Conservatism Has A New Face

Picture from The Sun

The reaction was predictable...and telling. The morning after Sarah Palin's brilliant GOP Convention speech, they best the left can come up with is that she was engaging in "mean-spirited personal attacks" and has a hairdo from 20 years ago.

Oh sure, you get your typical liberal whining from the LA Times, but it doesn't really address a single thing Palin said...it only decries conservatism in general with a long string of ridiculous emotion-based (rather than reason-based) arguments. It assumes that liberalism is self-evident truth (rather than self-preserving socialism) and then slams Palin for not falling in goose-step with that "truth."

As to the "mean-spirited personal attacks" that is a laughable charge. Let's look at some of these "personal attacks" included in her speech:

They love their country, in good times and bad, and they're always proud of America. - A subtle reference to Michelle Obama and her statement, as support for her husband began to solidify, that she was proud of America "for the first time in [her] adult life." I'm sorry...there's nothing "mean-spirited" about reminding people of the constant dragging down of America that Obama and those around him engage in.

I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities. - A direct rebuttal to the Obama campaign's criticism of her supposed inexperience immediately following McCain's announcement of her as his running mate. Now of course community organizers are good people in principle. Unsurprisingly, Obama's attack dog (campaign manager David Plouffe) tried to spin Palin's comments into a derision of the notion that your average ordinary person can play a role in political leadership. The problem is that you can't deride a vice presidential candidate's executive experience as the mayor of a town when your presidential candidate has NO executive experience and lists "community organizer" among his credentials. Again, this is not "mean-spirited." This is a direct response to a challenge to Palin's own experience by the Obama campaign.

I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening. We tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.
- What is "mean-spirited" about reminding people of how Barack Obama spoke of the "bitter" folks of Middle America who "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment." How dare Gov Palin remind us of Obama's view of Middle America as preached to elitist Californians!

But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate. - I still see nothing "mean-spirited" about pointing out the fact that Barack Obama has indeed never authored a single piece of major legislation in his time in Illinois or Washington, yet indeed he has had time to author two memoirs. There is nothing "mean-spirited" about pointing out his utter lack of leadership in this respect, especially after putting forth her own numerous accomplishments.

I'm sure there are several more "personal attacks" in the speech, but again...what do you expect Sarah Palin to do when the Obama campaign goes directly at her and dismisses her years of executive experience as inconsequential?

The left (most especially the mainstream media) has thusfar woefully underestimated Sarah Palin. Last night gave them a clearer picture of what they're dealing with, and the reaction has ranged from naked panic to panic disquised as dismissiveness. Whether or not I ultimately end up voting for McCain-Palin, I will love seeing the MSM squirm as they try to deal with the self-proclaimed "pit bull" and staunch conservative that is Sarah Palin

Ideological Party Shifts

Something else I've been thining about increasingly is the ideological shifts of both of the major political parties. Over the past decade and a half the Republican Party has been taken over by neocons and true conservatives have been pushed to the side. Well, the same thing has happened to the Democratic Party, but in the opposite direction. Mainstream Democrats have been pushed to the side by ultra-liberal, MoveOn.org types who have taken over the party. Obama's nomination and candidacy are proof positive of this. That is the only way that the most liberal Senator in Congress could be tapped as his party's nominee despite being a woefully inexperienced freshman. This fact was further reinforced today when his VP candidate, Joe Biden, said that he and Obama would pursue criminal charges against the Bush administration if elected. In other words, they're taking a page right out of the liberal whacko playbook (and in so doing appealing to their real base, the ultra-liberal fringe).

I feel bad for the true Democrats, mostly because as a conservative I can sympathize.

"We are a nation of Wasillas, not Chicagos"

Another way that Sarah Palin helps McCain is by appealing to "fly-over country," the heart of conservative America. We all remember the pictures of the 2004 electoral map by county which showed the county by county breakdown as to which candidate they voted for. While geographical area is meaningless when compared to population distribution, what it does show is that large metro areas tend to lean liberal while small towns tend to lean conservative. Conservative pollster Kellyanne Conway hit it dead on in stating the quote at the head of this post (as attributed by Peggy Noonan). Moreover, the point Ms Noonan was making rings true: Sarah Palin's executive experience in the town of Wasilla is most certainly relevant, particularly in a country where small towns the size of Wasilla outnumber large towns (100k plus) some 380:1.

