In a 6-1 decision the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. At the same time they ruled that the 18,000 marriages of same-sex couples will not be voided.
This was the right call. The people passed a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, overturning it would be declaring a part of the state constitution unconstitutional. It would have been a dangerous court precedent and a new low for judicial activists. Fortunately they made the right decision.
Proponents of same-sex marriage have already started collecting signatures for their own ballot proposition to repeal prop 8. I wish them luck. Prop 8 only passed with 52% of the vote, and this was with the backlash of judicial activism, I think it stands a decent chance of passing.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Obama Picks Sotomayor for the Supreme Court
President Obama made his first pick for the Supreme Court today, judge Sonia Sotomayor. Like the Justice she replaces, David Souter, she is a liberal. Not only is she a liberal, but she is a judical activist who thinks the courts are there to make policy.
Conservatives must make a case to oppose her. Although it is likely hopeless, conservative must make an active effort to inform the people of her record and her philosophy as a judicial activist. This can be used to boost Republican turnout in the 2010 congressional elections, and help conservatives prepare for the judicial pick, which could well be a replacement for a conservative Justice.
The left's arguments to Conservative opposition are predicable:
1. Republicans are the party of no.
This is easy to rebut, liberals oppose practically every conservative appointed to the supreme court, and many to the lower courts. Why is opposition to a supreme court pick wrong when liberals do it every time to a conservative? Hypocrisy? I think so.
2. But she was appointed by a Republican, the first President Bush.
This is true, but it doesn't matter. Her voting record and public statements are those of a liberal judicial activist.
3. The 3rd argument will be a base and despicable attempt to paint Republicans as racists and/or sexists for opposing a Hispanic woman.
Liberals opposed Janice Rogers Brown's appointment to a lower court, stalling her appointment for years. She is a black woman. Were the liberals who opposed her racist or sexist? If the answer by a liberal you ask is no, then why are Conservative who oppose Sotomayor racist and/or sexist? The answer is they are not.
These arguments need to be shot down before they are made. The left knows that if they repeat a lie enough times it will stick, and that is precisely what they hope to do.
Conservatives must make a case to oppose her. Although it is likely hopeless, conservative must make an active effort to inform the people of her record and her philosophy as a judicial activist. This can be used to boost Republican turnout in the 2010 congressional elections, and help conservatives prepare for the judicial pick, which could well be a replacement for a conservative Justice.
The left's arguments to Conservative opposition are predicable:
1. Republicans are the party of no.
This is easy to rebut, liberals oppose practically every conservative appointed to the supreme court, and many to the lower courts. Why is opposition to a supreme court pick wrong when liberals do it every time to a conservative? Hypocrisy? I think so.
2. But she was appointed by a Republican, the first President Bush.
This is true, but it doesn't matter. Her voting record and public statements are those of a liberal judicial activist.
3. The 3rd argument will be a base and despicable attempt to paint Republicans as racists and/or sexists for opposing a Hispanic woman.
Liberals opposed Janice Rogers Brown's appointment to a lower court, stalling her appointment for years. She is a black woman. Were the liberals who opposed her racist or sexist? If the answer by a liberal you ask is no, then why are Conservative who oppose Sotomayor racist and/or sexist? The answer is they are not.
These arguments need to be shot down before they are made. The left knows that if they repeat a lie enough times it will stick, and that is precisely what they hope to do.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Who Best Represents The GOP? Rush Limbaugh or Colin Powell?
The media has been propping-up Colin Powell as some kind of 'moderate Republican.' Powell himself said the party has drifted too far to the right and we need to moderate. With all due respect to Powell's service to this country, he has no credibility when it comes to his advice on the party's direction.
John McCain had reached out to the other party far more often than Obama ever did. He is way closer to the center than Obama, and we have never heard Powell say the Democrats need to move to the center, and the Democrats have let the far-left dominate the leadership of their party. Where is Powell's concerns about the Democrats now, or ever?
Republicans nominated a candidate that reached out to the other party, in fact McCain has reached out to Democrats so often it angered many in his own party. Obama nearly always reached across the aisle on issues where pretty much everyone agreed. He has embraced the most extreme elements of his party while speaking in a manner that makes him look moderate. Is Powell unaware of this? Or is he simply the liberal many conservatives had always thought he was. Either way he has no credibility to tell the Republican party what direction it needs to take.
Rush Limbaugh has often said things in jest that the left went gone nuts over, sometimes justifiably, usually not. I don't always agree with him, I disagree with him on church/state issues, same sex marriage, and a few others, but he is not an extremist. He exemplifies the opinions of tens of millions of Americans. He is a conservative and proud of it but not a radical. Obama has often associated with radicals and showed no discomfort with it until he ran for president. Where was Powell's outrage at that?
Rush was right when he said Powell should become a Democrat. He endorsed the Democratic nominee, not the Republican nominee when the Republican nominee was far closer to the center. In fact I think it is safe to say that Limbaugh, a proud conservative, is closer to the center than Obama.
John McCain had reached out to the other party far more often than Obama ever did. He is way closer to the center than Obama, and we have never heard Powell say the Democrats need to move to the center, and the Democrats have let the far-left dominate the leadership of their party. Where is Powell's concerns about the Democrats now, or ever?
Republicans nominated a candidate that reached out to the other party, in fact McCain has reached out to Democrats so often it angered many in his own party. Obama nearly always reached across the aisle on issues where pretty much everyone agreed. He has embraced the most extreme elements of his party while speaking in a manner that makes him look moderate. Is Powell unaware of this? Or is he simply the liberal many conservatives had always thought he was. Either way he has no credibility to tell the Republican party what direction it needs to take.
Rush Limbaugh has often said things in jest that the left went gone nuts over, sometimes justifiably, usually not. I don't always agree with him, I disagree with him on church/state issues, same sex marriage, and a few others, but he is not an extremist. He exemplifies the opinions of tens of millions of Americans. He is a conservative and proud of it but not a radical. Obama has often associated with radicals and showed no discomfort with it until he ran for president. Where was Powell's outrage at that?
Rush was right when he said Powell should become a Democrat. He endorsed the Democratic nominee, not the Republican nominee when the Republican nominee was far closer to the center. In fact I think it is safe to say that Limbaugh, a proud conservative, is closer to the center than Obama.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Maine and New Hampshire Legalize Same-Sex Marriage
Following Vermont, both Maine and New Hampshire have legalized same-sex marriage though legislation rather than judicial activism. There hasn't been much for me to be happy about in the world of politics lately with the rise of the far-left and the media shilling for them at every opportunity, but this is one bright light.
The representatives of the people have spoken and changed the law to allow same-sex marriage. I hope pro-same-sex marriage activists look at these examples and stop resorting to judicial activism. They can win without it. In fact, they will win faster without it.
Almost every time same-sex marriage has been mandated by the courts a backlash has ensued. I hope, and think, this will not be the case with states that have passed it legislatively.
The representatives of the people have spoken and changed the law to allow same-sex marriage. I hope pro-same-sex marriage activists look at these examples and stop resorting to judicial activism. They can win without it. In fact, they will win faster without it.
Almost every time same-sex marriage has been mandated by the courts a backlash has ensued. I hope, and think, this will not be the case with states that have passed it legislatively.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Answering a Liberal Strawman: Should Republicans move to the right or be more inclusive?
Should Republicans move to the right or be more inclusive?
This question is a strawman posed by liberals who are insinuating that being
conservative is somehow the antithesis of being inclusive, but it does raise
interesting issues.
Should Republicans move to the right? Absolutely, Republicans have betrayed
economic conservatism since the late 90s and simply embraced a milder form of liberalism on economic issues than the Democrats. This is one of the reasons they are in the minority right now. Republicans need to stand firm on smaller government and lower taxes.
They also need to stand firm on the war on terror, the 2nd amendment and
securing the border. The people are with Republicans on these issues.
Now, should Republicans be inclusive? Republicans already are inclusive. The
media and entertainment industries have basically been peddling the left's
propaganda of the 'bigoted conservative' to push people into the Democratic
party because they know they can't win by selling a socialist agenda.
Conservatives are not anti-Hispanic, they are just opposed to illegal
immigration. They are not even anti-gay, it is just that most are opposed to
same-sex marriage, a position that the majority of Americans hold.
If you were to ask a gay conservative, who do you get more hostility from,
straight conservatives when they learn you are gay or gay liberals when they
learn you're conservative, the answer is almost always from gay liberals when
they learn you're conservative. It is the left that is intolerant.
