New Media Alliance - Randall H. Nunn

Polar Bears More Important Than Western Civilization

On Sunday, an article from the Associated Press stated that, less than a month after declaring polar bears a threatened species, “the Bush administration is giving oil companies permission to annoy and potentially harm them in pursuit of oil and natural gas.” As far the Associated Press (and indeed, all of the mainstream media) is concerned, the survival of Western Civilization in the face of confiscatory pricing by the world’s dictatorships is of small concern compared to the very real threat of annoyance to polar bears. Is it any wonder that readership of the mainstream press is falling?

Years ago we might have chuckled at reading such a silly article and shaken our heads in comical disbelief. Today, it is clear beyond doubt that the mainstream media seeks to stage a coup by imposing their beliefs and values on the citizens of this country through incessant propagandizing and opinion shaping. A press that writes every article with a preordained agenda and bias against individual liberties can be very dangerous if its audience does not recognize the propaganda for what it is.

Many of us thought that the mainstream media would muffle their harsh criticism of anything conservative or supportive of traditional values after the 2004 elections. Instead, the press has launched even more vigorous attacks, sensing the inability of the current administration to articulate any coherent positions on key issues or to boldly advance conservative policies. There has been a vacuum at the top in the current administration and the left has rushed in to occupy the empty ground.

Does the mainstream media understand the ultimate impact that lack of oil can have on our country and Western Civilization? Of course they do. They care more about advancing their socialist agenda in this country than they do about the economic strength and survival of the country. A sad–and frightening–state of affairs.

Let us suppose, for a moment, that the United States could secure its economic future for decades by tapping the oil that exists in Alaska, but that to do so it must obliterate the polar bear population in Alaska. If we could prevent the economic collapse of this country by proceeding to extract the oil without regard to the consequences to polar bears, should we do it? There is no question that the answer from the mainstream media and the environmentalist movement would be a resounding “No!” And there is no question that the majority of Americans, if faced with such a scenario would advocate moving forward now to drill for oil and gas.

With the survival of our airlines in question and the very real possibility of further shocks to our financial, housing and retail sectors, it is time for Americans to ignore the mainstream media and focus on electing only those representatives to Congress who will opt for survival of this country over protection of “threatened” species against “annoyance” by those seeking to insure that free American citizens can continue to travel to work and keep the economy alive and healthy.

One of the sad footnotes to all of this is that it was President Bush’s Secretary of Interior who approved putting polar bears on the list of “threatened” species, despite the evidence to the contrary. No doubt Secretary Kempthorne will be toasted by the opinion molders and cocktail party crowd as a caring and enlightened public servant. To me, he is just another bureaucrat seeking approval and adulation from those who have consistently opposed the administration of which he is a part. President Bush could have exercised his executive prerogatives to stop this action but why should he start now?

Our politicians are little more than over-compensated panderers to public opinion as defined by the glitterati of the left. Of course, the “public opinion” has been shaped and manufactured by the mainstream media and its accomplices, but few in Congress have the intelligence to understand the magnitude of the psychological warfare being waged against us or the have the courage to oppose it.

We should be thankful that there were no polar bears at Yorktown and that freedom was more important than the many annoyances that had to be suffered to secure the blessings of freedom for all of us. But Washington knew that the protection of free men threatened by government oppression and tyranny must take precedence over “annoyance” to beasts of the wild. History remembers Washington as the “father of his country”. History will remember Secretary Kempthorne and this administration as the protectors of polar bears from annoyance—if it remembers them at all.

Randall H. Nunn

Heartsick and Angry

President George W. Bush is a good and decent man. That doesn’t count for as much as it used to. Millions of conservatives who voted for him in the last two elections believed he was a man of conservative principles who would make much of the opportunity that he was handed by his election victories. Instead, it is sad to say, President Bush has pursued consensus rather than principle and, in the process, has demoralized his strongest supporters, weakened his party and set the country on the path to elect a socialist.

