Friday, May 14, 2010

We've let down our guard

I just read the conclusion of Elena Kagan’s college thesis. You can read the entire manuscript here. I guess what shocks me the most is that we, as a nation, have become all too receptive of those who are receptive to socialistic idealism. Not that there’s anything wrong with open minds exploring differing viewpoints, but our President’s tendency to surround himself with cabinet member and czars who are quite open in their radical socialist beliefs is more than troubling. It’s just scary.

I understand that those who’ve made politics a career will always delve into various social and economic theory. I’ve read writings of Marx myself, and had little trouble seeing the folly, by the way. I expect that anyone rising to the level of President or advisor of the President has studied just about every type of governance offered by man. After all, one must know the bad ideas in order to argue for something better. The founders of this nation understood the bad ideas. That’s why they established what still stands as the greatest solution to government ever devised—the U.S. Constitution.
So the political spectrum is broad, and our nation’s leaders have immersed themselves in all known theory. So my question is a simple one:

If the President is representative of everyone in this nation, why are his advisors made up almost entirely of socialist radicals?

Elana Kagan is just the latest. Pick any other. Van Jones, Cass Sunstein, Davis Axelrod, Bill Ayers, Eric Holder, Carol Browner, Valerie Jarrett, and his latest gem, Donald Berwick. That’s just the short list. It’s gotten to the point that we’re so immersed in his progressive agenda that we don’t notice, or just don’t care anymore, that our capitol has become the stomping grounds for the people we defended our country against through two world wars and the cold war.

I need to get into detail about these people, about progressivism, and how this socialist agenda has slowly eaten at American society since Woodrow Wilson was in office, perhaps before. See why the party politics is just a distraction? It goes much deeper. Not a conspiracy, just a letting down of our defenses. Our founding fathers warned us that, in order to defend this republic we’ve created, we must always be alert. We’ve not been alert.

I’ll continue on with more postings once I get myself organized. There are plenty of others doing the same, most better connected (and more talented) than I. But I hope that a few of my friends will understand. This isn’t about a political party. It’s about saving this country. All one has to do is look to Europe to see our future. We’ve been fighting hard to align ourselves with European social philosophy. I fear we will get our wish.

For today, I’ll simply ask you to keep an open mind. Research anything I or anyone else tells you. But be prepared to accept what you discover. Let me leave you with these final thoughts.
One of my favorite books that caused me the most grief was 1984 by George Orwell. There are lyrics to a song at the end of the book that have haunted me since I read them more than twenty years ago:

Under the spreading chestnut tree,
I sold you and you sold me.
There lie they, and here lie we
Under the spreading chestnut tree.

In Orwell’s book, those who rebelled against a tyrannical government were easily found out because the masses had been trained from birth that it is their civic duty to rat out the non-conformists. The hero and heroine of our story, after their mini-rebellion is discovered, sit in a diner at the end of the novel, this song playing while they sip their drinks. Their moment of victory smashed, their hope gone, they play the game, walk the walk, and behave as good little patriots who serve Big Brother without question.

Fiction is funny. It has a way of becoming reality. Or, perhaps writers have a special antenna that picks up on social trends. Orwell was one of those. So was Ayn Rand. Atlas Shrugged so mirrors what is happening in America today that I almost weep when I read it. It’s prophetic.

My friends, I don’t care what your party affiliation is, but what’s happening in America is nothing less than the steady dismantling of our founding principles, to be replaced with the progressive utopian dream. Unfortunately, the utopian dream has been tried over and over, from the French Revolution to modern Europe. Each and every time, the dream has been turned into a nightmare. I’d give my life to keep that nightmare from our shores and away from my children.

By the way, for those of you who’ve subscribed to my blog, I’ve moved it to a more permanent site. Go to I’ll continue these postings there (don’t wanna lose you, Tom).
God bless. See you next week.

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Taxing the Rich...and other fairy tales

Here’s my new favorite word: fair. Despite the attempts of many (okay, hardly anyone) in the mainstream media to educate the populace on how the economy works, the most popular American argument to solve the debt crisis is to raise taxes on the wealthy. After all, there comes a point where you’ve made enough money (put a little inflection on “money” so you sound really hep).

Here, I’m going to say something that will really piss off a lot of people: you’re not interesting in fairness, you want to punish people who’ve succeeded where you’ve failed. It’s kinda like the high school kid who spreads nasty rumors about the girl who got elected prom queen. It doesn’t matter that you never showered and scowled at everyone who roamed into your personal space, it just isn’t fair. You know, I agree, I think Stephen King should be taxed 90% of his income because he can publish his grocery list and I can’t get my masterpiece into print. He’s not very pretty, either. So there.

But let’s try it. Let’s tax everyone making over $100,000 per year 100% of their income. That would come out to about $3trillion. Not bad. That would cover more than half of the budget. Except, of course, that the top 5% of earners already pay 85% of the taxes, so we’re really not gaining that much. All of this is easily found on the internet, by the way. The IRS is full of little tidbits. I suggest a little Google-ing before casting in stone something spouted by Whoopi Goldberg.

Speaking of hypocrites. Why, in America, is someone who makes millions per year by acting, singing, or sports considered a hero, while anyone making millions providing a product or service that we all need considered greedy? Here’s my favorite: Michael Moore earns millions a year making “documentaries,” all while bashing capitalism. I believe we call this “eating the hand that feeds you.”

Getting past all that, here’s the common sense that ain’t so common anymore: the nasty rich people you so despise are the ones who got rich by building companies, big ones and small ones. And guess what those companies do? Right! They hire you! That way, you can buy the wide screen TV (made by a filthy capitalist), SUV (made by a filthy capitalist), and 2000 sq.-ft. house (made by a filthy capitalist). Then you can drive home from your filthy capitalistic job in your SUV, walk into your big house, turn on the wide screen, and watch Keith Olbermann (getting richer every day) bash the guy who gave you the job, built your car, your TV, and your house. Only in America (or any other country with socialist aspirations).

So how hard do you think your employer is going to work in building your company if you tax the jeevies out of him? Let’s see, I can bust my arse 70 hours a week, pull down half a million a year, and have it taxed 89%, leaving me a cool fifty or sixty grand. Or I can push a pen 40 hours a week, pull down $70,000 per year, taxed at 39%, leaving me forty or fifty grand a year. Ummm….think I’ll take the less stressful route. Sorry, employees, you’re all fired. I’m going to Wal Mart!

It is not a crime to grow rich. It certainly wouldn’t be a crime if you suddenly had a flash of brilliance, invented a device that would double fuel economy, and made a few million this year, would it? The rich are people who made smart decisions. Most didn’t luck into their wealth. It wasn’t taken from you and given to them. However, most seem happy with the idea of taking it from the rich and giving it to the poor. Somehow, though, the idea of allowing the rich to invest their wealth into more job-creating businesses is heartless and cruel. Better to just rip the money out of their hands, launder it through the bureaucratic maze in Washington, and hand the remaining 10% to the poor. Then, of course, push lottery tickets on them so the state can get the rest of its money back. Fairness, American style.

I suppose, since the federal government is now the biggest shareholder in General Motors, that we could just let them do the company building. That way, they could build the things that make the most sense to them. Things like electric cars, solar panels, paper shredders. Why bother with capitalism at all? Looks like Uncle Joe Stalin and Fidel were right. We just didn't get it. We understand now. Workers of the world unite!

