Posts Tagged 'conservative'

Back to Our Roots

Shock: Mitt Romney is quickly falling out of favor with the GOP.

Ok, I’m not really shocked.  In fact while I thought Romney was going to win, it wasn’t what I was predicting when he won the nomination.  In fact, I wrote back in March on Whitehouse12.com that when it came down to it, the election would not be about the economy.  Turns out, I was right.

With a mixture of QE Infinity, a suspect September jobs report, and unemployment applications surprisingly falling (because California failed to report their numbers on time), the argument on the economy became relatively dampened just in time for the election.  Toss in pure media malpractice in their coverage on Benghazi and Sandy, where there was simply the latest in a string of incompetencies by this administration, and come election day Romney’s success as a businessman did not put him over the edge in voters minds.

What did put Obama over the edge was perception.  Obama was the candidate with your lady parts on his mind, and not in a dirty way.  He was the one who didn’t put women in binders, whatever that means.  But he was the one who is making it so that our nation stops killing sick people.  He is the one who cares so much about the poor and middle class, despite taxing them through Obamacare.  And of course, his strategy of divide and conquer worked.  Obama is the President of blacks, Hispanics, women, students, the poor, the middle class, Hollywood, and so on.  Romney’s one failed attempt at divide and conquer was announcing that he was not the guy for the 47%.  Somehow that was less successful than Obama’s strategy.

The Republican establishment has 2012 all figured out.  If only we offered our version of the Dream Act, rewarding young illegal immigrants for good behavior.  If only we were less rigid about what we believed and sounded more like Democrats.  The fact is, we did ok with moderates.  Moderates don’t win elections.  The only reason we keep having it drilled into our heads that they do is because pandering to moderates is a great way to lose conservative votes.

Now, Republicans have an opportunity to communicate with the country.  The Fiscal Cliff should teach the country a few very important lessons.  All the tax hikes in the world won’t solve our deficit problem.  Tax hikes on the rich will hurt the economy, but they won’t cover even one major pork bill.  The problem is spending.  We are spending ourselves broke and not even taxes on the rich can close the gap.

But instead, the lesson coming out of the fiscal cliff is that we all need to do our fair share.  Those of us who make more should pay far more.  Forget deficits and budgets and all that wonky stuff.  If you are rich, you didn’t build that.  It’s time for you to suffer like we are all suffering so that we can all share in this wonderful suffering that is America.  Somehow this is the message that is resonating, and it is probably because we have no Newt Gingrich in Congress to stand up and call the whole concept ridiculous.

Conservatism is not about shared suffering.  It is about freedom and opportunity.  It is about striving for so much freedom and opportunity that poverty becomes a choice.  It is about a people who tell the government what it can and can’t do, not the other way around.  It’s about personal responsibility and the ability to choose whether or not to buy your neighbor the things he or she needs and wants.

Conservatism is about fair, simple taxes.  It is about states rights.  It is about limited foreign engagement only when our national security is at risk.  It is about the right to drink beer and shoot off fireworks in your back yard.  It is about the right to teach your kids the Bible or worship however you want.  It is about the right to live, pursue happiness, own property, earn your way through school and get a job you love.  The outcomes are not guaranteed, but the right to pursue the outcomes are.

This is a message that would resonate.  Freedom gets people to the polls.  The problem is that too many moderate Republicans are so worried about governing that they forget their primary responsibility: to uphold the constitutional protections against their attempts to govern.  We are a nation of individuals governed by states and united under one constitution.  A party that runs on a conservative constitutionalist platform will win.

Advertisements

The Right to Taxpayer Funded Abortion

Imagine if Mitt Romney gets elected, makes polygamy legal and mandates mission trips for young people.  I think we would be pretty shocked at the bold establishment of religion coming from the white house.  Yet we did not have that same gut reaction when Obama established his religion from the white house and got it passed without the required majority support through budget reconciliation. 

This is why the conservative movement has been so unprepared to handle charges that they are oppressing women or denying people rights when we object to being forced to pay for abortion.  Being told that by me not paying for someone else’s birth control, I am denying them the right to birth control is like telling a jungle native that they must be born again and put Jesus in their heart.  It just doesn’t translate.  The argument that healthcare is a right and society must therefore provide it is so ridiculous that conservatives reject it automatically.  But for Obama and social justice, liberation Christians it is gospel truth.