Maybe we should ask the Democrats, if they want to continue to move to the left
or be more inclusive. They sure can't tolerate any dissent, judging by their
reactions to the tea parties, and the fact that many of them want to stifle free
speech under the guise of the 'Fairness Doctrine.'
Standing for smaller government and lower taxes is not being exclusionary. We let the left push us in their direction for their benefit and it has to stop. This does not mean we become as rigidly ideological and narrow-minded as they are, but it does mean acting on our principles. Smaller government, lower taxes, more freedom. These are principles to proclaim proudly, sure we should allow a diversity of viewpoints into the party, but not to the point to where the party stands for nothing but itself and itself alone. Be bold. Be conservative. And don't apologize for it.
This question is a strawman posed by liberals who are insinuating that being
conservative is somehow the antithesis of being inclusive, but it does raise
interesting issues.
Should Republicans move to the right? Absolutely, Republicans have betrayed
economic conservatism since the late 90s and simply embraced a milder form of liberalism on economic issues than the Democrats. This is one of the reasons they are in the minority right now. Republicans need to stand firm on smaller government and lower taxes.
They also need to stand firm on the war on terror, the 2nd amendment and
securing the border. The people are with Republicans on these issues.
Now, should Republicans be inclusive? Republicans already are inclusive. The
media and entertainment industries have basically been peddling the left's
propaganda of the 'bigoted conservative' to push people into the Democratic
party because they know they can't win by selling a socialist agenda.
Conservatives are not anti-Hispanic, they are just opposed to illegal
immigration. They are not even anti-gay, it is just that most are opposed to
same-sex marriage, a position that the majority of Americans hold.
If you were to ask a gay conservative, who do you get more hostility from,
straight conservatives when they learn you are gay or gay liberals when they
learn you're conservative, the answer is almost always from gay liberals when
they learn you're conservative. It is the left that is intolerant.
Maybe we should ask the Democrats, if they want to continue to move to the left
or be more inclusive. They sure can't tolerate any dissent, judging by their
reactions to the tea parties, and the fact that many of them want to stifle free
speech under the guise of the 'Fairness Doctrine.'
Standing for smaller government and lower taxes is not being exclusionary. We let the left push us in their direction for their benefit and it has to stop. This does not mean we become as rigidly ideological and narrow-minded as they are, but it does mean acting on our principles. Smaller government, lower taxes, more freedom. These are principles to proclaim proudly, sure we should allow a diversity of viewpoints into the party, but not to the point to where the party stands for nothing but itself and itself alone. Be bold. Be conservative. And don't apologize for it.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Specter Did Republicans A Favor
While there is no doubt his move to the Democratic party was purely self
serving, he even admitted it himself, he may have inadvertently done Republicans
a favor. Once the Minnesota race is resolved, sadly it is almost certain to go to
supposed comedian Al Franken, the Democrats will have 60 seats and no excuses in
2010.
It also rids the Republicans of a bloody primary battle that would have been needed to oust Specter in the 2010 Pennsylvania primary. Republicans can now nominate a real Republican, either Pat Toomey or former governor Tom Ridge.
I have literally no harsh feelings that Specter switched parties because he wasn't much of a Republican in the first place, his voting record is left of center and when he was needed to stop the stimulus he actually supported it. He even voted against the Iraq war, which shows that isn't even there on terror issues. Although he isn't far left, his voting record is less than 45% conservative according to the American Conservative Union.
Anyone who has read my blog knows I am not a rigid ideologue. I don't agree with Republicans on everything, and am willing to say so when I think they are wrong, but the party has not drifted too far to the right, especially on economic issues where Republicans have betrayed their base time and again. Republicans have not been conservative enough. If Republicans want a chance at governing again they will need to have a bold conservative vision of less government and more freedom. And let's face it Arlen Specter would never support such a vision.
serving, he even admitted it himself, he may have inadvertently done Republicans
a favor. Once the Minnesota race is resolved, sadly it is almost certain to go to
supposed comedian Al Franken, the Democrats will have 60 seats and no excuses in
2010.
It also rids the Republicans of a bloody primary battle that would have been needed to oust Specter in the 2010 Pennsylvania primary. Republicans can now nominate a real Republican, either Pat Toomey or former governor Tom Ridge.
I have literally no harsh feelings that Specter switched parties because he wasn't much of a Republican in the first place, his voting record is left of center and when he was needed to stop the stimulus he actually supported it. He even voted against the Iraq war, which shows that isn't even there on terror issues. Although he isn't far left, his voting record is less than 45% conservative according to the American Conservative Union.
Anyone who has read my blog knows I am not a rigid ideologue. I don't agree with Republicans on everything, and am willing to say so when I think they are wrong, but the party has not drifted too far to the right, especially on economic issues where Republicans have betrayed their base time and again. Republicans have not been conservative enough. If Republicans want a chance at governing again they will need to have a bold conservative vision of less government and more freedom. And let's face it Arlen Specter would never support such a vision.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Vermont Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage The Right Way
Vermont has become the first state to legalize same-sex marriage legislatively. The Vermont House and Senate overrode Governor Jim Douglas' veto. This is a milestone in the gay marriage movement, one I hope the proponents of same-sex marriage recognize and take to heart.
Instead of going to the courts to thwart the will of the people, the representatives of the people passed a law legalizing same-sex marriage. It cannot be said that the courts participated in judicial activism as they have in the past. If the law stands the test of time, meaning that it isn't repealed after an election or two, the beginning of a whole new chapter in the SSM movement.
Thank You Vermont. You can be assured that it will be a long time before you hear me say those words again.
Instead of going to the courts to thwart the will of the people, the representatives of the people passed a law legalizing same-sex marriage. It cannot be said that the courts participated in judicial activism as they have in the past. If the law stands the test of time, meaning that it isn't repealed after an election or two, the beginning of a whole new chapter in the SSM movement.
Thank You Vermont. You can be assured that it will be a long time before you hear me say those words again.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
The Vision of the Left
The left have a vision to reshape America in their image. What would this new America look like? Let's just look at some of their positions and we'll have a better picture.
Most on the left want Card Check which will rob workers of the secret ballot, and will unleash union organizers across the country to harass workers until they agree to sign a card signaling their support to form a union. This has already been tried in Indiana with terrible results. Workers were harassed at work and even at home until the necessary signatures were collected to form a union. Fortunately the workers appealed and were able to force a secret ballot; the union was stopped, but there is still bad blood among the workers. The lefts wants this nationwide: thousands of union organizers across the nation harassing workers and intimidating them until they are worn down and agree to sign a card signaling their support to form a union. Unions overwhelmingly support Democrats so this would boost their political power and resources enormously.
The left also supports the so called 'Fairness Doctrine' which will allow the government to regulate political speech on the only media form the left doesn't have a stranglehold on: talk radio. The supporters of the Fairness Doctrine try as much as possible to make it sound innocuous and benign, but it is a blatant effort to force talk radio to give the left more of a voice, or at least get the conservative voices criticizing them off the air and replaced by non controversial shows that won't criticize them.
In addition, they want to nationalize large parts of the private sector, erode the 2nd Amendment, and take even more from the productive sector part of the populace and use that money to fund further expansions of an already way too big government. This isn't some paranoid conspiracy theory, all you have to do is listen to what the left has to say. It won't happen overnight (although it has been happening damn fast of late), and it won't happen all at once. The left likes to get their agenda passed one piece at a time to get the public used to something before the next piece is pushed though. As Norman Thomas the Socialist Presidential candidate once said, "The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under the name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened."
Is this what you want for America? The American people need to know what the consequences of the liberal agenda are and how it will affect their lives. They need to know that their freedoms are threatened by the far-left which has hijacked the Democratic Party and is using it to reshape America into something else, something that most Americans don't want.
Most on the left want Card Check which will rob workers of the secret ballot, and will unleash union organizers across the country to harass workers until they agree to sign a card signaling their support to form a union. This has already been tried in Indiana with terrible results. Workers were harassed at work and even at home until the necessary signatures were collected to form a union. Fortunately the workers appealed and were able to force a secret ballot; the union was stopped, but there is still bad blood among the workers. The lefts wants this nationwide: thousands of union organizers across the nation harassing workers and intimidating them until they are worn down and agree to sign a card signaling their support to form a union. Unions overwhelmingly support Democrats so this would boost their political power and resources enormously.
