May 18, 2009

You know, there was a time when I would have said all people, no matter their politics, want to see a decline in poverty and a better life for all. However, as we witness the same damaging government programs from the past being resurrected by our current administration, we must question their motivations. The Liberals shed crocodile tears over the plight of the poor and then profess absolute innocence over having anything to do with it.

Conservatives do not believe that the principle problem of the poor is a simple lack of money. If tomorrow, we gave every member of the underclass enough money to bring them above the poverty line, do we really think that would achieve anything? If we provided them with shelter every night and food in their tummies, would that cure what ails them? Of course not. Those actions simply prolong a bad situation. The problems of the underclass are psychological, moral and spiritual.

Through most of our nation’s history, the federal government stayed within its Constitutional bounds and out of the charity business. It was the recognized duty of every solid citizen to help those in need and this responsibility to help one’s fellow man was taken very seriously. Communities worked together and where there was government involvement it was on a local level.

But the 20th century saw a disastrous expansion of the federal government through the policies of first the New Deal and then LBJ’s Great Society. We saw the beginning of serious income redistribution through confiscitory taxation. The responsibility for helping your fellow man was taken away from the people and handed over to the state. The most fruitful charity work, that done by the private sector, was slowly siphoned off to the grossly inept public sector. The results were disastrous. I strongly recommend the book, The Tragedy of American Compassion, by Marvin Olasky, which delves into the reasons why government action fails and suggests solid solutions for the poverty problem.

Conservatives believe in a complete dismantling of the federal entitlement state. We believe there is nothing compassionate about taking one man’s hard earned money and giving it to someone else. We believe we know the best use for our charitable dollars and we do not trust the government to be discriminating enough to funnel our money to the people that really need it. Who can doubt that a dollar given to a private charity will be used more effectively than a dollar travelling its way through the government bureaucracy, where, after each department takes it’s chunk, a public servant then distributes the remaining pennies to the masses, with no effort to distinguish the deserving from the undeserving?
Liberals claim Conservatives cannot be bothered to care for the poor, but in fact, our solutions require a great deal more effort than simply abrogating our duty to the federal government. A Conservative believes in freedom to the greatest extent possible consistent with an orderly society. And the price we pay for our liberty is to be untimately responsible for our own lives and the lives of those around us. Welfare in all its forms needs to be administered at the state and local levels.

But let’s step beyond ideology for a moment and see who puts their money where their mouth is. Studies show year after year that Conservatives give an average of 30% more to charity than Liberals, even though Liberals have higher average incomes. Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood. There are two main reasons for this, but the first and most obvious is religion. Religious people are typically more charitable than their secular counterparts. Another main reason for the altruism of Conservatives seems to be their values. Studies have shown that people who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition. For an interesting read on this subject, I would recommend Who Really Cares, by Arthur Brooks.

This disparity carries over into the lives of our politicians as well. Al Gore, Joe Biden, John Kerry, and Barack Obama all have a dismal record when it comes to charitable giving. Personally, I believe the amount you donate to charity is between you and your conscience. However, as we are always told that Liberals “care more”, it is interesting to see these guys prefer to give at the office – – with OTHER people’s money.



May 18, 2009

While Liberals tend to congregate in the cities, Conservatives dominate this nation’s rural areas. We enjoy wide-open spaces where we camp, hunt, fish and teach our children about nature. Thus it really does not square that we are anti-environment and most rational people understand this. So let’s deal with the common-sense Liberal who understands that we do indeed care about the environment but wonders, in frustration, why we do not get on the environmental bandwagon.

There are really two reasons for this. The first is we believe most of the “science” that says our earth is in grave jeopardy is wrong or at best unproven. The second is that history has shown that environmentalism is an invaluable tool in the crisis toolbox. The Nazis (who were big environmentalists) used to say “the common good supercedes the private good” and used this to justify the state’s intervention into the lives of its citizens. Government action in the name of “good things” is always and everywhere justified. That is the argument behind almost every violation of the rights of the American people since our founding.

A populace will not give up their liberties over a simple, curable problem. Contributions and grants dry up for scientists who find that everything is proceeding normally. Thus Liberals must manufacture one global crisis after another, and let’s face it, there is money to be made in doing so. But Chicken Little has been warning us that the sky is falling for far too long now. Too many of their predictions have been wrong. This constant crying wolf has really hurt the environmental cause. It is now becoming difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff and the skeptic asks — which environmental problems are legitimate?