Saturday, May 08, 2010

It's not all Greek to me

I think the biggest obstacle conservatives face is this: Americans simply do not make the connection between our national debt and the freedoms we enjoy. It's almost like the Meijer Bucks we get in newspaper ads here in Michigan. It's not real money, but a Meijer Buck gets you a dollar off your next purchase. But instead of Meijer Bucks, what we have in Washington is GovBucks. It's not real money, you see. You can use it to buy neat stuff like highways, aircraft carriers, and health care, but we don't really have to pay it back, because it never really existed in the first place. I suppose there's a bit of truth to that. It didn't exist in the first place. We had to borrow it, either from ourselves or other countries.

This of course, is a fallacy. GovBucks do need to be repaid, and at interest. I won't get into the whole debt to GDP ratio, because honestly, there's no need to. This really is common sense. If you spend more than you take in, and continue doing so year after year, you will lose your house, your car, everything you own. What does that mean to a nation? Well, Greece is showing us.

Greece is a typical nation that had been drawn into a European style socialism, where services were provided to the populace by a generous government. We call them "entitlements." It's a word tossed around so often I think we've grown numb to it. I prefer the term "social narcotics," or sonarcs.

The pushers of these sonarcs are those who we refer to as "progressives." So the entitlements are the drugs and the progressives are the pushers. Follow me? I love a nice word picture.

Let's use our biggest sonarc as an example: social security. Social security was one of many sonarcs established by FDR, a progressive of monumental proportions. An interesting side note about sonarcs. Like drugs, the negative effects are rarely immediate. The repercussions often take years, even decades. This results in the initial orchestrator of the sonarc looking like a hero because that first hit felt so darn good. That's why I often refer to the Democratic Party (the official home of pushers) as the Party of Unintended Consequences. Social security, established during the Great Depression (remember, never let a crisis go to waste), when Americans were desperate for any hope the government could offer. They could not see seventy years into the future, when this program would begin to bankrupt the nation. Other disastrous sonarcs include Medicaire, HUD, the central bank, etc. All seem wonderful ideas at first, but soon prove to cause far more harm than good.

Unfortunately, like the drug user, we the people soon discover that
a) we cannot live without our sonarc, and
b) it will eventually kill us.

Such is the case in Greece. So addicted to their "free" government programs have they become that they simply do not care that it will kill them in the end. But there is simply no choice, the pusher is out of product, therefore he must cut off his customer cold turkey. And, like the addicted drug user, the people of Greece are responding with violence.

Here's what foreclosure means to a nation: no more public services. No highway repair, no military, no police force, no public education, nothing that requires federal or state funds. In a word: anarchy. Ironically, anarchy is what liberals claim that conservatives aspire to. When, in fact, it is liberal-progressive policies that will lead us there. The pusher will not stop pushing as long as he maintains power over his victim. You see, the drug works two ways. We get our sonarcs, the pusher gets power and our admiration, though only as long as the sonarcs continue to flow.

When a third party steps in and offers intervention, both the pusher and the addict hate him. Much like a family member is hated by the addict when intervention is attempted. That's why conservatives are so viciously attacked on both sides. We are hated because we love. We love our country and countrymen so much that we are willing to endure endless assaults upon our character, our patriotism, even our personal lives. All because we see the blindness of the addict and the cruel intent of the pusher and work tirelessly to save them both.

American must decrease the flow of sonarcs before we are forced to go cold turkey. While things like the health care bill may appear compassionate on the surface, they do nothing more than increase our reliance on our pusher, the federal government, and draw us one step closer to anarchy. This, the liberal Democrats say, is compassion. If you don't stick just one more needle in your arm, you'll suffer withdrawals. Please, they say, stick with us and we'll make your life better, you need not think for yourselves. We're here for you. Just one more, buddy. And all the pain will go away.

It's time to send the pushers packing my friends. Take a good hard look at what's happening in Greece. This is our future if we continue down the path the progressive Democrats have set us upon.

Friday, May 07, 2010

My Politics from the heart

Politics was never something I aspired to. So I only have two solid memories of political moments during my youth. The first was when I was eight years old and walked into my grandmother’s living room, having just returned from Cedar Point. My mother sat in front of a TV. She was crying. I saw a man on the screen who I think I recognized as the President. I asked mom what was wrong, and she said the President was resigning. I had no knowledge of Watergate, only that it was a word I’d heard often on the news each night. But I did know something wasn’t right. Presidents were not supposed to make my mom cry. They were supposed to be fearless leaders, heroes who lead our nation and inspired millions.

My second “political moment” came in 1981. By then I was fourteen and a sophomore at Bruton High School in Virgina. Dad was a career Navy man and we’d just moved to Yorktown Naval Weapons Station. As it turned out, 1981 was an important year in Yorktown. Two-hundred years prior, the new Americans handed the British a decisive defeat on that peninsula. In 1981, we got a whole week off from school to participate in the bicentennial celebration.

I’d spent that week with my friends, checking out all the displays, cannon demonstrations, girls, and re-enactments, slowly developing a sense of awe over what had happened there. Toward the end of the week, our new President was scheduled to make an appearance. Oddly, I remember nothing of the speech itself, though I’m sure I listened with my father. What I do remember is standing along the road that entered the park. The Presidential procession rolled in, sirens flashing, the long black limos crawling along between the crowds.

When President Reagan’s limo rolled by, I caught a glimpse, just a glimpse of him as he waved at us. Now, at fourteen I still knew little of politics. Military families tend to lean Republican, so my parents were happy with the new President. But when I saw him, I felt a sense of pride. Reagan had that way about him. All he had to do was show up and we had the feeling that all would be well. President Reagan would never make my mom cry.

Again, at that moment in time, I didn’t know what were the differences in the parties. I certainly didn’t know what a “conservative” was. By the time I finished my own tour of duty in the Navy, I still didn’t know. It wouldn’t be until the early 90s, having met my wife-to-be and getting started in college, that I would learn. I took the pre-requisite courses in American Government and Economics, usually taught by Democratic ex-politicians. I disagreed with much of what they said, but couldn’t articulate why I disagreed. I found this quite frustrating.

Then I discovered (my wife will say she discovered) a boisterous, somewhat obnoxious man on the radio. I’d never imagined I’d listen to talk radio. That’s something that old people did. But Rush Limbaugh brought something new to the format. He brought a passion that was contagious. He also brought with him the best education in conservatism I’d gotten up until that point. His simple message of self-reliance, personal accountability, and limited government filled the missing gaps in my knowledge of the conservative movement. Later I would read for myself what the core beliefs of conservatism were.

I also discovered that conservatism, not Republicanism, was at the base of my system of values. A party is just a shell, a home club so to speak. The party is made up of men and women with varying opinions and beliefs. But I had to choose a party that fit most closely with my conservative values. Naturally, I assumed the Republican Party—Reagan’s Party—would always be a safe home. I was wrong.

Politicians are driven to find approval. It’s how they get elected and re-elected. And the temptation to stray from their core values for the sake of re-election is often more than they can withstand. Oddly, it was those core values that got them elected in the first place, but the fickle winds of public opinion, driven by a questionable media, often steer them off course. I saw my Republican Party break free from the solid moors of conservatism in the last decade. Spooked by a couple of Democratic victories, they shifted into the mushy world of the “moderate.” I prefer to call it the “Can’t we all just get along” mentality.

