity. This attack on Senator Lott is quite interesting as the media is being doubly hypocritical.

First, Lott was little more than a boy who was adhering to cultural norms during the Civil Rights debate. Two democrats, Senators Ernest "Fritz" Hollings (D-SC) and Robert C. Byrd (D-WV) were men. The former raised the Confederate flag over the South Carolina statehouse in defiance of integration while the latter was a member of the Ku Klux Klan. Where's the outrage over these far more egregious transgressions?

The media has also told us that it doesn't matter what our political leaders did in college or while they were young. If Al Gore smoked pot for ten years. Who cares? (non-story). If Bill Clinton dodged the draft, boys will be boys. The only exception to that rule is if you're a Republican.

George Bush was rumored to have used Cocaine. And now Trent Lott held politically incorrect views while in college. These sins are different because they were committed by Republicans.

As I look at the Democratic Party, I see a party that has no moral standing to make it's attacks on the leader of the United States Senate. Trent Lott (who was six years old at the time) may have voted for Strom Thurmond, but each and every Senate Democrat who was serving in 1999 voted to acquit someone that the distinguished Senator Byrd admitted was guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors". They voted for a man who betrayed America's natural security in order to win a second term. They voted for a man who history will repudiate as one of America's worst Presidents.

While we don't know what Strom Thurmond would have done as President, we do know what Bill Clinton did and for that reason every Democrat in the Senate should resign in utter shame.

2002-12-13T23:09:00.000-08:00

At the center of the storm facing the Catholic Church in America has been Boston's embattled Archbishop, Bernard Cardinal Law. A couple of days ago, the Pope, after a personal audience with Law, accepted Law's resignation. This was done after Cardinal Law had offered to resign once before in the wake of the shocking and lamentable scandal involving paedophile priests in the Boston Archdiocese, and allegations that Cardinal Law had knowingly sent priests who had been accused of sexual abuse to other parishes, and covered up the allegations. For Cardinal Law's sake, I hope he has made these obvious sins of omission right with God. I have had the pleasure of meeting Cardinal Law a few years ago at the March for Life, and for all his sins and faults, I believe him to be a man of God and a repentant man, and so I believe he has. Like Cardinal Law, I hope that his resignation as Archbishop and imminent replacement will bring about a needed healing of the Church in Boston.

However, as much as I believe those who have abused others, sexually or otherwise, using ecclesiastical protection, should be brought to justice, I also believe certain of these "victims' groups" have an ulterior motive. These groups primarily are using these wretched scandals as a way to push for the liberalisation of the Church. They seek not merely for the abusing clergy to be brought to justice, they also seek to end celibacy. For those of you inclined to agree with that notion who are not Catholic, I should share with you that within the Roman Catholic Church those who wish to abolish the celibacy rule are also the very same ones who would like to ordain women, openly gay men (and lesbian women) and "marry" Sodomites. In short, the liberals are by and large attempting to capitalise on the present scandals not to bring justice to the victims, but to bring what Pope Paul VI called "the smoke of Satan" into the very heart of the Church. If it were up to these people, this bad situation would suddenly be made a million times worse.

The Vatican should appoint someone who is even more conservative than Cardinal Law to replace him. I believe the Holy See is learning that sometimes direct interference in diocesan affairs (something the Pope does not like to do) is sometimes necessary in order to maintain doctrinal and moral conformity in the universal Church. Perhaps the appointment of someone like Bishop Fabian Bruskewicz of Lincoln, Nebraska (a known conservative, a Papal loyalist, and a pro-life champion to the bone) would do much good to strengthen the Church in Boston. If Bruskewicz were appointed, the liberals could no longer complain about someone who would tolerate sexual abuse. They then would return to complaining about someone who would tell them from the pulpit that certain behaviours are sins against the laws of the Ever-Living God.

David Oatney is the Chancellor of Knights of Columbus Council 3724 in Fairborn Ohio, and is the Treasurer of the Greater Dayton Chapter of the Knights of Columbus.