This newest crisis of global warming (or is it now global climate change?) is a goldmine for Libs as its intrusive tentacles reach into everything we do, from what we eat, to what we wear, to where we go and how we get there. Liberals insist that the debate is over and we must get beyond politics because scientists now agree (despite the petition signed by over 31,000 scientists denying man-made global warming) and that if we disagree, we are the equivalent of Holocaust deniers. Here they are trying to save the WORLD, the very human race, and we are standing in their way!

But not all Liberals approach us from such a hostile direction. Instead they give us the “why not?” argument. Not content to simply make changes in their own lives, they have the burden of spreading their enlightenment to the rest us with dictates under the “better safe than sorry” theory. There can be no harm in making these environmental policy changes right? Wrong. Let’s go over some of the tragedies that have been caused by caving in to environmental whims, and these are just a few:

* After banning the pesticide DDT (even though no study has ever shown it to be harmful to humans), there was a resurgence of malaria in poor countries that killed millions of people.

* Nuclear power, among the cleanest and most cost-efficient energy sources, has been severely diminished in America, not because of sound science, but instead because of radical environmentalists.

* The government-dictated preference for corn-based ethanol and other biofuels is causing land overuse and skyrocketing food prices, harming the poorest among us the most.

* Liberal management programs in the Forest Service and National Parks have led to major wildfires, including the near-catastrophic fire in Yellowstone.

* The Endangered Species Act actually increases the threat of wildlife extinction – while private approaches have helped species recover all over the world.

After reading these, you may once again spot the Achilles heel of most Liberal ideas. That’s right, the Law of Unintended Consequences. And not even listed above are the tremendous monetary costs associated with this constant liberal meddling. But wait, we are never to look at the results of these policies, we must only look at the good intentions. At the end of the day, it matters little how passionate they are for their cause if they haven’t the slightest clue how to serve that cause effectively.

Conservatives believe that a responsible stewardship of the earth need not compete with free market principles. Investments and advancements in alternative energy will go on without government subsidies, and will be adopted worldwide when they begin to make economic sense, and not a moment before. We cannot control every country in the world and the treaties we are always pushed to sign penalize our industries the most. The other parties to the treaties, such as China or Russia, may or may not honor their pledges and there is little anybody can do about it. Meanwhile, we have cut the legs out from under American manufacturers.

This is not to say that Conservatives believe there can be no government at all in the solution. Tax breaks are a nice incentive. The Clean Air Act has been a success, perhaps because each state is in charge of overseeing it, as opposed to a federal bureaucracy. We need to be working to strengthen private property rights instead of weakening them, as they can be vital to the proper maintenance of ecological systems.

As for global warming, even if we agree that the earth is indeed warming, there is a great deal of controversy over whether man has had anything to do with it. And there is even more controversy over whether man can halt or slow it in any significant way. So before we allow Liberals to pour our money down another sinkhole and create yet more problems in their attempt to solve this one, let’s hold back until we know more. In the meantime, allow the free markets to innovate and help us to adapt to our changing environment.


May 18, 2009

Actually, the exact opposite is true. It is a frustratingly common misconception that large corporate interests are against larger government. Washington and Big Business have been working together against America’s free market system for years. They like to give the impression that they are rivals, but in fact, many of the largest corporations lobby for government bailouts, subsidies, stricter regulation, higher taxes and other special favors. In fact, government legislation is often written and pushed through Congress at the request of Big Business. Why? Because a large intrusive government allows Big Business to accomplish what they never could in a free market; they do not want competition and a level playing field. They accept regulation of their industries on terms that give them a competitive advantage and that deter new entrants. They even support tax increases that fund the growth of government, especially if they are given tax benefits others are not. The end game is to create regulatory hassles and expense for their competitors who, unlike them, cannot afford the financial burden of compliance, higher taxes and lobbyists. It is all about stifling competition and gaining the most profit for their companies, regardless the damage it may do to America.

