Thoughts On Conservatism

More Double-Talk from the Left

2009-10-08T14:53:00.000-07:00

Town hall protesters raise their voices in opposition to big government and Pelosi, Baird, and others compare them to terrorists and Nazis. A Republican representative calls the President a liar and Democrats reprimand him in a powerless "resolution." So-called death panels were harshly criticized as fear-mongering and lies. A constant attack on conservative opponents to current health care proposals is based in an apparent demand for civil discourse and a condemnation of hyperbolic insults.

But wait...where were Polosi and Baird when Rep. Alan Grayson said what he did the other day? Grayson said on the House floor that the GOP plan for health care is "1. Don't get sick, 2. and if you do... 3. die quickly." Nevermind for now that the claim is demonstrably false. Let's stick the point that while Republicans like John McCain went on TV minutes after Joe Wilson's "You lie" outburst and called for an apology whereas liberals hail Grayson as bold and brazen. It is blatantly obvious that Democrats do not want civility, they want ammunition against a public that is increasingly opposed to their government take-over.

But Grayson's straw-man tactic is nothing new to politics, much less to liberal rhetoric. Has Grayson heard anyhting baout tort reform, illegal immigration crackdown, or insurance portability across state lines? It's not that the GOP has no plan, it's that they don't have his plan. So, instead of actually talking about the courts, immigration, or portability, they string that straw man up on the pole and say that there is no plan at all. And Grayson goes a step further by accusing Republicans of wanting people to die, an accusation that is far worse than the death panel claims (which at least had some root in the proposed bills).

I'm still waiting for Obama to chastize Grayson like he does every critic of his plan that uses hyperbole and insults to make their points.

2009-09-09T21:20:00.000-07:00

Let me start out by saying that our president is 1) very smart, and 2) a very good speaker. Because of these two traits, I have to conclude that President Obama carefully crafted today's speech to the joint session and meant exactly what he said when he said:

"I will not back down on the basic principle that, if Americans can't find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice." (click here to read the entire speech)

This single sentence struck me more than anything else he said. To him, there is a principle at stake. And what is this principle? That if people can't afford something then government will provide it?

Obama is not stupid and speeches have made his career, so please don't think that this was just a poor choice of words, or that I am reading too far into this. This is perhaps his most important speech to date and you can bet your life that he has revised it a thousand times. He called it a principle, and that's what he meant.

Another reason to not support big government take-overs

2009-08-18T23:49:00.000-07:00

I went to Brian Baird's town hall meeting tonight and learned that there is a provision in the current health care bill that supports home visits to teach parents how to raise their children. I was skeptical at first when the audience member brought it up, but Baird acknowledged it, so I came home and looked it up. Sure enough, there is an entire section devoted to it.

Click here to read the entire bill. The things of which I speak are located in Section 440, with the meat of it starting on page 843.

This is what happens when big government gets its paws on things. They write HUGE bills that NO ONE can understand and hide little things in there that will give more leeway to whomever is in power.

Why I am Against this Health Care Reform

2009-08-10T21:26:00.000-07:00

1. First and foremost,this will be a huge chunk of our private lives put in the hands of the government. No matter what the details end up being, this expands the scope of government. Adding something that will cost in the trillions of dollars means more tax dollars and more people on the federal government payroll. Is that even in dispute?

2. This is just the first step in forcing universal government-run health care on all of us. Although they aren't leaving full-on universal health care on the table right now, the real plan is to undercut private insurance with a series of burdens. Not all will come at once or in one bill, but they will surely all come. First, heavy government regulations. Second, a public option that will kill private insurance by offering insurance at prices (through taxpayer subsidies) that the private sector cannot compete with. Third, a mandate that everyone buy health insurance, whether they want it or not. Last, as private insurance goes under and more people keep joining the public option, Congress will gobble up health care completely. If you think that this sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory, click here and watch this Youtube video.

3. Even if this doesn't all spiral into government-run universal health care, it will inevitably limit our choice. How so? If the government gets into the health care business, then how will they keep costs lower than the private companies? I think we all know that they won't do it by being more efficient than the private sector. No, they will d it by subsidizing their own health care plan with tax dollars. In the end, even if I choose to have private health care (which Obama promises he won't eliminate), then I will still be forced to pay taxes which will support the public health care system. It's the exact same argument that the teacher's union makes against school choice/voucher: "You already have choice. Send your kids to private schools if you want; no one's stopping you." But parents who do so are still paying taxes which support the public schools.

4. Lastly, I disagree with the argument that health care is a human right and therefore the province of government to ensure/pay for. If the argument that anything that is required to preserve life and health must be paid for by government, then soon the state will be paying for our food and houses. Well, the houses thing is already on the way I guess...but there are TONS of things that government could get their paws on if we just say that it's necessary for a healthy and successful life.

More later...

Perhaps a brewing controversy....

2009-07-26T10:27:00.000-07:00

I read an interesting piece in the Washington Post today (Click Here to read it). Let me set it up by explaining that members of Congress get to send out mail for free under a policy called the "Franking Commission." There are many controversies surrounding this policy, not the least of which is the fact that incumbents can use it to send out mail during election cycles, but this new controversy surround the healthcare debate.

I admit that I am not hip on all the details of the Franking Commission, but according to this article there is a bi-partisan commission set up to approve every piece of mail sent out, checking it for inappropriate use (such as blatantly partisan or personal criticism of policy). Apperently the commission rarely stops a piece of mail, including recent mailings sent out by Democrats to tout how the wonderful success of the stimulus bill.

Well, now Republicans are trying to use "franked mail" (what free mail is called) to send out charts, graphs, and facts which point out the confusing nature of the current healthcare reform proposal. And guess what? Democrats are trying to stop it.

I will be keeping my eye on this. I smell a rat.

Gates/Crowley/Obama Update

2009-07-24T20:44:00.001-07:00

No apologies yet. But there have been a few interesting updates.

First of all, the Cambridge Police Department and a handful of other local law enforcement unions and associations had a press conference in which they expressed their unequivocal support for Sgt. Crowley. The president of the Cambridge Police Superior Officers Association had my favorite quote of the conference:

"President Obama said the actions of the CPD were stupid and linked the event to the history of racial profiling in America. The facts of the case suggested that the president used the right adjective [stupid] but directed it to the wrong party."

All officers were of voice in supporting their comrade, even the black officer that was on the scene with Sgt. Crowley. As much as media-types tried to shake them off their rockers by asking if Gates should have been arrested, they all responded by saying, "Absolutely. 100%." It looks like Gates is going to have to take on a lot more than one officer in this fight.

Another interesting event was Obama's correction on his choice of words. No apology, just an admission that he had escalated the situation. He said that he "could have calibrated his words better," but that's about as much blame as he would take. he stuck to his guns in saying that an arrest should not have been made and barely squeaked out the words, "I continue to believe that Professor Gates probably overreacted." It should be noted that he needed no qualifier to announce his disagreement with Sgt. Crowley's actions, but could barely bring himself to put blame on his Harvard buddy.

President Obama is missing the point. Yes, it is annoying that he called a policeman stupid. Yes, it is disturbing the President is so quick to jump into these racially divisive controversies. But the most frustrating thing to me is that his knee-jerk reaction to these types of things is always to defend his liberal buddies. It was the same with Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers. His first reactions were always to defend the repulsive actions of his far-left friends and then to throw them under the bus when the facts come out.

Again, when in doubt Obama will stand with his lefty friends before the brave police officers of our great country.

Gates, Obama, Crowley, and the Persistence of Race

2009-07-23T22:11:00.000-07:00

Our President has done many things that get me upset, but what Obama did this week has infuriated me more than any political act I have ever witnessed. His interjection into the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. is appalling for three reasons:

First, Obama has no right meddling in local affairs. It completely undermines police work when the chief executive officer of law enforcement in the United States reprimands officers who work hard and put themselves in harm's way every day. Worse that, he did it so condescendingly, saying that Sgt. Cowley acted "stupidly." Press Secratary Gibbs later tried to correct his teleprompter-less boss by saying that "He was not calling the officer stupid. But at a certain point the situation got out of hand."

Second, Obama did not need to throw fuel on this fire. By chiming in on this so-called controversy, Obama throws gasoline onto a flame lit by Professor Gates that otherwise would have been stamped out quickly by rational, reasonable Americans. Now, since CNN and President Obama have proclaimed Sgt. Crowley's actions to be stupid and racist, millions of American will once again be thrown into the downward spiral of thinking that all police officers are KKK members with a badge.

Finally, all of this would be somewhat forgivable if there was at least a tid-bit of truth to the Obama/CNN/Gates hullabaloo. Unfortunately that's not the case. The President obviously did not have all the facts of the case before he started spewing out the bitter rhetoric that he got from his own far-left Ivy League professors. Even he admits that "I don't know all the facts" (always a good time to speak publicly on something, right?). If he did have the facts, then his statements on the matter are pure lies. For example, Obama summed up the confrontation between Crowley and Gates like this:

"The police officer comes in, I'm sure there's some exchange of words, but my understanding is, is that Professor Gates then shows his ID to show that this is his house. And at that point, he gets arrested for disorderly conduct."