2002-12-13T22:19:00.000-08:00

Well, it would appear that the liberals, unable to get any substantive issue with which they might attack the Republicans, have resorted to something petty, that being the ill-advised comments of Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott this week at a bi-partisan Senate dinner honouring the 100th Birthday of the oldest-serving Senator in U.S. history, retiring Republican Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, in which he stated that "my state voted for Strom Thurmond in 1948, we're proud of it too, and maybe if we had elected him, we wouldn't have some of the problems we have today."

Of course, the NAACP is whining like a greased pig at a county fair, because they point out that Thurmond ran on a segregationist platform. (What Southern politician DIDN'T run on a segregationist platform in those days? I don't see the NAACP whining for Sen. Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) to step down, he was a former member of the Ku Klux Klan.) Instead, the NAACP is calling on Lott to step down. Step down because he said something nice about what of the oldest, longest-serving, and might I say venerable public servants in our nation's history. The important question is not Senator Lott's feelings on segregation, but Strom Thurmond's. If Thurmond is any indication by his own statements, he renounced segregation over 30 years ago, and was continually re-elected to his Senate seat (as a Republican, no less) with large portions of the South Carolina black vote.

If the NAACP's standards are to be applied, my late Grandfather was a racist. He voted in 1948 for Strom Thurmond.

2002-12-13T22:00:00.000-08:00

In regards to Randall Terry, Adam you have opened my eyes, because I was unaware of these unfortunate facts surrounding him and the end of his marriage. Although, I have wondered for some time why it was in pro-life circles in this part of the country I have rarely, if ever, heard Mr. Terry's name mentioned in connection with the pro-life movement. Perhaps this is the reason why. I can't speak for the other leaders of the movement you spoke of, but I do know Father Frank Pavone. Father Pavone would never knowingly give his support to someone who he knew had done something so henous as you report Randall Terry having done in abandoning his own family. My hunch is that Ron Paul is unaware of this as well, because I know Father Pavone would never support a real "Judas" to the pro-family movement, such as it appears Randall Terry has become.

2002-12-04T23:49:00.000-08:00

Questionable Judgment

My wife received a fundraising letter from Conservativepetitions.com and Phil Sheldon. The letter was sent in regards to Randall Terry, the founder of Operation Rescue who recently lost a lawsuit to NOW and the ACLU for his pro-life activism. As they believe that Randall Terry endured the court battle on behalf of the entire pro-life movement that the pro-life movement should restore all that has been taken so that we can "help Randall for the battles that lie ahead".

I have a serious problem with this. The organization that Terry found, Operation Save America (formerly known as Operation Rescue) in February of 2000 released a statement disassociating itself from Mr. Terry and warning Christians against supporting him. The letter, which you can read here was not full of hate or anger but written in a Spirit of true sorrow as Terry had fallen.

Randall Terry has continued to raise funds and ask people for money for his various endeavors while many in the pro-life movement gladly shell out their money to support his causes. What he never makes mention of is the fact that he has divorced his wife without cause and married a former aide. In addition to this, he was censured (i.e. the protestant version of ex-communication) from his church in upstate New York.

Terry called his successor at Operation Save America "a Judas" for revealing what Terry had done. Still many have continued to support him. I donated to Randall Terry's 1998 Congressional Campaign and purchased a copy of his Leadership Institute tapes but I'm not supporting him or his future endeavors.

The problem of this man having any "battles ahead" is obvious. He has no moral authority from which to speak. As Reverend Patrick Mahoney observed, "There is 100 percent agreement in the pro-life community that Randall not be at the lead on any issue that impacts our movement. Our movement is rooted in biblical ethics and morals. He has too much baggage. The issue becomes him."

I have to question the judgment of the people who prepared that letter as well as those who signed it. Randall Terry is a huge hypocrite. This man is supposed to be an advocate for the family but left his wife and family because "the music was gone". See this New York Times Article for more.