Understand that these bleeding-heart Democrats, these big government Liberals are actually in bed with the same corporate interests they claim to be against. While dirty politicians call for more regulation under the guise of protecting us from Big Business, they are actually working in collusion with them. Of course the irony is that these same bureaucrats then convince their constituents that small-government Conservatives are actually shills for Big Business! And who are the big losers in this sad game? The very people the Liberals always claim to want to help: the little guy – – the smaller companies, the consumers, and the taxpayers.

Very few people know that Big Business supported the New Deal. They are unaware that Enron was one of the largest supporters of the Kyoto Protocol. Or that General Motors has lobbied tirelessly for stricter environmental legislation. Or that Phillip Morris aggressively pushed for heightened federal regulation over the tobacco industry. Or that Boeing and Halliburton have often lobbied for more government, not less. Some of these large companies would like nothing more than to help create more government customers, both foreign and domestic. The proponents of Eminent Domain may not realize that the law allows dirty politicians and large real estate developers to conspire to seize the private property of individuals. We were told last year by the media that these free-market purists at Goldman and the like were coming hat in hand begging for government’s help. What nonsense. Has nobody noticed the revolving door that seems to exist between these investment banks and positions at the Fed and Treasury? All of these ivy leaguers staggering under the weight of their MBAs and PhDs have brought America to the brink of collapse.

And what is the biggest hustle of all? The global warming con game. Naïve Liberals think these “green laws” are punishing Big Business when in fact most of these measures are backed by large corporations that stand to profit greatly from these environmental laws. When we hear about the large investments made in green technology by GE and the like we are told they are acting out of a sense of corporate social responsibility. Right.

Understand that it is highly questionable whether any of these environmental measures will improve our planet, and sometimes they simply create more damage. What these magicians have done is make value appear our of thin air. This is often achieved through the unholy alliance between environmental groups and big business. Let’s look at Chevron. They make large investments into unprofitable renewable energy. They also donate heavily to environmental groups such as the WWF. Coincidentally, the WWF and other environmental groups lobby Congress to make Chevron’s investment profitable by government mandate. Who loses out here? The American consumer. Some environmental causes may be sound, but do not be naive enough to fail to see the profit motive on all sides of the equation.

The fact is, Conservatives believe that small entrepreneurial businesses are the backbone of America. They are the real job, value and wealth creators. The Liberal and Big Business agenda of higher taxation and overregulation punishes these courageous risk-takers the most. For a greater understanding of the above issues, I highly recommend a book by Tim Carney called The Big Ripoff.


May 18, 2009

On the contrary, Conservatives do not look at race at all; we look at the individual. We wish to see every individual reach their maximum potential, regardless of race or any other factor, and we know that true greatness can only be achieved when the individual takes on responsibility for their own life. As success is largely determined by attitude and work ethic, we have watched in despair as blacks have continued to vote themselves into dependency through the election of Democrats who have no interest in their advancement.

Liberalism tells the minority that others are to blame for their lot in life. Things would only be better if they were not constantly kept down and discriminated against by evil forces conspiring to hold them back. They are told they were born at a disadvantage and excuses must be made for them and standards must be lowered, which instills in them a sense of inferiority. They are told that whites will never willingly give power, so blacks will have to fight for it and take it. They are told by politicians and race hustlers that they are entitled; thus the black victim demands not just equal rights but equal outcome, and this is not achievable.

Meanwhile, the rest of society is simply going about their everyday lives. Whites are not huddled together plotting the best way to keep the black man down. We have no interest in persecuting or discriminating against anybody. We are all just struggling in our own little worlds, working to build a better life for ourselves and our children.

Black leaders demand fairness in hiring and push antidiscrimination laws that, in the private sector, simply make employers fearful of hiring blacks. Who believes a business owner cares about the color of your skin if you are an outstanding worker? If you are friendly and have a nice attitude? Playing the race card only works on those that harbor guilt, and that number is growing smaller and smaller all the time. Guilt causes some whites to expect and accept a lower level of civility from blacks – an unacceptable rudeness they would never countenance from a white. But most whites are conditioned to say nothing, to excuse it as they fear blaming the victim or appearing racist.

Not only do I NOT believe that white racism is a serious issue in this country, I think one could make a solid argument that there is more racism among blacks, and often times an overt racism at that. In fact, I believe that voting for someone because he is black is just as racist as voting against someone because he is black; in both cases, someone’s true qualifications are being overlooked. One would think that to cry racism while we have a black President would be considered bad form, but no such luck. Where would be the votes in that strategy?