Wow. I am stupefied by such a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Even a quick skim of the police report (click here to read it) shows that Obama's description of the event is either uninformed or completely dishonest. According to Crowley, Gates was defiant from the very first point of contact, yelling throughout the conversation and continually calling him a racist. Furthermore, Obama and other critics of the Sgt. Crowley imply that the arrest was made despite the fact that Gates had shown ID and proved that it was his house. Has anyone read the charges of his arrest? Did it say breaking and entering? No, it says disorderly conduct. He wasn't arrested for breaking into the house, he was arrested because he was throwing conniption fits throughout the entire conversation with the police.

The bottom line is that it is Gate's word against the police officer's. When in doubt, will Obama take the side of police officers or his black friends in academia? We now know for sure.

Click here to read USA Today's synopsis of Obama's statements.

Click here to see the video of Gates on CNN giving his side of the story. My favorite part of this is when he says "there was a black officer there and he was sensitive."

CNN slip-up

2009-07-16T12:39:00.000-07:00

Although CNN has gotten better, their left-leaning bias show again in a headline today on their website: Republicans Heap Praise on Sotomayor.

Click here to read the actual article, whose actualy title is "GOP won't filibuster Sotomayor, Replublican Senator says."

Read the article and tell me if it is about Republicans "heaping priase" on the Supreme Court nominee. I guess not filibustering someone who ought not to even have a legal career, let alone a free pass onto the Supreme Court, could be considered "heaping praise," comparitively speaking...

Which One is Sotomayor's Real Philosophy?

2009-07-14T09:35:00.000-07:00

This is what she said yesterday in the confirmation hearings...

And this is what she said a few years ago to students at Duke University...

Which do we believe?

We just didn't spend enough...

2009-07-10T09:44:00.000-07:00

A few quarters ago I took a history class from a very knowledgeable professor who was also, by his own admission, very liberal. Despite his political bias, even he admitted that The New Deal did not pull America out of the Great Depression. Instead, he explained to a class full of FDR-worshipping liberal students, WWII did the job. But he made sure to add one caveat: the New Deal only failed because it didn't spend enough, because FDR didn't transfer enough people onto welfare, and that government didn't grow enough.

This seems to be the liberal arguement every time big tax-and-spend (or should I say spend-then-tax) liberal plans fail. They didn't fail because the strategy is flawed, it failed because we didn't do it big enough. Paul Krugman's column today in the NYT makes just that argument. He claims that the stimulus plan was too small (even though we haven't even spent 10% of the money yet) and that Obama needs to tell the American people that it's time for another round.

Can anyone give me an example of when government decided to spend a whole lot of money and create a whole bunch of new agencies to stop economic bleeding and it worked?

Losing faith in the establishment

2009-07-09T12:23:00.000-07:00

After Barack Obama's election, the liberal media had a hay-day speculating about the end of the Republican Party and how conservatism was gone forever. At the time it was frustrating to hear a death sentence on my party and my ideology pronounced by the journalists and pundits who have been hoping for our demise for decades. But now I am starting to agree with them, but for different reasons.

Liberals think that conservatism is dying because people no longer agree with conservative principles or hold conservative values. I think that conservatism is dying because conservatives are affraid to act like conservatives. Our leaders tuck their tails and play the game the way the liberals want because they have been without a leader since Gingrich left. If they speak out against abortion, they are called sexists. If they speak out against judicial activism in someone who happens to be Hispanic, they are called racists. If they fight huge government spending in times of economic crisis, they are called "The Party of No." They are constantly on the defensive when they stand up for conservative values, so they go with the flow and sell their values down the river.

On the other end of the spectrum, Fox News pushes against every single statement and expenditure made by Congress and the President. I hate to say it, but liberals had a point when they told Sean Hannity that George W. Bush spent just as many tax doallrs on his trips to the ranch as Obama did on his fancy New York date with Michelle. Zeroing in on such petty little things distracts from the fundamental issues that we face.

Please, stop apologizing for us and start speaking the language of middle America. Most people oppose the bailouts, the stimulus, silence toward North Korea, and government-run healthcare, so dn't be affraid to take that stand.

I'm Bailin' on Palin

2009-07-08T17:17:00.000-07:00

I was one of the few people who had actually heard of Sarah Palin before her jump into the spotlight last year (though I admit I didn't know is the "a" in her name was pronouced long or short). I remember rooting for her when she sued the EPA for listing the polar bear as an endangered species and reading about her when she stood up to corruption in the Alaskan GOP. Her appeal was her genuiness and non-elitism.

Unfortunately, however, I think the McCain campaign ruined her image and to her discredit she let them. They fed her lines the entire time and bought her a bunch of fancy clothes to make her look like a yougner, hipper version of Hillary Clinton. They held her back from reporters and made her trademark accent and funny language sound contrived. In short, they made all of her strenghts into weaknesses.

Since then I have been up in the air about Sarah Palin, not knowing what to think about her. On the one hand, I like her stance on the issues and I appreciate having a real person in the political spotlight. My knee-jerk reaction has always been, and still is, to defend her against so many unfair attacks. On the other hand, the left-wing media has always seemed to have the upper hand on her and she always seems to be on the defensive instead of pushing forward the way she did in Alaska before her huge celebrity breakthough. She never seems to effectively communicate her ideas, instead leaning on her girl-next-door image.

Never has this been more the case since last week's announcement that she would be stepping down from her post as governor. For me that was the straw that broke the camel's back. It is still completely foggy as to why she stepped down. She keeps exaplining it in metaphores rather than "straight talk" (as her former running mate coined). Everyone has an opinion, but no one knows exactly why she did it. To me, that is unacceptable. Any ways you cut it, she comes off soft and disingenuous. If she did it because of the many unfair attacks against her, then she is soft. If she left because of all the time and money that has been waisted on ethics charges, etc., then she is going to be sorely disappointed when she looks for a higher calling in national politics. Again, soft. If she's doing it soley to prepare for the 2012 election, then she has just slapped Alaskans in the face. The Alaskan people voted her in and expect her to do her job. If she really was as tough as she acts, she would push through the term.

In any case, I'm bailin' on Palin.

P.S. Sorry about the title. I couldn't resist the cheesy rhyme.

Yet another troubling decision....

2009-05-31T21:48:00.000-07:00

For those of you who think that the Second Amendment protects your right to own a weapon, think again. If you think that last year's Supreme Court decision upholding the Second Amendment as an individual right cemented your right to own a weapon, think again. President Barack Obama and prospective Surpeme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor have another idea.

For years, gun control advocates have argued that the 2nd Amendment only protects the rights of militias to own and bear arms, not individuals. However, last year the Supreme Court decided in District of Columbia v. Heller that the right to own a gun is an individual right an struck down D.C.'s carpet restriction on handguns.

But this decision has not touched the tip of the iceberg when it comes to gun ownership rights. You see, according to the judiciary the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the states. So while the federal government has a hard time passing strict gun laws, individual states could actually outlaw weapons altogether. Several cases have upheld this precedent - Presser v. Illinois, United States v. Cruikshank, and now Maloney v. Cuomo, a recent decision joined by Sotomayor.

President Obama has made it very public that he wanted his nominee to use "common sense." But could someone please explain to me how applying some parts of the Constitution to the states and not others uses "common sense?" Even without common sense, Article IV of the Constitution states that "this Constitution...shall be the law of the land...and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby." It's known as the supremacy clause. But apparently the Supreme Court thinks state judges are only bound by part of the Constitution.

Now isn't that scary?

Blatant racism from the next Supreme Court Justice

2009-05-28T23:04:00.001-07:00

In a 2001 speech entitled "A Latina Judge's Voice," Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor said she hopes that "a Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Obama Press Secretary Robert Gibbs adhered us to read the entire speech in order to get the "full context" of what she was trying to say. Let me just thank Secretary Gibbs for the suggestion, because after reading the speech (click here to read it in its entirety), I am even more outraged that she is even being considered for a life-long appointment to the highest court in the land.

The funniest thing is that a full reading does not make her statement any less offensive. Rather, it makes it worse. She meant it exactly how it reads - that women brought up in Latino families are better judges than their white male counterparts. Late in the speech she appeals to the male students in the audience: "For men lawyers, what areas in your experiences and attitudes do you need to work on to make you capable of reaching those great moments of enlightenment which other men in different circumstances have been able to reach." Read it again. She said that men need to work on their attitudes in order to make themselves capabale of being enlightened. Seriously, those are her words. I'm not distorting, taking them out of context, or leaving anything out.

Need I even ask what would happen if Samuel Alito would have admonished women to work on their attitudes in order to make them capable of enlightenment? Or that white male judges come to better conclusions than female hispanic ones? He would likely be arrested in his first confirmation hearing. But unfortunately Obama and Sotomayor will likely get a pass.

A new justice is nominated...

2009-05-26T16:08:00.001-07:00

In looking at President Obama's Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, let's get a few facts out of the way so we can really get to the heart of the matter. First, I think that the vast majority of people can agree that her education at Princeton and Yale, along with her experience as a prosecutor, US District Court Judge, and federal appellate judge give her the background and experience needed to take her nomination seriously (as opposed to, say, Harriet Meyers). Second, no Democrat will ever nominate a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-gun judge to the land's highest court, so let's keep the debate away from those issues. Besides, her record (as far as I can tell) is paper-thin on these hot topic issues and nothing has sprouted up (yet) to infer that she is a bleeding-heart liberal.