When President Bush was reelected, there was talk of a realignment whereby the Republican Party would be ascendant for decades to come. So much was possible if the President moved quickly and forcefully to carry out his campaign promises and make government more responsive to the will of the people.

The steadfast loyalty of conservatives was rewarded by a Republican president and Republican majorities in Congress who grew the bureaucracy, overspent our tax money on wasteful programs and refused to fight for Social Security reform, tax code reform, enforcement of immigration laws or drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge and offshore. Our tax burden is worse than ever, our energy situation is a disaster and Social Security and Medicare are in desperate shape. When we look at our country today and the prospects for the next four years, is it any wonder that millions are frustrated and heartsick?

A president should lead and a president should engage his political opponents on matters of policy and principle. President Bush had the possibility of continuing the Reagan Revolution and truly changing for the better the relationship between the citizens of this country and their government. To do that required President Bush to effectively communicate his policies and programs and make the country understand the choices and the hazards of not taking action to deal with these issues. The inability to effectively articulate his vision and policies, along with the unwillingness to take on the media and liberal special interests, such as the environmental movement, doomed his second term. We deserved more.

Where is the consistency in a president who nominates a Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court? Where is any true understanding of limited government in a president who says he will veto McCain-Feingold, then signs it? Where is the effective leadership in a president who fails to control the bureaucracies in the CIA, the Justice Department or even his own Press Secretary? A good and decent man is small consolation when the lack of leadership and conservative principles botched the greatest opportunity of the last twenty years.

The Republican Party and the nation will take time to recover from the bumbling mediocrity of Bush’s second term. Seeing what happened these last four years makes one realize what a true giant Ronald Reagan really was. Many of us had hopes that the Bush presidency would build upon Reagan’s foundation and keep the light of freedom and individual liberty burning brightly in the “shining city on the hill.” Instead, we have spent and given away the nation’s treasure, lost control of a bloated and unresponsive bureaucracy, accommodated our enemies, failed to secure our borders, weakened our economy with ill-advised initiatives such as the ethanol mandate and transformed the “bully pulpit” into a dais for dithering.

Now that the heartsick phase is almost over, the anger begins to grow. Anger that we must dig our way out of this hole and retake the Senate and House of Representatives. Anger that the Republican Party has so many weaklings and incompetents in Congress. Anger at the misrepresentations from the Republican Party and the deceit in the words of our representatives in Congress.

In truth, the presidency has become too powerful and too imperial. The Congress needs to exert its power as a co-equal branch if it can be populated with true citizen legislators and not political hacks who use the positions as power bases for their personal interests and financial gain. Conservatives need to concentrate on electing conservative men and women who don’t look at bipartisanship and accommodation as a goal in itself.

No longer can we continue to elect the “lesser of two evils” and expect the direction of the country to change. Government is on its way to making itself our master and President Bush has not stood in the way. And much as I hate to say it, Senator McCain has not stood in the way of more government power either. It is time for a change and conservatives need to understand that they should not expect a change until four years from this coming November.

Randall H. Nunn

By Randall Nunn

On Monday, Senator Barack Obama attacked the Tennessee Republican Party for playing “snippets” of Michelle Obama’s remarks “in ways that are unflattering to her.” The unflattering “snippet” from just last year was Michelle Obama saying “For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country.” Funny, I thought that snippet was unflattering to our country more than to Michelle. For Michelle the remark was just plain dumb.

Senator Obama’s comments show just how elitist he really is. Apparently Senator Obama thinks that any statements that are played “in ways that are unflattering” to Michelle Obama are out of bounds in a political campaign. The Senator and his wife are so above the rest of us that they should not have to face things as “unflattering” as the truth.

What Senator Obama is trying to do is intimidate the Republicans and conservatives (the two are not necessarily the same any more) into not criticizing his wife—at least not in “unflattering” ways. We all need to come up with ways to criticize in a flattering way, so that we sound like simpletons. I guess then we would be on an equal level with the press and the liberals.