The left also supports the so called 'Fairness Doctrine' which will allow the government to regulate political speech on the only media form the left doesn't have a stranglehold on: talk radio. The supporters of the Fairness Doctrine try as much as possible to make it sound innocuous and benign, but it is a blatant effort to force talk radio to give the left more of a voice, or at least get the conservative voices criticizing them off the air and replaced by non controversial shows that won't criticize them.
In addition, they want to nationalize large parts of the private sector, erode the 2nd Amendment, and take even more from the productive sector part of the populace and use that money to fund further expansions of an already way too big government. This isn't some paranoid conspiracy theory, all you have to do is listen to what the left has to say. It won't happen overnight (although it has been happening damn fast of late), and it won't happen all at once. The left likes to get their agenda passed one piece at a time to get the public used to something before the next piece is pushed though. As Norman Thomas the Socialist Presidential candidate once said, "The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under the name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened."
Is this what you want for America? The American people need to know what the consequences of the liberal agenda are and how it will affect their lives. They need to know that their freedoms are threatened by the far-left which has hijacked the Democratic Party and is using it to reshape America into something else, something that most Americans don't want.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Dems Pursue Hard-Left Agenda, Reps Not Standing On Principle
It has been less than two months since President Obama has taken the oath of office and he and the Democratic majority in congress have already pursued an aggressive left-wing agenda. Obama has already pushed a $700 billion monstrosity called an Economic Stimulus Package, and that is just the beginning.
They want to push through card-check which will eliminate the secret ballot for unions, and although Obama claims not to support it the radical left has called for so-called 'Truth Commissions' to drag Bush administration officials through the mud, and anyone else who has kept this nation safe from terrorism. Far-left Zealots Senator Patrick Leahy and Representative John Conyers are among them. Just as scary some hard-line liberals in congress have called for the return of the 'Fairness Doctrine' which will be used to silence conservative talk radio, strange they are only planning to apply it in the only venue where conservatives dominate.
To top it all off the media is so over-the-top pro-Obama that it's hard to imagine anyone can deny that they are in the tank for the Democratic president and keep a straight face.
All Republicans in the House and all but three in the Senate voted against the Economic Stimulus bill, but aren't above putting their own pork in the massive waste bills they decry, this won't do.
It justifiably smacks of hypocrisy and will dash any hopes for a conservative comeback. Republicans cannot have a business as usual attitude when being the opposition party to the Democrats who will simply point out Republican hypocrisy while continuing down the same reckless path. They know the media won't call them on it and so do the Republicans in congress, so why do they keep it up? Do they care about reforming government, or is it simply an attack line they're using to score points with the public?
There is no 3rd party out there that can step in and become the conservative opposition to the far-left Democratic majority. I'm not one to demand ideological purity and toss out all those who fail to conform to a perfect standard, but let's have at least some standards. Republicans need to go off pork all-together and demand that the Democrats do the same.
The future of the country is literally at stake, Republicans need to pursue a small-government, greater freedom agenda if they want to make gains in 2010 and take back the White House in 2012.
They want to push through card-check which will eliminate the secret ballot for unions, and although Obama claims not to support it the radical left has called for so-called 'Truth Commissions' to drag Bush administration officials through the mud, and anyone else who has kept this nation safe from terrorism. Far-left Zealots Senator Patrick Leahy and Representative John Conyers are among them. Just as scary some hard-line liberals in congress have called for the return of the 'Fairness Doctrine' which will be used to silence conservative talk radio, strange they are only planning to apply it in the only venue where conservatives dominate.
To top it all off the media is so over-the-top pro-Obama that it's hard to imagine anyone can deny that they are in the tank for the Democratic president and keep a straight face.
All Republicans in the House and all but three in the Senate voted against the Economic Stimulus bill, but aren't above putting their own pork in the massive waste bills they decry, this won't do.
It justifiably smacks of hypocrisy and will dash any hopes for a conservative comeback. Republicans cannot have a business as usual attitude when being the opposition party to the Democrats who will simply point out Republican hypocrisy while continuing down the same reckless path. They know the media won't call them on it and so do the Republicans in congress, so why do they keep it up? Do they care about reforming government, or is it simply an attack line they're using to score points with the public?
There is no 3rd party out there that can step in and become the conservative opposition to the far-left Democratic majority. I'm not one to demand ideological purity and toss out all those who fail to conform to a perfect standard, but let's have at least some standards. Republicans need to go off pork all-together and demand that the Democrats do the same.
The future of the country is literally at stake, Republicans need to pursue a small-government, greater freedom agenda if they want to make gains in 2010 and take back the White House in 2012.
Monday, January 12, 2009
An Often Asked Question- Do You Want Obama to Succeed?
A question asked of conservatives since the election of Obama is: "Do you want Obama to succeed as President?" This is more complicated than a simple yes or no answer.
I want Obama to succeed in keeping America safe. This surpasses politics, this is our country. I hope to be able to say after President Obama's term expires in four years that he has kept us safe from terrorist attack. My disagreement with his policies in national security concern me, and I am convinced that the probability of him keeping us safe will decrease if these policies are adopted.
The same is true on the economy. I want him to keep America prosperous, however his tax and spend policies are more likely to hurt the economy than help it. This make me hope that he fails to implement these policies, but hope he is able to keep the economy healthy at the same time.
Lastly, I hope President Obama serves his full 4 years. I don't want him to be taken down by scandal or be "disqualified" from the Presidency as some people with conspiracy theories have hoped. The election is over and we have a president. It is not the man I voted for, and if I had the chance to go back and make that decision again I would still vote for Senator McCain. But this doesn't mean I wish Obama ill, far from it in fact.
As an American I hope President Obama is able to keep America safe and prosperous, but both as an American and as a conservative I hope he fails to swing the courts even farther to the left. I hope he fails to grow the size of government. I hope he fails to restrict the 2nd amendment, and I hope he fails to satisfy left-wing special interests who want a vastly different country than I do.
I want Obama to succeed in keeping America safe. This surpasses politics, this is our country. I hope to be able to say after President Obama's term expires in four years that he has kept us safe from terrorist attack. My disagreement with his policies in national security concern me, and I am convinced that the probability of him keeping us safe will decrease if these policies are adopted.
The same is true on the economy. I want him to keep America prosperous, however his tax and spend policies are more likely to hurt the economy than help it. This make me hope that he fails to implement these policies, but hope he is able to keep the economy healthy at the same time.
Lastly, I hope President Obama serves his full 4 years. I don't want him to be taken down by scandal or be "disqualified" from the Presidency as some people with conspiracy theories have hoped. The election is over and we have a president. It is not the man I voted for, and if I had the chance to go back and make that decision again I would still vote for Senator McCain. But this doesn't mean I wish Obama ill, far from it in fact.
As an American I hope President Obama is able to keep America safe and prosperous, but both as an American and as a conservative I hope he fails to swing the courts even farther to the left. I hope he fails to grow the size of government. I hope he fails to restrict the 2nd amendment, and I hope he fails to satisfy left-wing special interests who want a vastly different country than I do.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Obama wins, Dems Expand Majorities in House and Senate: Total Liberal Control
On November 4 Barrack Obama won the Presidency with what looks like 52% of the vote, Democrats have picked at least 21 seats in the House defeating several incumbents, while only 4 Democratic incumbents were defeated, and one of them was involved in multiple sex scandals. The result in the Senate was just as bleak for the Republicans, they lost 6 seats so far with 3 more to close to call. If all those seats are called for the Democrats they will have 60 seats in the Senate, giving them a super-majority that can kill filibusters.
Long term realignment trends look bad as well, Obama won both Virginia and Colorado which have been trending Democrat for a while and seem to be slightly Democratic now. These 2 states alone push the electoral map below the needed 270 for the Republicans, to win the Presidency again Republicans will have to either win back these states, or turn other blue states red. In congress with the defeat of moderate Connecticut congressman Chris Shays Republicans in the House have been shut of New England Entirely.
On January 20 of next year the Presidency, House of Representatives, and the Senate will all be controlled by partisan, left-wing ideologues who will steer this country far to the left of what the public wants. Conservatives need to lay the ground work for a comeback today to retake congress in 2010, and the White House in 2012. Conservatives need to find a way to control the conversation of political dialogue, as the Democrats did this year, and get even blue states to take a second look at Conservatism.