So, if it is pointless to debate about hot topic issues and qualifications, what is left on which to oppose her appointment to the Supreme Court? Judicial philosophy. What exactly does that mean? It means, simply put, what is her view the role of the Court and its powers? President Obama claimed that he wanted "empathy" in his nominee, “somebody who has common sense and somebody who has a sense of how American society works and how the American people live.” These criterion show Obama's, and presumably Sotomayor's, judicial philosophy. According to them, the Constitution should not be the sole source of reasoning in decisions, but also life experience and empathy. Is this the type of outlook Supreme Court Justices ought to have? Is the Constitution important, or just a document that can be strayed from if "common sense" or "empathy" can be invoked?

Second, Sotomayor's judicial philosophy came to the light of day in a conference in 2005. Sotomayor stated to a group of students that the "Court of Appeals is where policy is made." (Click here to see it on YouTube). Notice that she says it with a laugh, sarcastically adding that she shouldn't say it on tape because "we don't make law," as if those that believe that judges should not be legislating from the bench are ridiculous. Is there any room to doubt that she has no qualms about ruling as she sees fit, not necessarily as the law and/or Constitution mandate?

How does the Constitution erode? Slowly, piece by piece. One decision at a time. One justice at a time. Sotomayor's confirmation would be one more step towards abandoning the Constitution for the sake of "empathy," "life experience," and "common sense," and put us on the course towards a Supreme Court where policy is made, not interpreted.

In my book, nine unelected policy-makers serving life terms with little adherence to a constitution is not a democracy.

2009-05-22T16:38:00.001-07:00

So I just set up my email account to blog from...this is a test...

"Courage" or "Flip-Flopping?"

2009-03-24T16:33:00.000-07:00

Read this article reported by Yahoo and decide whether you think Senator Schumer has great courage or is a flip-flopper/panderer.

The jist of the article is that Schumer, the senior senator from New York, has officially changed his long-tome stance on gay marriage. Whereas he long opposed it, he now magically supports it. Even a professor at the University of Massachussetts admits that "at this point we have a fair amount of knowledge that supporting gay marriage in the Northeast is not the kiss of death politically" and that this is a politically savvy move, not one of courage. If he were really fighting for a principle he would have done it when it wasn't popular.

Now, I have no problem with a politican changing his mind when he can give a good reason for the change. But Schumer gives no such explanation, leaving us to assume the obvious: his polling data once again told him what to think.

Dems are changing the rules as they go...again.

2008-12-22T17:44:00.000-08:00

So remember the 2004 Washington State gubernatorial race? The one where Republican Dino Rossi won the original count, first recount, and second recount before a THIRD recount put Christine Gregoire into the governor's mansion?

Remember the 2000 Presidential race in Florida? The one where Al Gore lost until he found some hanging chads and fought it all the way to the US Supreme Court?

Remember this year's Florida and Michigan Democratic primaries that were discounted after going heavily for Clinton and then reinstated then after it was clear that Obama would win regardless?

Now the latest episode is in Minnesota where an incredibly biased canvassing board is overseeing a hand recount (how on earth is a hand count more accurate than a computer one?) of the Senate race between Republican Norm Coleman and Democrat Al Franken. I won't go into great detail, but suffice it to say that there have been a GREAT deal of inconsistencies in the challenged ballots. It seems that whenever the rules favor Coleman, they are discarded. But whenever a rule needs to be bent in favor of Franken, they are.

Update: A few fellow bloggers have informed me that this particular example was a typo, so I tip my hat to them. I've replaced it with a different example that was not a typo (see below).

This ballot was NOT counted for Coleman:

But this ballot WAS coutned as a vote for Coleman.

Here is a link to some more examples with links to the sources. Another good list is in the Fox News report about the same issue. For all you liberal Fox News haters, at least look at it please. It's not more biased that thte New York Times.

Bailouts and how they threaten democracy and capitalism

2008-12-22T12:53:00.000-08:00

It is very rare that a vast majority of conservatives, liberals, indepedents, and non-politcal American citizens agree on something. So when it happens, it goes to reason that it would be an easy decision for Congress and the President to make. But with this year's political trend - bailouts - our government has decided that this is not a government by the people anymore. This trend is bound to have lasting effects on our way of life.

I find it astounding that voters (and non-voters) have spoken very loudly and clearly that both bailouts are NOT what Americans want. But Congress gave the voters the finger and pointed their condescending noses up at us by passing $700B to bail out the finance industry. I guess they think that the ignorant masses don't know as much as our wise leaders about the complicated economy. Not only is this extremely condescending, but it threatens our democracy. If our leaders won't listen to us when we have spoken very clearly against their actions, when will they listen?

Furthermore, passing the financial bailout paved the way for the auto bailout that the Senate finally had the wit to fail. Against voters' AND Congress's wishes, President Bush pulled money from the financial bailout bill (TARP) and pledged it to the auto loans. How are we to ever know how our money is going to be spent if any allocation of money can be redirected at the Presidnet's whim? Why pass bills at all? Why not just sign everything over to the treasury and let them spend it where they want?

The most dangerous part of the bailouts, however, are the intention of the government to buy stakes in the copmanies they are bailing out. AKA - a backdoor to socialism. When the financial bailout was passsed we were told that the money was going to be used to buy up toxic mortgage securities. What did they do? Buy up stakes in the banks so that the government could micromanage their companies. The atuo baiolout has a stipulation that the governemt would reserve the right to buy up large stakes in their companies for the same reason.

The mainstream media and left-wing blogosphere have declared the end of trickle-down eceonomics and capitalism altogether, and they may be right if the Democratic Congress gets their way. But if capitalism fails then it won't be because it doesn't work, it will be because beaurocracy has taken over and weeded out all efficiency, inginuity, and entrepenuerialism. That is what governement does in most cases.

Gregoire Shows Her True Colors

2008-12-04T22:12:00.000-08:00

Merry Christmas from the beautiful Northwest where the plants are green, the water is blue, and the government is anti-religious. Governor Gregoire's office granted a permit to the Freedom From Religion Foundation to display a piece in the capitol building in Olympia next to the Christian nativity scene and Jewish menorah. Fair enough...free speech right? Well that is what Governor Gregoire's office claims, but when you actually read the placard that the FFRF posted, you realize that the governor is hiding behind free speech to make a back door attack on traditional American values:

"In this season of the WINTER SOLSTICE may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

Click here to see a report on the sign.

Ok, so most Americans' first impression is probably, "So what? They have the same right to express their views as the Christians and Jews." This, however, goes beyond an innocent expression of views. This is, in the exact words of the FFRF, an "attack on religion." It is not a peaceful display of faith, tradition, and values, but rather a predatory exploitation of the Christmas and Hannukuh seasons in order to disparage the vast majority of Americans who believe in God. Reading the sign does not invoke feelings of peace, love, or humanity, but rather deviciveness and hate. Do the nativity scene and menorah invoke such feelings? Of course not, and our government should not be endorsing such communications.

Our government has a duty to protect the American way of life, and this type of things does not do that. Governor Gregoire is contributing to the left-wing movement to undermine foundational American/Judeo-Christian values by not drawing a line.

I have drawn a line in the sand and refuse to be thrown around under the auspices of "free speech."

Huckabee is also back...

2008-11-27T10:51:00.001-08:00

The Huckster is back, making the rounds on talk radio to promote his new book, "Do the Right Thing." The book is a memoir of the long-fought primary battle and a self-proclaimed rally cry to conservatives discouraged with the slaughter they experienced in the general election.

Before I talk about it, let me admit that I haven't read the book and don't plan to. If Mike Huckabee sent me a free copy then I would consider it, but I will not support the Huckmeister by buying his book or by encouraging anyone to puchase it. That being said, I have heard two lenghty interviews with him about the book and read a number of blogs and articles about it.

Let's be clear, Huckabee is positioning himself for a 2012 bid. His new book, TV show, and future radio program are all mediums to get himself into as many homes as possible. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is Huck throwing every other Republican under the bus except his ol' buddy and fellow Romney-hater John McCain.

The blogs are most frequently quoting Huckabee's description of Romney as "anything but conservative until he changed the light bulbs in his chandelier in time to run for president." This is the center of what I hate about liberals and Huckabee - their contempt for the well-to-do. In the interviews I heard with Huck, he was constantly double-talking about conservative principles, saying that we need to care about "main street" and at the same time cut corporate taxes. He takes plays right out of the liberal playbook by vilifying the rich and pretending to be middle class himself.

As for his team-up with John McCain, the Republican nominee gets only a few brief mentions in the book. How do you write and entire book about a historic primary race without hardly mentioning the winner of the contest? When asked, Huckabee's answer to Hugh Hewitt was that he didn't want to do anything that would jeopordize McCain's chances of winning in the general election. What a bunch of garbage. If that were the case then he should have waited to write and release the book until after the election. As it is, the book is merely an excuse to knock down prominent Repulbican leaders, especially Romney, and make himself look like the face of the GOP's future.

