Monday, June 30, 2008
Sunday, June 22, 2008
The Tempting of Conservatism
Before beginning, I have to apologize for the break in the posting routine...it's been a hectic couple of days...
------------------------------
"Government is the problem, not the solution." Ronald Reagan.
This is my personal political principle just as it is for many of you and others around the world.
Government is the problem, not the solution
When the husband of our governor has three assistants; their six-digit salaries funded with workingman's dollars.
Government is the problem, not the solution
When an industry is collapsing and the ruling party just watches it...eating the taxpayers' popcorn and drinking the taxpayers' wine.
Government is the problem, not the solution
When people marry for taxes' sake
Government is the problem, not the solution
When they build dams and decide they hurt salmon and add a $200billion salmon transportation system involving ever-moving trucks and miles of tubing. Now the environmentalists now say to tear it all down.
Government is the problem, not the solution
When the owner of a small business collapses at home, his forehead wrinkled and sagging from stress of the murderous weight of the Single Business Tax.
Government is the problem, not the solution
When ships bottom out in Lake Michigan ports because the federal government decided to pump millions of gallons from the Great Lakes down to the desert.
Government is the problem, not the solution
When politicians create a war with good intentions but horrible conduct until the coming of the Great General
Government is the problem, not the solution
When packs of inner city men are driven by welfare into warfare.
Government is the problem, not the solution
When they spends half a billion dollars of our money on the failed Arab outreach TV station "Alhurra."
Government is the problem, not the solution
When humanity is forced to endure the silent screams of the unborn because five people, thirty years ago thought they could play God.
Government is the problem not the solution
Because governments have never done anything both efficiently and morally correct. Never.
So I ask: why should we trust them with our health care? Why should we not limit their terms and their salaries? Washington is broken. The list above continues infinately. Herbert Hoover said
Government is the problem, not the solution. They are not hostile to the bureaucracy's corrupting influence. They seek not to slash its creeping, strangling vines. The auto, oil, and airline industries are strangled; health care is going: what's next? The call is to resist:
------------------------------
"Government is the problem, not the solution." Ronald Reagan.
This is my personal political principle just as it is for many of you and others around the world.
Government is the problem, not the solution
When the husband of our governor has three assistants; their six-digit salaries funded with workingman's dollars.
Government is the problem, not the solution
When an industry is collapsing and the ruling party just watches it...eating the taxpayers' popcorn and drinking the taxpayers' wine.
Government is the problem, not the solution
When people marry for taxes' sake
Government is the problem, not the solution
When they build dams and decide they hurt salmon and add a $200billion salmon transportation system involving ever-moving trucks and miles of tubing. Now the environmentalists now say to tear it all down.
Government is the problem, not the solution
When the owner of a small business collapses at home, his forehead wrinkled and sagging from stress of the murderous weight of the Single Business Tax.
Government is the problem, not the solution
When ships bottom out in Lake Michigan ports because the federal government decided to pump millions of gallons from the Great Lakes down to the desert.
Government is the problem, not the solution
When politicians create a war with good intentions but horrible conduct until the coming of the Great General
Government is the problem, not the solution
When packs of inner city men are driven by welfare into warfare.
Government is the problem, not the solution
When they spends half a billion dollars of our money on the failed Arab outreach TV station "Alhurra."
Government is the problem, not the solution
When humanity is forced to endure the silent screams of the unborn because five people, thirty years ago thought they could play God.
Government is the problem not the solution
Because governments have never done anything both efficiently and morally correct. Never.
So I ask: why should we trust them with our health care? Why should we not limit their terms and their salaries? Washington is broken. The list above continues infinately. Herbert Hoover said
Every expansion of government in business means that government, in order to protect itself from the political consequences of its errors and wrongs, is driven irresistibly, without peace, to greater and greater control of the nation's press and platform. Free speech does not live many hours after free industry and free commerce die.This is a true conservative principle. The Tempting of Conservatism comes in the form of the ideology of two men: George W. Bush and John McCain. These men are good conservatives socially. Politically, though, they seek and have sought to redefine what it means to be a conservative.