By the time I hit forty, I knew enough of history and politics to realize that what is happening in Washington is far from what the founders intended for this nation. Any personal sacrifice I had to make was insignificant compared to the consequences of silence. I, and millions of others, did not go to a Tea Party. The Tea Party gravitated toward us. We did not follow. We made the movement, much like William F. Buckley and like-minded conservatives created that movement fifty years ago. We were not blindly following a man shouting “Hope and Change.” We already knew where our hope rested, long before the ’08 campaign rhetoric.

As individuals, we hold certain truths to be “self evident,” that we are accountable for our actions, responsible for our futures, and no man-made government maintains either the right or the wisdom to direct the fortunes of hundreds of millions of people.

For those who disagree, who think that we the people are not smart enough to handle our own affairs, they will point to the Tea Party and denounce it as a fraud. They fail to see, because to them everything that matters is on the surface, the underlying pulse of conservative, freedom loving Americans who somehow managed to pull away from their busy lives and gather under signs and yellow flags. Take away the Tea Party if you wish. The patriots will remain. Yes, they won’t annoy you as much if you can’t see them, but the sleeping giant still lives whether he shouts or whispers.

Only a fool believes he has silenced the will of the masses by diminishing the importance of the banner under which they stand. Take my yellow flag, take my sign, take my buttons. That which you fear still remains. We are tens of millions strong. And we are not going away.

The city on a hill will shine again, Mr. President, with our without your approval. Follow your beliefs, my conservative friends, speak boldly and passionately your convictions, do not fear disapproval, know that you are more intelligent than those who claim to hold all wisdom, and nothing can stand in our way.

Let’s get this party started.

Wednesday, May 05, 2010

The Fix is In

Senator Harry Reid said yesterday that the Republicans want to block everything they do. I certainly hope so. Maybe, Senator, if everything the Democrats tried to do wasn’t a disaster to the economy, security, and overall well-being of this nation, the Republicans might be easier to get along with.

The Senator was speaking, of course, about the bill now on the floor of the Senate that would essentially give the U.S. Government sweeping control over financial institutions. This, of course, is not a step toward socialism. It’s a giant leap.

But here’s how the Dems work. The economic downturn of 2008 was primarily brought about because of a bill first signed by Jimmy Carter and given teeth by Bill Clinton. This is fairly common knowledge now, but the Dems have done a good job of denial. In a nutshell, Fannie May and Freddie Mac, two entities that have no purpose but to suck money from the economy, were “strongly encouraged” to make more home loans available to low-income individuals. Because bankers are not in the business to lose money—the greedy bastards—this went against common business sense. But we’re not talking about common sense, we’re talking about the U.S. Government.

So, as was predicted by a couple thousand economists, George Bush, and Mrs. Tracy’s Oak Hill Elementary third grade class, the housing market boomed, then busted. The point here is this: the government was the cause of the economic meltdown. Please repeat that as many times as necessary. Lay down if you need to. It hurts…I know.

And now we have this bill. President Obama, Harry, and Nancy all proclaim that it will “protect the taxpayers from any future bank failures.” Oh how sweet. Let’s see. The government caused the economic downturn, the government took over a trillion dollars of our money and threw it at the banks, and now they’re proposing a bill to protect us against…what? Them?

Don’t be silly, Ron. You know better. What the Bailout Bill does is authorize the federal government to decide which banks live and which die. What lovely power. In fact, here’s a thought, and I’m sure no Dem ever considered this. Since there is one party rule in our government right now, I bet that these banks will make darn sure they stay on the Dems good side. The campaign coffers will be flowing with bank money this fall. I mean, if it’s one lesson us peons learned from the health care bill, it’s that if you don’t have enough allies, you simply buy them (we call it a Blanching).

Now why do you suppose the Republicans would do everything possible to block a bill that would almost guarantee Democrat rule for the next fifty years? How rude of them. Oh, let’s not forget the fact that the government simply has no place in business. If I were a bank that was too big to fail, I might consider making myself small to avoid government attention. I’d be the Bank of Casablanca. Keep a low profile. No gambling going on here. No risk. No loans. Which is probably okay, since the government has sopped up all the available cash anyway, making it darn near impossible for small businesses and private citizens to get credit.

Let’s see. Obama, Harry, and Nancy now have control over health care. They have control over two of our three auto companies. They want control over the banks. And they’ve already tied up a huge chunk of available cash.

But it’s not socialism. Nossir. It’s protecting the taxpayer. Kind of like being in a great big bear hug. From a great big bear. A great big hungry bear.

The Republicans need to block harder. Don’t be the party of No. Be the party of OH HELL NO. Get the job done boys. The Cavalry’s coming in November.

Monday, May 03, 2010

My Congressman and yours-Nancy

The current regime in Washington has done us all a great favor. Remember the embarrassment you faced when someone asked you who your congressman was or who your senators were and you struggled to come up with a name? Well, guess what, those days are over.

Your congressman, and mine, is Nancy Pelosi.

Your senator, and mine, is Harry Reid (we don’t even need to remember two!).

This is so much easier than those backward days of long ago, when congressmen and senators in the same party would vote differently on each bill. They’d actually read the bills, formulate their own opinions, and vote accordingly. My gosh…how did they ever get anything accomplished with all those people thinking for themselves?

When John Conyers (aka. Nancy) announced to the world that he couldn’t be expected to read the health care bill—it was just too darned long with all those big hard words—you could almost hear a sigh of relief from Capitol Hill. Finally, the pressure was off. When John-Nancy, a man who’s been in Congress FORTY FIVE YEARS, two years longer than I’ve been alive, made the decision to throw in the towel on all this silly individualism, he unwittingly released every single Democrat in Congress from hours and hours of boring research and reading. It was like a med school student who’s been told that all homework for the duration of his time has been cancelled! And, since med school students, along with doctors, are dropping like campaign promises, that may be the next trick to reversing another unintended consequence.

Of course, John needed the name change. As Nancy, maybe no one will connect him with his wife, Monica Conyers, sentenced to jail time after accepting bribes while on the Detroit City Council. It makes one proud to be a Michigander you betcha!

At least some Democrats in the House voted in opposition to their Dear Leader. Oddly, though, Nancy always gets the votes she needs. I’m sure those few renegades aren’t just tokens to appease the curious masses. That would involve political gamesmanship, and something as important as government takeover of health care would certainly be above politics.

I wanna believe it, don’t you? But then we look toward the Senate. Now, I’m sure I’m the only one here who’s had nightmares in which 59 Harry Reid clones invade my small town and stalk about in search of human brains to devour. They’ve certainly devoured our desire to return to the voting booth. I mean, what’s the point? Fifty-nine men and women, all Democrats, and not one of them had an issue with the most expensive and complex bill in this nation’s history? I suppose that’s possible…I mean, if you ask fifty-nine high school boys if they’d rather go to a lecture on quantum physics or be special guests at the next Sports Illustrated swimsuit photo shoot, you’d probably get a unanimous vote.

I should just be more open-minded, I suppose. This is, after all, the twenty-first century. Look at all the problems caused by individuality. Wars, pestilence, disease, the Lifetime channel. Imagine what we could accomplish if we all shared the same ideas, the same thoughts. No dissent. No time wasted on monotonous debate.