The only argument to be made for giving money to Randall Terry is that he has worked and suffered for the pro-life and pro-family movements. Indeed he has. While violating minor laws, Terry was a strong voice for the pro-life movement. Give him credit. He inspired hundreds of people to get off their rear ends and become active in the pro-life movement. While Terry was often extreme and at many times he was extremely wrong, he was a man of principle who fought for his beliefs.

However, lets face reality we're not sending this donation back in time to the plucky, energetic pro-life leader who takes on Jacque Sturges Pornography but rather the conman who has for the past three years downplayed and hidden his profound change in theology and personal character from his supporters, those who would be least likely to accept it.

I don't mean to imply that a divorce or a single personal failure should disqualify one from receiving any support from the public. Indeed, President Reagan himself was divorced, although he didn't initiate it and it wasn't because the music had died. And you can find numerous people to use as examples.

Terry is different than these others for one simple reason. His entire political life and most of his crusades are based on moral issues. I'm not the only one who sees the irony of a divorced man married to someone more than a decade younger than he going to Vermont to save the family from the danger posed by homosexuals. This is not a youthful indiscretion, this is not old news, this is a recent and major lapse of moral judgment for which Mr. Terry remains totally unrepentant.

In a final insult to Cindy Terry and her children, the letter urges the recipients to make out their checks to the Terry Family Trust. If we're honest, we know that the first Terry family was abandoned by their father in 1999.

The men who signed the letter included Alan Keyes, Dr. Frank Pavone, and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tx). I give them the benefit of the doubt. Randall Terry's problems are not common public knowledge and they may have simply reacted to a request for help from a former pro-life leader who has been wrongly robbed by leftist organizations and liberal courts without researching his most recent activities.

However, these men owe us, their constituency, a better effort than that. As leaders, many people depend on their judgment and opinions. Some people may have sent some money to Mr. Terry and if they had known what type of life he's been living the past few years, they would have refused to support this embarrassment to the pro-life community with their hard-earned money.

Adam Graham was the Montana State Coordinator for the Alan Keyes Campaign in the Year 2000.

2002-12-02T22:44:00.000-08:00

How do you know a Politician's lost it? When they start attacking media personalities that oppose them. When the most powerful Democrat in Washington picks a fight with the most listened-to talk show host in America, you know that the Democrats are in trouble.

This also tells us something key about the popularity of President. One reason Rush is a target is Bush is too popular to take on while Dennis Hastert would be difficult to demonize and Trent Lott is extremely obscure to most Americans. Limbaugh is an easy target but a ridiculous one. He doesn't make policy, indeed, he has often opposed administration policies on a number of points.

However, truth or substance doesn't matter to Daschle. He just needs a target, a symbol to unite the Democrats against. This isn't going to work and if in two years, the Democrats are still attacking Rush Limbaugh, they'll be weaker at the national level than they've been in more than 70 years.

2002-12-02T22:37:00.000-08:00

In an ideal world, I'd prefer Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court Chief Justice as well, if for nothing else than for the age issue. Scalia isn't exactly a Spring Chicken. If Thomas took the reins of this court, he could continue in his post a good 20 years. Judge Thomas has said he won't go through another confirmation hearing after his "high tech lynching" in 1991. So I'd probably prefer Justice Scalia over the other possibilities.

I'd like Judge Starr on the court, he's definitely earned it, but appointing Starr is just asking for a Borking.

2002-12-02T13:28:00.000-08:00

One note. I don't mean to sound like I'm not glad that we won. I'm happy to see Tom Daschle on the way out as Majority Leader, but I'm also not putting much stock in our new leadership.

Adam, I'm not saying that now that we've won the election, we should trust the Party Leadership in the House and Senate (or the White House) in an unwitting way. Indeed, my level of trust in the present organisation of the federal government does not dramatically increase because the Republicans are in power, especially with all the "homeland security" talk. However, the difference between you and I is this: While on a prophetic scale I do not expect a Republican victory to dramatically alter world events, I am optimistic that it may point to a positive trend toward conservatism on the part of the regular American electorate (that is, those who care to vote in every election) toward conservatism. I have learned that pessimism never gets you anywhere in politics, it is best to think positive, even if you can't always trust certain people to do the right thing.