Conservatives have the public on their side on many issues: taxes, drilling, nuclear power, a secret ballot for union members, and controlling spending to name a few. Republicans can't be pale imitations of the Democrats, but they also cannot be hard-core ideologues who shut out differing points of view. A balance must be struck and it must be struck soon. New strategy is badly needed, and we must be ready for 2010 today.
Long term realignment trends look bad as well, Obama won both Virginia and Colorado which have been trending Democrat for a while and seem to be slightly Democratic now. These 2 states alone push the electoral map below the needed 270 for the Republicans, to win the Presidency again Republicans will have to either win back these states, or turn other blue states red. In congress with the defeat of moderate Connecticut congressman Chris Shays Republicans in the House have been shut of New England Entirely.
On January 20 of next year the Presidency, House of Representatives, and the Senate will all be controlled by partisan, left-wing ideologues who will steer this country far to the left of what the public wants. Conservatives need to lay the ground work for a comeback today to retake congress in 2010, and the White House in 2012. Conservatives need to find a way to control the conversation of political dialogue, as the Democrats did this year, and get even blue states to take a second look at Conservatism.
Conservatives have the public on their side on many issues: taxes, drilling, nuclear power, a secret ballot for union members, and controlling spending to name a few. Republicans can't be pale imitations of the Democrats, but they also cannot be hard-core ideologues who shut out differing points of view. A balance must be struck and it must be struck soon. New strategy is badly needed, and we must be ready for 2010 today.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Say it Ain't So, Christopher Hitchens Supports Obama
Christopher Hitchens parted from the left after 9/11 when he fully supported the U.S. in its fight against Islamic terrorism, he further departed from the left by supporting the war in Iraq. Since then he has not wavered in his support to win in Iraq and defeat the Islamists.
So what truly baffles me is that a few days ago the Atheist firebrand, and anti-surrender in the War On Terror advocate has thrown his support to a man that got the nomination of his party by pandering to the surrender faction, wants to pull out of Iraq regardless of whether it will ensure defeat, supports meeting with the terrorist sponsor state Iran without preconditions, and doesn't think it important enough to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by drilling offshore.
Hitchens says that McCain doesn't have the character or temperament to be president and attacks Palin for her "bizarre religious and political affiliations." Say it ain't so Hitchens, McCain is exactly the man we need in the White House right now, and say what you want about Palins's religion or church, but I find Obama's assertion that the surge was a mistake far more troubling.
Hitchens is an writer I admire for his laser beam logic and eloquence, but on this he is simply wrong. In fact, when I first read of his support of Obama I half expected him to post another article saying this his support for Obama was a joke. That being said he doesn't exactly lap praise on Obama either, in fact he said, "both its nominees for the highest offices in the land should be decisively repudiated," a little better than unequivocal support for Obama but a rare lapse in logic nonetheless. I hope, but doubt, that Hitchens will rethink his half-hearted, sort of endorsement of Obama, and realize that McCain not only has the character and temperament to be president, but he also has the needed realism on the issue of Islamic radicalism that Obama lacks.
So what truly baffles me is that a few days ago the Atheist firebrand, and anti-surrender in the War On Terror advocate has thrown his support to a man that got the nomination of his party by pandering to the surrender faction, wants to pull out of Iraq regardless of whether it will ensure defeat, supports meeting with the terrorist sponsor state Iran without preconditions, and doesn't think it important enough to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by drilling offshore.
Hitchens says that McCain doesn't have the character or temperament to be president and attacks Palin for her "bizarre religious and political affiliations." Say it ain't so Hitchens, McCain is exactly the man we need in the White House right now, and say what you want about Palins's religion or church, but I find Obama's assertion that the surge was a mistake far more troubling.
Hitchens is an writer I admire for his laser beam logic and eloquence, but on this he is simply wrong. In fact, when I first read of his support of Obama I half expected him to post another article saying this his support for Obama was a joke. That being said he doesn't exactly lap praise on Obama either, in fact he said, "both its nominees for the highest offices in the land should be decisively repudiated," a little better than unequivocal support for Obama but a rare lapse in logic nonetheless. I hope, but doubt, that Hitchens will rethink his half-hearted, sort of endorsement of Obama, and realize that McCain not only has the character and temperament to be president, but he also has the needed realism on the issue of Islamic radicalism that Obama lacks.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Conservatives Win in Canada
The Conservative government in Canada won again on Tuesday's election. The Conservative Party led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper picked up close to 20 seats, but fell short of the majority they were hoping for; winning 143 out of 308 seats. The Liberal Party led by Stéphane Dion lost 27 seats, ending up with a mere 76 seats. In third place the Bloc Party, a party devoted to Quebec Independence, won 50 seats, one short of last time. The New Democratic Party, a harder line left party than the Liberals, led by Jack Layton won 37 seats, 8 up from before the election.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
The 2008 Election and it's Consequences
As of today it looks very likely that Barack Obama will win the Presidential election by a comfortable margin. John McCain has finally brought up the very questionable associations of Obama (which I consider wholly legitimate); it appears that it is not working, and that most likely it will not work by election day. People are angry at the economic crisis and are blaming Republicans, and McCain is sadly paying the price for this, even though he had no part in causing the current economic crisis.
The fact is that the housing crisis is largely the fault of Democrats who pushed mortgage companies to give home loans to people who couldn't afford to pay them. When many of the people these loans were supposed to help couldn't pay they lost their homes, and this contributed to the current crisis. The Democrats, led by hard left ideologues like Barney Frank, said things were fine despite warnings from the Bush administration, in one of the few times the Bush White House has shown competence in domestic policy.
Now not only is it likely Obama will win, it is also likely the Democrats will have the 60 seats in the Senate they need to stop a filibuster. This means the nation will be lead by the extreme team of Barack Obama in the White House, Nancy Pelosi running an increased majority in the house of representatives, and Harry Reid running a senate with 60 (or more) seats that will push the most extreme left-wing agenda this country has ever seen. They will most likely enact the fairness doctrine, very possibly and even stronger version than before, which will be used to silence the voices of those who oppose their agenda. Taxes will go up, this will kill jobs. Any chance for domestic drilling will be stopped cold which will probably send gas prices up, giving the Democrats a chance to use the increased prices as a pretext to nationalize the oil industry.
As disheartening as this all sounds, it makes me all the more determined to vote to stop this from happening.
There is still a chance to stop a filibuster proof senate which will slow down the far left agenda of the extreme team of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid; and you never know we may pull a miracle out of our hats and defeat Obama. Don't give up until the last vote is counted, and if the worst occurs be comforted by the fact that we did our best, and that there will be another day for conservatism.
The fact is that the housing crisis is largely the fault of Democrats who pushed mortgage companies to give home loans to people who couldn't afford to pay them. When many of the people these loans were supposed to help couldn't pay they lost their homes, and this contributed to the current crisis. The Democrats, led by hard left ideologues like Barney Frank, said things were fine despite warnings from the Bush administration, in one of the few times the Bush White House has shown competence in domestic policy.
Now not only is it likely Obama will win, it is also likely the Democrats will have the 60 seats in the Senate they need to stop a filibuster. This means the nation will be lead by the extreme team of Barack Obama in the White House, Nancy Pelosi running an increased majority in the house of representatives, and Harry Reid running a senate with 60 (or more) seats that will push the most extreme left-wing agenda this country has ever seen. They will most likely enact the fairness doctrine, very possibly and even stronger version than before, which will be used to silence the voices of those who oppose their agenda. Taxes will go up, this will kill jobs. Any chance for domestic drilling will be stopped cold which will probably send gas prices up, giving the Democrats a chance to use the increased prices as a pretext to nationalize the oil industry.
As disheartening as this all sounds, it makes me all the more determined to vote to stop this from happening.
There is still a chance to stop a filibuster proof senate which will slow down the far left agenda of the extreme team of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid; and you never know we may pull a miracle out of our hats and defeat Obama. Don't give up until the last vote is counted, and if the worst occurs be comforted by the fact that we did our best, and that there will be another day for conservatism.
Friday, August 15, 2008
The California SC was wrong, but still...
The California Supreme Court ruled on May 15 of this year that same sex couples could not be barred from marriage, this has provoked evangelical groups to put a ballot proposition for a state constitutional ban on same sex marriage up for a vote in the November election.
I fundamentally disagree with the supreme court's decision, yet I also support same sex marriage, on top of that, the arrogant and insulting attitude among some of those who support the supreme court decision and oppose the ballot proposition almost makes me want to vote for it out of spite.