In fact, why should we even have to remember Nancy and Harry? Since they’re only following the orders of One, we can just skip the middle man and cut right to the chase. This whole democracy thing is way overrated anyway. Finally, we’ve got our hero to take up his place in the hall of great world leaders, so well loved that they only need one name—Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Che, Castro.

It just shows what can be accomplished if we shed our liberty and individuality and follow the wisest among us. Let’s all write to our congressmen and senators today and let them know they can take the next century off. Obviously, their services are no longer required.  

Friday, April 30, 2010

And I didn't even know I was racist

Just so we understand each other, I want to go over the list of activities that are now considered "racist" in this country. I just want to be sure, you know? Having grown up as a Navy brat and spending another four years in the service myself, I've always been color blind. I don't think I heard a true racist statement until I was a teenager and home in Michigan. At least I thought they were racist statements. Now I see I must have been mistaken, because the people uttering them were union Democrats. Just not possible.

It's a good thing, then, that our current leadership and media is doing such a wonderful job at explaining the definition of racism. Here's what I've got so far. These activities are the new racism:
  • Speaking out against your President's policies.
  • Making illegal immigration illegal.
  • Owning a Confederate flag.
  • Failing to mention slavery at an event involving southern history.
  • Voting for anyone other than Obama.
  • Voting for a Republican (even if it's an African-American Republican...they don't count).
  • Disparaging any Democrat who ever uttered anything that used to be considered racist.
  • Drinking Arizona Iced Tea (even though it's brewed in New York).
  • Calling anyone a socialist.
I'm sure that list is incomplete. Please let me know if I've missed anything. I'm almost afraid to step out the front door or speak in public. What if I ask for a vanilla shake at McDonald' that racist? And if I hand the kid at the counter a dollar bill, which contains the image of George Washington, a confirmed slave owner, is that racist? I just don't know anymore. All this time, I thought I was not a bigot. Thank goodness for decent folks like Nancy Pelosi and Janeane Garofalo, who have been so kind to inform me of my hatred toward non-whites. And all this time I thought I was okay.

Can we get serious here? These race-baiting liberals are pathetic. The game plan has always been the same: if you can't defend your policies or want to distract the public from figuring out what you're up to, call someone a racist. May I suggest this to those of you who've actually been the victim of racism: you need to stand up and tell these morons to stop using a serious issue like racism for their own political gain. When Janeane Garofalo has the audacity to say that the Tea Parties are the result of racism, somebody in the black community needs to get seriously pissed off. She's cheapened your struggle. So has Nancy Pelosi and any other vicious liberal politician who's only goal in life is to get re-elected and maintain power over all of us, black or white.

Those of us on the right don't see color. We see character. If an African-American conservative (yes, they exist) were in the White House, there would be no protests. If there were a white socialist in the White House, you'd have the same people waving "Don't tread on me" flags in every corner of this country. 

Here's my message to those who are driving a wedge between races and classes in this country: Cut the crap. Stick to the issues and explain to us why it's okay to expand the government into every aspect of our lives. Tell us why it's okay to force disastrous bills down our throats and put honest companies out of business. Explain to us why Arizona should simply be tolerant of thousands of illegals crossing its borders and the violence that has followed. And, by the way, the one in ten of us who are unemployed with no way to provide for our families would love to see these "jobs Americans won't do." And since job creation is so important, please explain how Cap and Trade will not destroy millions of manufacturing jobs in this country. 

We so eagerly await your response. Wait a minute...I think I hear something. "He's a racist." Ah, thank you so much for your well thought-out rebuttal. I stand corrected. 

Maybe on the November ballot we can simplify the process. We'll just have a box for "Democrat" and one for "Racist Gun Loving Bible Thumping Bigot." That oughta clear things up for those of us who are confused.

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Why Conservatives can't win, but will anyway

The liberal machine will work hard toward creating a necessity for their existence. It is the conservative's goal to eliminate a reliance on government, even a conservative government. It is this uphill climb, one with no mountain peak in sight, that the conservative finds himself upon. It is why Franklin responded to the woman on the steps, who asked what sort of government they'd given us, "A republic, if you can keep it." There is nothing more tenuous than a government of powerful men and women willing to take a back seat to the will of the masses. It's contrary to human nature. The only way a republic can survive is if the will of millions of people stand firm against a central government that has, as its very core for existence, a desire to grow and gain control over those that give it life.

It is a fragile balance. We need a government, otherwise anarchy would result. And, as is the nature of men, the government will daily try to convince the masses that they need more of it. When, in fact, it is the government that cannot survive without us. The government, though, is comprised of very intelligent, very well-spoken men and women. Imagine the time and effort it takes to get elected. These are people who have lived every moment of their lives learning to be convincing and likable. So when they tell us we need them to be more powerful--for our own well-being of course--we tend to yield to their demands. We've done it for 200 years. The process of government growth accelerated quickly during the last century as the ability to reach larger number of people grew with technology.

I won't re-hash the old "boiling frog" analogy, though it may fit. I think a better picture is that of a man living in the jungle. He's unprotected and vulnerable to the wild creatures that surround him. One day he finds a lion cub and thinks, "Aha, I'll befriend this lion and he'll be my protector." Each day he feeds the cub and, indeed, it grows and fights off the other animals that try to attack his master. One day, however, the lion realizes he's much bigger and stronger than his master. He turns to him and says, "Now you will serve me."

We cannot eliminate our government, but we can restrict its growth, even reverse it (yes, I know, my lion analogy breaks down here...please feed your lion). The simplistic beauty of the Constitution is that it gives a permanent overriding power to the people, not the central government. It is only by our willingness that the government can grow out of control. Hard working men and women, who are most affected by their government, are least likely to step in and control the beast. They simply possess neither the time nor the energy to make a stand. And the larger the government grows, the more it taxes them, forcing them to work even harder and longer to simply provide for their families. In this continuous cycle of work-get taxed-work harder, the master quickly becomes the servant.

But, as we've seen over the last year, there comes a breaking point into what we are willing to accept. While the collective intelligence and shrewdness of several hundred politicians is, indeed, difficult to surmount, it pales in comparison to the will of hundreds of millions of "simple" men and women whose desire for liberty, though rarely stirred, will crush any hint of tyranny and drive it back to submission.

No, we cannot appeal to millions of people whenever we choose. We have no access to a constant parade of television crews and well-groomed news anchors. We have no single voice that will stand against an onslaught of half-truths and deception. What we do have is a will to be free. It hasn't changed in 200 years, though the faces may have. It's a will that has stopped one tyrant after another, those who would snatch our freedom from us to expand their own power and wealth. It is the most powerful force this world has ever conjured.

Many will say I'm being dramatic. This is just partisan politics. America is not going to go the way of a socialist regime. I ask you to step back and consider the big picture. Look at the slow, methodical intrusion of government into our lives over the last century. And always under programs with sweet sounding names--The New Deal, The Great Society--that promise more fairness and protection from uncertain economic forces. All of these programs have produced horrific debt and "unintended consequences." The government solution to the problems it has created is--you guessed it--more government programs. That's a hungry lion, brother, and we're fresh out of steak.