I am happy to see the gradual erosion of the unanimous black support the Democrat party has enjoyed for years. It is heartening to hear their calls in to talk radio. Most of them tuned in to better understand the enemy, but then later call in profusely thankful that someone opened their eyes. Liberals, in their ignorance, have labeled Rush Limbaugh a racist for years, not noticing that his #2 guy for ages has been Bo Snurdley, a black man. Or that one of Limbaugh’s favorite writers is Thomas Sowell, a black man. Or that frequent guest hosts when he is away include Walter Williams and Larry Elder, both black. Or that one of his best friends is Clarence Thomas. But to admit that Limbaugh is not a racist means they would have to argue against his ideas on the merits, and it is there where the liberal finds himself on shaky ground.

I look forward to the day when we can all come together as Conservatives do now, as equals – with no one living at the expense of the other. I look forward to their realization that the Democrat party has for decades done nothing but damage the black family, and that most advancement made by blacks has occurred in spite of liberal government programs not because of them.

But this will not happen overnight. Conservatives must articulate our beliefs and values and stop relying on Republicans to spread our message as they are simply incapable of it. After decades of the same strategy, we still see Republicans sidling up to the NAACP and other liberal black groups that will be hostile to our message regardless. And then when they do stand in front of the jeering crowd they offer the same things Democrats do – – an expansion of the welfare state and other entitlement pandering along with a smattering of token gestures such as Black History Month and the Kwanzaa stamp.

Even as Conservatives look on everyone as equals, so too must our message stay consistent. It is easy to explain how liberal policies work to the disadvantage of the black family, from their support of the teachers unions which have perpetuated the decaying state of our inner city schools, to liberal judicial policy which turns criminals loose into urban neighborhoods where they continue to prey upon the innocent. True Conservatism has a lot to offer the black community, and while we may not see anything but regression during the current administration, we must keep expressing our views and educating others on why Conservatism is the answer.


May 18, 2009

Before I rebut this myth, let me first express my complete disbelief in the idea of the liberal pacifist. Democrats are the party of peace? What nonsense! Liberals use the government to impose their will on the rest of us and at the end of every argument with the government is the point of a gun. Would a liberal rob me at gunpoint, take my wallet and give it to someone less fortunate? An illegal? An environmental group? No, of course not, they would say. But make no mistake about it, they do it every day and we must refuse to play along with these pseudo-pacifist thieves. Now, on that happy note…

I doubt there are many warmongers in any party, but it is along the lines of foreign policy where you will find a giant schism in the conservative movement. Without getting too inside-baseball, let me say there are neo-cons, paleo-cons, and libertarians, with some mixing in between. But on the whole, the traditional conservative view is a non-interventionist one. What follows is a rundown on Conservative foreign policy positions and why we believe as we do. Note, these are my beliefs and while many conservatives would agree, others would not.

The United States must avoid intervening in the affairs of other countries.
Our Founding Fathers were very clear on the issue of foreign policy. They had just broken from an imperialist power and believed that our neutrality would be vital to our nation’s survival. Moreover, they knew that war leads to larger government and a decrease in liberty. Conservatives believe we should be the “friend of liberty everywhere, but the guarantor and provider of ours alone”.

Let me note here that I understand and appreciate the neo-conservatives that believe in a more interventionist approach a la the Reagan Doctrine. Reagan, who I believe was one of the best Presidents this nation has ever seen, argued “We must not break faith with those who are risking their lives…on every continent from Afghanistan to Nicaragua…to defy Soviet aggression and secure rights which have been ours from birth. Support for freedom fighters is self-defense.” In that vein, we have many conservatives that believe we have a duty to help people liberate themselves from tyrannical governments. Very solid arguments can be made for this position. I just strongly disagree.

It is interesting to me that these conservatives can staunchly resist government interference in domestic affairs due to the damage it causes, but fail to see that the very same problems arise when the U.S. interferes in the affairs of other countries. One of the main flaws in a neo-con policy is that it is under wartime conditions where the government expands the most and the liberties of the people contract. In addition, conservatives rail against liberal policies at home, noting how they inevitably bring about unintended consequences no matter the good intentions. Well, that is EXACTLY what happens on the world stage. For example, Reagan’s policy of Soviet containment led to our support of the mujahedin in Afghanistan, which subsequently led to the rise of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Whether that was the right thing to do can be argued to no end, but the point is – – actions have consequences.