Almost is the key word here, as much as I deplore the SC decision, I can't in good conscience vote for any amendment that will once again ban same sex marriage, let this be the election I felt this issue needed. I will vote no and for gay marriage. If the amendment passes I hope the proponents of same sex marriage will in a few years time try to do this the democratic way and put their own ballot proposition up for vote. Once the people votes for same sex marriage it will be much harder to stop than is would if the courts step in and override the public will.
I fundamentally disagree with the supreme court's decision, yet I also support same sex marriage, on top of that, the arrogant and insulting attitude among some of those who support the supreme court decision and oppose the ballot proposition almost makes me want to vote for it out of spite.
Almost is the key word here, as much as I deplore the SC decision, I can't in good conscience vote for any amendment that will once again ban same sex marriage, let this be the election I felt this issue needed. I will vote no and for gay marriage. If the amendment passes I hope the proponents of same sex marriage will in a few years time try to do this the democratic way and put their own ballot proposition up for vote. Once the people votes for same sex marriage it will be much harder to stop than is would if the courts step in and override the public will.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Reconciling Conservatism with Atheism
Most conservative atheists, especially ones who are Republicans, have been asked how they can support conservatives when so many of them are a part of the religious right. Because the religious right, in general, is so hostile to the separation of church and state this is a legitimate question.
The issue of separation has varying degrees of importance to conservative atheists, but usually has enough significance to most of us that this question can give us pause. It is an issue that is important to me, and I do oppose the religious right on this issue. However, it is only one of several important issues,
and is outweighed to me, and to most conservative atheists, by these other issues.
Taxes, and the general philosophy of government is just as important as church/state issues, it affects our lives, one could argue, more than almost every issue out there. The left, which the Democratic party is run by, is determined to increase the size and scope of government, and the extent to how much of our lives it will intrude. They believe an activist government is the best solution to most problems in society.
To pay for this more activist government they raise taxes as much as they see fit, and have grown into an attitude of tax the rich, and big business too, to the point where it stifles free enterprise and costs America jobs. How do they fix the problem of lost jobs? You guessed it, with even more government and higher taxes to pay for it.
I am not someone who thinks that government has no role to play in our lives, there are a few things it can and should do. Defense, education, infrastructure, a minimal safety net to help those who can't help themselves, and minimal regulation to ensure public safety. Beyond that the government, in general, should stay out of the way and let the private sector do what it does best, create wealth and jobs.
Defense is a vital issue that demands our attention as well. The left has let itself be taken over by radicals who, to varying degrees, want to blame America instead of fighting the terrorists who are determined to destroy us. Any issues I may have with the religious right is swamped by this one issue alone.
The Democratic party is under strong influence by radical anti-war groups like Moveon.org who not only want to keep America from fighting the terrorists, but want massive cuts in military spending (gutting our armed forces), and putting that money in social programs that increase the left's grip on the lives of the American people. They even want to get rid of, or at least hinder greatly, surveillance programs that could prevent attacks. This spurs not from a wish to see America attacked, but from a fundamental misjudgment of the enemy, and a distrust of the US government, which they consider oppressive and controlled by big business, which in their minds starts wars to make money.
Lastly the left is hostile to the 2nd amendment. The left claims the 2nd amendment doesn't really say what is say it does. The 2nd amendment reads: "A
well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
There is no other rational way to read this other than the obvious, that the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. When the supreme court overruled the Washington DC ban and guns there were even a few calls from the left to get rid of the 2nd amendment. This is a fundamentally alien way of thinking to me, and I cannot be a part of any movement that pushes it.
There are many other issues that I could address, but these are the most important ones. Conservative atheists won't agree on every issue, I've seen them disagree with each other on abortion, gay marriage and other issues. However, the core issues I addressed are ones that most conservative atheists, and indeed most conservatives period, agree on.
The issue of separation has varying degrees of importance to conservative atheists, but usually has enough significance to most of us that this question can give us pause. It is an issue that is important to me, and I do oppose the religious right on this issue. However, it is only one of several important issues,
and is outweighed to me, and to most conservative atheists, by these other issues.
Taxes, and the general philosophy of government is just as important as church/state issues, it affects our lives, one could argue, more than almost every issue out there. The left, which the Democratic party is run by, is determined to increase the size and scope of government, and the extent to how much of our lives it will intrude. They believe an activist government is the best solution to most problems in society.
To pay for this more activist government they raise taxes as much as they see fit, and have grown into an attitude of tax the rich, and big business too, to the point where it stifles free enterprise and costs America jobs. How do they fix the problem of lost jobs? You guessed it, with even more government and higher taxes to pay for it.
I am not someone who thinks that government has no role to play in our lives, there are a few things it can and should do. Defense, education, infrastructure, a minimal safety net to help those who can't help themselves, and minimal regulation to ensure public safety. Beyond that the government, in general, should stay out of the way and let the private sector do what it does best, create wealth and jobs.
Defense is a vital issue that demands our attention as well. The left has let itself be taken over by radicals who, to varying degrees, want to blame America instead of fighting the terrorists who are determined to destroy us. Any issues I may have with the religious right is swamped by this one issue alone.
The Democratic party is under strong influence by radical anti-war groups like Moveon.org who not only want to keep America from fighting the terrorists, but want massive cuts in military spending (gutting our armed forces), and putting that money in social programs that increase the left's grip on the lives of the American people. They even want to get rid of, or at least hinder greatly, surveillance programs that could prevent attacks. This spurs not from a wish to see America attacked, but from a fundamental misjudgment of the enemy, and a distrust of the US government, which they consider oppressive and controlled by big business, which in their minds starts wars to make money.
Lastly the left is hostile to the 2nd amendment. The left claims the 2nd amendment doesn't really say what is say it does. The 2nd amendment reads: "A
well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
There is no other rational way to read this other than the obvious, that the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. When the supreme court overruled the Washington DC ban and guns there were even a few calls from the left to get rid of the 2nd amendment. This is a fundamentally alien way of thinking to me, and I cannot be a part of any movement that pushes it.
There are many other issues that I could address, but these are the most important ones. Conservative atheists won't agree on every issue, I've seen them disagree with each other on abortion, gay marriage and other issues. However, the core issues I addressed are ones that most conservative atheists, and indeed most conservatives period, agree on.
Friday, August 1, 2008
The Democrats are Irresponsible and are Playing Politics with Energy
In my last post I said that both parties have good points and bad points on energy. However, the left is by far the more irresponsible and beholden to special interests than the right. The Democratic house speaker Nancy Pelosi refuses to even allow a vote on offshore drilling, and as I write this Republicans are leading a revolt on capital hill to demand a vote.
I have been very disappointed in the Republicans in the past, but I can say that right now I am proud to call myself a Republican. Finally the GOP are standing their ground against the Democratic majority and the special interests they serve. I am not naive, the GOP have their own special interests too and at times have let them come before the good of the American people ,but right now they are doing exactly what they should be doing, taking a stand for the greater good of the American people.
We've all heard the excuses, "The oil companies already have 68 million acres that they aren't using", and "Even if we drill today we won't see a drop for 10 years", and of course "Drilling will only reduce the price of oil by 1 to 3 cents". All these arguments are deceptive and are only used because the Democrats know they are on the unpopular side of this issue.
Oil companies are drilling, but many of those 68 million acres are either dry or what oil they do have is economically unfeasible to retrieve. On the question of not seeing a drop for 10 years, it is actually more like 2-3 years. Furthermore, if that were true, if we have started drilling in ANWR in 1995 like the Republicans wanted we would have have a steady supply of oil from there for 3 years. The last argument, the one about the impact of drilling only reducing the price by a few cent at most, this is also a deception.
Once the speculators see that America is serious about drilling again, they will speculate that prices will come down. This will send prices down much farther than the Democrats claim. A few weeks ago President Bush lifted the executive ban on offshore drilling and now prices have dropped under $4.00 a gallon, imagine what could be done if congress lifted their ban as well and the oil companies announce they will start drilling on the continental shelf.
Republicans absolutely need to adopt some of the Democrats solutions, they are already taking alternative energy more seriously. Now they need to consider raising fuel efficiency standards as well. I hope that if the Republicans pull off a miracle in November they do this, it will not only be good for them politically, but, much more importantly, it will be better for America.
I have been very disappointed in the Republicans in the past, but I can say that right now I am proud to call myself a Republican. Finally the GOP are standing their ground against the Democratic majority and the special interests they serve. I am not naive, the GOP have their own special interests too and at times have let them come before the good of the American people ,but right now they are doing exactly what they should be doing, taking a stand for the greater good of the American people.