I checked, healthcare isn’t in the constitution.  But neither are puppies, and there are certain things you just have to be cautious about when arguing against.

What is in the constitution is religion and guns.  In fact, the private ownership and practice of both are enumerated rights.  What if I am too poor to afford a gun?  What if my community is too poor to support a church?  How is it that social justice does not then require the government or society to purchase my gun for me?  And as simply as that, for the non-liberation theologian, the idea of society owing me healthcare is defeated.

So why doesn’t this concept fall so easily?  If you listen to the liberal argument, Georgetown is denying Sandra Fluke the right to birth control by not buying it for her.  The right has a “war on women” because we want to protect the religious liberty and conscience of churches and religious organizations.  Conservatives have already ceded the rights of the religious employer in a secular field.  And how easily we let go.  I often wonder if Ben Nelson, Democrat from Nebraska who sold his conscientious objection to abortion funding for an earmark, ever wishes he could buy back his soul.

To understand the religious connotations of social justice in healthcare and why this religion shamelessly trumps the constitution, you have to understand liberation theology and James Cone.  Cone was required reading at Obama’s church.  Cone divided his teaching into dogmatic and methodological teachings.  The dogmatic teaching was the paradox that there is no universal truth.  Not even revelation in the Scriptures is absolute truth.  In fact, God is not in control and the very evidence of that is the existence of racism.

Cone’s methodological approach was contextual-dialectic.  What this means is that scripture has value in the way it relates to the reader’s context.  For Cone, this meant that the value of scripture was how it confirmed his own perception of racism against blacks.  From his perspective, there was no value in the original, contextual meaning of the scriptures.

Apply this to Obama’s thinking, and it makes sense that he would think Jesus wanted him to raise taxes, or that healthcare is a social justice right that trumps the constitution.  It also explains a lot about the ambiguity of Obama’s faith, his comfort level with the Muslim faith, and why he is so eager to impose his liberation theology on the country.  Obama is what the media keeps trying to convince us Santorum is.  Obama is a religious fanatic who is seeking to impose his beliefs on the country.  He is not alone, social justice and liberation theology is the spine of the liberal movement in the United States.  Documents like the constitution have value only to the extent that they endorse the liberal readers personal context.

That is why when a religious employer refuses to buy abortion pills for their employees, they are actually denying that employee the right to have abortion pills and are stealing her rights.  This is truth from the liberal perspective.

If Conservatives are going to successfully defend the constitution, perhaps James Cone should be required reading for us as well.

Why PBS Should Be Defunded

Three words: Stevie Ray Vaughn.

Please keep reading, do not get me wrong.  I absolutely love Stevie Ray Vaughn.  I have several CDs with nearly every song he performed, video of him playing live, and I think by far he is my favorite guitarist ever.  And once a month, PBS plays Stevie Ray Vaughn videos.  Why do they play Stevie Ray Vaughn videos instead of their usual programming of 1950s variety show reruns, heavily left leaning political commentary, the newest garage band, or opera?  Because it’s time for the monthly pledge drive.

And that, my friends is capitalism.  I love the PBS pledge drive shows.  They did a Pink Floyd concert, Queen, and some more cultural stuff like Victor Borga and some classical master pieces.  But seriously, PBS pledge drives are the best time to watch PBS because they bring out the shows you would actually be willing to pay for.  And then they break in for 15 minutes to tell you that for a pledge of $125 you can get your very own Stevie Ray Vaughn CD as a thank you gift.  But they also lie to you and tell you that they need the funds so that they can show great programming like this all the time.

It’s not true.  What they mean to say is pledge money so that they know what to play for their next pledge drive.

I watch PBS a lot.  I love britcoms.  My wife loves the new Dr. Who.  She also loves costume dramas.  My son loves Elmo and nature shows.  If it wasn’t for the leftist political commentary, the fact that my tax dollars are already funding it, and the fact that pledging money gets you more of the Antique Roadshow, cooking shows, This Old House and opera, not more Stevie Ray Vaughn and Are You Being Served, I might actually give to PBS.  I mean, where else can you see Mr. Bean and Hugh Laurie in a comedy about the trenches of World War I.

