Ralph Nader: Hope of conservatives?

Ralph Nader announced his intention to run for President for this year. Many may remember his unsuccessful run in 2000 that many liberals blame for Gore’s loss in that election. This raises questions as to what effect this will have on this election. With the Democratic party split between “Hope and Change” (Obama) and “I have lots of experience” (Clinton, even if it was only serving tea in the White House), one wonders what will happen during the general election. Bill O’Reilly believes that Nader will not factor in this year’s election, but I disagree. I feel that the Nader effect will be smaller, but he will still draw hard-core left-wing wackos to his cause, which will steal votes from either Clinton or Obama, whoever the nominee is.

That said, it is possible that Nader could be the hope for conservatives, as he could prevent Democratic victory in the general election. While the possibility is slim, it is still there. I feel that this election will be closer than 2000 or 2004 and that even if Nader only takes a percent or two, it could be enough to propel McCain to victory in key states. I would like to encourage Nader’s candidacy, as anything that stands to hurt the Democrats in the election is a good thing.

 

President Alan Keyes?

With Romney out and Huckabee having less of a chance, it now looks like John McCain will be the Republican nominee. Unfortunately, this places me into a precarious situation, as I do not know how I can exercise my right and responsibility as a citizen and vote. I refuse to vote for either Hillary or Obama because Hillary just flat scares me as a president and Obama lacks experience and is too liberal for my taste. I also do not feel that I can vote for McCain, as while I feel that he would not be as bad as either Democrat, I also fear that it will pave the way for liberal control of our nation for years to come. Earlier this week, I noted that I did not vote for Alan Keyes because I knew that he stood no chance and wanted to ensure a Romney victory, which did happen here in ND. Now that Romney is out, the situation for the convention could be one of many uncommitted delegates, which has the potential to save our party. That is why I would like to throw my support behind Alan Keyes.

I have been impressed with Keyes for years and know that he has the experience and conservative values that can keep our nation strong. He was a part of the Reagan administration and is a very eloquent speaker. I would like to encourage you to visit Keyes’ website and learn more about him and support him as best possible. To all uncommitted or Romney delegates, please throw your support behind Keyes and elect a real conservative. Do not be fooled by Ron Paul supporters that claim he is the only Goldwater conservative because remember that Goldwater wanted to kick Communist tail, whereas Paul would make us into a isolationistic weak nation.

Conservatives, if we all get behind Alan Keyes, we can hopefully avoid a Hillary presidency (sorry, but Obama is not going to be the nominee) and strengthen our nation. Join me in supporting Alan Keyes.

 

A tale of two caucuses

I love North Dakota! Not only because most of my extended family lives here, or that I can conceal carry if I choose, but because I can participate in their caucus while not being a resident. As a student, I am allowed to retain my permanent residency and I am proud to be a resident of the 19th Congressional District of the State of Illinois (go John Shimkus). However, living over 900 miles from home does present some challenges with regard to exercising my voting rights. I was unable to get a chance to request an absentee ballot for the Illinois primary and was set to spend my evening with friends.

Well, I did spend the evening with friends, but also voted. I planned to attend the Republican caucus in Grand Forks with two of my buddies who are ND residents, as I had never been to a caucus and wanted to see what one was like. When we got to the entrance, one of my friends suggested that we get our student ID cards out. I did and to my surprise was told that I could participate as a non-resident. After making sure several times that my participation in the caucus would not prevent me from voting absentee in my home district in Illinois, I cast my ballot for . . .  Gov. Romney. I have been struggling for a long time over which Republican I support. I liked both Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson, but since they dropped out, I was torn between McCain and Romney (Ron Paul scares me as much and Hillary and Obama), but finally decided thanks to some last minute campaigning from one of my friends who follows politics a bit more closely than I do and has been keeping track of the issues with regard to both candidates. I have been leery of McCain anyway given his stance against the President and his policies on illegal immigration and my friends last-minute stating of areas I was suspicious about but had not paid attention to sealed the deal for Romney.  One note, while Alan Keyes was on the ballot and I would love him to be the Republican nominee, I had to vote for someone that at least had a chance.

All in all, I had fun at the Republican caucus and hope to experience that again. After leaving the caucus, we decided to check out the other side and have a little fun. One of the caucus sites for the Democrats was (big surprise) on campus. This is smart on the part of Democrats, as what better way to get young people to vote, especially if you are the Obama campaign than to have a site right on campus. As much as I wanted to crash the event, I stayed professional and possibly even awed some of the local Obama people when I told them I was from Illinois (I did not mention that I can’t stand the guy’s politics, which would have gotten me tarred and feathered). We grabbed a couple of Obama posters and headed up to look at the caucus room, which was fairly quiet mainly because the Dem. caucus had been open since 2:00PM.

Overall, Super Tuesday, though cold, was fun here in North Dakota. Given that Obama has won on the Democratic side, we now wait the Republican results and I hope they bode well for Romney. I hope that everyone else had a great Super Tuesday and since it is also Fat Tuesday, please be safe while out partying.