Americans of every race, gender, and religion have a much greater hunger. We hunger for freedom and the right to choose our own destiny. We often choose poorly and fail, but it's our choice, and unhampered freedom allows us to recover quickly from those poor choices. It is insulting for any politician to stand and claim to represent one ethnic or gender group. Last I checked, they're supposed to represent Americans. Any claim of representation to one group or another is, in itself, divisive and racist. We won't tolerate it any longer.

There's a big whip lashing out across this country. It's time to put the lion back in its cage.

Monday, April 26, 2010

Profit: the 8th deadly sin

Like many of you, I watched in horror as 15,000 protesters from teachers unions rallied in Springfield, Illinois to demand--are you ready for this--that the legislature raise their taxes. Like most states, Illinois is experiencing a budget crises. And, unlike our federal government, they understand the injustice of mounting debt to pass along to the next generations. Like a company, a state must make cuts when times are tough and they're not taking in enough cash to cover costs. For those of you who never took basic accounting or have spent too many years in Washington, D.C., the calculation is quite complex:

Profit = Income-Expenses

Yes, I used the "P" word. Punishable by imprisonment inside the beltway. I believe they're working on a death sentence now. For my liberal friends, profit does not equate greed. Profit means you're not losing money, going out of business, firing all your employees, eating Alpo, etc. I know, in the perfect world we'd all break even, or at least have all our profits taxed 100% to give to one of the thousands of illegal aliens on the verge of receiving amnesty. After all, they'll need a car so they can go vote for their Democratic friends who penned the amnesty bill.

Back to Illinois. The teacher's unions are rallying the troops to demand that the taxpayer foot the bill to ensure that none of them lose their jobs. Let me help with another definition. Taxpayer: they guy who just got his salary or hours reduced but is happy to have a job so he can support his wife and three kids. Yes, he should turn over some more cash to the state employees. That's fair.

I can help Illinois out. Go to YouTube and search for "Illinois teachers protest." You'll find about a dozen of your best and brightest spouting nonsense (not to mention very bad singing) about their incredible lack of economic knowledge. My favorite is the woman who said she owned a business, but her taxes shouldn't be raised because "those other" businesses make a much bigger profit. Oooh, there's that word again. I think any business person who claims a profit on their tax forms should be forced to wear a scarlet "P" on their lapel. That way society will know exactly who is to blame for the economic meltdown, global warming, and the Lion's 0-18 season. This woman, like many others there, exemplify the liberal position of "tax the rich, but make sure you draw the poverty line just a smidgen over my income level."

Now, I want to compare this rally with those of the evil Tea Partiers.

The Illinois show was arranged by union leaders. The protesters were bussed in (kind of like election day). They protested for higher taxes against the working man to support their income. The prevailing theme was money. More money for them, less for the 99% of the population who do not belong to a public service union.

The Tea Parties are the most disorganized rabble this nation has ever known, save for the aforementioned Detroit Lions. They check the internet for a local Tea Party, hear about one through the grapevine, or just start one themselves. They drive themselves during off hours or take vacation time. They are peaceful, full of energy, and love their country. And what do they demand?


Sacrifice for themselves so that their children will not inherit the mess we've gotten ourselves into. Tea Partiers are willing to give up their social security checks even though they'll probably have to pay into it for their entire working lives. Tea Partiers want less government services for themselves,  less "free" health care, less government intrusion. Despite the rhetoric from the left, conservatives aren't fixated on money. Who do you see shouting "show me the money!" at their rallies? Not Tea Partiers. Not conservatives. Conservatives are interested in the maximum level of prosperity for ALL.

If a kid growing up on the streets of South Central L.A. wants to start his own business and pull out of the mire, the government needs to get out of his way. Not hit him with so many taxes, fees, and unnecessary regulations that he can't even get the doors open.

Who is going to stand by that kid's side and demand fairness? Not the unions. He's too small. Not the Democrats. They need him on the government dole so he'll continue to vote for them. It will be Tea Partiers, conservatives, the greedy "Profiteers."

One party has done an excellent job of convincing the world that they stand for the little guy, the working man. It's the greatest con game in history. Since Johnson's Great Society sunk it's claws into our economy, the plight of minorities, small business, and every taxpayer has gotten worse. If the Republican party cannot stand up and shine a light on this obvious fraud, we'll continue to have more of the same. So far, it looks like the Repubs are getting the message. Don't blow it. Stand with the Tea Partiers and conservatives and be the party of the little guy. I'll proudly pin on my scarlet "P" and stand by you.

Saturday, April 24, 2010

Stick to the premise

A classic liberal tactic is to distract his conservative counterpart with specific incidents that have occurred in the long battle for the direction of this country. A good example is the one I presented in my previous post, where the liberal brings up the fact that George Bush also spent wildly over what the government took in. This somehow makes it palitable that the current administration doubles that deficit spending and then some. Another example is the case of the Tea Party movement. If the liberal can find just one case of racism among the millions of protestors, the entire movement is disqualified. 

This is where it's important for the conservative to stick to his or her premise. That's the baseline of our argument. Essentially, it's this: 
  • limited government as is clearly outlined in the U.S. Constitution
  • free market
  • personal accountability
  • respect for the sanctity of human life
State your belief that these simple steps will create an environment that will allow greater prosperity for a larger number of people. Then ask your liberal friend which of those points he or she disagrees with.

The liberal will continually try to pull you from your premise because he has no real argument against it, other than "corporations are greedy" or some other tired catch phrase. Of course, the corporation that provides their paycheck, house, TV, and electric vehicle is not the problem. It's all those other ones.

History has proven irrifutably that conservatism, even in small doses, results in unprecedented prosperity while socialism (which is the end result of the liberal playbook) causes suffering and poverty on a mass scale. Therefore, the liberal must focus on the issue of the moment to prevail in any debate. As I've stated previously, racism is the issue du jour. Other popular distractions include: the war, housing market crash (remind me to illustrate how liberal polices created that one), health care, and the most recent sex scandal (unless, of course, a liberal is involved).

Let me illustrate the liberal rationale:

A conservative football coach and a liberal football coach meet on the field after the game. The liberal coach says, "Man, you must be terribly embarassed by that fumble in the second quarter." The conservative coach looks at his opponent as if the man had just fallen off the carbon truck and says, "Not really, we beat you 63 to nothing."

Don't get into an argument about the second quarter fumble, my friends. Stick to your game plan. A free market, limited government, and low taxes will deliver prosperity for the maximum number of people at any given time. Write it on your palm if necessary. By sticking to your premise, which you know to be true, no argument can overpower you. No matter how eloquent the speaker, how famous the writer, how prestigious the university professor, a well spoken bucket of dung is still a bucket of dung.

Simple truth trumps an elaborate lie every time.

Friday, April 23, 2010

Bush spent money too!

This is my favorite argument fired from the liberal left: Tea Partiers didn't protest the deficit spending of President Bush, so they're hypocrites for protesting the spending of President Obama. Actually, we're referred to as racist for protesting deficit spending, but I won't even dignify that childish claim with a response.

First of all, conservatives did protest the deficit spending of President Bush. No, we didn't gather in crowds at the time. The level of spending hadn't quite reached critical mass. The only acceptable deficit spending is that done in time of national emergency, like, say, killing 3000 Americans because we have the audacity to be Americans. Even then, conservatives protested, albeit silently. Conservatives make lousy protesters. You see, it is in our nature to actually work for a living. Any protest must be carried out during our lunch hour. That doesn't allow much time to get a really good frenzy going. The liberal protesters are awe-inspiring. They take to the streets for days at a time. If not for my selfish need for a paycheck and a shower, I'd be all over that game plan!