I'm very much looking forward to Gov Palin's speech at the GOP Convention this evening. I hope for her sake it reveals her character, fight and values. This is her big moment...her true step out onto the national stage, and regardless of the outcome of the election it will provide her the opportunity to solidify herself as a champion of the conservative movement and a force to be reckoned with.

Are They Really That Stupid?

It seems the Obama campaign has decided to make abortion rights a major issue of this campaign in the remaining two months. The campaign has started running radio ads that attempt to scare women by telling them that John McCain will "take away their abortion rights."

When asked about the ad, the response from the McCain campaign was appropriate. They pointed out that Obama has strongly and consistently opposed legislation designed to protect the life of a baby who survives an abortion attempt. That's right...at both the state and federal level, Barack Obama has opposed legislation that would prevent doctors from killing a baby that survived an attempted abortion and was fully birthed. That means this actually happens, folks. Women attempt to late-term abort babies that are fully viable, and when the baby survives the attempt and is born they may still be put to death despite clearly and unequivocably being babies not fetuses.

In their panic following the nomination of the staunchly pro-life Gov Sarah Palin, the Obama campaign has now made a huge blunder by bringing to the forefront an issue that will not help Obama one bit. All the McCain campaign need to is begin pointing out clearly and repeatedly what Obama and his liberal ilk really believe about the sanctity of life and mainstream America will quickly begin to distance themselves from him. It was already done indirectly by the clear difference in answers between McCain and Obama at Rick Warren's political forum, and Fred Thompson stated it more explicitly yesterday in his GOP Convention speech.

(In case you missed Thompson's speech, here is what he said: "we need a President who doesn't think that the protection of the unborn or a newly born baby is above his pay grade.")

What Palin Does for McCain

Yeah, I know...I haven't posted anything in a couple months. Needless to say my life has become much busier and more complicated since my hospitalization.

Anyway, something occurred to me this morning that I wanted to put forth. I can't help but be drawn in to the amazing choice of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as John McCain's Vice Presidential running mate. It's been stated over and over again that this was a shrewd move meant to attract votes from disaffected women who had supported Hilary Clinton...that it takes away some of the mystique of the "historic" Obama campaign by making history of its own with the first female on a GOP presidential ticket...that it represents an attempt to shore up the conservative Republican base who have little love or use for "Maverick McCain" by giving them one of their own.

All these things are true, but one thing it does more clearly...and I believe will ultimately accomplish more effectively...is to shed more light on Obama's specific positions. Case in point is the drama that occurred within days of Governor Palin's step into the spotlinght. She directly addressed rumors that were swirling around among the liberal blogs that she had faked a pregnancy to cover for that of her 17-year-old daughter. The truth is that her daughter IS pregnant, but more importantly she is keeping her baby and will be marrying its father. The Palin family is staunchly pro-life, and what fifty years ago would have been a devastating blow to a presidential ticket is actually serving to increase support. Sarah Palin is seen by many as somebody we can relate to with a family that reflects the heart of America and faces the same challenges many of us have faced.

Now, juxtapose that against statements from Obama back in March of this year. When questioned on the issue of sex education for America's children, Obama indicated that he believed both abstinence as well as safe-sex education should be taught. He then went on to explain just exactly what he means by sex education:

"But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know,
information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters. 9 years
old and 6 years old," he added.

"I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if
they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby," Obama said.

That last statement is simply amazing, and sadly reflective of the view of pro-choice liberals towards the sanctity of life. Only in their twisted rationale ("values and morals?") could a child be viewed as "punshment," and punishment that can be spared by simply making an appointment at the local clinic. It's very clear that Bristol Palin's family taught her about values and morals because she made the decision to keep her child on her own, and moreover will do the right thing in marrying the child's father (something else completely foreign to liberal feminists, who view him as little more than the oafish donor).

The more I think about it, the more brilliant the Palin pick appears to be. The whole "who is more inexperienced, Obama or Palin" angle is a lose-lose for Obama. Even if he successfully argues that he's more experienced, it's not by much and the fact is that he's running against McCain for the top spot, not Palin. The juxtaposition between Palin and Biden is almost comical, particularly since, as Mike Huckabee pointed out, Palin likely got more votes to be mayor of Wasilla than Biden got to be President during his primary candidacy. I would love nothing more than to see Palin eat Biden alive at the vice presidential debates.