The sad truth is the U.S. is under attack from so many militant elements because of our interventionist foreign policy. Our military presence in Arab countries has engendered a hatred of America as we are seen as an occupying force in their sovereign land. Islamic terrorists did not attack us on 9-11 because they hate freedom and the American way of life. That is ridiculous. Do not get me wrong – – – the blame for such atrocious acts falls squarely on the shoulders of the terrorists, but it is shortsighted not to examine our actions on the world stage that might have put us where we are today.

The United States must decrease her worldwide military presence.
The United States is now entangled in so many alliances and treaties that we are committed to go to war on behalf of nations all over the globe. We have over 700 military bases around the world. We have troops in over 130 countries. We must begin to withdraw from many of these countries and extricate ourselves from treaties that are not in the best interest of the U.S. or that compromise our national sovereignty. We cannot allow the freedom of our citizens to be sacrificed to gain or maintain the freedom of others. Just because we have a voluntary military, does not mean we should place them in harm’s way without a vital national interest. As for Afghanistan and Iraq, we must see those countries through. You break it, you own it.

The United States must remove herself from the Middle East.
Israel is in the right, and we should be unafraid to say so, but Israel is strong enough to fight her own battles and determine her own destiny.

The United States must trade with all nations, regardless of the form of government.
Conservatives believe that the best way to spread democracy to a country living under a tyrannical government is through economic activity – – we must lead by example. When there is a peaceful, voluntary exchange of goods between people of different nations, liberty will naturally expand through exposure to our American way of life. The most driven and intelligent among them will either find a way to leave their oppressive states or begin to force change within their government. Even though I am disgusted at the way so many idiot liberals fawn over Castro, a murderous tyrant; I do believe the lifting of the embargo is the best thing for the Cuban people.

The U.S. Government should cease foreign aid all together – both military and economic (aid should be a private endeavor).
Not only is foreign aid an unconstitutional transfer of wealth from American citizens, it is often extremely damaging to the recipients. In a recent book called “Dead Aid”, the author Dambisa Moyo makes a strong argument that Western aid to Africa, totaling over $1 trillion in the last 5o years, has not only perpetuated poverty in Africa but has worsened it. She explains that much of the money pouring into Africa has funded brutal and corrupt regimes, increased dependency, stifled entrepreneurship, and disenfranchised the citizens, as governments are beholden to foreign donors and not the people. She points out how the African countries that have rejected the aid route have prospered, while others have become aid-dependent and hopelessly mired in poverty. She calls for the misguided outsiders (insert Hollywood celebrity here) to halt all aid to Africa within 5 years as she wants it to break free. She outlines a road map for the development of Africa’s poorest countries, which does not rely on foreign aid.

The U.S. must also stop military aid to foreign countries. The reason for this should be obvious.

The United States must maintain an unrivaled, state-of-the-art military.
The most important responsibility of the federal government is to protect the lives and freedom of the American people. Weakness invites aggression; therefore we must maintain peace through superior military strength and readiness, as well as a resolve to use it if necessary. It is absurd that the Obama administration and Congress can seem to find no single area in which to cut costs OTHER than on our military, one of the few areas the federal government has a constitutional duty to maintain. Where will the money go instead? To fund the Liberals’ completely unconstitutional domestic programs.

The United States must maintain a dominant nuclear arsenal.
As much as we would all like to live in the nuclear-free world Obama outlined in Prague, it is a naïve wish. We cannot put that genie back in the bottle. The nuclear club is not so exclusive anymore, and while you may be able to get China or Russia to talk the talk and throw us a bone here or there, we now have third-world nations who would never give up their nukes.

Driving home this point, North Korea decides (on the same day Obama was in Prague) to launch a long-range rocket, that could have easily carried a nuclear warhead. This was, of course, in violation of the completely ineffectual U.N. resolution 1718240592350257.4092. While some of the actions Obama plans to take to safeguard nuclear materials are good, the idea behind subverting our national safety so we can take “moral responsibility” is a purely liberal, purely stupid idea. As we are behind Russia and China in military strength outside of the nuclear realm, we cannot cede the only high ground we have.

