Thoughts on the US Presidential Election

A few thoughts on the US presidential election won by Barack Obama. There was no shortage of platitude or inflated rhetoric with regard to Obama the candidate. His election has occasion for yet more sensationalism. I find much of it disappointing, and worse, dishonest.

Exhibit A is the issue of race and racism. Racism has been declared dead or at least dying, the media tells us, now that a black man is to be the President of the United States. But it's the old race card in a new suit, another "heads I win, tails you lose" tactic. If Obama wins, race is not an issue - it's about the merits of his person and position, and the lack thereof in the case of his opponent. If he loses, it's because of race - not about merits. So race was very much a part of the campaign and the election - the trump card of race was ready for use if it was needed. More on this from Mark Levin at the Corner:

Let's not fool ourselves. If Barack Obama had been a conservative Republican (a la Lynn Swann, Michael Steele or Ken Blackwell) the response to his election would not the same as it is today. Before the election, the liberal and media commentariat were putting out different arguments for an Obama election — including that this was not an election about race if he won or it was an election about race if he lost. But now that he has won, I am hearing this is victory against racism. But I didn't think modern America racist. Of course, there are individuals and pockets that are. But that's different. I don't remember the same tests, such as they are, being applied to the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. I understand that's different than a national election. However, it simply cannot be denied that there is a double standard as applies to liberals and conservatives regardless of race or gender. Indeed, if Hillary Clinton had been elected president, we would be hearing similar words of celebration; but if Sarah Palin had been elected vice president, we would be hearing very nasty things, as we have since she was nominated.

Exhibit B is the deconstruction of the two campaigns: Obama's campaign was brilliant and largely free of mistakes, while McCain's campaign was weak and error-ridden. I concur that McCain did not run a strong campaign, and that there were too many mistakes. But I find statements about Obama's brilliant win somewhat dishonest. McCain needed a strong campaign to win. First, he was running for the same party as Bush. But he was up against another, much larger, obstacle that Obama did not have to face. Mark Hemingway, also at the Corner:

I have next to nothing good to say about how the media (on the whole) conducted themselves in this campaign. I don't think my complaints here should take away from Obama's victory, as the Republicans made more than few mistakes and the loss is theirs and theirs alone. Still, it's hard not to see how the press completely ablated any and all professional standards in one clumsy attempt after another to destroy McCain and Palin. Meanwhile, when they weren't cheerleading for Obama they were actively ignoring even the most damning criticisms of their preferred candidate.

The frantic searching for any kind of ammo against Palin was one thing. But when the media is more interested in investigating 15 minutes of fame called Joe the Plumber than a candidate for President of the United States, its praise of said candidate's campaign rings hollow. There were plenty of things worthy of investigation with regard to Obama. They did not matter because the media refused to acknowledge them. McCain had pretty good results for a mediocre campaign. With the media running cover for him, Obama neither ran nor needed to run a strong campaign.

Socialism is No Joke

At a recent rally, Obama served up this joke in response to the McCain campaign's charges that he is socialist:

McCain has “called me a socialist for wanting to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can finally give tax relief to the middle class,” Obama said. “I don’t know what’s next. By the end of the week he'll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten.”

But this is not a throw-away joke; it's actually quite revealling, as John Hood posts at The Corner:

Ha ha.

Only, in this passage Obama revealed precisely why he is vulnerable to such charges: he can't seem to tell the difference between a gift and a theft. There is nothing remotely socialistic or communistic about sharing. If you have a toy that someone else wants, you have three choices in a free society. You can offer to trade it for something you value that is owned by the other. You can give the toy freely, as a sign of friendship or compassion. Or you can choose to do neither.

Collectivism in all its forms is about taking away your choice. Whether you wish to or not, the government compels you to surrender the toy, which it then redistributes to someone that government officials deem to be a more worthy owner. It won't even be someone you could ever know, in most cases. That's what makes the political philosophy unjust (by stripping you of control over yourself and the fruits of your labor) as well as counterproductive (by failing to give the recipient sufficient incentive to learn and work hard so he can earn his own toys in the future).

Government is not charity. It is not persuasion, or cooperation, or sharing. Government is a fist, a shove, a gun. Obama either doesn't understand this, or doesn't want voters to understand it.

The Case Against Obama

It's safe to say that the welfare of the United States affects the welfare of Canada, and thus the upcoming Presidential election is important to us. Who should we like to see win the election? Generally, conservative Christians tend to the Republican party and its candidates. So what is the case for John McCain? What is the case against Barack Obama? Is there a case for Barack Obama? Is there a case against John McCain?

I support the Republican ticket, but John McCain does not get my wholehearted support. He likes to define himself as a non-partisan maverick. The trouble, in my mind, is that McCain's non-partisan and maverick actions have often been departures from conservative principles. For instance, he is not strong on border security and immigration; he has advocated limiting legitimate free speech; he has not shown himself to be a fighter for smaller government. These are the wrong things on which to be agreeing with the average Democrat. McCain is, however, solid on one issue - and it is a big issue: foreign policy and the military. That is a large plus, also for Canada.