I'm still undecided at this point on whether or not I can vote for McCain. I don't buy the "a vote for anyone else is a vote for Obama" bullcrap. If I can't in good conscience vote for someone then I won't vote for them, regardless of what the potential outcome may be. I cannot and will not give the approval of my vote to a party that has abandoned its principles just for fear of what the other guy might do.

Anyway, that's my rant for today. After months (seems like years!) of dullness in this campaign cycle, the race has finally gotten interesting. Oh, if only there could have been a Ron Paul/Sarah Palin ticket this year. I'd pull that lever :)

Selected, Not Elected

What a brilliant point Ann Coulter made today about how the Democratic Party higher-ups are suddenly and hypocritically silent on the fact that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in the primaries yet Barrack Obama is the nominee based on delegate count. This of course is the party who went apoplectic over the fact that "the will of the people is being ignored" when Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000 but failed to get enough electoral votes to win the presidency.

"I'm Mad as Hell..."

Echoing John McCaslin this morning:

"I don't have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It's a depression. Everybody's out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel's work, banks are going bust ... and there's no end to it. We know the air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat ... as if that's the way it's supposed to be. We know things are bad -- worse than bad. They're crazy. It's like everything everywhere is going crazy ...

"I want you to get mad! I don't want you to protest. I don't want you to riot -- I don't want you to write to your congressman because I wouldn't know what to tell you to write. I don't know what to do about the depression and the inflation ... all I know is that first you've got to get mad. You've got to say, 'I'm a human being ... My life has value!'

"So I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell, 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!' " - Howard Beale, Network (1976)

Why I'm Voting for Bob Barr for President in 2008

This shouldn't be much of a surprise to anybody with whom I've talked politics recently. I was a vocal supporter of Ron Paul and voted for him in the Ohio Republican Primary. I have been conservative/libertarian in my policital views for quite some time now, and I learned a hard lesson in 2004 about voting against someone (John Kerry) instead of voting on principle. I make no excuses about voting for George W Bush in 2000. While I had some questions about just how conservative Bush really was, he certainly had every appearance of being so, particularly when juxtaposed against Al Gore. I maintain that a Gore presidency would have been nothing short of disastrous, especially following the 9/11 attacks.

I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt after a rocky but decent first term. He had already shown signs of what was to come though, and his second term has been an unmitigated disaster. The political spine he showed to the world following the 9/11 attacks apparently disappeared when it came to special interests and lawbreakers within our own borders. His support of amnesty for illegal immigrants, his recent pandering to the perpetrators of the Manmade Global Warming Hoax, and his willingness to increase the size of government (and worse, the amount of my money they spend) with reckless abandon showed him to be a fraud of a conservative.

I will not make the same mistake with John McCain. McCain may be "strong on defense" and an "opponent of wasteful government spending," but his McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law was patently unconstitutional, his support of amnesty for illegals was indefensible, and his tendency to be a maverick and join liberal causes simply doesn't make him trustworthy. He is a centrist, not a conservative. He proclaims a few central conservative values...sanctity of life, sanctity of marriage, need to reform and scale back government spending...but he is so very weak in supporting them. He's simply another member of the establishment who is enjoying his turn.

I quite honestly thought in elections past that it was reasonable to vote for the lesser of two evils because of the dangers posed by the greater of the two evils. Perhaps I was correct that electing the lesser avoided catastrophe...or at least postponed it. Now that I've seen more clearly the general direction this country is headed in, and seen a party I had supported because of its conservatism fail to distinguish itself from liberals by abandoning its values left and right, I can't but vote strictly on principle. Expediency is nothing more than the compromise of one's principles for a perceived short term gain, and it always ends up costing you in the long run. No matter that I fear what damage an Obama or Clinton presidency, coupled with Democratic control of Congress and in view of upcoming Supreme Court appointments, could do to this nation; I cannot reward a party who fails to stay securely moored to its principles by continuing to give them the consent of my vote.

It is probably no coincidence that I write this while in the midst of reading David McCullough's John Adams, in so doing recounting the circumstances of the birth and infancy of our nation. However, these are thoughts which have continually stirred within me for the better part of the last several years as I've watched our nation descend into wretchedness at an ever-quickening pace. It's not only at the national level or even the state level that I've seen this. I've seen clear signs of it in the rural community in which my family and I live, and in the mid-sized city in which I work. This society is dying...morally, politically and educationally.

