Nathan Nelson's blog
Posted at 5:15am on Jul. 20, 2007 Madness, Thy Name is RedState
By Nathan Nelson
Retraction: In light of Mr. Cella's comment, I think it's pretty clear that I've grossly misinterpreted his post. I apologize for that and I hope he and the rest of the RedState community can forgive me. Obviously, I retract this post.
I've been blogging at RedState since I made the decision to become a Republican in February. I've had many good discussions here, many about some very contentious issues. I've found most RedState posters to be extremely reasonable people, contrary to what the folks on the left always told me. That's why it saddens me that I'll not be able to post at RedState anymore. I won't be able to post here because Paul J. Cella (please direct all criticism to Cella's Review) has authored a post in which he essentially recommends the repeal of the First Amendment, and apparently the editors and moderators at RedState agree with him or at least find his views consistent with American conservatism since they have included his post on their main blog.
Posted in Contra Tyrannum — Comments (86) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 6:13pm on Jul. 16, 2007 Equal Justice, Equal Law, Equal People
By Nathan Nelson
Conservatives have several good reasons for opposing hate crime legislation like that proposed in the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (S. 1105), commonly known as the Matthew Shepard Act. Many conservatives are concerned about the possibility that such legislation will be used to stifle free speech, a legitimate concern given the course of such legislation in neighboring Canada. Religious and social conservatives are concerned about turning sexual orientation and gender identity into federally protected special classes given the moral controversy surrounding these issues, especially since it has not yet been proven that sexual orientation and gender identity disorder are innate characteristics like race and gender. Legal conservatives are concerned about the implications of increased penalties based on perceptions of a criminal's thoughts. Federalists are concerned about unnecessary federal intrusion into criminal law, usually reserved to the states.
All of these concerns are valid. But the strongest conservative argument against hate crime legislation like this, and the argument that I endorse as a gay conservative, is that hate crime legislation divides Americans into special classes and goes against the principle of equal justice under the law.
Read on...
Posted in Congress — Comments (124) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 2:41am on Jul. 16, 2007 The Ayatollah's Empire
By Nathan Nelson
According to The Guardian, President Bush is determined not "to leave office with Iran still in limbo" - meaning that the White House is tilting back toward a military option. This should be welcome news for all who realize what Iran is really up to. While we and our European allies have been determined to tread the path of Neville Chamberlain, Iran has been continuing a consistent policy of imperialist aggression that began shortly after the 1979 revolution.
The late Hans Morgenthau, father of modern day political realism, defines imperialism as international policy that seeks an increase in national power by overthrowing the status quo. According to Morgenthau, a nation can seek either global, continental, or localized empire. While at first it may have seemed that Iran was pursuing a policy of localized imperialism limited to hegemony over a few Middle Eastern nations, there is now evidence that Iran is actually much more ambitious: it now appears that Iran is seeking an overthrow of the global status quo by resisting American power not only in the Middle East but also in Afghanistan and right in our own backyard, right here in the Western Hemisphere.
Read on...
Posted in War — Comments (6) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 6:48pm on Jul. 10, 2007 Overcoming Our Gay Problem [closed and annotated]
By Nathan Nelson
Note by Jeff: I've closed the comments for this diary; they and it will remain posted, though, as an object lesson for both sides of this debate. The original post, while raising some very good questions and points, was overly general by far, and contained language - such as that comparing opponents of homosexual behavior to those who wish to enforce shari'a law - which advanced no reasonable point, instead only serving to stir up justified animosity in the comments.
The poster has a history of solid, if sometimes overgeneralized, writing here at RedState; likewise, many of the commenters who have taken less-than-civil umbrage at his post have a history here of being both conscientious and respectful. Given the circumstances for both sides, and the subject matter contained in this diary, this thread will be closed and all will be free to take five, cool off, and return to your regularly scheduled blogging. Both the poster and the commenters should take this as a lesson, though, in how not to communicate, and in the dangers of being too general and making too rash of statements when discussing an issue as touchy as that contained here.
That is all.
The Republican Party needs to get over its gay problem. I'm not saying that Republicans should capitulate to every whim of the so-called gay rights movement, much of which is just a front for the left. Reasonable people can and should disagree on certain issues. As a gay man, I disagree with the gay rights movement on a number of issues. For example, I don't believe in hate crime legislation for gays and lesbians or for anyone else; I don't think we should engage in social experimentation with the military during a time of war by repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell; and I don't think that same-sex marriage should be judicially imposed upon the states, but that it should instead be worked out by state legislatures. We should have reasonable debate about these issues without lightly throwing around words like "homophobia" and "heterosexism." But with that said, there is homophobia and heterosexism within the Republican Party, and it needs to be addressed if Republicans really have any interest in being the Big Tent party.
Read on...
