CR Nation

As reported yesterday, at most major universitites a liberal will be delivering the commencement speech. Here is (a portion of) what YAF has to say about that:

A strikingly disproportionate number of commencement speakers at our nation’s top colleges and universities in 2008 were Democrat Party officials, leftist activists, and members of the old media, according to a survey released by Young America’s Foundation.

Using U.S. News & World Report’s ranking of the nation’s top 100 colleges and universities, Young America’s Foundation found that, for the 15th year in a row, commencement ceremonies were flooded with liberals while conservative speakers were few and far between.

Even in instances where conservatives were speaking, leftist faculty members threw temper tantrums. Professors at the University of Georgia tried to get the school to rescind an invitation to Justice Clarence Thomas, citing the much-discredited Anita Hill allegation. At Furman University many professors publicly detested the appearance of President George W. Bush, citing predictable liberal arguments about oil companies, greenhouse gasses, detainees, wiretapping, and the war in Iraq. At Washington University in St. Louis leftist students and professors turned their backs when Phyllis Schlafly was awarded an honorary degree.

To read YAF’s entire two cents, click here.

A new study has found that conservatives tend to be happier than liberals.

An excerpt from the Live Science article:

Regardless of marital status, income or church attendance, right-wing individuals reported greater life satisfaction and well-being than left-wingers, the new study found.

Its the Kennedy way. Its the liberal way.

In the course of getting MoveOn.org emails I have figured out that they whine….alot.

Especially, in light of the increasingly accepted notion that President Bush’s surge strategy is making military progress in Iraq.

In their last email, they whine about votes like an 8th grade girl whines over a pair of pink shoes

Here’s an excerpt:

We’ve all heard it from the Democratic leadership over and over again: “we don’t have the votes.”

Hundreds of thousands of us worked to get Democratic majorities elected. So why don’t they have the votes? One reason is that there are a set of weak Democrats who side with the president—especially on Iraq. They’re too scared to fight for what’s right and what they were elected to fight for.

This fall, we face a pivotal series of votes on Iraq—votes that, if we win, could spell the end of the Iraq war. MoveOn members have made phone calls. We’ve held town meetings. We’ve run ads and written letters to the editor. But now, given this big moment, we have an important decision to make together.

Should we support primary challengers against some Democrats who side with the president on Iraq?

This is priceless. But there’s more. The question as to whether MoveOn.org and its resources should be expended supporting a primary challenger to an incumbent Democrat who opposes the Moveon.org war orthodoxy was not merely a rhetorical question.

…deciding to support primary challenges is a big step—some folks have argued that we should keep our focus on Republicans, the primary architects and supporters of the war.

…We would only get involved in a primary race if MoveOn members in the district or state wanted to…

Why now? There are a lot of Democrats in Congress who are Democrats In Name Only (DINOs)—they don’t represent their constituents, a lot of them have been in office for years and they think that they can vote however they want. That’s just wrong. Their job is to represent their constituents.

I don’t know about you, but I love the fact that a far-left organization is willing to intiate electoral in-fighting with the moderates in their party.

I would jump at the opportunity to ensure that each incumbent Democrat has a primary challenge where they are forced to spend money to win primaries against Democrats that they would otherwise be able to spend attacking Republicans.

Democrats attacking Democrats; or Democrats attacking Republicans?

If you are like me, and would jump at the opportunity to contribute to messy primary battles for Democrats click here.

Not only is MoveOn.org willing to attack Democrats, but they have unofficially solicited the help of CR Nation!

A homeless advocacy group is challenging all Democrat Presidential candidates to sleep on the streets for one night in order to bring to their attention just how the other half lives…

[a] challenge laid down this month by the National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH), a non-profit advocacy organization, to all of the announced candidates in the 2008 contest for president [is] to spend a night as a homeless person. None accepted the invitation; in fact, only Illinois Democratic Sen. Barack Obama — who introduced a bill in April that would provide more housing for homeless veterans — responded to the group, and he demurred, citing scheduling conflicts.

Rule: Democrats only say what they must to get elected. Democrats really don’t want to “help” the poor, they only want to seem like they want to in order to get votes.

And let’s not forget that their term for “help” really isn’t help, because increasing federal funding for housing will only make more people dependent on government, in addition to increasing the level of addiction of those already receiving HUD funding.

I assume that this stunt is, in the long run, intended to increase federal housing funding for the poor. However, good a goal helping those less fortunate then us might be (and it is a duty to help the poor), it in no way necessarily implicates government.

Philosophically speaking, the poor can be just as effectively helped by private charity then by public governmental institutions. Government doesn’t have to be the answer nor should it be.

Proving that theory correct then are measures of the efficiency of government relative to charity and private industry which show that the latter is overwhelming more effiicient at what it does than the former.