So, all this to say that barring an unforeseen turn of events I will be voting for Bob Barr for President this November. I am doing so because I cannot in good conscience vote for ultra-liberal Obama or Clinton, nor can I trust that McCain will be anything other than what he has been: a maverick legislator who has demonstrated a willingness to compromise most of his principles whenever it is convenient. I have no loyalty to the Republican Party as they have shown no loyalty to me as a voter and constituent. Bob Barr is a decent man with whom I agree on the vast majority of issues and who has a track record of sticking to his principles.

Let me say now that I refuse to accept one of the most pervasive lies ever told from one citizen to another: that a vote for candidate X is really a vote for candidate Y because candidate Z is the only one who can beat candidate Y. My vote for Bob Barr will not be a vote for Obama or Clinton; it is a vote for Bob Barr. I will not be throwing away my vote, I will be casting it for the person I feel best suited to the job.

And it WILL make a difference.

Quote of the Day

"The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is the Dems will tax us to blow our money, and the Republicans will just put the shopping spree on a credit card." - Rod Dreher

Amen, Rod. Amen.

Another Step Closer

Still one of the most memorable moments of the early Presidential campaigning was when Ron Paul was grilled about his subscription to supposed "conspiracy theories" about a planned North American Union. I must admit that when I first heard mumblings about it I too was rather skeptical...I've heard so much chicken little talk coming from Christian pre-millennial pre-tribulation alarmists like Hal Lindsey that I've become kinda immune to it. All the news surrounding the incredibly ridiculous amnesty bill late last year though lead me to news about the superhighway being built across Mexico, America and Canada. It didn't take long to figure out that Ron Paul was absolutely right...there seems to be a concerted but quiet effort to move the United States towards economic and social integration with Canada and Mexico (especially the latter).

Well, it seems the governments have taken a step closer by laying the foundation for a North American Army. Of course, this was done without any Congressional approval whatsoever. Reading through the linked article you'll see some other things that have been pushed through that should make the hair on the back of your neck stand up. It's amazing how much of our freedom is quietly being taken away from us. Many of these encroachments are silent...things which would only be done "in the event of an emergency" or in a "time of crisis." The problem is that the ones who hold this power get to decide what constitutes such an emergency or crisis and when an event meets their definition.

Again, I'm not a conspiracy theorist...but it seems like all it would take is a particular set of circumstances to trigger a complete and rapid transformation of this country from "free" to authoritarian.

Universal Health Care: Harmful or Fatal if Swallowed

One of the major themes of both the Clinton and Obama campaigns is Universal Health Care. Despite the fact that it has been shown time and again to result in substandard care, bloated bureaucracy and smothered innovation everywhere it's been implemented, these two socialists are hell bent on implementing it in this country. There is no doubt that there are problems with the health care system in the United States, but too many people are drinking the liberal socialist kool-aid without heeding the warning on the container: Harmful or Fatal if Swallowed.

Just this morning I read yet another article, this one on Human Events, about the fact that the government run health care system in Great Britain killed over 17,000 people who should otherwise have been saved by their health care system. Sanitation is becoming a major problem in their system, with 9% of patients developing a hospital-acquired infection. These people didn't go to the hospital to get an infection treated...they got the infection just by being in the hospital!

People simply don't realize what government-run healthcare means. In Canada, if you are riding your bike down the sidewalk, fall and somehow manage to tear your ACL...figure on several months' wait before you can get it repaired (how'd you like to walk around with THAT pain for months before you get to start recovery and rehab from the surgery itself!). Currently in the United States if you get a referral from your physician to get an MRI you will likely have it scheduled within days. In Canada's single-payer system the average wait time for an MRI is THREE MONTHS. Neurosurgery services required? It could be a YEAR. Enjoy your carpal tunnel or severe migraines until then.

And don't you dare seek medical help from a private provider or you'll be prosecuted as a criminal. After all, it is ILLEGAL in Canada to spend your own money on healthcare provided by anyone other than the government run healthcare system.

It is simply beyond my comprehension why anyone would think that the government...the most amazing example of eggregious waste and bloat one could find...would somehow magically be able to efficiently and effectively handle something as vitally important as healthcare. There is a reason the United States has been at the forefront of medical innovation for so long, and Universal Healthcare will destroy that advantage.