I would not stop watching PBS if they showed commercials.  After all, in between shows we already have spots for the latest Masterpiece Theatre preview, the corporate sponsors of PBS, the uber-wealthy families and foundations who give PBS  grants, and of course a quick mention of “taxpayers…er, I mean viewers like you”.

If they replaced 15 minute pledge breaks with commercials and showed stuff people wanted to see, just like every other TV station, they would come out ahead.  I believe that’s true even if they showed a symphony performance or a nature show.  Surely no one can make the argument that Elmo would struggle for viewership.

At least that would be true for my household.  Of course, NOVA might have some difficulties with the majority of our country believing in God and on the fence about Global Warming, and Frontline might have to cast conservatives in a positive light at least once a year.  Oh yeah, and NPR would have to work on just how much they sound like a mouthpiece for the DNC.  After all, Air America showed that liberal talk radio struggles in the free market.

Ron Schiller may be an anti-Semitic, hateful leftist who thinks all Tea Partiers are racists and all mainstream media groups are Zionists, but he is not the reason PBS should be defunded.  PBS should be defunded so that they can compete in the free market and have to show good programming, like Stevie Ray Vaughn and ‘Allo, Allo!’, all the time.

How Third Party Candidates Will Help TEA Party

I’m sure you read the title of this blog and scratched your head.  I assure you I am not crazy.

In 1992 and 1996 Republican candidates who leaned moderate were defeated by Bill Clinton.  In neither election did Clinton get 50% of the popular vote.  In fact, George W. Bush and Al Gore both came closer to 50% in 2000 than Clinton ever got.  In both the 1992 and 1996 elections, Republicans were hijacked by the third party candidacy of Ross Perot.    Perot was a spunky, debt-conscious candidate who predicted many of the troubles we face today.  Though some conservatives would have preferred Perot to George H. W. Bush and Bob Dole, it was from these elections that we had ingrained in our minds that a vote for a third party was a vote for the Democrat.

In 2006 the electorate shifted.  We had RINO Republicans in office, who had easily ridden George W. Bush’s coat-tails and the architecture of Karl Rove.  Conservatives did not like these RINOs and moderates couldn’t tell the RINOs from the Democrats and didn’t like our hundred billion dollar deficits.  In 2006 conservatives stayed home.  Or, in some cases, they voted for the third party candidate.

In this case, I am not talking about a conservative third party candidate, but I am talking about the 2006 re-election of Joseph Lieberman in Connecticut as an independent.  Joe had lost to his radical leftist opponent Ned Lamont, and decided to leave the Democrat party and run on a third party ticket.  In this race, moderate Republicans dumped their no-chance-in-hell (or any other blue state) candidate and voted with the moderate Lieberman.  Lieberman won.

Lieberman’s victory against the radical wing of his party, assisted by moderate Republicans, has given hope to moderates everywhere.  When Marco Rubio went from double digits behind Charlie Crist to the obvious winner, Crist dropped the Republican party and ran as a third party candidate.  Rubio still leads him and his opponent by double digits in a state Democrats gave to Obama in 2008, and the other Senators are a true blue Democrat and a moderate Crist appointed Republican.

You can’t blame RINOs for being upset about their upset losses to TEA party candidates.  Basically, they have been fired by the people in their party.  They didn’t expect it; their bosses in the party kept telling them they were awesome.  Crist will be giving up his Jim Greer expense account and his wife won’t be able to use tax dollars to go to Disney World or partying in NYC anymore.  Murkowski won’t get the lobbyist attention anymore.  Castle is left friendless and embarrassed in Delaware.

So what has changed since 1996?  Now the moderate is the third party.  Instead of the conservative vote being split between the candidate who can win and the candidate who we like, while the moderates and Democrats give the Democrat the victory, conservatives will be united against a candidates whose electorate will be split between radical Democrats and moderates.  Did I mention that Rubio holds a double digit lead over Crist and Meek?

