Month: May 2016

Dropping the atomic bomb was merciful, not merciless

Many feared that President Barrack Obama’s recent speech in Hiroshima would descend into just another stop on his worldwide “Apology Tour” of imagined grievances and revised histories. Thankfully, our president stopped short of saying he was sorry for his predecessor’s decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan and thus putting an end to World War II. But true to form, he did color the remarks with the left’s usual themes of moral equivalencies, multiculturalism, and self-loathing. We were all just bad nations doing bad things, the speech seemed to imply, and dropping the bomb was probably the worst of it all. In fairness, some on the left still criticized Obama for not offering a full throated apology. “War crimes leave wounds,” wrote University of Norte Dame professor Daniel Philpott in the New York Daily News, attempting to lay the moral foundation for a presidential apology. “When a nation’s government places its patriotism and its policy behind a gravely immoral deed and continues to justify this deed, it invites both its citizens and future governments to commit further grave wrongs.” A gravely immoral deed? Tell that to those who were spared from the then-inevitable invasion of Japan, which estimates showed would have cost the lives of nearly a million Allied troops along with 10 million Japanese, who were all training to defend their god-emperor to the last man, woman, and child. So what’s worse? Dropping the bombs and ending the war quickly and decisively, or allowing the battles to drag…

Trumpism will come to pass but conservatism will endure

Conservatives contend that the Republican Party hasn’t nominated a presidential candidate from our movement’s ranks since 1984, and before that, not since 1964. “What’s past is prologue,” the Bard wrote; the party isn’t nominating one of us this year, either. Whatever can be said of Donald Trump, he hasn’t demonstrated an understanding of, or even an instinctual preference for, conservatism. He certainly hasn’t campaigned upon its principles and there’s no sign he’ll govern with them once elected. Quite the contrary, in fact. Trump’s recent attempts to unify the party have been to say that he doesn’t need conservatives to win, and then to speculate about raising both taxes and the minimum wage. Move over, Bernie. No matter. “It’s not about conservatism or liberalism,” a radio talk show host in Birmingham recently told me. His admission that Trump was basically a reactionary came a day after the candidate dismissively asked, “Who cares?” what political beliefs he actually holds. The better question might be, “Who knows?” And after this primary season, who knows what the party’s voters think conservatism is anyway. “Conservatism means being resistant to change,” a caller to a Huntsville talk show said last week, reading from a dictionary while charging that people like me aren’t boarding the Trump Train because we fear “change.” (Head hits desk.) For the record, his dictionary was defining a personal disposition, not a political philosophy. To the 57% of my fellow Republicans in Alabama who didn’t vote for Trump in our primary: We may…

A Target for Lawsuits

The small City of Oxford should be commended for having enough courage to stand against the dangerous notion that would have little girls undressing in small, closed-off rooms while potentially in the company of very sick men. Hyperbole? Hardly. That’s the type of unintended environment that our Social Justice Warriors and their invertebrate enablers have created: girls possibly undressing in the same room with either a) men so sexually and emotionally confused that they think of themselves as women, or b) perverted men who are simply taking advantage of a permissive setting. No father in his right mind would think either situation is acceptable. Thankfully someone, somewhere, is pushing back. Last month Oxford, Alabama – a small city halfway between Birmingham and Atlanta – passed an ordinance making it illegal to use public bathrooms or changing rooms different from one’s gender. The measure reads, “citizens have a right to … be secure from embarrassment and unwanted intrusion into their privacy while utilizing multiple occupancy bathrooms or changing facilities.” That has always made perfect sense, but Oxford was instantly hit with harangue. The leader of Human Rights Campaign Alabama (seriously?) called the city’s action a “shameful and vile attack on the rights and privacy of transgender people.” Typical. As if this little city is the aggressor here, rather than a multibillion dollar corporation seeking favorable press and praise by creating a dangerous environment for its employees and customers in Oxford. Target’s executives clearly thought they were being progressive and even trendy…