Back to the spending. Seriously, are these people really going to compare the Bush spending to Obama? That's like comparing a shoplifter to Al Capone. It reminds me of a passage in the Bible: Saul has killed his thousands but David has killed his tens of thousands! Unfortunately, the tens of thousands, actually trillions, being killed are dollars that my kids will be straddled with. I know liberals prefer name-calling to facts, but please bear with me. Facts are just so much darned fun! Take a look at this graph, if you can do so without crying:

 The deficit under Bush, in his worst year, was just shy of $500billion. Again, I can't defend that. Bush clearly lost his conservative moorings during his presidency. But look at Obama's very first year in office. Yes, I've heard the arguments that it was "necessary" to get the nation on the road to recovery. That's crap. The last president who tried to spend his way out of a recession took this country into a ten year depression that "ended" only with the outbreak of WWII (another myth, by the way, otherwise, let's just find a good war and all our problems will be solved).

The premise of those opposed to the Tea Party movement is that if Bush did it, it's okay for Obama to do it, even on a grander scale. Sounds a bit like my kids. "All my friends are going to see Texas Chainsaw Gang Rape IV, so I should get to go too!" May I be the first Tea Partier to apologize for not taking to the streets ten years ago. Now that I've taken that first, bold step, can we move forward?

What I see ahead of us is unsustainable debt, inflation, higher taxes, and (dare I say it?) a once proud nation groveling before the United Nations or the EU for a bail out. Remember, whoever holds your debt is your master. And our master will insist that we model our nation after their European-socialist structure. If you're in favor of that, you may return to your previously scheduled Tea Party bashing. If you believe that America is still the greatest nation ever conceived and a shining example for the oppressed masses living under socialist regimes, then let's get off the couch and have ourselves a good old-fashioned protest. I'll bring the snacks.

Thursday, April 22, 2010

That troublesome Bill of Rights

A new label has sprung from the bowels of the liberal left: Tenther. A "tenther" is someone who believes that individual states should maintain most of the power to govern their respective peoples. It's not a new idea. In fact, it's that silly old Constitution that guarantees it. The tenth ammendment of your United States Constitution states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Let's put that into some simple language: The United States is to be governed by a small, limited government. The vast majority of power will exist at the state level. That means, my friends, that things like the Department of Education, Health Care, free mopeds, what have you, are to be voted upon at the state level. The federal government has far overstepped the boundaries established in the U.S. Contstitution so often that an semblence to the actual United States of America is purely coincadental.

You don't agree? Let's try taking that nasty old tenth ammendment apart. Remember these fun "skill builders" from 5th grade English?

"The powers NOT DELEGATED to the United States by the Constitution," That means, kids, that this amendment refers to everything, and I do mean everything, not mentioned in our 4 page Constitution. Specifically, Article 1, section 8. If the Constitution doesn't grant the power to the federal government, they don't just get to make one up under the guise of providing for the "good and welfare" of the general public. It's interesting to note here that our founders felt so strongly about limiting the powers of the central government that they felt the need to write an amendment to support what was already made clear in the original document. Apparently, it takes at least three documents to convince our current leadership.

"nor prohibited by it to the States," Unless the Constitution spefically prohibits something from the individual states, it's fair game. For the states, not the federal government.

"are RESERVED TO THE STATES respectively, or to the PEOPLE." Say, that's us! If we put the first and last part together and paraphrase, the tenth amendment says:

Any power not granted to the United States government by the Constitution may only be taken up by the individual state governments. 

The U.S. Constitution still exists as one the most endearing governing documents in human history. The men who wrote it were all too familiar with governments that grew out of control and, in essence, reduced their masses to servants of the government, instead of the other way around.

The founders of this nation established the levels of government from a "bottom up" viewpoint. The majority of the power would remain at the state and local level. That way, we could never end up with a system in which 300 million people were governed by a few. Because the founders understood the nature of men, they understood all too well the disaster of that scenario. Even if the current administration doesn't abuse the power it has granted itself, it has created the environment for such abuse to exist. Unless every President from this point forward is the absolute picture of morality, we're leaving the door to the hen house wide open. It only takes one fox.

Someone is taking issue...ah, you there in the back row. Yes? I see. The comment is that our nation today does not resemble that of the loosely scattered colonies to which our founders drafted the Constitution. At that time, each state had different economies, a different societal make-up, specific needs. Very true. No doubt, today's America is much more homogeneous than the America of the late eighteenth century. Clearly, back then, it would have been prudent to allow each state to master its own destiny.

The founders, however, weren't only concerned with maintaining socio-economic make-up of each state. By the way, I would argue that there are still large differences between the individual states today. If that statement is wrong, then we have no use for state level governments. 

What the founders understood better than most, like I've stated, is the nature of man. Those in power will invariably believe that their's is the only possible solution, and will take whatever steps necessary to maintain their position. We're not talking vicious dictators here. Those in power honestly believe they are doing the right thing, and will argue passionately their cause. In order to achieve those high levels of office, they must be well-spoken, charismatic, and convincing. This is why their power must be held strictly to what the Constitution allows. George Washington said that "we are not a nation of men, we are a nation of laws." The laws penned in the Constitution establish a solid foundation on which this country continues to stand. Today, we're chiseling away at that foundation. 

What, exactly, do we plan on replacing it with?

Check out the Constitution and other founding documents here.

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

An Exchange of Ideas

A very good friend of mine expressed his concern that my political posts on Facebook were getting a bit too polarizing. That's unfortunate, because it's not my intent to place a wedge between free thinkers on opposite sides of the issues. I'm not sure when it happened in America, but we've somehow tumbled from a nation of ideas, in which folks gathered in taverns over a pint and discussed issues and theories, to a nation that forces each of us to choose sides and toss mud over a concrete wall.

I must admit my own guilt first. I've gotten caught up in the hyper-dramatization of of opposing viewpoints. Perhaps it's too much reality TV. I think, if America is to remain a great nation, it will be when individuals return to some state of open dialogue. We fought a war with real bullets so that we'd never have to return to such extremes again. But if we continue to build this wall between Americans who differ even slightly in opinion, I fear we are heading down that path again. Besides, you simply cannot get a decent bottle of ale on the battlefield.

What I find most concerning is that there are truly intelligent, even brilliant, people in this country who are not willing to voice their opinion for fear it may alienate those close to them. That is a tragedy. America was built on ideas. For the new generation of builders to suppress their gift of intellect is akin to a great artist fearful of displaying his work in public.

In the world of fiction writing, tension is the bond that holds a story together for two-hundred pages or more. It is the same in real life; without that intellectual tension, our minds stagnate and we end up a generation incapable of expressing ideas. If we go about our days discussing nothing more intellectually stimulating than the latest episode of American Idol or the Lotto jackpot, then that life transcript will end up on the reject pile within two sentences.  

If we cannot discuss our differences on the battlefield of ideas without reducing ourselves to public shunning, then America, like a novel with no tension, will slip off into mediocrity. As it stands, all sides are preaching to their respective choirs. How great is thy comfort zone.