What is really remarkable is Senator Obama’s labeling of the Tennessee GOP’s video as “low class” simply because it portrays Michelle Obama’s remarks in ways that are unflattering. No one disputes that Michelle Obama made the statement nor does anyone in the Obama camp make an effort to explain it in a way that would be flattering to Michelle Obama (let alone understandable). So just label any criticism of the remark as “low class”, have the mainstream media stooges take up the cry and hope that the American people agree—for indeed the network anchors have said it is so!

History is full of instances of “snippets” of remarks being circulated and remembered for their impact on the listener. “That government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.” Or “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.” Or “The only good Indian is a dead Indian.” The people who made these remarks had to live with them and with history’s verdict about them. It may be “low class” to repeat them but it tells us something about the speaker. And even someone less erudite than Senator Obama can understand these “snippets.” Although I can see how I might have had a more flattering view of Admiral Farragut if I had read his entire remarks in context rather than just the unflattering snippet damning the torpedoes.

Senator Obama seems to feel that he should be able to run his campaign without having to answer for the really stupid things his wife sometimes says. Then he could focus on the really important “notions” and not have to get his hands dirtied in the hurly burly of the arena. And I guess we could concentrate on attacking Senator Obama for his demeaning statements about middle Americans clinging to their guns or religion and reacting to people who aren’t like them. Then we could have a truly “high class” campaign with nothing but flattering remarks being bandied about. And we could all ignore Harry Truman’s “snippet” about staying out of the kitchen if you can’t stand the heat.

Is Barack Obama Alien?

The Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Senator Barack Obama’s spiritual mentor, believes, among other things, that merging Marxism with the Gospel may show the way to a better tomorrow. The basis for the black liberation philosophies advocated by Reverend Wright is the work of James Cone, founder of the modern black liberation theology movement. Senator Obama, a graduate of Harvard Law School and a member of Reverend Wright’s congregation for many years, surely knows the views of Reverend Wright and presumably the views of James Cone. Does Senator Obama believe that merging Marxism with the gospel will show the way to a better tomorrow? And, if not, why did he sit in Reverend Wright’s congregation for more than 20 years, listening to his anti-American tirades and soaking up philosophies incompatible with the views of the great majority of Americans?

If one disagrees with a philosophy disseminated from the pulpit, not in a subtle and devious fashion but in a blisteringly blatant bombardment by a loud and rabid activist, how likely is it that he or she would remain as a loyal attendee of the church? Yet, Senator Obama and his wife continued to attend Reverend Wright’s ranting sermons with no protest. None, that is, until Senator Obama realized that his attendance of Wright’s church and support for his “spiritual mentor” might become a political liability. And even then, Senator Obama was careful not to totally repudiate Reverend Wright. Obama said he “strongly disagreed” with “many” of Wright’s political views. It’s just that it took over 20 years for this Harvard-trained lawyer and aspirant to The White House to get worked up enough to register his disagreement. I have a feeling that the majority of Americans do not believe Obama’s remarks aimed, as they were, at carefully distancing himself from Wright’s more outrageous statements without antagonizing the far left wing of his party.

What does the Reverend Wright affair tell us about Senator Obama’s political views? It clearly tells us that Senator Obama is not just liberal—he is liberal to the point of being radical and on the very fringe of liberal political thinking in this country. Of course, Senator Obama’s soothing words and mellifluous voice seek to reassure Americans that he is a gentle and decent man who is in the mainstream of American political thought. In fact, many of us suspect that he is much more comfortable with Reverend Wright’s Marxist philosophy and radical opinions than either he, the mainstream media or the Democratic Party would have us think.