Government is the problem, not the solution. They are not hostile to the bureaucracy's corrupting influence. They seek not to slash its creeping, strangling vines. The auto, oil, and airline industries are strangled; health care is going: what's next? The call is to resist:
I am first and foremost an Christian. Second, I am an American. Third, a Conservative. Fourth, a Republican. I will never betray my principles, I will never give up my belief in God. Government will not be the master of my thoughts, it will not be the master of my soul. I am not behind John McCain.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Concerning Race
Nearing the end of the school year, I was asked to by a first year teacher to attend a class discussion on politics. The class, Modern World History, was your typical rabble of politically indoctrinated public school attendees (the topic of the day was "Is religious involvement in government Fascist?" My response was "No, it is Fascist when what you believe becomes political.") that enjoyed another with an opinion differing from their teacher's. So, the discussion gradually came to race.
Many of the people reading will already understand my take on race. Many will have a partial take or no take at all; for all of them, I'll detail why I'm right :) . I am not a racist. Why? Because I do not recognize race itself. The fact stands that creating racial differences for whatever reason is racism, oppressive, prejudiced, and non-Christian.
The question I asked the Modern World History class was this: "Name for me the differences between what society considers a 'black man' and what society considers a 'white man.'" One sheepish student raised his hand and said something to the effect of "their previous condition of servitude" (obviously citing the Constitution). To this I responded, "find me one living former slave" and proceeded to pose the question again. A few moments' silence brought me to announce, "It's okay to say it, our politicians and bureaucrats recognize it. The difference is skin color." I continued, "And that is inherently racist, is it not?" (Some nods at this point) "Sure there are stats out there that tell us that 'blacks' commit more crimes and are more likely to be poor and drop out of high school. My answer is simple: so? Do all 'blacks' drop out and break the law? No. Do all 'whites' stay in school and within bounds of the law? No. So why not aim your programs at addressing groups as to their exploits and not their race?"
The reason is that the Democratic Party will not give up these divisions. Who's establishment has made a huge fuss about Obama's father being from Kenya? The liberal one. They've done this because they benefit from it. By making one candidate "this" and the other "this", you have all of "these" people voting for the one that you say is like them, and all of "these" people voting for the one you say is like them. It's a form of 'class' warfare. Typical tactics from those who have been infected by a socialist base. This division is seen in a short exchange I had with the teacher of this class...
"This is the kicker," I said to the class and paused for a moment, "Nigger." Immediately the teacher attempted to deter me from continuing. In response I asked, "Why is this word considered offensive?" No hands. "C'mon, why?" Still none, "It's because you've been told it's to be considered offensive. Is this offensive: you are all hermeneutics?" I pointed at one kid, "Is it?" His response was that he had no clue what the word meant. "Of course, so how can it be offensive? Would you find the word 'Nigger' offensive if the media, your teachers, and society as a whole didn't tell you it was to be? The answer's obviously no."
At this point the teacher interjected, "Regardless, it is still offensive and if you screamed it on my doorstep, I'd hide behind the nearest couch." It was perfect. The racism brought on by liberal divisiveness right there against my presentation.
I retorted, "That's the kind of racism I'm talking about. By saying that, it reveals that you think that what you consider the 'black community' is violent and destructive. Barbaric, even. Lesser than you?" Granted, this was putting words in his mouth, but hey, it's what you do in a political discussion.
Continuing where I left off, "The message I really just want to get across that race is a fabricated separation. The Bible tells us that all people on all shores are of one blood, and that is the blood of Christ." Acts 17:26 and Romans 12:5, if you're interested. "Outside the medical field, race doesn't exist. Government shouldn't involve race in anything. In our lives we shouldn't bind others in the chains of racial classification. Regardless from where our parents, grandparents, or great-grandparents came from, we are all Americans and should be seen by each other as that and only that. Any questions?"