Posted in Republicans — Comments (160) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 5:28pm on Jul. 10, 2007 Something in the Water?
By Nathan Nelson
The situation in Canada vis-à-vis Afghanistan looks eerily similar to our situation in Iraq. Faced with mounting casualties and returning coffins, the left led by the New Democratic Party has decided to turn their service members' heroic sacrifice into a political opportunity by calling for early withdrawal from Afghanistan. Meanwhile, a Conservative prime minister is firmly supporting Canada's commitment to remain in Afghanistan until the mandate expires in 2009. So what's the difference between Canada and the United States? Well, the U.S. Army failed to meet its recruiting goals in both May and June - but the Canadian Forces' recruitment is up 40%. Maybe it's something in the water.
Posted in Foreign Affairs — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 4:56pm on Jul. 10, 2007 Nations That Trade Together Stay Together
By Nathan Nelson
Both the government and the people of these United States are notorious for ignoring and dismissing Latin America. This time, it could come back to bite us. According to the WSJ OpinionJournal, House Democrats have gone protectionist and are prepared to renege on free trade deals with Peru, Colombia, and South Korea. Instapundit and Publius Pundit have more commentary and information on this. What alarms me is that both the mainstream media and the blogosphere have failed to put this issue into its appropriate context: by going protectionist, our government is driving Latin American allies into the hands of Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, and ultimately, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Read on...
Posted in National Security — Comments (1) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 7:19pm on Jul. 9, 2007 Don't Underestimate Her
By Nathan Nelson
I may be one of the few bloggers, especially on the right, who is taking Cindy Sheehan's possible run against Speaker Pelosi seriously. I don't think Sheehan should be dismissed so quickly. If she had run against Dianne Feinstein, I wouldn't have given her a chance; but there's quite a difference between running against a senator statewide and running against a congresswoman, even if she is Speaker of the House, in California's eighth district - one of the most leftist congressional districts in the country. If Cindy Sheehan can win a congressional seat anywhere, it's going to be San Francisco.
Read on...
Posted in 2008 — Comments (5) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 8:17pm on Jul. 8, 2007 Gordon Brown Flinches, Flounders
By Nathan Nelson
According to Britain's Sunday Express and our own New York Post, newly appointed Prime Minister Gordon Brown is flinching in the face of Islamic extremism and terrorism (H/T: GayandRight). Brown has banned ministers from using the word "Muslim" in discussing the latest terrorist attacks and has also banned the use of the phrase "war on terror." I suppose he must think it's a bumper sticker slogan, too. The new prime minister is also insisting that Islam has nothing to do with these attacks. According to the International Herald Tribune, at least one other European head of government disagrees with him: German Chancellor Angela Merkel is calling upon Europeans to stand up to Islamic extremists who oppose Western values of democracy and tolerance.
Read on...
Posted in Foreign Affairs — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 7:28pm on Jul. 8, 2007 A Budding Peace Process
By Nathan Nelson
The International Herald Tribune details the rise of the Palestinian middle class in the Palestinian capital of Ramallah:
The Islamic militant Hamas is largely absent from this city of 57,000, meaning that Ramallah could provide the best glimpse of what a Palestinian state could look like without Israeli occupation, with its trade and travel bans - if moderate President Mahmoud Abbas' secular agenda prevails.
While armed militias rule the streets of Nablus, and Gazans largely survive on U.N. food handouts, residents of Ramallah take yoga and Salsa dance classes or sip cappuccinos and beer in mixed groups - behavior that could get them killed 10 miles (15 kilometers) away.
Read on...
Posted in Foreign Affairs — Comments (3) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 7:01pm on Jul. 8, 2007 Egypt: FGM is Un-Islamic, Illegal
By Nathan Nelson
According to the Middle East Times, Egypt's Muslim leaders have issued a fatwa against the practice of female genital mutilation, also known as female circumcision - the practice of removing a woman's clitoris, practiced in parts of Africa and the Middle East, which can result in illness, death, or lifelong pain and discomfort for the women who are forced into the procedure. The Daily Star Egypt has more information on the fatwa, including quotes from Egyptian Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa. The fatwa was issued in anticipation of a governmental ban on FGM, briefly detailed by The Economist.
In other related news, Iranian Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said last week that "some issues about women, which exist in religious jurisprudence, are not the final say," indicating that the Iranian government may be ready to relax some social restrictions that have been placed upon women since the 1979 revolution (H/T: International Herald Tribune). Could it be that both Sunni and Shi'a are on the verge of recognizing some of the rights of women and permitting a greater role for them in social and political life?