The true future of the GOP lies in the hands of whoever can do what Reagan did - bring conservatives together. Huckabee has done nothing but tear apart Republicans and seed anamosity and contention within the party.

Mitt is back...

2008-11-19T16:28:00.000-08:00

An he might be the only one tlaking right now that has any idea what he's talking about. His article today in the New York Times shows why he should have been our next President, especially given this economic "catastrophe." Mitt knows that writing a check to the Big Three auto makers will not solve the long-term problem, but perpetuate bad business and keep the companies wallowing in the same financial problems that got them where they are. (I want to use a metaphor involving cosmetics and swine, but I'm affraid of where that might lead...)

Romney knows that leaving governemtn out completely is not the answer; he advocates for a "partnership" with the auto companies to work out a "managed bankruptcy" which will help really restructure the companies. Without bankruptcy, the companies will still have all of their over-loaded contracts, wages, pensions, and real estate holdings that are bogging down their budget sheets. Mitt has the forsight to know that if we just write a check to the companies, even if the governemtn is involved in the restruturing, then the bottom-line costs will stay the same and it won't be long before they are back begging for more. History has already told us that.

Of course Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barney Frank think they know what they are talking about. And big surprise, they want to throw money at the problem. Sure, house and Senate Dems will attach strings and talk a lot about "green technology," but the bottom line is that they don't want to loose favor with their biggest contributors - the unions.

Quick BYU football plug...

2008-10-23T18:17:00.001-07:00

Vote for Bronco Mendenhall for Coach of the Year here:

Bronco Mendenhall

Bail Out

2008-09-30T08:47:00.000-07:00

If it were up to me, I would address the financial crisis by first looking at what the problems are:

1. Financial institutions made some brain-dead decisions by giving out too many loans to people they probably knew couldn't pay them back, otherwise known as sub-prime mortgages. Assuming that property would continue to soar like it has much of the past 5-8 years, the big banks gambled that even if a lot of people foreclosed, they would still have an appreciated asset in the real estate. Well, lots of people did foreclose, and houses flooded the market and real estate prices went down. Now all the big companies who put all their poker chips into the housing market have lost a big chunk of their principle investment.

2. Too many people took out mortgages they couldn't afford. I'm not sure I buy it, but many people (mostly the Dems) claim that they were tricked into it with "predatory" lending practices. Even if tghat's true they still signed onthe dotted line without understanding the contract, and that leaves a lot of the blame square on their shoulders for their foreclosures.

3. The Fed has printed way too much money not backed by gold, leaving the dollar weak in an increasingly competitive world market.

So, to solve the problem, what does Congress do? Throw a lot of money and power at the treasury. True conservatism just cannot bring me to swallow the pill of throwing $700 billion at one person or department in the government.

One argument I hear from a lot of people, including many conservatives, is that this is actually an investment, not a cost. This is true, since the plan is trying to buy up assets from the companies for way less tah nthey are worth, not simply give them money to get back on their feet. That way the federal government has billions of dollars worth of assets, mostly real estate, that will hopefully appreciate.

This argument, however, leaves a few questions in my mind: First, if this is such a good investment, then why can't private investors buy in instead of taxpayers? Second, if putting so many eggs into one basket killed the financial industry, why wouldn't it do the same thing to the federal government? Remember, the bill proposes that we buy up BAD loans from the companies...doesn't sound like such a great deal to me.

Another argument, which is probably more sound, is that a financial collapse affects everybody. The cheesy phrase they use is "from Wall Street to Main Street." As companies start clamping down on their losses, they will start lending way less money. It will become harder and harder for ordinary people to get credit to buy a car, go to school, buy a home, etc. Probably more devastating is the fact that businesses, especially small businesses, will have a hard time getting credit to buy things necessary to expand their business. Right now much of the economy rests on the ability of people and businesses to buy things on credit. Think about how many fewer cars and houses will sell if half as many people can get the loans to buy them. Think about how many fewer start-up businesses will pop up if no-one will give them a small business loan.

This argument, while sound, doesn't pursuade me. The marketplace is full of risk, and markets fluctuate, sometimes radically. Call me heartless, but I say let the market crash. Let the credit industry seize. Let the grandma's and grandpa's with their 401k's in the stock market loose their retirement. Do we think that our money in the stock market has no risk attached to it? This is one of the risks, so let it be.

I'm convinced that this will be a good thing in the end. Housing prices will go down and more people will be able to afford to buy. Oil is already going down, bringing food prices with it. It may take a few years of recession, but in the end the market will be much more healthy for it.

More Left-Wing Condescension

2008-09-26T09:57:00.000-07:00

If anyone wants to see the heart of the left, read this column in The Week by Robert Shrum, a former advisor to the 2000 Al Gore campaign. I won't go into all the details, but it's summed up in the final paragraph:

In the end, this election will be more than a contest of policy or even personality; it will become a test of America’s character. We'll pass it, I predict...

A test of America's character? So, if you don't vote for Barack Obama, you have bad character? Please explain to me how that isn't condescending...

(By the way, the article also sets out a clear excuse, just in case Obama loses the election. Of course the staple of this excuse is racism and right-wing smear; another example of the lack of accountability from the left. If they lose, its always either the mean, evil, rich Republicans' fault for being unethical or it's the dumb religion-and-gun-clinging voters' fault who don't have enough character or intelligence to vote Democrat.)

Liberal Media

2008-09-24T16:43:00.000-07:00

I've read the argument that there is a lot of press that favors the political right, but I remain convinced that the mainstream media leans very heavily to the left. By mainstream media I mean the standard newsources that regular people rely on to be informed such as major newspapers, TV news, and major internet news outlets. (Fox News may be the exception, although I still think that they are just outside of mainstream, with CNN having quite a bit more name recognition as a news source). On that note I just had to post this example of seemingly objective news sources printing blatantly partisan babble. This came from Yahoo News, and it reports that McCain is suspending his campaign until this credit crisis is solved and Obama is not. Click here to read the entire article.

The part I found most interesting (or should I say appauling) is the tenth and elevent paragraphs:

Even as McCain said he was putting the good of the country ahead of politics, his surprise announcement was clearly political. It was an attempt to try to outmaneuver Obama on an issue in which he's trailing, the economy, as the Democrat gains in polls. He quickly went before TV cameras minutes after speaking with Obama and before the two campaigns had hammered out a joint statement expressing that Congress should act urgently on the bailout.

And while McCain's campaign said he would "suspend" his campaign, it simply will move to Washington knowing the spotlight will remain on him no matter where he is.

This is not an opinion, editorial, or column. It is supposed to be a report. But this author implies, if not outright accuses McCain of making this decision purely out of political ambitions. That is not reporting.

In an attempt to seem objective, the author references Obama's political calculations in much less critical terms:

Obama, too, made a political calculation by rejecting McCain's challenge while trying to still appear on top of the problem. Obama repeatedly stressed at his news conference that he called McCain first to propose that they issue a joint statement in support of a package to help fix the economy as soon as possible. He said McCain called back several hours later, as Obama was leaving a rally in Florida, and agreed to the idea of a statement but also said he wanted to postpone the debate and hold joint meetings in Washington.

Embedded into this analysis is yet more criticism of McCain: "McCain called back several hours later as he was leaving a rally in Florida," implies that McCain wasn't interested in talking with Obama but rather in campaigning. "Obama repeatedly stressed...that he called first to propose that they issue a join statement" is clearly not a criticism of Obama but a praise. Somehow calling Obama on political calculations amoutns to pushing his message for him, but calling McCain on his is an expose' on McCain true, evil intentions.

Compromise?

2008-09-11T13:56:00.001-07:00

When I first started this blog, a close friend of mine pointed out something that was in no way a secret to me, but it really got me thinking. I can't remember the exact terms, and I'm too lazy to go back to the commetn threads and look it up, but he mentioned that my blog, and myself in general, are too combative. Me? Combative, competitive, picking fights? Never! But all joking aside, his comments got me thinking about why I am, along with many conservatives, so defensive and battle-oreiented when it comes to politics.

Let me get straight to the point. We don't trust liberals. It's a very simple, maybe overly simple statement. I can't think of any examples of when liberal thinkers conceded a point to conservatives. Right-wingers are constantly coming out in favor of global warming legislation, or "admitting" that overturning Roe v. Wade would bring American girls to the alley-ways for coat-hanger abortions, or that marriage is a right that ought to be offered to gays and lesbians, or that citizenship ought to be offered to anyone living in America, or that people and companies out to be limited in how much they give to political campaigns, or that universal health care would solve a lot of problems. Sometime soon I will edit this post and put names of republicans next to each of these concessions.

But when was the last time you saw a pro-life Democrat? When was the last time a liberal admitted that global warming is a guess, at best? Never. The constant pressure in today's society is not to move toward traditional values but toward "open-mindedness" and "tolerance," and to admit everyone and everything into the mainstream of our culture.