This is all from memory about an event about a month ago. Needless to say, he didn't invite me back. Also, please leave comments on what you think of this entry. I know at least some people read it and it is time we started some discussion.
Any questions?
Many of the people reading will already understand my take on race. Many will have a partial take or no take at all; for all of them, I'll detail why I'm right :) . I am not a racist. Why? Because I do not recognize race itself. The fact stands that creating racial differences for whatever reason is racism, oppressive, prejudiced, and non-Christian.
The question I asked the Modern World History class was this: "Name for me the differences between what society considers a 'black man' and what society considers a 'white man.'" One sheepish student raised his hand and said something to the effect of "their previous condition of servitude" (obviously citing the Constitution). To this I responded, "find me one living former slave" and proceeded to pose the question again. A few moments' silence brought me to announce, "It's okay to say it, our politicians and bureaucrats recognize it. The difference is skin color." I continued, "And that is inherently racist, is it not?" (Some nods at this point) "Sure there are stats out there that tell us that 'blacks' commit more crimes and are more likely to be poor and drop out of high school. My answer is simple: so? Do all 'blacks' drop out and break the law? No. Do all 'whites' stay in school and within bounds of the law? No. So why not aim your programs at addressing groups as to their exploits and not their race?"
The reason is that the Democratic Party will not give up these divisions. Who's establishment has made a huge fuss about Obama's father being from Kenya? The liberal one. They've done this because they benefit from it. By making one candidate "this" and the other "this", you have all of "these" people voting for the one that you say is like them, and all of "these" people voting for the one you say is like them. It's a form of 'class' warfare. Typical tactics from those who have been infected by a socialist base. This division is seen in a short exchange I had with the teacher of this class...
"This is the kicker," I said to the class and paused for a moment, "Nigger." Immediately the teacher attempted to deter me from continuing. In response I asked, "Why is this word considered offensive?" No hands. "C'mon, why?" Still none, "It's because you've been told it's to be considered offensive. Is this offensive: you are all hermeneutics?" I pointed at one kid, "Is it?" His response was that he had no clue what the word meant. "Of course, so how can it be offensive? Would you find the word 'Nigger' offensive if the media, your teachers, and society as a whole didn't tell you it was to be? The answer's obviously no."
At this point the teacher interjected, "Regardless, it is still offensive and if you screamed it on my doorstep, I'd hide behind the nearest couch." It was perfect. The racism brought on by liberal divisiveness right there against my presentation.
I retorted, "That's the kind of racism I'm talking about. By saying that, it reveals that you think that what you consider the 'black community' is violent and destructive. Barbaric, even. Lesser than you?" Granted, this was putting words in his mouth, but hey, it's what you do in a political discussion.
Continuing where I left off, "The message I really just want to get across that race is a fabricated separation. The Bible tells us that all people on all shores are of one blood, and that is the blood of Christ." Acts 17:26 and Romans 12:5, if you're interested. "Outside the medical field, race doesn't exist. Government shouldn't involve race in anything. In our lives we shouldn't bind others in the chains of racial classification. Regardless from where our parents, grandparents, or great-grandparents came from, we are all Americans and should be seen by each other as that and only that. Any questions?"
This is all from memory about an event about a month ago. Needless to say, he didn't invite me back. Also, please leave comments on what you think of this entry. I know at least some people read it and it is time we started some discussion.
Any questions?
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Allegan County State Rep Primary
There are currently eight candidates vying for the Republican nomination here in the 88th. Click the candidates' names to be taken to their websites...
Boorsma, Todd - Business manager and former head of MichGO, an anti-gambling group. He's pro-life, pro-2nd, conservative on the economy, and pro-Christian value system in schools. He has the endorsement of Fulton Sheen, the incumbent rep, and has lied about having the endorsement of Jack Hoogendyk, a conservative state rep. Rumors persist that 80% of his $$funding$$ comes out of Kent County from people seeking to control the 88th's seat in the House.