Posted in Foreign Affairs — Comments (2) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 1:12am on Jul. 4, 2007 Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness
By Nathan Nelson
231 years ago today, the brave men of the Second Continental Congress declared the independence of the United States of America. In so doing, they defended man's inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and they declared that governments are formed by the consent of the governed to secure these inalienable rights. These three most basic human rights are revolutionary now as then. Today men and women are still standing up to fight for the freedom of their people, and many are still stunned by the audacity of their demands: first and most fundamentally, to live; and then to live freely, in bondage to no individual nor to the state; and finally to pursue their own happiness, especially by the right to private property and entrepreneurship. These most basic rights are still the longings of millions who are not free, and these inalienable rights still constitute the foundation upon which America was built and upon which it has achieved greatness.
Read on...
Posted in Miscellanea — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 12:47am on Jul. 4, 2007 Brown Ready to Give Up UK Sovereignty
By Nathan Nelson
According to the Telegraph, "New Labour" Prime Minister Gordon Brown is poised to sign a new treaty later this year that would incorporate most of the failed European Union Constitution without a referendum, despite Labour's manifesto promise during the last election to hold such a referendum. He's also poured ice water on the "English votes for English laws" campaign, a response to Welsh and Scottish devolution which would have only English MPs voting on matters that will only affect England.
What can I say? I told you so - twice! As he prepares to capitulate to the European Union and give up yet more of Britain's sovereignty, Gordon Brown is making "New Labour" look an awful lot like Old Labour. If you don't think that this is going to lead to even more leftist antics, think again. In rejecting a referendum, Brown is demonstrating that he is a true believer in a key leftist doctrine: the state has the power, so to hell with the people. If this doctrine doesn't come back to rear its ugly head in everything from other foreign policy issues to domestic economics, well, then - I'll eat my scone.
Posted in Foreign Affairs — Comments (1) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 11:40pm on Jul. 3, 2007 Mr. President, Pardon These Men
By Nathan Nelson
Promoted by Jeff
I don't really have a problem with the commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence, nor am I jumping for joy over it. I find it laughable that those who talk so much about the constitutional separation of powers, checks and balances, etc., are now so up in arms over the President's use of his constitutional "Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States" - thus checking the power of the judiciary. I also find it laughable that those who have done everything they can to undermine the judiciary by obstructing the appointment of federal judges are now holding this particular judge's decision sacrosanct. Finally, I find it laughable that those who stayed silent while Bill Clinton issued his dubious pardons are now speaking up so loudly against this use of the pardon by President Bush. What I do not find funny is that the mainstream media, as usual, are failing to point out this leftist hypocrisy.
But what I really don't find funny is that, while Scooter Libby - who may or may not have committed a crime - walks free, two of our finest U.S. Border Patrol agents are wasting away in prison, and their lives are in danger, all for doing their jobs.
Read on...
Posted in The White House — Comments (83) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 7:58pm on Jun. 30, 2007 Who Voted For a Nanny?
By Nathan Nelson
With several prominent Democrats in both the House and the Senate lining up to support the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" (which I blogged more about here), it's good to see that House and Senate Republicans like Mike Pence, Roy Blunt, Jim DeMint, Norm Coleman, and John Thune are standing up in opposition. Writing here at RedState, Congressman Roy Blunt (R-MO) gives us details on the successful passage of the Pence amendment, which prohibited federal funds from being used to enforce the Fairness Doctrine if indeed the Democratic leadership is successful in making it law. According to Ed Morrissey (Captain's Quarters), the aforementioned senators are proposing an identical amendment in the Senate. With 113 House Democrats also voting for the Pence amendment, it seems that the Democratic leadership - at least in the House - will have an uphill battle to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in any case.
Read on...
Posted in Liberals — Comments (3) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 7:44am on Jun. 29, 2007 Ohio's Left and Political Marxism
By Nathan Nelson
On Wednesday, the Ohio House of Representatives voted against a proposed constitutional amendment that would have restricted Ohio cities from seizing property under eminent domain for economic development. As a result, the amendment will not appear on this fall's ballot and will have to wait until at least 2008. Meanwhile, the Ohio House did pass a bill that would prevent local governments from seizing property for economic development, but because the state constitution gives cities the power to regulate public health and welfare they are exempt from the new law. Only a constitutional amendment can prevent cities from taking property for economic development. The end result is an unfair system in which some local governments (villages, townships, etc.) are prevented from exercising eminent domain for economic development while cities can continue doing so.
Why this disparity? According to the Akron Beacon Journal, it's because Ohio Democrats are afraid that such an amendment "would overly restrain urban redevelopment." In other words, Ohio Democrats are playing politics with your property. They don't want to anger the urban big money that gets them elected, so they've opted for this two tier system in which smaller towns (which elect mostly Republicans) are restricted and big cities (which elect mostly Democrats) are exempt. It's a new kind of political Marxism: "From each according to his politics, to each according to his politics." Despicable.
Posted in State Politics — Comments (6) / Email this page » / Read More »