That is why it's a fight and that is why we are in battle, not in discussion. The left is only open-minded and tolerant toward ideas that battle the mainstream, and they are increasingly hostile to those of use that believe that some mainstream ideas are good. They have offered no olive branch that I can see, and I have no reason to believe that if I stop fighting and start discussing then my opinions will be respected. For example, let's say we "compromise" on abortion, and we agree that keeping aboriton on the table makes the practice safer. Now what? We've given an inch to the left, but what have we done to actually prevent abortion or promote the idea that it is a last resort in extreme cases? Nothing. They will take the compromise and let it settle in until it is the mainstream, then take another inch. Next thing you know, abortion is no longer a terrible thing, but a right women have to get them out of tough situations. Next thing you know, homosexuality is no longer a sinful practice, but just as normal as chewing gum or writing an email. That is the true goal of liberalism - that everything and everyone is welcome into the mainstream of our society, and that every practice is acceptable.

The left has never done anything to defend the true values that this country was built on, and I have no reason to believe that they have any interest in starting soon.

I know that if I ever run for office then someone will dig up this post and wave it around, but oh well.

Democrats Need to Learn Some Respect

2008-09-08T09:10:00.001-07:00

I read a blog this morning that hit the nail right on the head. Please read it. It explains many things that I have been thinking for a long itme but haven't gotten to commenting on.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f1984d88-7cd5-11dd-8d59-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1

The FT makes you register to read the entire article, so here is the full text if you don't feel like registering:

by Clive Crook

This article is not the first to note the cultural contradiction in American liberalism, but just now the point bears restating. The election may turn on it.

Democrats speak up for the less prosperous; they have well-intentioned policies to help them; they are disturbed by inequality, and want to do something about it. Their concern is real and admirable. The trouble is, they lack respect for the objects of their solicitude. Their sympathy comes mixed with disdain, and even contempt.

Democrats regard their policies as self-evidently in the interests of the US working and middle classes. Yet those wide segments of US society keep helping to elect Republican presidents. How is one to account for this? Are those people idiots? Frankly, yes – or so many liberals are driven to conclude. Either that or bigots, clinging to guns, God and white supremacy; or else pathetic dupes, ever at the disposal of Republican strategists. If they only had the brains to vote in their interests, Democrats think, the party would never be out of power. But again and again, the Republicans tell their lies, and those stupid damned voters buy it.

It is an attitude that a good part of the US media share. The country has conservative media (Fox News, talk radio) as well as liberal media (most of the rest). Curiously, whereas the conservative media know they are conservative, much of the liberal media believe themselves to be neutral.

Their constant support for Democratic views has nothing to do with bias, in their minds, but reflects the fact that Democrats just happen to be right about everything. The result is the same: for much of the media, the fact that Republicans keep winning can only be due to the backwardness of much of the country.

Because it was so unexpected, Sarah Palin’s nomination for the vice-presidency jolted these attitudes to the surface. Ms Palin is a small-town American. It is said that she has only recently acquired a passport. Her husband is a fisherman and production worker. She represents a great slice of the country that the Democrats say they care about – yet her selection induced an apoplectic fit.

For days, the derision poured down from Democratic party talking heads and much of the media too. The idea that “this woman” might be vice-president or even president was literally incomprehensible. The popular liberal comedian Bill Maher, whose act is an endless sneer at the Republican party, noted that John McCain’s case for the presidency was that only he was capable of standing between the US and its enemies, but that should he die he had chosen “this stewardess” to take over. This joke was not – or not only – a complaint about lack of experience. It was also an expression of class disgust. I give Mr Maher credit for daring to say what many Democrats would only insinuate.

Little was known about Ms Palin, but it sufficed for her nomination to be regarded as a kind of insult. Even after her triumph at the Republican convention in St Paul last week, the put-downs continued. Yes, the delivery was all right, but the speech was written by somebody else – as though that is unusual, as though the speechwriter is not the junior partner in the preparation of a speech, and as though just anybody could have raised the roof with that text. Voters in small towns and suburbs, forever mocked and condescended to by metropolitan liberals, are attuned to this disdain. Every four years, many take their revenge.

The irony in 2008 is that the Democratic candidate, despite Republican claims to the contrary, is not an elitist. Barack Obama is an intellectual, but he remembers his history. He can and does connect with ordinary people. His courteous reaction to the Palin nomination was telling. Mrs Palin (and others) found it irresistible to skewer him in St Paul for “saying one thing about [working Americans] in Scranton, and another in San Francisco”. Mr Obama made a bad mistake when he talked about clinging to God and guns, but I am inclined to make allowances: he was speaking to his own political tribe in the native idiom.

The problem in my view is less Mr Obama and more the attitudes of the claque of official and unofficial supporters that surrounds him. The prevailing liberal mindset is what makes the criticisms of Mr Obama’s distance from working Americans stick.

If only the Democrats could contain their sense of entitlement to govern in a rational world, and their consequent distaste for wide swathes of the US electorate, they might gain the unshakeable grip on power they feel they deserve. Winning elections would certainly be easier – and Republicans would have to address themselves more seriously to economic insecurity. But the fathomless cultural complacency of the metropolitan liberal rules this out.

The attitude that expressed itself in response to the Palin nomination is the best weapon in the Republican armoury. Rely on the Democrats to keep it primed. You just have to laugh.
The Palin nomination could still misfire for Mr McCain, but the liberal reaction has made it a huge success so far. To avoid endlessly repeating this mistake, Democrats need to learn some respect.

It will be hard. They will have to develop some regard for the values that the middle of the country expresses when it votes Republican. Religion. Unembarrassed flag-waving patriotism. Freedom to succeed or fail through one’s own efforts. Refusal to be pitied, bossed around or talked down to. And all those other laughable redneck notions that made the United States what it is.

Send your comments to clive.crook@gmail.com

The Sexism Card

2008-09-03T13:51:00.000-07:00

Here we go again...the sexism card. First Hillary was whining about not being accepted into the all boys club and now McCain/Palin surrogates are crying foul in regards to recent criticism aimed at Governor Palin. Let's get to the bottom of this...

I think it is completely within the rules to ask how Governor Palin plans on giving her family ample attention as a mother (if elected)...IF one also asks Barack Obama how he plans to give his family ample attention as a father (if elected). Or any other male candidate, for that matter. It's not like Palin is the first parent of young children to ever run for office; Barack Obama's girls are younger than most of Palin's kids. Why haven't we held the same amount of scrutiny to all candidates and claimed that in order to hold such a high office one cannot also have parenting committments? The answer is simple: Sarah Palin is a woman, and to treat someone differently based on their sex is, by definition, sexism. I never thought I'd be playing the sexism card, but there it is.

Criticism of a woman is not, in and of itself, sexist, however, like many are claiming now. It's not sexist to question her affiliation with the Alaskan Independence Party, or her husband's DUI arrest, or even her daughter's pre-marital pregnancy (although some claim that such investigations are irrelevant and "out of bounds," a poisition I disagree with). It's not sexist to question her true stance on the bridge to nowhere or her foreign policy experience.

It IS sexist to say that because she's a mother she will have any more duty to her family than Barack Obama will to his family. After all, Obama has been the one claiming that more American fathers need to be a part of their children's lives. Doe she think the White House will give him more time to be a part of their lives? Will he take them with him to talk with Ahmadinajad, Kim Jong Il, or Vladamir Putin? Or will he leave them where they "belong," with their mother? Sexist?

Sarah Palin

2008-08-29T20:18:00.000-07:00

Where do I start?...I'm so filled with thought and emotional right about McCain's VP pick that I'm a bit at a loss of words. And that's rare for me.

Let me start where anyone who knows would say has been the center of my political world for the past year or so: Mitt Romney. I remember back to the day that I was watching Mitt's CPAC speech and he stunned the crowd by bowing out of the race. I was hurt. I was angry. I was sad. I felt so alone, so leaderless, so empty. I know, I'm melodramatic, but seriously it was a very real emotion, almost like being dumped in high school. The weeks leading up to the Veepstakes I had convinced myself that Mitt was gong to be McCain's guy, despite the obvious fact that the latter pretty much despises the former. I had gotten my hopes up, and those of many of my family members and friends. A few days ago I remember wonding to myself whether I could get excited about any VP pick other than Mitt, and I found myself dreading the thought of going through all those disappointing emotions again and wanting to just forget about politics until November 5th. Who could get me excited? Fred? Too boring. Huck? Too evangelical. Pawlenty? Too random and unknown. Rudy? Lieberman? Ridge? Too pro-choice. Governor Sarah Palin was far from my mind, not even on the short list, as far as I had known.

And then I read the headlines, "McCain Picks Unknown Alaska Governor as VP Nominee." Before I even allowed myself a knee-jerk reaction, I YouTubed the video of the announcement and fast forwarded to her speech. Wow. Home run. Grand slam. Slam dunk. Knock out punch. Hole in one. Touchdown. Need I go on with the sports metaphores? Let me tell you why Palin is a perfect pick for McCain:

1. Maverick McCain is just that - a maverick. Why did we ever even think that he would pick anyone from the list we were providing him? He has never been a typical politican and has never run a typical campaign. This pick highlights what all those wonderful fence-sitters (I mean "independents") have always loved - that he is his own man and owes his allegiance to no group other thant the U.S. of A. Also, the dark horse nature of the pick has COMPLETELY stolen the spotlight from Obama after his worship session last night at the DNC.

2. Palin is like the bizzarro Obama. She is young, vibrant, a wonderful communicator, smart, and charming. Anything Obama brings to the table personality she can bring, as well. So much for a stuffy old campaign.