We've all heard the excuses, "The oil companies already have 68 million acres that they aren't using", and "Even if we drill today we won't see a drop for 10 years", and of course "Drilling will only reduce the price of oil by 1 to 3 cents". All these arguments are deceptive and are only used because the Democrats know they are on the unpopular side of this issue.
Oil companies are drilling, but many of those 68 million acres are either dry or what oil they do have is economically unfeasible to retrieve. On the question of not seeing a drop for 10 years, it is actually more like 2-3 years. Furthermore, if that were true, if we have started drilling in ANWR in 1995 like the Republicans wanted we would have have a steady supply of oil from there for 3 years. The last argument, the one about the impact of drilling only reducing the price by a few cent at most, this is also a deception.
Once the speculators see that America is serious about drilling again, they will speculate that prices will come down. This will send prices down much farther than the Democrats claim. A few weeks ago President Bush lifted the executive ban on offshore drilling and now prices have dropped under $4.00 a gallon, imagine what could be done if congress lifted their ban as well and the oil companies announce they will start drilling on the continental shelf.
Republicans absolutely need to adopt some of the Democrats solutions, they are already taking alternative energy more seriously. Now they need to consider raising fuel efficiency standards as well. I hope that if the Republicans pull off a miracle in November they do this, it will not only be good for them politically, but, much more importantly, it will be better for America.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
The Left And The Right Are Wrong On Energy
In a time like today, in which $4.00 a gallon gas is a reality and it will probably only get worse, we should be setting aside partisanship and compromise for the greater good. Unfortunately both the left and the right will not meet the other side half way despite the fact that both sides have good ideas, and the nation would benefit from some ideas on both sides of the debate.
The left wants to invest in alternative energy and raise fuel efficiency standards, this is a good thing, the supply of oil will run out one day and if we don't have something to replace it we are in for some really bad times. However, the left is knee-jerk anti-drilling and most are still anti nuclear power. We still are going to be using oil as our primary source of energy for cars for the next generation at least, and nuclear is a non polluting alternative to to coal. What do these people want? Alternative power is still in it's infancy and can't handle America's energy needs yet, some day this will change and I look forward to that day; until this changes we need more oil and that means more drilling.
The right wants to drill offshore and in ANWR, and to build more nuclear power plants, they are also correct. However, many on the right oppose higher fuel efficiency standards on ideological grounds (opposition to government regulation), and don't take alternative energy as seriously as the left. If we raise fuel efficiency standards this will reduce the amount of oil we use and reduce demand. Furthermore, as I stated earlier, we will run out of oil and if we don't have the next thing ready when we run out it will cause the economy and our society untold harm. Also, as we use more alternative energy sources we will use less oil and reduce demand.
There is no silver bullet to solving our energy problems, but real progress can be made if we are patient and are willing to compromise. First thing, drill in ANWR and offshore, Cuba is already drilling off our coast and will get our oil if we don't jump to it fast. Second, fast track nuclear power, build plants as many as we need. France's energy needs overwhelmingly come from nuclear power and it works for them, they even reprocess their nuclear waste for yet more energy. Third, raise fuel efficiency standards for all vehicles every few years, Americans are an innovative people I see no reason why this can't be done. Fourth, Invest in alternative energy and make sure the commitment is real and vigorous.
We should look at the objections of the other side and try to deal with those objections. The left often objects to drilling on environmental grounds, we should make sure there is environmental oversight on any drilling projects offshore or at ANWR, the technology exists to drill without ruining the environment. Similar objections to issues like storing nuclear waste and raising fuel standards should be addressed, but we can't let a few naysayers ground progress on America's energy policy to a halt. If both sides are willing to give a little and get together and do something positive for our country it is possible.
The left wants to invest in alternative energy and raise fuel efficiency standards, this is a good thing, the supply of oil will run out one day and if we don't have something to replace it we are in for some really bad times. However, the left is knee-jerk anti-drilling and most are still anti nuclear power. We still are going to be using oil as our primary source of energy for cars for the next generation at least, and nuclear is a non polluting alternative to to coal. What do these people want? Alternative power is still in it's infancy and can't handle America's energy needs yet, some day this will change and I look forward to that day; until this changes we need more oil and that means more drilling.
The right wants to drill offshore and in ANWR, and to build more nuclear power plants, they are also correct. However, many on the right oppose higher fuel efficiency standards on ideological grounds (opposition to government regulation), and don't take alternative energy as seriously as the left. If we raise fuel efficiency standards this will reduce the amount of oil we use and reduce demand. Furthermore, as I stated earlier, we will run out of oil and if we don't have the next thing ready when we run out it will cause the economy and our society untold harm. Also, as we use more alternative energy sources we will use less oil and reduce demand.
There is no silver bullet to solving our energy problems, but real progress can be made if we are patient and are willing to compromise. First thing, drill in ANWR and offshore, Cuba is already drilling off our coast and will get our oil if we don't jump to it fast. Second, fast track nuclear power, build plants as many as we need. France's energy needs overwhelmingly come from nuclear power and it works for them, they even reprocess their nuclear waste for yet more energy. Third, raise fuel efficiency standards for all vehicles every few years, Americans are an innovative people I see no reason why this can't be done. Fourth, Invest in alternative energy and make sure the commitment is real and vigorous.
We should look at the objections of the other side and try to deal with those objections. The left often objects to drilling on environmental grounds, we should make sure there is environmental oversight on any drilling projects offshore or at ANWR, the technology exists to drill without ruining the environment. Similar objections to issues like storing nuclear waste and raising fuel standards should be addressed, but we can't let a few naysayers ground progress on America's energy policy to a halt. If both sides are willing to give a little and get together and do something positive for our country it is possible.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
You Might Be A Left-Wing Wacko If...
1. You don't react when a Palestinian suicide bomber kills himself and a dozen Israeli civilians, yet you are outraged to the point of holding a demonstration when Israel retaliates and kills the terrorist leader who sent that bomber.
2. You think the constitution clearly says that abortion cannot be outlawed, gay marriage cannot be banned, and terrorists overseas calling their operatives in America to plan attacks have a constitutional right to privacy, yet there is no right to bear arms despite it being spelled out in plain English in the Second Amendment.
3. You think Bush is a tyrant but Fidel Castro is a swell guy who has been unfairly demonized by the U.S. government and the thousands of Cubans who have escaped their country.
4. You think that the Islamists are the oppressed victims of western hegemony but the religious right in America is evil incarnate.
5. You think that the right is filled with hate yet you are elated every time a noted conservative dies.
6. You think criticizing another country's culture no matter how oppressive is "Western cultural arrogance", but think America is a land of "Stupid, greedy gun nuts."
7. You think a 13 year old girl is smart enough to make a decision to get an abortion without her parents consent or knowledge, but think adult citizens are too stupid to own a gun, or have a choice in their retirement plans (privatized social security).
8. You think America and the west must cut carbon emissions drastically to save the Earth no matter what the cost but China, India and other undeveloped countries can pollute as much as they please.
9. You think "There's no such thing as an illegal immigrant."
10. You grit your teeth in anger when you hear the words "Private Sector."
2. You think the constitution clearly says that abortion cannot be outlawed, gay marriage cannot be banned, and terrorists overseas calling their operatives in America to plan attacks have a constitutional right to privacy, yet there is no right to bear arms despite it being spelled out in plain English in the Second Amendment.
3. You think Bush is a tyrant but Fidel Castro is a swell guy who has been unfairly demonized by the U.S. government and the thousands of Cubans who have escaped their country.
4. You think that the Islamists are the oppressed victims of western hegemony but the religious right in America is evil incarnate.
5. You think that the right is filled with hate yet you are elated every time a noted conservative dies.
6. You think criticizing another country's culture no matter how oppressive is "Western cultural arrogance", but think America is a land of "Stupid, greedy gun nuts."
7. You think a 13 year old girl is smart enough to make a decision to get an abortion without her parents consent or knowledge, but think adult citizens are too stupid to own a gun, or have a choice in their retirement plans (privatized social security).
8. You think America and the west must cut carbon emissions drastically to save the Earth no matter what the cost but China, India and other undeveloped countries can pollute as much as they please.