MY SUPREME COURT WISH LIST

Chief Justice WILLIAM HOBBES REHNQUIST will soon retire, so the question I will deal with here will not be who his replacement WILL be, but who the ideal replacement OUGHT to be.

In my ideal world, Justice CLERENCE THOMAS would replace REHNQUIST as Chief Justice. ANTONIN SCALIA would also make a good Chief Justice, but even I, the optimist, see an impossible confirmation fight in that case. To fill THOMAS' old seat as Associate Justice, my ideal candidate would be none other than the Prosecutor himself, KENNETH STARR.

If RUTH BADER GINSBURG retires as expected, perhaps Judge THOMAS PICKERING could fill her old seat!

2002-11-19T22:38:00.000-08:00

One note. I don't mean to sound like I'm not glad that we won. I'm happy to see Tom Daschle on the way out as Majority Leader, but I'm also not putting much stock in our new leadership.

2002-11-19T09:39:00.000-08:00

Adam, I think you miss the point here. I don't think the Republicans, though they now have a mandate to govern, suddenly
have a mandate to massively restructure the liberal social arrangement of the last 40 years. I think the reality is twofold. First
off, I think we won the election because of the war, which I told you last year would happen and you dismissed the idea.
Secondly, Republican appointment of not only Supreme Court justices but lower federal court judges will be significant. The
class of judges about to be (re) voted on by the next Senate is one of the most conservative since Reagan. Also, I think we're
going to see that partial-birth abortion ban we've been working for finally pass. I'd say in political terms, that's pretty significant.

Yes, you were right about the war. I'm too much into "conventional wisdom". I was expecting there to be a recession during the 2000 presidential election as well, it happened a little later than expected. I don't think we have "a mandate" because we refuse to build a mandate. Can you show any of our Republican leaders who made the size and scope of the federal government a focal point of their campaign? Or the special interest playground known as the income tax? We have not because we ask not, because we refuse to put forward a real agenda and make the effort to putsuade people.

Indeed, our leadership is more interested in playing it safe rather than leading our nation back to constitutional limited government. We look at the President and we look at the big-spending Congress and we both have to know that this isn't even in the back of their minds.

As for abortion, I'll be pleased with the legislation that's passed, however Partial Birth Abortion is doomed in the courts thanks to the Stenberg decision. Again, my concern with the Judges is that in Texas, Bush has had a record of appointing both pro-life and pro-choice Justices and that one of Mr. Bush's favored candidates for the court is White House Counsel Al Gonzalez who voted to overturn Texas' Partial-Birth Abortion Ban. While these may be the most conservative court appointments since Reagan, Reagan's appointments included pro-abortion stalwart Sandra Day O'Connor and the weak-minded William Kennedy who got pursuaded to switch his vote and keep abortion legal. While I'm pleased in general with Bush's appointments to the federal bench thus far (Pickering, Owens, and others), my stomach will be in knots when he actually gets a chance to pick a Supreme Court.

Large cities are not the Democratic vote factories they once were, voter turnout within cities is generally lower by percentage than turnout in the (more conservative) suburbs or in (really conservative) rural America. I think the Democrats failed to learn the lesson from 2000 that rural and suburban America DO matter politically, they elected George W. Bush and will sustain this Congressional majority, I believe, for many years to come. Sure, the large cities may have Democrat mayors, commissions, and councils, but for the national Party, that is going to mean less and less if it doesn't translate into control at the state and federal level.

In terms of the House, it's important to remember that the voter turnout in a district is irrelevant. If only 15 people show up to vote in a 600,000 person congressional distrct, it's still a Congressional District. In some areas in New York and Chicago, it really is absurd that 90,000 people get to elect Congresspeople. You also add to that the Majority minority districts that are created by legislatures. This base of hundreds of Congressional Districts in cities that Republicans can't win as things stand now is the key to Democratic survival. When at the beginning of a race, you are guaranteed 140 seats in Congress, and your opponents may have perhaps 40 locked up that tight, you have a huge advanted with the remaining 255 seats. The Democrats are losing touch with the Heartland and when Ralph Hall and Charlie Stenholm retire, you'll bet they'll lose seats. Until Republicans find a way to break the Democratic Stranglehold on the big cities, Democrats will never be totally beat down like the Republicans were in the New Deal era for example.