 

Academic Traitors: Thoughts on David Horowitz’s The Professors

A question to all you parents out there. What would you do if you found out your child’s college professor advocated the killing of white people? advocated pedophilia? was a convicted terrorist? Unfortunately, too many parents find out too late that their child has encountered at least one (probably more) tenured radical at the college they attend that is represented by the above questions. Is this what you spend $20,000+ a year for, for your child to be threatened, harassed, or indoctrinated by someone who holds radical views that you may not want your young adult child exposed to? I do not think so. Fortunately, a former 1960s radical (former Communist) has exposed some of the worst of the worst of the tenured radicals that now infest many campuses across America with their venom of liberal vitriol.

David Horowitz is that man. Horowitz, a man raised in a Communist neighborhood by Communist parents, has turned from his radical ways and now speaks out against those whom he associated with in the 1960s. His latest book The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America profiles dozens of professors, who range from convicted terrorists, to anti-Semites, to the bizarre.

Horowitz begins the work with an introduction detailing the scandal over the invitation of Ward Churchill to speak at Hamilton College and the problems facing higher education with regard to these radicals. Then he begins the profiles of one hundred professors. Many of these “educators” are charlatans, with some teaching outside their fields, others being promoted above their qualifications (most people with a master’s degree can not be a professor, but for left-wing loons, we’ll make an exception). Others espouse such controversial statements that it is amazing how they are still working, as if anyone else said some of those things, they would be fired.

He profiles persons who have expressed their hatred for whites, conservatives, Jews, Christians, etc. Some of the faculty are chairs, administrators of centers, even if they do not possess the required degrees or experience, but they do possess the correct liberal world view. Some professors have criminal pasts, from bombings to rape, but yet they are qualified to teach your children. When you read this book, you may get angry or sick at the clowns that are allowed to teach that are profiled in this book.

Horowitz then discusses the hiring practices at most colleges and universities, noting how insulated the academy is from oversight. He describes situations in which most committees hire people just like themselves, which only makes the problem of tenured radicals worse. Horowitz also notes how those who attempt to remedy the problem are swiftly dealt with. The case he cites for this is the Lawrence Summers case at Harvard. Summers, former president of Harvard attempted to fix these issues at his university. He first earned the ire of his faculty when he criticized Cornell West, a noted black radical professor, who writes rap music and puts out nothing of value as far as a professor is concerned. West ended up leaving, much to the dismay of West’s fellow radicals. Then, Summers put the nail in his coffin when he dared to consider that other factors beyond socialization might account for more men than women being in high-end sciences and engineering positions (heaven forbid we accept that men and women are DIFFERENT). Summers ultimately faced the radicals on his faculty, particularly feminists, who were outraged by these events. These faculty members gave Summers a vote of no confidence and forced him to resign his position.

Ultimately, Horowitz has written a great book that is an important resource for parents, alumni, conservative faculty and administration, and prospective students to understand the radicals teaching at many institutions around the country. Parents can use this book to know potential radical threats to their children and prevent them from suffering with them. Alumni can use the book to place pressure on their alma mater to get rid of these radicals. Conservative faculty and administration can use the book to understand their radical colleagues better and fight them effectively. Finally, prospective students can use the book as a guide to understanding what they may face on campus and how to survive. There are many great resources for college-bound people and David Horowitz’s book The Professors should be one of these resources.

 

A New Cold War?

The rise of Red China (yes, I use that term because China is communist), the rise of socialist/communist Venezuela, the threat of Russia led by Putin, in an eerie potential reconstruction of the Soviet Union. It all makes one wonder if we are entering a new Cold War. I would argue that we have been in a Cold War type situation for a few years now. We have witnessed the rise of Red China and its willingness to flex its muscle against its Asian neighbors and not considered it a threat. In addition, we ignored the threat of Islamofascism until it was too late and we experienced 9/11. While we are in a “hot war” with Islamofascism (though our level of commitment as a nation sometimes makes me wonder, except for our brave men and women who have served in the War on Terror and understand what we face), it seems that we are not doing enough to combat the threats of Red China, Socialist Venezuela, and Russia, even though these three nations are hindering our efforts in the War on Terror and even financing our enemies.

I fear that our resolve is not as strong in this new Cold War-style situation as it was during the real Cold War. President Bush is not Ronald Reagan and America is not as united as it should be. The time has come for the United States to elect a man that personifies Ronald Reagan for our generation and take the fight to these new threats, as well as Islamofascism. We need to rebuild our military to combat our enemies, and, have a leader with the skills to use it effectively, but have the ability, as Reagan did, to use diplomacy, but back it up with enough force to achieve what is in our interests. We need a new doctrine of “Peace through strength” for the 21st century. It is only through our resolve and an expanded military that we will avoid a potential disastrous conflagration with one or all three of those nations. Let us stand together and stand up against the forces of evil and make sure that they will end up on the “ash heap of history.”