Bringing "Currency" to Things



OK, it's been awhile since I've posted anything, largely because work and personal life have not permitted me much time. Of course, that hasn't stopped the world from turning :)



Among the articles that caught my attention today is a British judge's ruling that Al Gore's pseudo-scientific fantasy film An Inconvenient Truth cannot be shown in schools without government "guidance notes." The ruling comes in response to a suit filed by a concerned school parent which labelled the film as containing "serious scientific inaccuracies, political propaganda and sentimental mush." According to the article, the judge ruled that showing the film without government guidance notes would "breach education laws prohibiting the promotion of unbalanced political viewpoints."



At least the English have some sense! :)



Meanwhile, it appears things have indeed been set in motion to move the United States further down the path of integration with its neighbors to the north and south. The most recent (and most public) proof of this came in an interview with Former Mexican President Vincente Fox by Larry King. According to Fox, an agreement had been reached between Fox and President Bush to pursue the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA), which in part called for a regional currency similar to the euro to be used throughout the Western Hemisphere.

There is of course speculation that the recent devaluation of the dollar is intentional, and that in part it could be a move being made to pave the way for a "more stable" regional currency.

Folks, if we move to regional currency we move towards regional governance. Plain and simple. Between the illegal immigrant crisis and the constant (and somewhat clandestine) move towards regional economic and political governance, there is no doubt that the future sovereignty of the Unites States of America is in jeopardy.

Coulter Clears It Up

Just as a quick follow up to my last post, Ann Coulter wrote a column today expressing her weariness of being exploited by hypocritical liberals bent on lying.

You can read the column here.

What really stood out to me was how little of Coulter's usual shtick there is in this column. Oh, she still gets her digs in, but many of them are unusually subtle and it is clear from the tone of the article that Ann is more than a little ****ed off.

Anyway, we'll see how long it is before she's further misquoted.

Slander

Never let it be said that one can't profit from lies. Just ask Democratic Presidential Candidate John Edwards (and his wife). With some sixteen months to go before the election, Edwards is already turning (again) to one of his favorite sources of income, conservative commentator and columnist Ann Coulter.

Ms Edwards called in on Chris Matthews' MSNBC show Hardball while Coulter was being interviewed and confronted her with allegations of "hate speech," citing specifically comments made by Coulter on Good Morning America the day before (we'll get to those comments in a second). I've read several articles about the incident on GMA as well as Ms Edwards' rather ridiculous phone call. Nearly every single one presents it as Ms Coulter saying she wished Edwards would die in a terrorist attack. No context given; just a factual statement that Coulter wants Edwards dead.

So is it true that Coulter really said she wishes John Edwards had been killed in a terrorist attack? Let's hear her comments in their context:



So Coulter's comments were clearly in reference to Bill Maher's comments that if the terrorist attempt on Vice President Dick Cheney's life had been successful "people wouldn't be needlessly dying." In other words, she was exposing the hypocrisy of liberals in their giving other liberals a pass to say almost anything but railing against conservatives when they essentially say the same thing.

Of course, this didn't stop the Edwards campaign from posting the clip on YouTube...without its context...as a campaign ad:



And thus the liberals once again unwittingly proved Coulter's point in a blatant display of hypocrisy. Just as they did with Coulter's comments regarding Edwards and the word "faggot," which were (as she clearly explained) a joke in reference to actor Isaiah Washington "going to rehab" after making disparaging remarks about his homosexual costar on the show Grey's Anatomy. (I agree with Ann about the absurdity of equating an insult to serious problems like drug addiction to the extent that "rehab" is needed, and in that context her jab at Edwards was both funny and effective.)

Ann's formula is tried and true: make a joke (usually involving Edwards...an easy target), using similar comments to those made recently by a tasteless liberal, and it sends everyone in an uproar. Watch them foam at the mouth like lunatics, unleashing the liberal media machine on her. Then let conservatives, one by one, expose the hypocrisy of these liberals to all their liberal friends.

It Begins...

In one of the most unsurprising announcements this century, Hillary Clinton launched her bid for the office of President of the United States.

Finally.

Everybody knew she would run. She had her sights set on this election since before her husband was out of office. Everything about her is cold and calculating. I'll be very intersted to see how she tries to present herself in the next year and a half. I'm sure it will be anything but what she actually is.