The U.S. must spare no expense in installing a comprehensive missile defense system.
It is positively CRIMINAL that Obama is advocating taking steps to fight global climate change, while at the same time cutting funding and scaling back our plans to build a shield to defend against missile attacks by rogue states!

Obama met with Russian President Medvedev (Putin’s talking doll) to discuss arms reductions and Russia made clear it strongly opposes our missile shield plan. Perhaps this sounds familiar? Ah yes, let’s think back to Reykjavik when Reagan and Gorbachev were close to the historic first achievement in arms reduction, when at the last minute Gorbachev insisted the U.S. scrap its plans for a missile-defense system. Reagan offered to share the technology with the Soviets so that both our countries could be protected, but Gorbachev refused. Unwilling to use the safety of the American people as a bargaining chip, Reagan walked out. Oh my gosh, that’s it, people said. But it wasn’t. Talks eventually resumed, Gorbachev caved and they signed the INF Treaty.

The U.S. government must always work on behalf of Americans first.
Our President and Congress are in office to serve us, represent us and protect us, and they do so with funding by us. They are not there to serve the world community, redistribute our wealth to poorer nations or serve as international policeman. America must not participate in any union (including the recent economic one agreed to at the G20) that forces us to relinquish control to any foreign authority or international body. We should not be out to gain approval from foreign countries, who clearly (and rightly) have their own national interests at heart.

The U.S. should immediately remove ourselves from the United Nations.
The U.N., a nice liberal idea that has utterly failed in practice. The U.N. is now nothing more than a forum for third-world dictators and corrupt socialist bureaucrats. It is completely ineffectual at its founding mission of preserving world peace and human rights. Who can forget when Libya ran the human rights committee a couple of years ago? There is absolutely NO reason the U.S. should continue to fund and subordinate our interests to an America-hating organization that is now nothing more than an international slush fund for corrupt diplomats.

The President of the United States and other foreign dignitaries should at all times, when abroad, speak proudly on behalf of the American people.
When the Teleprompter in Chief was asked about American exceptionalism over the weekend, Obama said he believed in American exceptionalism but said the British probably believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism. Why did he feel the need to qualify his answer? To avoid seeming arrogant? I don’t think so. I believe he qualified his answer because he does not believe in American exceptionalism. He is one of the many liberals who follow the relativistic line of thought that says that one society or civilization is no better than another…just different.

What a disappointment to have the President of the United States representing us abroad with constant apologies regarding our arrogance, our civil rights history, our dropping of the atomic bomb, our torturing of prisoners, and even our treatment of the American Indians. Like a husband on the advice of a marriage counselor, Obama felt the need to admit our wrongdoings and weaknesses to engender good will. It was completely unnecessary as Liberals are always popular in Europe, and no matter how much they love him, he cannot (and did not) get anything more out of them than they would have given to Bush. It is possible for a leader to be strong, dignified and respectful without sending the inappropriate message that there is little to admire in America.

Contrast Obama’s performance with my personal hero, Ronald Reagan, who held a firm conviction regarding America’s goodness and our positive role in the world. Reagan said, “Under this administration, our Nation is through wringing its hands and apologizing.” Ever the optimist, he inspired Americans to be their best and believe the best about their great nation, and he had a profound respect for our Constitution.

The United States Government must stay out of humanitarian disasters.
As much as we may agonize over the state of affairs in other countries, it is vital to the maintenance of our free republic that we keep our federal government out of the charity business. Despite a common belief to the contrary, aid for humanitarian disasters would not dry up just because the U.S. government failed to save the day. Private donations from America for the tsunami victims in Southeast Asia totaled over $1 billion.

What about in the case of genocide? Again, the U.S. must stay out of the internal affairs of foreign countries. As horrible as it sounds, to intervene in such situations requires a military presence – – – we are sending our troops to war. The definition of “genocide” is the deliberate destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. And how is that any different from so many major wars fought in the past?

The same people who argue for military invention in places like Darfur, where the number of the dead is currently placed at around 450,000, argued against our going into Iraq to depose a dictator under who’s rule more than 600,000 civilians were executed, including 100,000 Kurds in one action. On the grounds of stopping genocide, Clinton bombed Kosovo. Subsequently, the Albanian majority drove out hundreds of thousands of Serbs, Jews, and others in huge wave of ethnic cleansing.