3. Palin has worked tirelessly on the exact issues that are central to the McCain campaign - ethics reform, bi-partisanship, and government waste. She promises in words and in her record that she will work to clean up our own party first and bring us back to our conservative principles and morals.

4. Palin is BY FAR the most relatable, likeable, and REAL candidate. Hands down.

5. Palin is the ONLY candidate with executive experience.

6. I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't acknowledge that Sarah Palin is DROP DEAD GORGEOUS.

My compliments to John McCain for the best (by far) political decision thus far in his career. I am so glad that I am able to be excited about this campaign, and particularly this woman who, I think, is the future of the Republican Party. I will be knocking on doors, putting up signs, and driving people to the polls this November with vigor.

P.S. Mitt for Secretary of Treasure!

The Candidates

2008-08-21T15:49:00.000-07:00

The first thing to understand about the major parties, at least in the United States, is that they are not made up of consistant, completely like-minded schools of thought. Rather, they are coalitions of people with similar values and thought processes that band together to accomplish their political goals. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the Republican Party.

This historic election has shown us the large rifts between the different sectors of the Republican Party, particularly during the primary. Each major candidate displayed major wings within the party that do not always agree. Here is a breakdown:

Mike Huckabee: The Huckster was a physical incarnation of the public's steroetype of a conservative: A bible thumping, enthusiastic, barbeque lovin' evangelical preacher who's number one cares are abortion and gay marriage. Huckabee was by far the most likable of the GOP frontrunners, playing the bass at appearences on Jay Leno and other TV shows, more apt to make a joke than to talk substantive policy. Why he lost: he appealed to NO ONE outside of the evangelical, "social conservative" base. He disagreed with many other elements in the party about several things, taxes being first and foremost.

Huckabee represents the wing of the GOP that holds most of their political views over a firm religious foundation. The top of their list is, and always will be, abortion and gay marriage. While the more politically saavy of them often care about size of government and the war on terror, the moral issues will always reign in this sphere.

Rudy Giulliani: A pro-choice, mob-slaying former prosecutor and NY mayor, Rudy carried the Repubs that wanted someone tough on crime and terror. A genuine and likeable guy, Rudy always seemed to say what he felt and thought in sincere and thoughtful ways (despite his lisp that would have been SNL's hayday if he had won). I didn't know many conservatives who hated Giulliana, but I also didn't know any who loved him. Why he lost: He is pro-choice and more than just friendly to gays, so he was quickly crossed off the evangelical short list (despite his endorsement by Pat Robertson). GOP hopefuls do not get very far without the evangelicals.

Giulliani represented the tough-on-crime wing of the GOP; this wing sees security as a top priority. They normally care very little about the hot topics (abourtion, gay marriage) and concentrate on the state's obligation to defend the innocent from threats at home and abroad.

John McCain: John McCain is the maverick, the guy who has repeatedly given the GOP coalition the proverbial finger. He campaigned on two promises: straight talk and victory in Iraq. Why he won: Whether people agree with him or not, everyone knows where McCain stands on just about every issue. Wishy-washi-ness (technical political term) is like poison in politics, and John McCain is the farthest anyone has every seen from it.

John McCain represents the national security sector of the GOP, the ones who would sell their own mother before admitting defeat in a foreign conflict. These conservatives see wars as black and white conflicts between the USA (good-guys) and their enemies (bad-guys). They want to always keep military force on the table in any negotiation.

Mitt Romney: Mitt tried to be everything to everyone. If there was one GOPer who understood the coalition it was he. Pro-choice, pro-business, tough on issues like immigration and terror. he fashioned himself to appeal to every single type of conservative, much like Reagan. Why he lost: Mitt was the opposite of McCain. He seemed to polished, so rehearsed, so branded that voters did not connect with him, nor were they exactly sure of his values and sincerity. Being Mormon didn't help in the evangelical community. either.

Romney represented the whole coalition, trying to be the new Reagan, sewing each piece together.

Now let me make one observation. Blazingly absent from the race was vigorous advocacy for small government. Romney tried, but was undermined by his huge health care program in Massechusetts. Huckabee tried but was undermined by his tax hikes in Arkansas. John McCain tried but was undermined by his campaign finance reform and global warming positions. Giulliana tried, but not one was listening because he was absent from the race until Florida.

If there is one thing the GOP needs to do, it is to go back to small government roots. The argument that government does very fews things better than the private sector I think resonates very well in all voters' minds. When the Dems scream for nationalized health care, simply point to medicare and ask senior citizens if they think it is run efficiently and effectively. When the Dems scream out against school choice, ask citizens if they think public schools function better than private schools. Besides the military, what does the government do well?

More to come...

Conservative Thought Series

2008-08-21T15:38:00.000-07:00

I want to dedicate some time, now that I'm on a break from school for a month or so, to the original intent of this blog - to lay out the inner workings of conservative thought. Tune in regularly to read my installments about different aspect of the inner workings of a conservative mind...

More NYT hogwash

2008-07-21T14:50:00.000-07:00

For those of you that still don't think that the main stream media is in Obama's corner, think again. The New York Times last week published an op-ed by Senator Obama about his policies on Iraq and Afghanistan. This week they refused a submitted article on the same subject by Senator McCain.

Click here to read the report about the NTY.

Click here to read the op-ed that the NYT blocked.

The irony (and hypocrisy) is found in the editor's reason for not publishing the piece. Davis Sharpley, NYT op-ed editor and former Hillary Clinton speechwriter, said that he would only accept a piece from McCain if it "mirrored Senator Obama's piece." No, Im' not distorting that quote. You read it right. He goes on to say, "The article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate." This is a real quote. I'm not kidding you. Mr. Sharpley plain and simple stated that they would only print McCain if he would lay out his plans the way Obama wants him to lay out his plans.

What's most hypocritical is that Obama's piece didn't offer any new information, nor did it set any "concrete" terms, timetables, or anything that Mr. Sharpley claims is required.

Click here to read Obama's piece.

Someone please tell me why I shouldn't be OUTRAGED at this!!

Democrats' Deep, Dark Fantasies

2008-07-18T10:53:00.000-07:00

A lot of my inspiration for this post comes from an article in the Denver Post by David Harsanyi.

Democrats love that oil prices are so high. They can't say that, of course, because even union workers and environmentalists have to drive to work and heat their homes. But they love it. They see it as a prime opportunity to change the way we live, which they view as sinful, gluttonous, and arrogant.

The villians in this story, in the leftist view, are the big bad oil companies and the over-indulgant public. That shows in their energy reform proposals. First, they want to inplement a Jimmy Carter-style "windfall tax" on oil company profits, basically limiting how much oil companies can make and forcing them to spend their money the way Big Brother deems necessary for the common good. Next, they want to pursuade us all to turn down our thermostats, bike to work, and use one square of toilet paper per trip to the bathroom.

Al Gore himself said recently that complete transition to renewables could be done in ten years. Even if that number is right (which I highly doubt), isn't it the exact number of years that Dems claim it will take to get oil from ANWR or off the coasts of CA or FL? So we can wait 10 years for it if it's windmills and solar panels, but not if it's oil or nuclear?

The irony of the whole thing is that America agree with BOTH sides. It's really an easy equation. Drill+Renewable Energy Investment=Solution.

But the left has twotop priorities, and neither one of them include our well-being. Number one - protect the polar bears and carabou. (A polar bear has more rights in this world than a human fetus, and more protection.) Number 2 - punish the mean old rich guys who make WAY too much money for their own good.

And their priorities show through in their proposals.

Environmental Hysteria

2008-07-09T08:27:00.000-07:00

Thanks again to Nikki for turning me onto this link. Here's a great example of the true effect environmentalism is having on Americans. (TJ, before you say it, I know that there are examples of this on the left and the right.) In this video a petitioner gathers signatures for a petition to ban water (disguised by the term Dihydrogen Monoxide). Take a look:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/013117.html

Conservative Students Oppressed

2008-06-26T15:41:00.000-07:00

Thanks to Nikki for sending me the link. This is a blog that Dr. Laura posted about conservative voices being trounced on in universities across America. She refers specifically to a University of Wisconsin where pro-life students, under University permission, had set up 4000 white crosses in a lawn to represent how many abortions are done every day in America. A student came and made a scene, pulling out every cross and saying that pro-lifers "don't have the right to challenge it." The student recieved no discipline and there are no plans to really address it. Click below to read the blog or to watch the video of the student.

Dr. Laura's blog

Video of U. of Wisc. student

The Second Amendment Decision

2008-06-26T09:27:00.000-07:00

I don't have a lot of time to comment on it right now, but ther Supreme Court has finally announced that the Second Amendment does in fact protect an individual's right to bear arms for self defense. This is a huge victory for liberty and constitutionalism.

here is the link to the actual court decision:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

It's pretty lengthyand legal, but it ought to be more available and accessable than it is, so I psoted it here.

Obama Updates

2008-06-23T16:29:00.000-07:00

As the election goes on, I've found myself speaking less of conservative principles and more of anti-Obama-ism.