So let's begin here. I'll post my thoughts on this here blog. I'm very conservative, so that's where my debate will always begin. For a good explanation of what that is, check out the Heritage Foundation "First Principles."   I also base my economic theory on that of the Austrian School of Economic Theory. I'm not an economist by any stretch, but I like the free market approach.

The rules (because it's my football and my backyard) are simple: comment with thoughtful responses, ones that you think will change my opinion (if you disagree) or support my opinion (if you agree). Once the debate is reduced to numerous exclamation points or ALL CAPS, we call a truce and move on. Fair 'nuff? Trust me, my friends, both those who agree and those who disagree, there is nothing more fearful to a tyrannical government than a society of thinking men and women who are willing to boldly voice their opinions.

Just ask a King named George.

Compassion belongs to the conservative

Conservatism demands and promotes excellence. Excellence is derived from a desire to be the best, to outperform those in our chosen field. For most of us, the desire for excellence comes naturally. We find something to become passionate about, which drives us to be the best, regardless of any perceived financial reward. Oddly enough, those who end up receiving a large financial reward didn't begin their pursuit with that goal in mind. Because of their passion, their desire to be the best, they reach great heights, both professionally and financially. Writers are the perfect example. Most writers will never make enough money from their chosen craft to earn a living, let alone become wealthy. But it doesn't matter to them. They love what they do, are passionate, and find great reward from the mere pursuit. Yes, we cry when yet another rejection letter comes in the mail, but we down a 1/2 gallon of Ben & Jerry's and get back to the keyboard. The 1% of writers who do achieve financial success did it by hard work and determination, and passion.

Passion, the rocket fuel of success.

For a small percentage of Americans, however, passion alone isn't enough to drive them forward. Somehow, we've failed to create an environment in which every single resident of this country knows that he or she has the opportunity to pursue excellence and expect a reasonable level of success, whether it come economically or otherwise. Despite an endless stream of "rags to riches" stories, the common belief is that if you're not born into prosperity, you'll never find it. Understandably, an enraged generation brought up on this established falsehood turn to other avenues. Sometimes it's crime. More often it's just a willingness to float through life on whatever the government chooses to "bless" them with.

I reject the notion that poverty is the root cause of criminal activity. Otherwise, the term "white collar criminal" would be ludicrous. Poverty will generate a sense of hopelessness. In a country governed by a select few, the hopelessness would turn to despair. In this country, however, we offer an alternative to both despair and hopelessness. It's called liberty. Essentially, it is the mechanism by which any citizen can pursue happiness. When there is no government obstruction, and the free market is truly free and allowed to follow its natural course, all of us are guaranteed the opportunity to succeed. We're not guaranteed success, in fact we often fail, but we have no one to credit or blame but ourselves.

What our current government is hoping to achieve is a guarantee of success. But not just for the individual, as if that weren't enough to discourage hard work, but now these same bureaucrats are offering the same guarantee to corporations in the form of bailouts. More on that another time.

 When we throw money at those at the bottom of the competitive ladder we diminish their desire for excellence, just as we diminish any need for responsible business practices when we throw it at corporations. We create an atmosphere that offers absolutely no reason to take initiative, to reach for something greater than what we were issued upon birth. How is this considered compassionate?

The liberals who practice this psuedo-compassion are engaged in a sort of mass vote-buying. If they can convince 51% of the population that they need either a welfare check or a guarantee of no taxes, they've bought themselves an election every time. Candidates who represent a platform based on limited government and a free market find themselves fighting an uphill battle. Somehow, they have to convince millions of voters who've lived under the cave-like protection of a liberal system that something greater awaits them outside their confined, yet familiar existence, if they are only willing to take the first step into the sunlight.

I admit, it must be frightening. This "protection" has existed now for an entire generation, sealed in stone by Johnson's Great Society. There exists, in America, young men and women who have never known any existence other than life in the "Great Society." That's just the irony. The liberals will claim that their programs are necessary to end the squalor that exists in our culture. In fact, it is this very squalor, which has grown by leaps and bounds since Johnson waved his magic pen, that is representative of what any socialist policy would bring about.

The liberal, never to be frustrated by something so mundane as fact and history, will come to the conclusion that not enough has been done. Have we not heard that from liberal historians? If only Roosevelt had spent more, the Great Depression would have been shortened. Again, they must wear historical blinders to ignore the almost identical economic conditions in 1921, at which time the government spent no money to save the country from certain doom. The doom lasted less than one year.

So what is compassion? For the individual, it is to offer help to those in need. America still leads the world when it comes to charity. For a government, though, compassion comes in the form of creating a system that allows a maximum level of individual liberty. This is what the conservative must remember when confronted by those who claim to represent the downtrodden. The poor will always be with us, but liberal policies put in place under the guise of assisting those few do nothing but expand the numbers of those below the poverty line. Conservative policies cannot eradicate poverty, but they will, as they have in the past, reduce and limit it to an absolute minimum.

It is at that point that the masses above the poverty line have more power and the means to help their neighbor. Never underestimate the unstoppable power of a free market system. When individual liberty is thrust upon a society, a tsunami of ideas, enterprise, and economic growth is the result. For a government comprised of a few hundred to believe that they can replace the spirit of hundreds of millions with poorly contrived documents and empty political phrases is the opposite of compassion and liberty. It is socialism, and it remains to this day as one of the great evils of our time.

Sunday, April 18, 2010

My Conservative Temperament

I'm reading After the Hangover by great conservative thinker R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. I'll review it when I'm finished, but I just read the chapter in which he defines conservatism. No easy task, especially given the media's tendency to reduce the movement to a single personality like Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin. True, men like these are conservatives, but they are a product of the movement, not framers.

Tyrrell defines conservatism as "a temperament to delight in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Part of that pursuit includes the acquisition and exchange of property (not solely real estate, folks, though the word "property" seems to spark that image). Modern conservatism is a temperament, not an ideology or an anxiety. It is a love of liberty, not a mesdemeanor.

Frank Meyer, who left the Communist party in the 1940s and set about fighting against it, wrote a series of "articles of belief" of the conservative movement. I won't impart them all here, but two that so closely fit with my plunge into conservatism are these:

  • American conservatives are opposed to state control of the economy.
  • American conservatism derives from these (previous) positions its firm support of the Constitutions of the United States as originally conceived--to achieve protection of individual liberty in an ordered society by limiting the power of government.
I suppose, since out of the seven articles, I most closely attached my conservative identity with those two, that I would have sprang from the more libertarian ancestry of the movement. Although, since my belief that freedom is a God given right, I may not have sat at the head table at any libertarian gathering. 

I'm not one for memorizing long definitions, so if I were to forced to pull out a quick answer to anyone questioning my belief, I'd have to say: a conservative believes that the central government, as identified in the constitution, should remain small an non-intrusive. A conservative wishes for as much freedom and liberty to be granted to individuals as is possible while still maintaining order. How's that? Still a bit long. 

I suppose I could just shout "Liberty!" but I don't think many Americans even know what that means anymore. If they did, and they believed it to be the cornerstone of our constitutional foundation, then they could never accept a government that has grown so unsustainably massive and, apparently, unable to resist any opportunity to dictate how we are to live, what we should drive, where (or if) we buy health care, and what my kids should be taught. I saw one attempt to identify the conservative movement as "the party of leave us alone." I think I like that one. Thought "Don't Tread on Me" looks a heck of a lot cooler on a flag than "Leave us Alone!"