May 18, 2009

It is easy to see why Conservatives might appear close-minded or unreceptive to new ideas. We are traditionalists and look first to history for answers; because we know that most “new” ideas are not new at all. We require facts and pay little attention to the emotional side of the argument. We often have strongly-held beliefs, but let us not mistake those for close-minded ones.

Liberals, on the other hand, tend to be young and naïve – – – idealistically immature. They are more likely to fall for Marxism, multi-culturalism, moral relativism, environmentalism or other crackpot theories making their way down the pike. Liberals can be convinced with emotional arguments and good rhetoric. The young liberal often wants change for change’s sake as they have the youthful impulse to agitate, feeling anything old must be parochial and dated. They tell themselves they have new ideas and a fresh viewpoint the rest of us are too simple to see. Inherent in almost all Liberals is a sense of superiority and a typically unearned, inflated self-esteem.

The other half of the above myth says that Liberals are more tolerant of others than Conservatives. What they really are is more accepting; Liberals are more accepting and willing to embrace alternative lifestyles than most Conservatives. Conservatives are very tolerant of these lifestyles, believing that as long as it does not affect us, then it is none of our business. The problems arise when there is an attempt to force Conservatives to embrace an alternative lifestyle, instead of just tolerate it.

Even though Liberals often preach tolerance and diversity, what they are really after is a surface diversity based on the likes of ethnicity or sexual preference. As one professor said, “To a Liberal, diversity looks like the United Nations but thinks like a San Francisco coffeehouse.” In the most crucial area for diversity, that is, the diversity of opposing ideas, Liberals
are some of the least tolerant people you will run into. Conservatives, on the other hand, are practically begging for the debate. We have no interest in silencing the Liberal opposition, because we know we are right. When reason and truth are on your side, you have no fear of dissenting opinion. You stand ready to make quality arguments based in history and fact.

Even though I am a questioning agnostic and do not consider myself a very religious person, I do think that religion, or a lack thereof, can play a vital role in a person’s life. As G.K. Chesterson once said,

“When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing – – they believe in anything.”


May 18, 2009

Conservatives do not wish to abolish government. We seek to both restrict it and bring it closer to home. We believe the role of the federal government should be limited to those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Conservatives believe that a state government is more beholden to the people than a federal government, and a county government is more beholden than the state, and the city more than the county. In other words, the further away the governmental entity, the LESS impact it should have on our daily lives.

This idea of federalism is very important to the American people. The whole reason this nation was founded was to escape the yoke of a distant power. Our Constitution was carefully and deliberately crafted to restrict any one area of government from gaining too much power, thus preserving the people’s liberty. So if you believe your state is treating you unfairly or your representatives are not serving your interests, you can take your family and your money and move to another state. If you believe your local government is doing a poor job you can demand a meeting with the mayor and tell him so! The United States is a vast country full of people with different beliefs, traditions, problems, cultures, economies, and so on. The best solutions to the problems of Texas cattle ranchers will probably not come from the New York representative who grew up in the Bronx. This is all pretty much common sense. Mark Levin’s recent book, Liberty and Tyranny, has a fabulous chapter on the beauty of Federalism.

But lately, the Federal Government has grown so large and intrusive that American citizens are beginning to feel trapped. When they destroy our health care system, where will be go? When they devalue our dollar down to pennies, what will we do? When they have ruined all of our industries, where can we move to start anew? When they have destroyed our military, how will we defend ourselves?

Like animals backed into a corner, we have realized we must turn and fight, and THIS is what is now beginning to happen at town halls all across the United States. And let’s face it, this kind of fury and frustration is a scary thing to behold.

For years now, I have held the strong belief that a second Civil War in America could occur within my lifetime. You can war-game it out in many ways, but the most likely scenario goes like this:
Federal Government continues to redistribute the wealth of the citizens of economically stable, conservative states to the citizens of a failing, liberal states. Federal government continues to infringe upon state sovereignty until some unknown tipping point – – it could be a Supreme Court case, or the enforcement of some new federal mandate, who knows? But at that point, one or more states will refuse to comply and effectively secede from the union. And then all hell breaks loose.

I have spoken with many of you about this belief in the past and been met with quite a bit of teasing. Tell me folks, is it really so far-fetched now?