My Take: There is a slogan on the homepage that scares me a bit, "Todd believes we have the people...the government needs to develop this environment.", which tells me that he seeks to employ the government and make it more involved.
Edgerton, Shelly - Attorney for the politicians in Lansing, she has numerous political accomplishments already. Shelly wants to "reform" the "tax and regulatory structure" to create a business friendly state, make health care affordable and reduce politicians benefits, make education affordable (at HHS it's advertised as 'free education'), and claims a few conservative values.
My Take: Well...she's done a lot...this also makes her an insider. She seems to know the political game pretty well and, like Boorsma, seems to be okay with government being large. There's a line "Government must live within it's means" on the website that, like Boorsma's, scares me a bit. She says nothing of actually eliminating taxes or reducing the size of government itself.
Label: Insider
Farnsworth, Jeff - This is the only candidate who has actually made a specific, issues based campaign direct to the taxpayer. Though he looks a little fruity, he logs soundly conservative positions on just about everything. The only quirk is that he subscribes to the emerging Environmental Stewardship camp...people who are pro-environment but not Environmentalists. He has the language of someone who is truly for "freedom of the community" .
My Take: I like everything he's got to say. He seems to have the drive to do something about Lansing and make Michigan less like California and Massachusetts, less Blue, and more like the successful states.
Galligan, William D. - Mr. Galligan is the kind of blue-blood, country club Republican liberal we are fighting against. He's an environmentalist, for government involvement in forcing upon us high speed internet, against smoking freedom, for the casino, and to top it all off: he's pro-choice and GAY!
My Take: This one just shows you that not even Allegan County's GOP isnt impervious to these guys.
Genetski, Bob - He's pro-life, pro-business, for "restructuring universities to reduce tuition costs", for eliminating the income tax on senior citizens, and (the best yet) anti-tax. Your quintessential conservative. This candidate is the only one to talk about the college tuition problem. He's also the only one to directly attack liberalism in our state, saying that "Liberals claim that 'we have programs to help the disadvantaged.' After eight years of working day to day with some of those who are trapped in poverty, I can adamantly tell people that nothing helps the poor like a strong economy."
My Take: He seems like he's the most in touch and much less focused on expediency than the others. A real conservative with real, non-political experience.
Leatherman, Joshua - He lists strong conservative points on just about everything. A business owner from our county he seems to understand the plight of small businesses in Michigan. The other candidates do not speak of globalization at all but Leatherman speaks of it extensively. He advertises embracing it and melding our economic policies around it. Talks about decentralization of government and more privatization.
My Take: I see a conflict between his decentralization wish and the state-level policy making needed to enjoy globalization. His ideas look as if he wants the localities to pick up the cost for the decentralized state programs and then have the state divert that money to picking up globalization and helping out businesses. In my mind, his ideology is shady when it comes to actually eliminating government and making free people.
Moore, Spencer - At the moment, he's the Leighton Township Supervisor and has been for the past four years. He takes a strong position against the conduct of the Lansing politicians and vows to not be absorbed into their mindset. He has written extensively on economic issues but says nothing about those pesky little social ones.
My Take: For all we know, he could be as radically pro-abortion as Obama and his partial-birth bills.
THE DEMOCRAT (yes, there's only one...)
Clark, Tom - I think he understands that he's probably going to lose and his website has gone without being updated since March 4. He hasnt declared money...or anything.
Need I give my take?: Typical Dem fashion: dont disclose anything and hope your pretty words and skin color will get you elected.
Who Will I Be Voting For? Bob Genetski. Why? He is the kind of hostile-to-government candidate I think we need. He's nice in person, insightful, and would make an all-around great candidate.
Who will you vote for?
Boorsma, Todd - Business manager and former head of MichGO, an anti-gambling group. He's pro-life, pro-2nd, conservative on the economy, and pro-Christian value system in schools. He has the endorsement of Fulton Sheen, the incumbent rep, and has lied about having the endorsement of Jack Hoogendyk, a conservative state rep. Rumors persist that 80% of his $$funding$$ comes out of Kent County from people seeking to control the 88th's seat in the House.