9. You think "There's no such thing as an illegal immigrant."
10. You grit your teeth in anger when you hear the words "Private Sector."
Monday, August 20, 2007
The Real Motives Behind Illegal Immigration
Some on the right and most on the left are opposed to reasonable reforms to curtail illegal immigration. They will site reasons such as: there is no one else to do the jobs they perform, we shouldn't break up families just because they violated our laws and, we are a nation of immigrants. They try to deter us by saying all possible ways of preventing illegals from getting in are doomed to failure, and they try to make it as easy as possible for illegals to get by in America.
The reasons they give have a shade of truth as they see it, but, there are other reasons they won't bring up because it would hurt their cause. For conservatives who support illegal immigration their main motivation is money, they want cheap labor and lots of it with little or no benefits attached. The motivation of liberals is power, they want more voters and ones that will vote for them no matter how far left they take this country. This has already shown some successes, once republican strongholds in California are now reliably democratic.
What the pro-illegal conservatives aren't taking into account is that once the left has their way their bottom-line is going to take a serious hit. The left wants much higher taxes, more regulation and a government takeover of large parts of the economy, this is very bad for capitalism; but, at the moment the pro-illegal right are only thinking of this years profits, they are ignoring the long range prospects for a country overrun by illegals most of which will vote democrat when given amnesty, and their children will whether or not their parents are given amnesty.
There are very good reasons for wanting to stop illegal immigration now. The most important being national security, if we don't control our boarders we will be vulnerable to terrorists crossing our boarders. Also, allowing millions of poor uneducated people who don't speak our language to break the law and plant themselves in our country is not conducive to a good society. Illegal immigration is against the law, and allowing some criminal act to slide is corrosive to a law abiding society. This does not even take into account the fact that whole gangs are being imported from Mexico, nearly all illegal aliens committing crimes from theft, to murder.
Stopping illegal immigration is far from impossible, but, it does require a serious and sustained effort and new tactics, for one we need to build the fence, we also need to massively increase the boarder patrol, and put the illegals we catch in jail for 6 months, followed by instant deportation. There is nothing wrong with controlling our boarders and we should not apologize for it.
The reasons they give have a shade of truth as they see it, but, there are other reasons they won't bring up because it would hurt their cause. For conservatives who support illegal immigration their main motivation is money, they want cheap labor and lots of it with little or no benefits attached. The motivation of liberals is power, they want more voters and ones that will vote for them no matter how far left they take this country. This has already shown some successes, once republican strongholds in California are now reliably democratic.
What the pro-illegal conservatives aren't taking into account is that once the left has their way their bottom-line is going to take a serious hit. The left wants much higher taxes, more regulation and a government takeover of large parts of the economy, this is very bad for capitalism; but, at the moment the pro-illegal right are only thinking of this years profits, they are ignoring the long range prospects for a country overrun by illegals most of which will vote democrat when given amnesty, and their children will whether or not their parents are given amnesty.
There are very good reasons for wanting to stop illegal immigration now. The most important being national security, if we don't control our boarders we will be vulnerable to terrorists crossing our boarders. Also, allowing millions of poor uneducated people who don't speak our language to break the law and plant themselves in our country is not conducive to a good society. Illegal immigration is against the law, and allowing some criminal act to slide is corrosive to a law abiding society. This does not even take into account the fact that whole gangs are being imported from Mexico, nearly all illegal aliens committing crimes from theft, to murder.
Stopping illegal immigration is far from impossible, but, it does require a serious and sustained effort and new tactics, for one we need to build the fence, we also need to massively increase the boarder patrol, and put the illegals we catch in jail for 6 months, followed by instant deportation. There is nothing wrong with controlling our boarders and we should not apologize for it.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Could the Stubborn Religious Right Hand the White House to Hillary?
I have heard of more than a few conservatives say they will not vote for Rudy under any circumstances, if he becomes the Republican nominee they will stay home or vote third party. Not even the prospect of a Hillary presidency seems to sway them. It is their right to do this, they can vote, or not vote for whom they want for any reason; but considering we are in the middle of a war on terror and the Democrats are controlled by far left anti war zealots who will never get it this is a very irresponsible decision. These people either have a lot of faith in the democrats fortitude on the war on terror, or they would rather America be weakened by the lefts policies than have a republican like Rudy Giuliani win the presidency. They have to realize you can't always get the perfect candidate. I differ with all the GOP candidates on a few issues. Candidates like Sam Brownback worry me on issues like the separation of church and state, but I would vote for him over any of the democrats. Despite my concerns I trust him on the fight against radical Islam more than the dems, and that alone is worth my vote. I disagree with Rudy on abortion and gun control but I trust him on fighting terrorism and he has said he will appoint conservative judges. On the issues the religious right disagrees with Rudy they also disagree with the dems. With Rudy Giuliani conservatives will at least have a seat at the table, not so with Hillary and most likely a democratic congress. Our only hope is that these people will regain their sanity before November of 2008 and realize what is at stake, not only the supreme court and private medicine but national security as well.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
What Will a Democratic Victory Mean?
A Democratic victory next year will have many consequences. It will mean very liberal judicial appointments and a congress that will fast track them. It will mean nothing being done to stop illegal immigration and amnesty too. It will mean more regulation and a lot more spending, and yes it means higher taxes. There is also a strong possibility it will mean the fairness doctrine which will be used to silence conservatives and only conservatives. It could mean socialist medicine with no turning back, because once something like this is established they tend to stay even after the program's creator is out of office. Most importantly it will mean a defensive rather than offensive stance on terrorism, the consequences of that alone will be disastrous. We need to be actively hunting down and eradicating terrorists before they strike, not waiting for UN approval to retaliate after we've been hit. For those conservatives out there who have said you won't support one or another of the Republican candidates just remember what the consequences of a liberal Democrat in the White House will be.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
A New Republican Majority
If the Republicans don't consider some serious changes they will be out in the cold after the 08 election. First and most importantly we need to invite new groups into the party. Many gay Americans feel the GOP is hostile to them and their interests, and to some extent they are right. Too much emphasis is placed on values issues like gay marriage which drive gays into the Democratic party. These issues should be dealt with at the state level and even then dealt with more sensitively as to not alienate gay voters.
Republicans also need know that excessive pandering to the religious right on church-state issues will drive secular minded voters away. Religion is very important to many Americans but not to everyone, and even to many that it is important, it is an issue that is personal and not public.
We also need to show that we will do what we say, Republicans who have claimed to stand for a smaller and more efficient government have given us neither these past few years which is part of why they lost the majority. That and the fact that they tolerated corruption. If we were to actually deliver on the promise of small government without slashing services, we could win and make America a better place at the same time. We also need to balance the budget and keep it balanced, make it the norm to have a balanced budget so that the American people will not tolerate it otherwise.
We also need to take back the issues of the environment and alternative energy from the democrats. Vow to the voters to address and solve serious environmental challenges and then do it; but do it without wrecking the economy. The same is true for alternative energy, put real investment into viable alternative energies, and in the mean time raise fuel efficiency standards and allow the building of more refineries, nuclear power plants, and allow more drilling with environmentally safe conditions. We should also push tecnologies that take care of two problems at once, like the Plasma Converter which can convert waste into energy.
Education is also an important issue, many schools (especially in the inner cities) are not performing well and badly need improvement. Commit to real reform of the public school system and do it once elected. Not reforms that are just band-aids but reforms that will put America's school system back on top.
The last issue is terrorism, we need a long term and multi-tiered strategy including: a larger army, a strategy of finding and eradicating terrorists wherever they are, and non military assistance to pro-democracy groups in Islamic countries like Iran. If more democracies emerge in the Islamic world, the breeding ground for terrorism will shrink.
Republicans also need know that excessive pandering to the religious right on church-state issues will drive secular minded voters away. Religion is very important to many Americans but not to everyone, and even to many that it is important, it is an issue that is personal and not public.
We also need to show that we will do what we say, Republicans who have claimed to stand for a smaller and more efficient government have given us neither these past few years which is part of why they lost the majority. That and the fact that they tolerated corruption. If we were to actually deliver on the promise of small government without slashing services, we could win and make America a better place at the same time. We also need to balance the budget and keep it balanced, make it the norm to have a balanced budget so that the American people will not tolerate it otherwise.
We also need to take back the issues of the environment and alternative energy from the democrats. Vow to the voters to address and solve serious environmental challenges and then do it; but do it without wrecking the economy. The same is true for alternative energy, put real investment into viable alternative energies, and in the mean time raise fuel efficiency standards and allow the building of more refineries, nuclear power plants, and allow more drilling with environmentally safe conditions. We should also push tecnologies that take care of two problems at once, like the Plasma Converter which can convert waste into energy.
