Christine O'Donnell Not Radical Enough

There is a lot of hoopla about how "radical" Delaware GOP U.S. Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell has shown herself to be. Having examined some of her statements, I would like to go on record as suggesting that some of her positions are not nearly radical enough. More on that later.

O'Donnell is running against Chris Coons. Soon-to-be-former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has called Coons "my pet." He is Barack Obama's dream candidate, and he will be a rubber stamp for the worst of Obama's agenda. He is a self-identified Marxist. Talk about radical.

Christine O'Donnell has been compared to Sarah Palin. Of course, the primary reason the elite media are desperate to associate the two women with each other in the minds of Americans is to discredit them both. The left wants to dishonor them, while embarrassing conservatives who support them.

Well, some of us refuse to be embarrassed by attractive, patriotic, freedom-loving women who don't believe in killing their babies, divorcing their husbands, marrying other women, surrendering to their sworn enemies or saddling their grandchildren with trillions of dollars of unsustainable debt. Some of us are proud of their courage, grace and steely resolve in the face of fascist ridicule from the left. Like Margaret Thatcher in Great Britain in the 1980s, these are strong, conservative women filling a void left by emasculated men who refuse to take a stand for what is good and decent and right.

As for O'Donnell's much ridiculed performance during her recent radio debate with Coons, she asked him to tell her where the words "separation of church and state" are found in the U.S. Constitution. Of course, like too many Americans, Coons answered "the First Amendment," then proceeded to misquote it. O'Donnell, astonished at the ignorance of his answer, said in a quizzical tone, "The separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?"

Unfortunately, the media has since succeeded in making O'Donnell, not Coons, sound like the dunce in the room. Amazing how the manipulation of sound bites can make us hear what they want us to hear, isn't it?

What I found interesting in listening to the entire debate was that O'Donnell defends the status quo on many issues. For example, when asked about the 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments, she said she did not favor repealing or altering them. (Incidentally, this tactic of hurling the number of the amendments at a candidate without defining what they are is reminiscent of ABC smart-aleck Charlie Gibson asking Sarah Palin to define the "Bush Doctrine.")

For those of you, who, like Christine O'Donnell and most of the rest of America, don't have your pocket Constitutions handy, the 14th Amendment was passed after the Civil War to ensure that freed slaves could not be denied citizenship. The problem with the judicial interpretation of this amendment is that over the years it has been used to secure automatic citizenship for so-called anchor babies — children born in the United States to foreign-born parents, regardless of their legal status.

The 16th and 17th Amendments were a couple of lumps of coal left in our collective stockings by the Teddy Roosevelt-Woodrow Wilson progressives just after the turn of the last century. The 16th provides for a federal income tax, while the 17th took the right to select our U.S. Senators away from our state legislatures and placed it in the hands of voters.

Today, it is estimated that the former is a trillion dollar anchor being pulled through our economy every year. As for the latter, ever since the amendment's passage, U.S. Senators have ceased to be the representatives of the interests of the states that the Founders designed their office to be.

If I lived in Delaware, I would vote for Christine O'Donnell, but she is not nearly radical enough to suit this old hardcore conservative.