I'm not sure how the Republican Party became the conservative party. In fact, they did a pretty good job of distancing themselves from the conservative movement until Ronald Reagan embraced it fully. It is for this reason (though I didn't figure it out until recent years) that I couldn't justify the actions of Republicans in the earlier half of the last century. Even as late as Nixon, the Republicans were very standoffish. Republican presidents like Hoover and Teddy Roosevelt would actually be classified as liberals. Our recent George Bush, though a proclaimed conservative, seemed to drift from his moorings on the issue of spending and government expansion. 

I'm also not sure how the Democratic Party become the home of left-wing liberals, but they seem quite comfortable there. That's a shame. Since a majority of Americans identify themselves as conservative and only a small percentage openly admit to being liberal, one must wonder how Democrats keep getting elected. We know how they get un-elected, though. After campaigns full of patriotic rhetoric, they invariably revert to their progressive ideological nature. 

The conservative movement sprang from the realization of millions that Roosevelt's New Deal was an unmitigated disaster (No? Two words: social security). With each liberal intrusion into our lives--Johnson's Great Society, Carter's Dept. of Education, Clinton's first attempt at nationalized health care--conservatives found new motivation. And now we have a president who's level of federal spending dwarfs that of any before him. While many of my Republican friends, the ones who forget that they held all the power only a few years ago, are crying "this is the end!", my conservative friends are rejoicing, regrouping, and mounting the counter-attack. We've been here before, and each time we've emerged stronger, because conservatism is but a reflection of what defines the American idea, and most Americans know that. The few that don't will continue to whine and mourn the loss of their promised utopia. 

More on this topic later, when I debunk the myth that liberals are more compassionate than conservatives.

Saturday, April 17, 2010

The Hurricane Wall

I like to equate the liberal philosophy, actually based on Keynesian economic theory, to that of Hollywood style mad scientists who set out to dominate the world by controlling the weather. "Pay me my 10 trillion dollars or I'll make it snow all over the World Series! bwaha bwahaha BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!"

Actually, a World Series in the snow sounds kind of fun, but I digress.

Here is the unfortunate fact for liberals: the economy is a natural force, much like the weather. People make things, they sell things, they buy things. They go through this endless cycle because they want things like food, shelter, maybe a nice Chevy. Liberals refer to this human survival instinct as "greed."

Now (pay attention), when one of these folks finds himself in trouble because no one wants to buy his pet rocks anymore, popular for so many weeks, he is faced with a decision. He can pray for a resurgence in the pet rock market or switch over to Chia Pets. Unless, of course, we have liberals in office, in which he'll receive a bail out, funding for additional pet rock research, or never-ending unemployment benefits.

I mentioned that the economy is a natural force like the weather, so let's stick with that analogy. I shall force my brain to stay on track for at least five seconds. To believe that you can control the economy is to believe that you can build a wall in the Atlantic Ocean to stop the onslaught of hurricanes. It certainly sounds like a good idea. I mean, think of the billions saved in damages, not to mention the lives of thousands. You know the liberal mantra: if it saves one life, it's worth it.

In Liberalville, we'd build our Atlantic Wall (we'll call it the "Hurricane Relocation and Urban Revitalization Program") at a cost of, let's say, $100 billion dollars. We'll use recycled material to reduce the cost and environmental impact. Now, the summer after our wall is built, only six hurricanes wallop Miami.

"Hurray!" shout the liberals. "If not for our wall, a dozen hurricanes would have made it through. Success!"

And, being the patriotic Americans we are, we believe them because, after all, they wear ties and use sentences that require sixty-three commas and majored in poly-sci in between anti-war/oil/business/church/Bush/styrofoam cup protests. After the math, in which a third level congressional intern figures that six hurricanes, at a cost of a gazzilion dollars per 'cane, we are blessed with a savings of infinity dollars. Squared.

This scenario is exactly what liberals attempt whenever they utter phrases like "stimulus" or "revitalize." They like to pump trillions of your dollars into their project. The economy gets no better, but they'll shout that it would have been much worse had they not intervened (see Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1932-1945). In the meantime, they show an incredible talent for ignoring politicians who did nothing in the face of a similar crisis and were awarded with much better results (see Warren Harding, 1921-1923).

Despite failure after failure of liberal policies, America just keeps trying. It's as if the idea of controlling the economy is so good (and wouldn't it be wonderful?), that the very act of implementing a liberal agenda makes one a hero in the eyes of history. He cared, dammit! He was an epic failure, but he cared!

Here's the plan kids: the hurricanes will come, it will snow in January (and possibly on the Series), and we'll have drought in summer. We can spend a lot of money on a wall in the ocean, or we can take the bad with the good and take responsibility for our own decisions. Conservatives, take heart, we have a President in the White House who has inspired us like no other. The sleeping giant is alive, thank you very much, awake, and setting November in its sights.

Let's tear down a wall.

Friday, April 16, 2010

Ignorant and Uneducated

You know you're winning the war of ideas when the opposition resorts to name calling, lies, and misquotes to slander you. Since I've proudly made clear my involvement in the Tea Party movement, I've been called racist, homophobe, uneducated, and ignorant. I've also been called a "birther." I like that one the best. A "birther" is someone who believes that President Obama is not a U.S. citizen. While these folks seek the same goal as I, to rid our country of the socialists who've managed to lie their way into public office, I must disagree with their tactics. The attack on the President's nationality is a waste of resources. Besides, he's given us so many other avenues to turn public opinion against him, it's hardly worth the effort.

For those of us who've actually gone to a Tea Party instead of reading the New York Times hit piece (oddly, they can't understand why they're losing subscribers), you've found that we are highly educated, peaceful, actually fun to be around, loyal to our country, color blind and, I'm so sorry to have to tell you, absolutely committed to bringing this nation back to its constitutional roots. In fact, I just read the Contract from America, put together after polling 500,000 Patriots. The ten points mention things like controlling government spending, protect the Constitution, and reducing our dependency on foreign oil.

All those opposed to those points, raise your hand. The other 99% of you, those who I like to refer to as "non-idiots," stick around.

The current regime in Washington is proof that the founders were correct when they warned us about out of control federal government. They are so certain that everything they do is golden that they completely ignore the protests of those they supposedly represent. Our Constitution established a small, limited central government, leaving most of the control at the state and local levels. If Californians want government health care, they can vote it in for California. If Virginians don't want it, they don't get it thrust upon them from three thousand miles away. That way, you see, when it fails, it only effects the folks in California, not the whole freakin' country!

Here's what we want. We want governors who stand up, grow a spine, and tell the socialist in the White House that we are sovereign states who do not want or need his health care, his taxes, his cap and trade, or any of his attacks on the corporations who provide real jobs.Then we want the federal government to stick to what the constitution allows them which, by the way, is not "anything that provides health or security." There is no amendment that says "Insert your pet issue here." You guys 'n gals work for us. Got it? Now, for those of you with your hands raised, come up with actual arguments to support a socialist agenda, or shut up and get back to your tingly-legged "news" program host or American Idol.

If you choose to engage in your losing battle, you are in for a hell of a ride.

This is what happens when the uninformed and ignorant are called out.