Gallup shows that conservatives make up the largest group percentage-wise in this country.  They accounted for 40% back in 2009 when the deficit was only a trillion dollars and people still thought everything was Bush’s fault.  Moderates accounted for 35% and liberals took 21%.  That leaves “don’t knows” of 4%.  When Republicans were acting like moderates (safe word for mildly liberal), Democrats won.  Why not?  It was 50% to 40%.  Moderates looked at both parties, asked what’s the difference, and then voted for the party that wasn’t pretending to be something it’s not.

But split the liberal and moderate vote, and conservative TEA Party Republicans have a 5% advantage over their RINO opponents.  Still think I’m crazy?  The latest Reuters-Ipsos poll has Marco Rubio at 40%, Charlie Crist at 26% and Kendrick Meek at 21%. Sounds like Gallup got it about right.

So, Conservatives, call Lisa Murkowski and Mike Castle and encourage them to start write-in campaigns.  The moderates in this country need someone to vote for.

Why I am a Conservative Constitutionalist

Originally posted 4/11/10

There are people in this country who, if they had their way, would shut down every strip club in the country. Many of us wouldn’t mind that. Our neighborhoods would be safer, husbands would be home at night, there might be fewer sexual crimes, and our society would spend less time looking at women as objects and instead looking at them as individuals.

There are people in this country who, if they had their way, would shut down every church in the country. Many of them wouldn’t mind that either. People could spend Sunday morning drinking, Sunday night with a whore, and not feel an ounce of guilt about it. They could walk to work without having to fear someone telling them God loves them, and walk home at night not having to fear someone telling them God hates their sin.

There are people in our country who only eat vegetables, tofu, black bean burgers and the like. They believe that eating meat is disgusting. Then there are others who love a steak and a beer and don’t care if eating that steak makes it 81.5 degrees out instead of 81.4.

This is why I am a Conservative Constitutionalist. Our founders came from a society where their government told them who and how they could worship. Their government sent them to wars, not for protection but for expansion of the empire. Their government did not listen to their voice, but “took care of them”. In exchange, they belonged to the government. Their money was the king’s property, to be surrendered upon demand. Their homes were military barracks on loan to them. Their speech was regulated. Their writings could put them at the end of a noose. What the government said was truth, even when it contradicted fact and conscience.

Our founders created a society of individual freedom. Each man is responsible for the application and management of his own destiny, rights, and pursuit of happiness. The “king” is subject to the same laws as the “subjects”. In fact, not only are the leaders subject to the same laws as everyone else, but they are also subject to popular removal. Every four years we have a bloodless revolution.

I am a Conservative Constitutionalist because I believe in my right to choose – not to choose whether I can kill someone, steal from someone, or break the common laws that we as a nation have approved under the limitations of our constitution, but to choose whether I want to drink or go to church. To choose whether I want to save for retirement or buy a hot tub and work till I die. To choose whether I want to pay more for my health care and eat burgers every day or pay more for the gym and look like an athlete. Whether I want to drive a Hummer or an electric golf cart. These are my choices because the Constitution limits the government’s ability to take my rights away.

I have the right to call my president a god or a moron. I have the right to shoot attackers, whether criminal or governmental. I have the right to let a US soldier whom I hardly know live in my house for half a year (which I did once) or to tell that soldier to take a hike. I have the right to kill someone in cold blood in front of witnesses and be tried by a jury of my peers before society has a right to sentence me to death for it. I have a right to choose who I do and don’t associate with. I have a right to worship my dog or my God however I want. I have the right to vote for someone to be the leader of my nation because I think they have a strong chin and I don’t like that the other guy is a Buddhist. I have a right to live by these freedoms without the fear that another nation, state, city, or homeowner’s association will remove my rights without my consent. I have the right to start a business, make a million dollars, and spend every penny of it (aside from the taxes necessary for efficient government) on Twinkies. I have the right to choose not to buy government-taxed tea.

At least that’s the way it’s supposed to work.

Instead, the government takes 12.4% of my income off the top and puts it towards an underfunded retirement I may never see. The government forces me to buy health insurance from heavily taxed companies – absolutely no different than when the government forced the colonists to buy heavily taxed tea. The government takes almost half of my income. What do I get in exchange? The government spends my money telling me and my family how the government thinks I should live. The government takes my money and spends it to deny fifth, seventh and fourteenth amendment rights to the unborn. The government exempts office-holders from these very laws that they impose on the rest of us. The government calls me a radical and a terrorist, when our own President began his political career hand in hand with real terrorists who have committed real violent acts. The government has decided what my happiness should be, takes my means from me, and tries to pursue it for me.