My Take: There is a slogan on the homepage that scares me a bit, "Todd believes we have the people...the government needs to develop this environment.", which tells me that he seeks to employ the government and make it more involved.
Edgerton, Shelly - Attorney for the politicians in Lansing, she has numerous political accomplishments already. Shelly wants to "reform" the "tax and regulatory structure" to create a business friendly state, make health care affordable and reduce politicians benefits, make education affordable (at HHS it's advertised as 'free education'), and claims a few conservative values.
My Take: Well...she's done a lot...this also makes her an insider. She seems to know the political game pretty well and, like Boorsma, seems to be okay with government being large. There's a line "Government must live within it's means" on the website that, like Boorsma's, scares me a bit. She says nothing of actually eliminating taxes or reducing the size of government itself.
Label: Insider
Farnsworth, Jeff - This is the only candidate who has actually made a specific, issues based campaign direct to the taxpayer. Though he looks a little fruity, he logs soundly conservative positions on just about everything. The only quirk is that he subscribes to the emerging Environmental Stewardship camp...people who are pro-environment but not Environmentalists. He has the language of someone who is truly for "freedom of the community" .
My Take: I like everything he's got to say. He seems to have the drive to do something about Lansing and make Michigan less like California and Massachusetts, less Blue, and more like the successful states.
Galligan, William D. - Mr. Galligan is the kind of blue-blood, country club Republican liberal we are fighting against. He's an environmentalist, for government involvement in forcing upon us high speed internet, against smoking freedom, for the casino, and to top it all off: he's pro-choice and GAY!
My Take: This one just shows you that not even Allegan County's GOP isnt impervious to these guys.
Genetski, Bob - He's pro-life, pro-business, for "restructuring universities to reduce tuition costs", for eliminating the income tax on senior citizens, and (the best yet) anti-tax. Your quintessential conservative. This candidate is the only one to talk about the college tuition problem. He's also the only one to directly attack liberalism in our state, saying that "Liberals claim that 'we have programs to help the disadvantaged.' After eight years of working day to day with some of those who are trapped in poverty, I can adamantly tell people that nothing helps the poor like a strong economy."
My Take: He seems like he's the most in touch and much less focused on expediency than the others. A real conservative with real, non-political experience.
Leatherman, Joshua - He lists strong conservative points on just about everything. A business owner from our county he seems to understand the plight of small businesses in Michigan. The other candidates do not speak of globalization at all but Leatherman speaks of it extensively. He advertises embracing it and melding our economic policies around it. Talks about decentralization of government and more privatization.
My Take: I see a conflict between his decentralization wish and the state-level policy making needed to enjoy globalization. His ideas look as if he wants the localities to pick up the cost for the decentralized state programs and then have the state divert that money to picking up globalization and helping out businesses. In my mind, his ideology is shady when it comes to actually eliminating government and making free people.
Moore, Spencer - At the moment, he's the Leighton Township Supervisor and has been for the past four years. He takes a strong position against the conduct of the Lansing politicians and vows to not be absorbed into their mindset. He has written extensively on economic issues but says nothing about those pesky little social ones.
My Take: For all we know, he could be as radically pro-abortion as Obama and his partial-birth bills.
THE DEMOCRAT (yes, there's only one...)
Clark, Tom - I think he understands that he's probably going to lose and his website has gone without being updated since March 4. He hasnt declared money...or anything.
Need I give my take?: Typical Dem fashion: dont disclose anything and hope your pretty words and skin color will get you elected.
Who Will I Be Voting For? Bob Genetski. Why? He is the kind of hostile-to-government candidate I think we need. He's nice in person, insightful, and would make an all-around great candidate.
Who will you vote for?