I don't agree with Adam that long term effect of GOP control will be nill. He forgets that the Republicans have only been in control of Congress since 1994 and all three branches tentatively since January 2001. This is not enough time to accumulate the political capital needed to abolish the income tax or have major domestic policy overhauls (even if we both know they are needed). This President's mandate was confirmed in this election, and it is a foreign policy, not a domestic mandate, we all know that. The domestic mandate will come in 2004, when he is re-elected, but again by a very narrow margin. Republicans will maintain control of Congress. We'll see the biggest long term effect in issues like educational choice, tax relief, and judicial appointments. I don't expect this Presidency to be a Conservative's dream...but we haven't had that since Ronald Reagan, and likely won't have that until the Second Coming.

What I meant was that the long-term effects would be nill, I was referring to what this Congress does. Obviously, if the Republicans held control of Congress for 40 years that'd be quite different. I disagree that the President will be re-elected narrowly. I expect him to win in the greatest landslide since Nixon in '72 or perhaps even Johnson in '64. I could be wrong but this president will win re-election and have plenty of political capital but I don't think he'll spend it on moving through important changes in terms of the income tax (he's never been on the record of favoring that type of tax reform) or the size of government (I don't think he has a real problem with it).

Well, the first thing I'd do is get the kind of judicial appointments through that have thus far been stalled by the previous Senate. Then I'd pass a partial-birth abortion ban. Then I'd ask for a massive increase in needed defence spending for the war effort, I'd scale back all the "Homeland Security" rhetoric, and then deal will the educational choice issue.

I agree on Homeland Security. We don't need these monstrous anti-privacy provisions or TIPS networks. At times, I've been embarassed by administration proposals like the TIPS program. I think School Choice is a good issue. It should most likely be done from the local rather than federal level. The Federal Government has no business in education. However, if we're going to spend money, we should spend it on things that work. I have mixed feeling on the issue myself.

2002-11-18T23:57:00.000-08:00

What can we expect of Republican control of both Congress and the White
House? Are we in for real improvement in the Federal government--or will
the GOP leadership somehow blow its new-found opportunities in Washington?

--Adam, I think you miss the point here. I don't think the Republicans, though they now have a mandate to govern, suddenly
have a mandate to massively restructure the liberal social arrangement of the last 40 years. I think the reality is twofold. First
off, I think we won the election because of the war, which I told you last year would happen and you dismissed the idea.
Secondly, Republican appointment of not only Supreme Court justices but lower federal court judges will be significant. The
class of judges about to be (re) voted on by the next Senate is one of the most conservative since Reagan. Also, I think we're
going to see that partial-birth abortion ban we've been working for finally pass. I'd say in political terms, that's pretty significant.

How do you expect the Democrats to respond to their considerable

disadvantage?

--We've already seen the reaction. The Democrats intend to allow, as Adam points out, "the inmates to run the asylum." This can only mean that the Republicans will be able to successfully show just how far divorced the Democratic Party is from mainstream America. This now goes well beyond just conservative social issues. These people are proving themselves to be bordering on the crazy.

What do you make of predictions that the Democratic Party--as

we now know it--has been irreparably weakened, while the GOP will continue

to rise in influence in the foreseeable future?

I don't know that I agree with Adam that the large cities will keep the Democrats alive. Sure, the Democratic Party is going to survive, it is the oldest political party in the world and it isn't going to die. In order to survive nationally, however, the Democrats are going to have to accept that the nation, as it periodically tends to do, is moving to the right. Large cities are not the Democratic vote factories they once were, voter turnout within cities is generally lower by percentage than turnout in the (more conservative) suburbs or in (really conservative) rural America. I think the Democrats failed to learn the lesson from 2000 that rural and suburban America DO matter politically, they elected George W. Bush and will sustain this Congressional majority, I believe, for many years to come. Sure, the large cities may have Democrat mayors, commissions, and councils, but for the national Party, that is going to mean less and less if it doesn't translate into control at the state and federal level.