But the very nature of government is that its own limitations now become my limitations. The government buys my health insurance, but can’t afford to insure my lifestyle. Therefore, I can no longer smoke and drink without paying penalties to the government. And soon, if I eat burgers every day I will not be able to enjoy rationed health care privileges that were rights just a few months ago. I will not be able to start and run a business because the government needs my profits. But I will also no longer have the right to waste my talents as I see fit since the government cannot afford to exist without them.

Instead of making and producing goods and services that people want and need at prices they can afford, the government demands that we produce goods and services that the government thinks we need and want at prices the government demands. That is not conservatism; that is not constitutionalism.

The greater good can only be achieved through the will of the greater majority. When we no longer trust the masses is when the masses become slaves to the Machiavellian few. And when the Machiavellian few are handed the keys to all our dreams and happiness is when suddenly the governing become the privileged and “lobbying” those in power is the only avenue left for happiness. Haven’t we already seen this with the deals in the stimulus and health care bills? It will only get worse.

I am a Republican, but I am a Conservative Constitutionalist first. It is not the government’s job to take care of me, put a roof over my head, provide me happiness, feed me, or buy my health care. It is the government’s job to get out of my way, pave the road in front of me, and keep all others not subject to the same protections of citizenship to our government from hindering me. Anything beyond that is a usurpation of my freedom and individual responsibility.

Halfway States Rights Does Not Equal States Rights

In the political circles where I like to debate, the question commonly comes up about drug policy.  Most Libertarians, many progressive social Democrats and even some Conservatives will argue strongly against our war on illegal drugs.  Many argue that it costs too much, many argue that it is government intrusion into our lives and unconstitutional, and others argue just because they happen to be high at the time.

I have been asked my opinion on the issue and people are sometimes surprised how I answer.  Most conservatives, especially Christian, free-market conservatives who know that illegal drugs ruin lives and turn some people into permanent wards of the state, strongly support Federal intervention and Federal drug laws.  I don’t.

I have read through the Constitution many times and cannot find anything that would justify a Federal ban on putting any sort of substance into your body.  Don’t get me wrong, I have seen what drugs do to people and I would vote in a heartbeat to ban them in my state or city.  But until we amend the Constitution with a new prohibition amendment, we damage the integrity of our national foundation of personal freedom and states rights when the Federal Government assumes the duties that the Constitution clearly delegates to the individual states.    In fact, I think if Thomas Jefferson knew only that Reagan was the one who mandated that states adopt 21 as the drinking age limit, he would certainly have called Reagan an anti-Constitutional tyrant.

So is this high praise of President Obama for instructing his attorney general, Eric Holder, to spend more time on affirmative action violations and less time on prosecuting medical potheads in states where it is legal?  No, and here is why:

Currently there are medical marijuana laws in 13 states.  Washington State is perhaps the most lenient, allowing you to have 24 oz. without getting busted and not charging you for a license to carry (marijuana).  Meanwhile, the other 37 states do not have any medical marijuana freedoms.  Yet, every year all 50 states pay billions in Federal taxes for national drug rehab programs alone.  We are spending nearly $500 billion a year on the state and federal level for rehab, incarceration, child services, dealing with homelessness, and other drug related costs.  States cover much of the bill on their own, but according to Columbia University’s National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, if the Federal Government recorded costs for prevention and rehabilitation as a separate budget item, it would rank as the  sixth most expensive Federal program.  It accounts for 9.6% of the Federal budget.

Let me break that down in simpler terms.  When Californians can get a prescription for marijuana to handle their stress, athlete’s foot, occasional headaches, or whatever else they can get a doctor to write a prescription for; people in Florida, Connecticut, New York, and Texas will be footing the bill to help them clean up their lives.  When someone in Michigan can’t get a job because spend half the day too stoned to get up, someone in Minnesota will be writing their Federal welfare check.