Webster defines “alien” as “differing in nature or character typically to the point of incompatibility”.The Reverend Wright imbroglio leads to one inescapable conclusion if one uses all of his or her faculties and life experiences in analyzing the statements and explanations of Senator Obama—that Senator Obama’s political beliefs are alien to those of the vast majority of Americans. Senator Obama’s true political views—those distilled from his actions over the past decades as opposed to those carefully contrived words that ooze with slithering smoothness from his lips—confirm that he is the most liberal senator in the U.S. Senate and probably the most liberal person ever to run for the presidency.
One does not continue to sit in a congregation for over 20 years listening to Marxist philosophies and anti-American sentiment if one does not agree, in whole or in part, with such sentiments. One does not take the title of his best-selling book, “The Audacity of Hope”, from the sermons of a minister who espouses such far left political views unless one agrees with them, in whole or in part. And one does not consistently and regularly vote in favor of a liberal agenda in the Senate and state legislature unless one is a dedicated liberal supporter of greater government control over our lives. Senator Obama is alien to American mainstream political thought and values.

We can all admire a candidate’s rhetorical skills and glibness on the campaign trail. However, there comes a time for plain talking and direct answers to questions about a candidate’s political philosophy when a candidate’s beliefs are called into serious question by actions, or inactions, of the candidate himself. That time is now.

Randall H. Nunn

The Question McCain Needs to Answer

Many Republicans—this writer included—are not happy with the thought of Senator John McCain as their presidential nominee. Many of these same Republicans are not happy with the Republican Party’s drift toward big government and away from conservative principles. Instead of capitalizing on their control of both houses of Congress and the White House and ushering in decades of Republican control of the government, the administration has missed opportunity after opportunity to show real leadership and make government our servant rather than our master. And Senator McCain promises more of the same, with even more of a tilt to the left. Given this, why should conservatives vote for Senator McCain?

The conventional answer is that Senator McCain is the lesser of two evils and, as conservatives, we would be better off with him in the White House than either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton. But would we?

While a McCain administration could be expected to propose less “liberal” legislation and a somewhat less intrusive federal government than either Obama or Clinton, the differences would not be great. If one looks at the net result of legislative and executive initiatives, it could well be the case that more McCain-proposed legislation would be passed than that proposed by a Democratic administration. This would likely be the case if Republicans in the Congress functioned effectively as a “loyal opposition” and stopped the worst of any socialistic initiatives of the liberal Democrats. Those same Republicans would be reluctant to vote against legislation pushed by “their” president.

The question that Senator McCain must answer for doubting conservatives is “Why are we better off with you in the White House than we would be if a Democrat is elected president and Republicans retain enough power in Congress to stop Democrat programs harmful to the country?” Based on McCain’s past record and positions, it is not readily apparent that McCain would be significantly better than the alternative. Certainly this is the case until McCain convinces conservatives that he shares many of their views on the critical issues of the day.

For a conservative Republican to be taking such a position will seem like heresy to some. How could we not support McCain when the result would be the likely election of a much more liberal candidate as president? The benefits of such an outcome could be several. For one, the Republican Party might come to its senses and purge those who brought on such a defeat. The Republican Party might actually become more interested in governing like a party truly interested in limited government and individual freedom rather than perpetuating its power. Secondly, the country could truly see the Democratic Party and its president for what they are, based not on campaign promises and empty rhetoric but on actual practices and results in office. Such a four year experience could rekindle the fire in those who have been let down by the Republican Party of today and motivate them to take back their party. And finally, with the country headed for some difficult economic times, it would be an opportunity to let the country see just how effectively the liberal Democrats can govern in trying times. Four years of such a spectacle should energize the conservative core of this country and stimulate interest and participation by those previously uncommitted souls whose interest in politics was erratic at best. Such an experience would be akin to water boarding for many who have forgotten what the left wing of the Democratic Party is really like.

If McCain were to be elected, will we get a president committed to limited government? Will we get back some of our First Amendment freedoms lost under McCain-Feingold? Will we know without doubt that conservative jurists will be appointed to the Supreme Court? Will we have a president who will take strong and effective measures to control illegal immigration? Will we have a president who stops pandering to the environmentalists and the global warming crowd? Will effective action be taken to reform social security and the federal income tax? Knowing the likely answers to these questions, why would conservatives be better off with McCain than the alternatives? It’s time to play defense in the Congress for the next four years and start building and organizing for 2012. That is, unless McCain can convince us otherwise.

Randall H. Nunn