Be creative--predict the

next two years at the national level in America, and then suggest the

long-term effects of those predictions.

-I don't agree with Adam that long term effect of GOP control will be nill. He forgets that the Republicans have only been in control of Congress since 1994 and all three branches tentatively since January 2001. This is not enough time to accumulate the political capital needed to abolish the income tax or have major domestic policy overhauls (even if we both know they are needed). This President's mandate was confirmed in this election, and it is a foreign policy, not a domestic mandate, we all know that. The domestic mandate will come in 2004, when he is re-elected, but again by a very narrow margin. Republicans will maintain control of Congress. We'll see the biggest long term effect in issues like educational choice, tax relief, and judicial appointments. I don't expect this Presidency to be a Conservative's dream...but we haven't had that since Ronald Reagan, and likely won't have that until the Second Coming.

Finally, if you were a Republican

leader in the House, Senate, or White House, what agenda would you

personally focus on in the upcoming months?"

-Well, the first thing I'd do is get the kind of judicial appointments through that have thus far been stalled by the previous Senate. Then I'd pass a partial-birth abortion ban. Then I'd ask for a massive increase in needed defence spending for the war effort, I'd scale back all the "Homeland Security" rhetoric, and then deal will the educational choice issue.

2002-11-18T22:28:00.000-08:00

Additional thought. Why is it wrong to use ideology and fidelity to the Constitution as a basis for choosing judges and perfectly okay to use race?

2002-11-18T22:26:00.000-08:00

The following was sent out through Renew America, Alan Keyes organization. Below are my answers to their questions.

--I expect the Republican Leadership in Washington to make some relatively substantial minor changes (oxymoronic I know) but not to deal with the big issues. We will still have an Income Tax, Abortion-on-Demand, and a government that is as big and probably bigger than it is now.

We'll see the end of some taxes, passage of some landmark abortion legislation in the process. I don't really expect President Bush to appoint strong pro-life justices to the Supreme Court. In fact I'm very concerned that President Bush is more concerned about appointing a Hispanic Justice and may put his friend Al Gonzalez who is pro-abortion on the court.

How do you expect the Democrats to respond to their considerable
disadvantage?

By moving further left. With Nancy Pelosi replacing Dick Gephardt and Hillary Clinton replacing John Kerry, it's truly apparent that the inmates are running the asylum.

What do you make of predictions that the Democratic Party--as
we now know it--has been irreparably weakened, while the GOP will continue
to rise in influence in the foreseeable future?

Nonsense! There is a big limit to how high the GOP can "rise". Everywhere that has an Urban population is so Democratic it's ridiculous. From Chicago to New York to Boston and Los Angeles, it's ridiculous but as long as the Democrats control those strongholds and are unable to win enough other seats, they'll be a force to be reckoned with even if they are a joke.

Be creative--predict the
next two years at the national level in America, and then suggest the
long-term effects of those predictions.

The long-term effect of the GOP control will be nill. Lets face it, Trent Lott, George W. Bush, and Dennis Hastert are good people who will have no impact on the nation's domestic policy. We'll have lower taxes, but we'll have the same type of taxes. We'll look back at George W. Bush and his administration and remember a man who led the nation through one of its darkest hours and we'll laud him for that. But we're not going to look to the Bush adminstration for great domestic policy, it is for the most part Status Quo.

Finally, if you were a Republican
leader in the House, Senate, or White House, what agenda would you
personally focus on in the upcoming months?"

I would push for real changes and use the "bully pulpit" to address the American people. I fear that our current leadership is set to squander it's mandate. Having the superior advantage, Republicans are set to violate Clausewitz's rules of war by playing small ball, rather than challenging "all to win all".