Education is also an important issue, many schools (especially in the inner cities) are not performing well and badly need improvement. Commit to real reform of the public school system and do it once elected. Not reforms that are just band-aids but reforms that will put America's school system back on top.
The last issue is terrorism, we need a long term and multi-tiered strategy including: a larger army, a strategy of finding and eradicating terrorists wherever they are, and non military assistance to pro-democracy groups in Islamic countries like Iran. If more democracies emerge in the Islamic world, the breeding ground for terrorism will shrink.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Conservative Atheist Positions part 5
21. Reparations: No way. Those originally owned as slaves are dead and those are the only people who would deserve reparations.
22. Retain the Death Penalty: Yes. But only for murder and treason, and the burden of proof must be above that of simple conviction. If there is any doubt we should err on the side of life. We also need more layers of review before an execution should take place, and the Death Penalty should never be used on the mentally ill or those who committed the crime before the age of 18.
23. Right to Die: This encompasses two issues, the right of a person who can't survive off life support to be taken off life support and die, and euthanasia.
a. Someone who put into legal writing that they wish to die should be able to. It should be their decision alone unless they were mentally incompetent when they filed the papers.
b. I also support euthanasia but think this is an issue that states, not the federal government or judges should decide. Safeguards must be put into place to make sure the person choosing to die is mentally competent and is doing it of his own free will. Other than those considerations I have no problem with Euthanasia.
24. Tax Cuts: The lower the better. I oppose the flat tax because I think the rich should pay more, but they should also pay as little as possible and never under any circumstances (except emergencies like a world war) should someone ever have to pay half their money to the government. A good top rate to aim for would be 25%, but that's probably hoping for too much.
25. Terrorism: We must fight terrorism as a war not a law enforcement problem and we must fight it to win. Islamic Terrorism is the greatest threat to freedom and western civilization in the world right now and we must treat it as such.
26. War on Drugs: Yes. Drugs like crack and meth should be illegal, and we should do everything we can to keep them off the street. I also think some of the newer more potent strains of marijuana should be prohibited because some of them have possible links to mental illness. I am not opposed to legalizing the safer strains of marijuana but it is a decision best left to the states.
27. Wartime Liberty: Our basic freedoms must be maintained in wartime. Freedom of speech should never be restrained and elections should never be delayed under any circumstances. But we must do everything possible to keep America's citizens safe, I fully support the Patriot Act and Terrorist surveillance. These are tools needed to fight terrorism which we badly need, but we must be cautious not to go too far and lose the precious freedoms we are fighting to protect.
22. Retain the Death Penalty: Yes. But only for murder and treason, and the burden of proof must be above that of simple conviction. If there is any doubt we should err on the side of life. We also need more layers of review before an execution should take place, and the Death Penalty should never be used on the mentally ill or those who committed the crime before the age of 18.
23. Right to Die: This encompasses two issues, the right of a person who can't survive off life support to be taken off life support and die, and euthanasia.
a. Someone who put into legal writing that they wish to die should be able to. It should be their decision alone unless they were mentally incompetent when they filed the papers.
b. I also support euthanasia but think this is an issue that states, not the federal government or judges should decide. Safeguards must be put into place to make sure the person choosing to die is mentally competent and is doing it of his own free will. Other than those considerations I have no problem with Euthanasia.
24. Tax Cuts: The lower the better. I oppose the flat tax because I think the rich should pay more, but they should also pay as little as possible and never under any circumstances (except emergencies like a world war) should someone ever have to pay half their money to the government. A good top rate to aim for would be 25%, but that's probably hoping for too much.
25. Terrorism: We must fight terrorism as a war not a law enforcement problem and we must fight it to win. Islamic Terrorism is the greatest threat to freedom and western civilization in the world right now and we must treat it as such.
26. War on Drugs: Yes. Drugs like crack and meth should be illegal, and we should do everything we can to keep them off the street. I also think some of the newer more potent strains of marijuana should be prohibited because some of them have possible links to mental illness. I am not opposed to legalizing the safer strains of marijuana but it is a decision best left to the states.
27. Wartime Liberty: Our basic freedoms must be maintained in wartime. Freedom of speech should never be restrained and elections should never be delayed under any circumstances. But we must do everything possible to keep America's citizens safe, I fully support the Patriot Act and Terrorist surveillance. These are tools needed to fight terrorism which we badly need, but we must be cautious not to go too far and lose the precious freedoms we are fighting to protect.
Conservative Atheist Positions part 4
16. Intervention: We can't get involved in every problem around the world but we should not ignore mass murder and genocide. This is where the UN should help, but they are too busy lining their pockets. The situation is out of control in Darfur and the UN isn't doing anything helpful, something has to be done. We should also provide in non-military assistance to some democracy movements in oppressive countries like Iran.
17. Judicial Activism: Judges should follow the constitution not their own whims. If you don't like a law then ask your lawmakers to change it, and if they won't do it then vote them out of office.
18. Immigration: Immigration enriches our country but illegal immigration is harming us. We have a minimum of 12 million illegal aliens here and more coming every day. We have to secure the boarder now, whatever the cost and reduce the number of incoming legal immigrants for about 10 years. We also need a more balanced immigration policy, most immigrants coming here are from Latin America and this will change our culture in ways we still don't know. The left likes the current immigration trend because it grows their voter base. They will not want to change it but we need to change things so that we bring in more high skilled people, and make the cultural origins of incoming immigrants look more like America. We shouldn't stop immigration from non western cultures because that would be bigoted, but neither should we change the face of our country to satisfy the wants of power hungry liberals.
19. Iraq: I supported the coalition led by the United States going in to Iraq, removing Saddam and establishing democracy but the sad fact is President Bush has badly mismanaged the war. He either ignored recommendations from the pentagon saying we would need at least 300,000 troops, or his advisers did not give him this information. America is in a precarious position, if we leave right now Iran will be unimpeded in trying to gain control of the country and terrorists will use it as a staging ground. If we stay without a massive increase in troops we will continue to lose soldiers at the current rate and further strain an army already stretched too thin. We need to help the Iraqis secure democracy but more troops and new tactics are badly needed, as well as getting the Iraqi government to settle points of contention between factions like oil revenues.
20. Prostitution: This is an issue best left to the states. Having said that I support it in principle, states that legalize it should regulate it to ensure that those who engage in it are free of sexually transmitted diseases. Regular testing would be a must which would mean they would probably have to apply for a license. I don't think this is an important enough issue for the federal government to get involved so states should be free to ban it or legalize it.
17. Judicial Activism: Judges should follow the constitution not their own whims. If you don't like a law then ask your lawmakers to change it, and if they won't do it then vote them out of office.
18. Immigration: Immigration enriches our country but illegal immigration is harming us. We have a minimum of 12 million illegal aliens here and more coming every day. We have to secure the boarder now, whatever the cost and reduce the number of incoming legal immigrants for about 10 years. We also need a more balanced immigration policy, most immigrants coming here are from Latin America and this will change our culture in ways we still don't know. The left likes the current immigration trend because it grows their voter base. They will not want to change it but we need to change things so that we bring in more high skilled people, and make the cultural origins of incoming immigrants look more like America. We shouldn't stop immigration from non western cultures because that would be bigoted, but neither should we change the face of our country to satisfy the wants of power hungry liberals.
19. Iraq: I supported the coalition led by the United States going in to Iraq, removing Saddam and establishing democracy but the sad fact is President Bush has badly mismanaged the war. He either ignored recommendations from the pentagon saying we would need at least 300,000 troops, or his advisers did not give him this information. America is in a precarious position, if we leave right now Iran will be unimpeded in trying to gain control of the country and terrorists will use it as a staging ground. If we stay without a massive increase in troops we will continue to lose soldiers at the current rate and further strain an army already stretched too thin. We need to help the Iraqis secure democracy but more troops and new tactics are badly needed, as well as getting the Iraqi government to settle points of contention between factions like oil revenues.
20. Prostitution: This is an issue best left to the states. Having said that I support it in principle, states that legalize it should regulate it to ensure that those who engage in it are free of sexually transmitted diseases. Regular testing would be a must which would mean they would probably have to apply for a license. I don't think this is an important enough issue for the federal government to get involved so states should be free to ban it or legalize it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)