So, to allow me to reserve this space for my thoughts on conservatism (hence the name of the blog), I have created another blog to allow those I know to get a gathering of Obama news and updates. it is located at:

http://anyonebutobama.blogspot.com/

I hope to kill two birds with one stone - first, to give those who don't have the resources, know-how, or energy to find the truth about Obama a place to find it all. Second, to free up my blog here to explaining my thoughts on politics. (P.S. No brids were harmed in the making of this blog, so the animal rights activists can calm down now. It's just an expression, guys.)

Thanks for reading!

Campaign Finance and Broken Promises

2008-06-20T09:41:00.000-07:00

If there's one topic that separates political nerds like myself and the rest of the relatively politically active, it's campaign finance reform. I have to admit that I only recently learned about it in detail, starting with John McCain's candidacy (talk radio HATES McCain's finance reform and McCain's big hand in it), and ending with my recent Constitutional Law class.

And now the irony is thick in the presidential race concerning finance reform. But I'll get to that in a minute.

First let me attempt to briefly explain the basics of federal campaign finance reform. The basic ill it tries to cure is corruption in politics, particularly big companies and rich individuals donating a load of money to candidates (with the assumption that down the road they can cash in on the favor). Federal Campaign Finance Reform basically sets limits on how much a corporation or individual can contribute to a candidate.

The idea of its proponents is that millions of Americans will care about this issue and check the little box in their tax return to donate $3 to the campaign finance fund. Then federal candidates can take a big chunk of that change to pay for their campaigns if they agree to live by the rules attached to the money regarding how much you can spend and collect. This is supposed to be a way of leveling the playing field and keeping special interests out of politics.

Now back to the thick irony. The concensus among campaign finance reformers (predonimantly liberal) is that republicans have more donors with deeper pockets, and that the bulk of political corruption due to money has been on the right side of the isle. That is now splashing all over the face of the finance reformers for two main reasons:

1. John McCain has reached across the isle and been the face of finance reform, mainly with his bipartisan McCain-Fengold bill. He has gone against his republican coutnerparts who say that the bill and finance reform in general stamps on free speech and vowed to change the way moen yinfluences politics. So, to the dismay of Deomcrats, a republican has been the strongest voice in campaign refinance for the better part of a decade.

2. Barack Obama has broken his pormise to accept public funding and the rules that go with it. It is quite obvious that he has done so because now he has a whole lot of money (broken all the records). Funny how when you can get a whole lot of people to exercise their free speech rights by donating you all of the sudden don't care so much about "change."

So, mum's the word in the mainstream media. Obama is turning out more and more to be a typical Chicago politician, and the press is biting its tongue. Not that anyone woudl really listen or care. Campaign refinance matter only to a small few on extreme sides of the political spectrum. Obama knows that and made another political calculation and threw another principle of "chagne" under the bus.

P.S. I suggest that everyone read this opinion article in the NY Times by David Brooks. A quick refresher on Obama politics.

The way the race is shaping up

2008-06-10T09:45:00.000-07:00

Before you swallow the pill that the mainstream media is feeding us about the Dems having a shoe-in this election year, take a look at the electoral map. Obama has a slight lead in delegate counts...but look at a few of the key states that are undecided - Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are all states taht went for Hillary and won't forget how they got screwed by the Dems.

More importantly, recent polls show that a over twenty percent of Hillary supporters are going to back McCain and another 17 percent are going to stay home. Also, McCain leads Obama by 8 percent among independent voters.

Obama is so condescending...

2008-06-05T14:31:00.000-07:00

Michell Obama wasn't proud of America until it looked like her husband was going to win the Democratic nomination.

Now Barack Hussein Obama is proud of us for choosing him. Seriously, check out the first quote in an article on Yahoo.com today.

That just enrages me. It is so typical of the leftist elite to think that if we were all just smarter and less racist/sexist, then we would all vote the way they do. Now Barack is proud of his little children for making the right choice.

Seriously, it enrages me.

Don't Call Obama Naive

2008-06-05T09:14:00.000-07:00

No, this post is not defending Barack Hussein Obama. It's not that I don't think he is naive. It's not that I think he has any clue about foreign (or domestic) policy. It's not that I am not scared out of my mind at the prospect of his election.

It's that he LOVES being called naive! Seriously, I don't think the pundits and critics understand the connotation that the word "naive" has in the normal word. It's almost a compliment to a man who has painted himself as the candidate of fresh ideas and new blood. The last thing he wants is to be called experienced. The last thinkg he wants is ANY kind of a record.

Can't you see that being "naive" and "inexperienced" and "too young" and "too black" are all things the he can't say himself but loves that people say them?!?! Every time someone says Obama is naive, young, or inexperienced, he says "Exactly. That's what Washington needs." Every time someone brings up his race, his church, and his 90 percent black support, he implies that we are all racist and that if we just understood him and his elitist group then we wouldn't be offended at his blatant racism. The victim card. The guilt card.

It's perfect. Every major weakness he has is turned into a strength. We just have to make sure we don't fall for it.

Finally it's over...right?

2008-06-04T15:18:00.000-07:00

First of all, you HAVE to read Maureen Down's insightful column in the NY Times (yes, I shamefully read the Op-Eds on the sadest excuse for a newspaper). She paints a wonderful picutre of the last few months, and more particularly last few weeks of the Billary campaign.

As Obama tried to seize "the moment" and McCain tried to squeeze his way back into the spotlight, it was Hillary's speech that captured the nation. Would she concede? Would this marathon of a primary season finally move into a general election. Well, Johnny and Barry have been acting like a two man show for months now. But last night the Hillster, true to Clintonian style, once again demanded the spotlight and brought the attention right where she wanted it.

Last night I flipped on Fox News to see the SD and MT polls come in. I suffered through John McCain's wicked smirks as he addressed his middle aged and sort-of energized Republican audience. "That's not change we can believe in" he kept muttering. As happy as I was to finally see him taking shots at BO, it was boring, old, awkward, and, well, John McCain.

Eventually Hill-Billy came out on her stage in NY to address her adoring fans, and I sat on the edge of my seat. I kept thinking (and sometimes saying out loud), "Oh man, she's gonna concede right here..." Nope. I wanted so bad to know what she was gonna do, and I got nothing.

(On a lighter, funnier, and less politically correct note, while I listened to Hillary speak, I couldn't keep my eyes off of the unambiguously gay man in the background clapping like Paula Abdul (you know, with hand contact only on the knuckles of the palms?). When she hinted that she would stay in, he would yell until his face was red. When it sounded like she was going to do what was "good for the party," you thought he was gonna cry. Seriously, it was funny. But I digress.)

The greatest part of it all is that the MSM is trying its best to celebrate the momentous occasion of the first black nominee of a major political party in the US, but everyone knows that the game is far from over. The pundits and Obamaniacs (which are sometimes indecipherable) are saying the words, but they have an annoying fear in the back of their heads that they are being had by the steam roller that is the Clintons. You can see it in their eyes. And I love it.

The Irrelevance of Scott McClellan

2008-05-30T08:55:00.000-07:00

Before I go into my thoughts on former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellans's book reaming the Bush administration for "political manipulation," let me preface it by saying that no one really cares. I dare you to find one person that has looked at this "uncovering" and said "Oh my gosh...I had no idea...All this time I had thought that Bush was a great man with a bold purpose, but now I see him for the dark villian that he is!" That's right, this person does not exist. I admit, there may be a select few who were teetering on the brink of suspision about the validity of the war and the sincerity of the President, but they are a small minority.

The truth is that the vast majority of the nation is already polarized on the war. People are already for it or against it. And no book by any secretary of anyting is going to yank anybody from their positions. This book only gives more amunition to the left, more frustration to the right, and, most importantly, more money in McClellan's pocket.

That being said, let me say that I have not read the book yet, I have only read the reports and seen the interviews. Let me also say that my beef with McClellan is not that I think he's lying.

My first beef is actually that I don't think he's lying. I just don't care! "Political manipulation" is like "business proft" or "charity service." It's not a sin, it's politics. Now, this is great fodder for the Obama camp, who claims to be a different kind of politician who would never ever "sell" anything or do anything for political gain. But politics is all baout doing what you think is right and then trying to sell it to yoruc onstituency and allies. Anyone who thinks that politics is anything else doesn't know anything. "Change" and "Straight Talk Express" are only slogans.

My next beef is basically what everyone else has been saying: Why now? If he was so uncomfortable with the whole situation, then why didn't he say something then? If the war is as "unnecessary" as he says it is, then there is a good chance that a public exposure of it could have saved a lot of lives. But conveniently he "gave the President the benefit of the doubt." Like they say, hindsight is 20/20.

Lastly, and most importantly, McClellan did not just go public. He didn't call a reporter and give an extensive interview that will service the public good. He called a liberal publisher, PublicAffairs, and wrote a book that will service his own financial good. (Also note that since he announced the book, he has refused interviews to all conservative outlets.) Now, I'm a supporter of the free market, and I think that if someone has something to offer and he can make a buck at it, go ahead. But if he is going public for the good of the country then he ought to have done it long ago to a reporter and then wrote the details in a book. Now he's not selling a war, he's selling a book. Mark my words - it is a matter of weeks before he is offered a job at MSNBC or CNN.