The Federal Government does not have the constitutional authority to rob one state to pay for another’s social ills.  The Federal Government does not have the constitutional authority to provide for certain groups’ specific welfare while harming the welfare of others through redistributive programs.  The Federal Government does have the constitutional duty to regulate interstate commerce and ensure that one state is not ripping off another.

By granting states the individual right to legalize self-destruction, but requiring that all states be mandated to pay for the consequences, Obama has violated the interstate commerce clause and made national social programs such as Federal welfare, Medicaid, Federally funded SCHIP, Federal funding for faith-based organizations, and his dream of universal healthcare and a public option that much more unconstitutional.

Given the choice, I would rather that Obama had ended unconstitutional wealth redistribution programs than lifted the unconstitutional Federal ban on drugs while still making me pay for the consequences.  Either way, this is no victory for states rights advocates.

Conservatives Need Not Apply

There are few people in this country so convicted of every person’s constitutional right to equality and the pursuit of happiness as Rush Limbaugh.  Rush has spoken many times on his radio program about each individual’s rights to equal treatment under the law, opportunity without government prohibition, and God given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  He has also been vocal about each person’s responsibility to live up to their personal potential and how special treatment from the Government prohibits this.  Of course, these views are not at all popular with those who believe that the rich have been treated unfairly well and that certain specific groups of people need the government to take from the rich and give to them in order to succeed.

Add to this that Rush is an outspoken conservative public figure and it is easy to see why so many, especially on the left, outright hate him.  Even back when political correctness ruled our country, Rush could always be counted on to give his clear personal opinion.  That always makes some people uncomfortable.  There aren’t many honest people left out there in the public spotlight.  The reason for this is the rampant bigotry against people who lean heavily conservative.

This was made all to evident this week as Rush was denied his attempt to purchase a portion of the NFL football team, the St. Louis Rams.  Rush has an intense love for football, I dare say almost as much as my own love for football.  But what began with racist attacks from Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson ended with Rush being disallowed from purchasing a portion of the franchise.  For years men and women were not allowed to vote, drink from the same fountain, own property, or shop at certain establishments because of their race, gender, or in some cases sexual preference.  Now we are seeing discrimination based on political views.

We should have seen this coming.  In fact, some of us did.  Suddenly a few months ago, disagreeing with this President was racism.  Speaking out about healthcare or cap and trade became hate speech.  Now, believing in equality, opportunity, and the constitution is racism and expressing your conservative leanings is hate speech.  And if they can’t find good examples of things you have said to make people hate you, they make them up.

When the news first came out about Rush’s desire to pursue his happiness and own a minority stake in the St. Louis Rams, false quotes immediately began appearing and being attributed to Rush.  One such example was CNN saying that Rush had said “Slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.” But it turns out Rush never said this.  A leftist bigot made up the quote and attributed it to Rush because he hated Rush’s conservatism.  But as the blog I linked to here points out, CNN was too busy fact checking a Saturday Night Live skit about Obama to fact check their own story on Rush.

So what is the end result of all this?  Maybe I should quit my blog.  I buy stocks in different companies, which is no different then what Rush was trying to do.  Will I someday be told by a company that I can’t buy their stock because I am an outspoken conservative? Will I someday be turned down for a job because in my personal life I am an outspoken conservative constitutionalist?  Some argue that we have already reached this point.

Robert J. Avrich claims that he was fired from a screenwriting job for being too conservative for Hollywood.  Ben Stein says he was fired from the New York Times for being a creationist, but one leftist blogger at Businessinsider.com contends that it was just because Stein is conservative.  Kansas teacher Tim Latham was fired for being a conservative.   And now Rush is the latest to be on the receiving end of this leftist discrimination.  But you will never see Congressional Democrats adding conservatives to the hate crimes protected groups list.

Rush Limbaugh said on his program today that he probably wasn’t going to sue over this because he has never conducted himself or his business that way.  I would caution Rush that when he is discriminated against in this way, he does not just represent himself.  He represents every outspoken conservative in America.  When Rush is denied this opportunity solely because of his conservative values, we are all denied.

Do you think I’m wrong here?  Leave me a comment.  I think this is a very serious issue that in the long run could affect every outspoken, freedom loving conservative.


Share This Blog

Bookmark and Share

Categories