But my reluctant support for McCain is cemented by one thing - the alternative is much, much worse. Obama comes off as a great communicator, a down-to-earth friend of the average American, a thoughtful, progressive leader. That is without a doubt the way he has been presented to us by the mainstream media. But before you cast your vote, whether literal or figurative, read The Comprehensive Argument Against Barack Obama.

Perhaps if Barack Obama had taken more time to build his resumé – especially with executive experience – he might have made a more compelling candidate, and might have demonstrated at least a little of the moderation he has claimed. Instead, Democrats want America to support at once the most radical and least qualified candidate for President in at least a century. They have tried to conceal this with the complicity of a pom-pom-waving national media that has shown much more interest in the political background of a plumber from Ohio than in a major-party candidate for President.

Follow the link for much detail, including several supporting moving clips. It's well worth the read.

Card: It's About the Truth

Orson Scott Card, a Greensboro, North Carolina journalist and Democrat will not make a lot of friends with it, but his comment on the mainstream media's coverage of the U.S. Presidential election is nevertheless right on the money and well worth the read: Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.

CRTC Seeks More Power

The CRTC is well-known to Canadian Christians. It is not a fond acquaintance. For years the CRTC has done its best to keep Christian programming off Canadian radio and TV, or at least to limit it as much as possible. Numerous applications for Christian-only radio stations and TV channels have been denied for various dubious reasons. Recently, as LifeSiteNews reported, the CRTC denied two applications for Christian radio stations in Ottawa, while approving a TV channel that promised to promote the Canadian pornography industry. This is nothing new for Christians or conservatives, such as those who had to fight to get the CRTC to allow the FOX News channel in Canada, even though it had in principle accepted Al Jazeera TV's application.

The CRTC's position and power are incredible. The Commission (where have we heard that word before?) is essentially promoting some things and censoring - in the true sense of the word - others. Between one Commission and the other, the government now decides what "free" Canadians are allowed to watch, here, say, and write. Now this is not all bad. Pornography, among other things, should be kept off of our TVs. It is a matter of decency. Libel must be prosecuted in the courts. It is a matter of protecting reputations. But censoring political commentary or religious broadcasting is a whole other matter. It is an assault on freedom.

Christians have recently taken to the Internet, where they are free from our eye- ear- and mouth-keepers over at the CRTC. There, radio is uncensored and freely accessible. It's no wonder the CRTC is trying to get its fingers on the Internet, too - see their notice. David Warren points out that the CRTC was not directed by Parliament to do so. No, this Commission, just like the HRC, feels quite comfortable expanding its jurisdiction as it sees fit, unaccountable to those it purports to serve.

That this announcement was made by the CRTC, rather than by Parliament, is an indication of the degree to which the CRTC is a law unto itself.

In the time-honoured, mealy-mouthed way, the CRTC will soon be explaining that its intentions are innocent, that it is merely trying to keep up with the convergence of broadcast and Internet technologies. Only a naive fool will believe that. The regulator has created a strict broadcasting environment in which Christian and all other views that do not conform to political correctness are effectively kept under siege. The left hungers for the ability to create a similar tightly regulated environment on the Internet, to bring the free reporting and opinions of bloggers and other citizen-journalists under its ideological jackboot.

But, just like with the HRCs, the Commission is not solely at fault. Whether it recognizes them or not, it has masters in Parliament, and it is these elected - and to that extent, accountable - representatives that have both the power and responsibility to liberate Canadians again. Their failure to do so is not the CRTC's fault. Both must be held accountable. For Parliament, it would mean functioning as designed. For the CRTC, it would mean a radical overhaul.

Global Warming, Except for the Warming Part

Still believe that man-made C0₂ is sending the planet to dangerous levels of heat? Well, more and more people - yes, scientists too - are stepping aboard the Global Warming Deniers bandwagon. Lorne Gunter outlines the growing chorus of dissent:

Don Easterbrook, a geologist at Western Washington University, says, "It's practically a slam dunk that we are in for about 30 years of global cooling," as the sun enters a particularly inactive phase. His examination of warming and cooling trends over the past four centuries shows an "almost exact correlation" between climate fluctuations and solar energy received on Earth, while showing almost "no correlation at all with CO2."

An Army to be Proud Of

How is the Canadian army doing in Afghanistan? If you only get news from the mainstream media, you would be likely to think our boys are fighting for no good reason, losing a hopeless battle, they're demoralized, and ready to come home. Here's a dispatch by Michael Yon - directly from the battlefront - which bypasses the ideological filter of the mainstream media to give a picture of the true situation on the ground there: Where Eagles Dare. See also the update to this dispatch.

After seven years, the war in Afghanistan has morphed from a breathtaking expedition of a handful of special operators—often on horseback—to a sort of lethal day-to-day business. Morale is high among American, Aussie, British and Canadian soldiers...

The Canadians have an excellent reputation among British and American forces, and so the Canucks were tasked to clear the road for the convoy. This was a chain of many links: if the Canadians failed, the mission would fail.

And yes, our boys find time to play a little hockey out there.