So, is Scott McClellan lying? Probably not. But is he a wiesel? Absolutely. The main stream media is hailing him as a hero and he is loving every second of the limelight. He obviously thinks he is taking the high road by "telling the truth," by coming clean about what he has suffered so greatly over for the past however many years (please note the sarcasm).

Peggy Noonan wrote an interesting piece the the Wall Street Journal. She writes "What he says may be inconvenient, and it may be painful, but that's not what matters. What matters is if it's true. Let the debate on the issues commence." The jist of the article is that his motives, intentions, timing, pretenses, etc. don't matter. All that matters is if it's true.

I couldn't disagree more. Even if what he said is true - even if he has drastically understated them himself - it doesn't matter at all! McClellan doesn't claim that Bush lied, that Bush cheated, that Bush did anything even illegal. He claims that Bush tried to convince the American public that what he wanted to do was necessary. That is not a crime, it's not even unethical! It's normal! And whether it's true is irrelevant.

What is relevant is why he did it. And when money, power, and fame play such a large part in all of this, it's hard not to think that they played a part in his decision to "come clean."

Expelled - A Success or Failure?

2008-05-06T10:15:00.000-07:00

After browsing the blog-o-sphere, I've found that there are two polarized camps arguing over the success/failure of Ben Stein's documentray "Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed." That's no big surprise considering the hot topic issues evolution, creationism, intelligent design, and (most importantly) freedom of speech.

On the one hand, the mvoie is the 6th top grossing political documentary of all time. It also has BY FAR the largest grossing opening of any political documentary. Seems like those are some pretty hard facts to show that the movie has had at least SOME success.

The other side of the coin seems to take a more complicated approach to prove the failure of the film. For one funny example, check out this blog. I know, it's almost laughable. But, jokes aside, the main point is that sure, it is making a lot of money, and sure it had a great opening, but it also ran in way more theaters than most other documentaries (except Farenheit 9/11, which ran in almost twice as many theaters as Expelled). The argument is that is had a much lower dollar to screen ratio than the others in its class.

There is something that all the statisticians are not taking into account, though. I'm having a hard time finding research that backs this statement, but I'm pretty sure that city-dwellers watch more movies than those in rural areas. Also, we know that big cities lean WAY left of the political spectrum. So, when a left-wing political documentray opens in New York, L.A., Chicago, and a few other liberal hot beds, naturally the left-leanning, movie-going population is going to go see it at a higher rate (with a higher "dollar per to screen ratio"). On the other hand, to reach its base Expelled has had to show on far more screens. Liberalism breeds in big cities (particularly in poor districts, minority districts, and universities). Conservatism breeds in rural areas. Which are do you think has more theater screens per person?

Another thing that the left does not want to admit is that Micheal Moore and his fellow liberal movie makers get TONS of free marketing by the main stream media who, in general, agree with and want to propogate his values. How many times did you see Ben Stein on Larry King, Good Morning America, or even the nightly news? In the media business its called "earned publicity," or publicity that you didn't have pay for because the press wants to cover you. It's the huge disadtvantage that right-wingers have in everything from poltics, to movies, to education.

In the end, the left has to come up with huge logrhythms and calculations to portray Expelled as a failure. For the rest of us, we see it as the 6th highest grossing political documentray with the highest opening revenues. I'd call that a success.

The Politics of Fear

2008-04-16T15:19:00.000-07:00

One of the biggest hypocrisies of the left is their condemnation of what they call "the politics of fear." It is particularly attached to the Bush Administration's insistence that the war in Iraq furthers America's national security interests. They claim that President Bush says that he is fighting against terror, when in reality he is fighting for something else. Some say oil, some say to avenge his father's unfinished war, others flat out call him an evil war-monger who wants to see death and carnage across the earth. Either way, the left considers it out of bounds to use 9/11 (or any of many other terrorist attacks that happened because of or under Clinton's watch) to persuade people to support the war. But the GOP has no copyright on the "politics of fear."

If there was a left-wing equivalent to the Iraq war, it is global warming, now taking yet another form - "climate change" (they realized that no actual warming has happened in several years, and that their claims of record temperatures are actually not factually correct, so they have to call it climate change). Watch 5 minutes of "An Inconvenient Truth" and tell me that it isn't meant to scare us into being more environmentally "responsible." Listen to one nut-head college professor talk about the effects of "climate change" and tell me that he/she is not trying to use fear as a tactic. Their basic claim is that if we aren't more responsible with the earth now, then in the near future there will be devastating hurricanes and ice caps and tornadoes and earthquakes and meteor showers that will annihilate life as we know it. To me, that's even scarier than terrorists taking over our country and forcing us to worship Allah, and the evidence is less convincing.

Another case of left-wing fear mongering is the recent economic babble. "Oh the dollar is going to be worthless in a few years! We need to put freezes on interest rates and hand out money to the middle class or our entire economic structure will collapse and we will all be starving and homeless!" Ok, they aren't that ridiculous, but the fact is that they need us to be pessimistic and fearful of pending doom to further their agenda. On the other side of that coin are people like Mitt Romney, who can acknowledge the weaknesses in the market, but convey a vision of hope and optimism combined with a strong plan based on the principles of capitalism and hard work.

You see, the left has made their careers out of pessimism and fear. Healthcare, global warming, economics, poverty, they all play to the fears and guilts of people.

Still to come: The politics of guilt and unity

Dems Duke It Out - Good for the GOP?

2008-03-30T00:06:00.000-07:00

The conventional wisdom seems to be that the longer the Dems fight it out, the better it is for the GOP. The line of thinking is that Hillary seems to be digging up enough dirt on Obama to last us the entire election, thus keeping McCain from getting his hands dirty in the mud-slinging process. I've also heard that this has given McCain time to "raise funds" and "unite the conservative base." It's nice to have the Dems doing our dirty work for us, but I'm not sure that this time out of the spotlight is helping McCain. Let me break it down a bit.

First, I don't believe that McCain has to worry about uniting the conservatives. For all intents and purposes conservatives have pretty much forgotten their disdain for McCain (I am a perfect case in point). This is obvious by his huge success in polls against either Democratic contender. McCain has always known that the intense animosity against him would die down when conservatives had to compare him to Obama and Hillary rather than Romney and Huckabee. He never really had to make much of an effort to bring the conservative base back, and I reject the speculation that he will chose a strong conservative as a running mate to try and win them over. He will easily carry the south and most of the Mountain West. He is most likely to find someone who will help him carry swing states like Florida, Minnesota, and Ohio, and that person is not likely to be radically conservative.

As for the money, McCain is sorely behind in the fund-raising category, and the Dems duking it out doesn't seem to be giving him any sort of real boost. But, he has been almost bankrupt before. Remember the appalling footage of hims actually carrying his own bags through the airport? What a disgrace (sarcasm). McCain has never needed a lot of money to get his name out. He's John McCain. Practically a household name, even outside of us political junkies. He's the grumpy old man that we would love to see in a fist fight against Fidel Castro (if they could land any punches over their walkers). In a nutshell, he didn't win the GOP primary by raising a lot of money, nor will he win the general election Romney style by flooding the airwaves, Huckabee style by playing a guitar and cracking jokes, Obama style by holding mass revivals, or Hillary style by digging up dirt. He wins people over by being himself - the tough, stubborn, patriot that he is. That, in and of itself, is an encouraging fact for Republicans.

However, this being true, the Dems squabbling over Michigan, Florida, super-delegates, pastors, sniper fire, etc. does not play well into McCain's hands. McCain wins by getting in the media for free. His won in New Hampshire because he has always been a favorite to the Republicans there with an "independent" (aka liberal) streak. That win put him all over the papers as a winner and Romney a loser. It propelled him to a win in SC which effectively bumped Huckabee and Thompson out. All that was left was the big showdown in Florida where he eaked out a win thanks to the Cuban-Americans. He didn't have to buy TV commercials, mailings, or radio spots. The media was more than happy to give him a mic to blast his rich rival and to bolster his own positions. Huck and Cain loved to brag about spending a jillion dollars less than Romney, and they could afford to do so because they got it for free.

Now McCain finds himself on the sideline, the press eating up every second of the Hillary-Obama showdown, making it feel more and more like the Democratic contest is the end of the game. The conversations are not "Who do you like, Obama, Hillary, or McCain?" They are "Are you an Obama or Hillary fan?" McCain has been bumped to the back of the line and voters are forgetting about him. Remember Fred Thompson and Rudy Guiliani? Me neither. They are ancient history because come election time, no one was talking about them. There was nothing to say. Now it's the same for McCain. Why would people talk about him doing some random fund-raiser in Colorado when they can talk about Obama's racist pastor or Hillary's "mis-speaking" about being shot at?

And McCain knows this. That's why he's running ads already. When was the last time a candidate ran general election ads before he even had an opponent?

A wise man once told me that any publicity is good publicity. That certainly is the case now for John McCain. He may not say it publicly, but I think he would like to see this Democratic fiasco come to an end just as much as Howard Dean.

Here we go...

2008-03-28T12:15:00.000-07:00

Well here I am. Writing a blog. Who came up with the name blog, anyways?

Check back often for my thoughts on conservatism, politics in general, and other social issues affecting (or plaguing) this great country.