Saturday, June 14, 2008
The Religion of Liberalism, Pt. 1: Absolute Right
We, as human beings, ask many questions and attempt to garner substantive answers through deduction. This is science. I recently found an ad in a Lefty propaganda magazine attempting to portray itself as a scientific journal. The magazine is titled "Discover" and has, over the years, gradually devolved in little more than a tabloid-like Liberal tool. I subscribe to it because 1. its main readership is in California, and 2. it gives shreds of arguments mocking the format of talk radio. The particular ad published is for the Alpha Publishing House and based around what a man, Richard W. Wetherill, wrote awhile back.
***Note, Wetherill was one of the most prominent socialist theorists in his time. The Alpha Publishing House markets his works not as socialist print rags but as real books on how to run your life.
The headline of the ad states: "Picture a society in which there is no conflict, no jealousy, no unkind words. A society in which people think, say, and dowhat is rational and honest, resulting in behavior that is trustworthy and productive." The full-page text underneath details the underlying theory, called the Law of Absolute Right, which is based on the assumption that nothing in today's society is 'right' and that it's the fault of "mankind's teachings, religions, [and] governments." They say that these institutions have created the "societal chaos" which, in turn, has led to punishments, scoldings, sickness, death, pollution, unemployment, conflict, poverty, crime, locks on doors, addictions, the "tyranny of judgment and prejudice," and the kicker: deprivation. It states that the answer is adhering to their law, rebuking all other beliefs but that of their form of 'science', and, thus, becoming one of the "survivors who brings to fruition a perfectly performing society."
It's a religion! People actually believe this. Liberals believe this. If you're saying now, "Well, Wicker, I just think that's a bit too much" just take into consideration what they want: "Change, change, change, change! Nothing going on now is good. Those in power are dishonest people that cheated to get where they are." They may not even know it themselves but modern liberalism implicitly is linked to this.
According to the ad, the original sin is obeying the status quo, following the way of the law of nature is the path to salvation, something will happen where only the faithful survive, and a "perfectly performing society."
This is why the liberal establishment is against any and all faith for it violates the rebuking of all "supernatural ideas" requirement for their salvation. Their radical base, shown for what they are in this ad, has infected the rest of what would otherwise be a good establishment with these principles. This religion is not the way of peace and harmony as they say, but of a world revolution where they kill us and win. It is a sick fantasy dreamed up by Karl Marx and extended by V. I. Lenin, defeated by Reagan and the spirit of America, and living on virally in today's society. Its followers have yet to be thrown out by the Democrat's leaders and many of them are embraced today by those such as Barack Hussein Obama (as he has a "friendly relationship"-Obama camp has said- with Bill Ayres, one of the Weatherman Underground).
It scares me so I thought I'd write a bit about it.
-----------
Note for future posts: I hope to do another Liberal Religion one and will get some data about the upcoming State Rep Election (Boorsma, Leatherman, Farnsworth) in the next few days.
***Note, Wetherill was one of the most prominent socialist theorists in his time. The Alpha Publishing House markets his works not as socialist print rags but as real books on how to run your life.
The headline of the ad states: "Picture a society in which there is no conflict, no jealousy, no unkind words. A society in which people think, say, and dowhat is rational and honest, resulting in behavior that is trustworthy and productive." The full-page text underneath details the underlying theory, called the Law of Absolute Right, which is based on the assumption that nothing in today's society is 'right' and that it's the fault of "mankind's teachings, religions, [and] governments." They say that these institutions have created the "societal chaos" which, in turn, has led to punishments, scoldings, sickness, death, pollution, unemployment, conflict, poverty, crime, locks on doors, addictions, the "tyranny of judgment and prejudice," and the kicker: deprivation. It states that the answer is adhering to their law, rebuking all other beliefs but that of their form of 'science', and, thus, becoming one of the "survivors who brings to fruition a perfectly performing society."
It's a religion! People actually believe this. Liberals believe this. If you're saying now, "Well, Wicker, I just think that's a bit too much" just take into consideration what they want: "Change, change, change, change! Nothing going on now is good. Those in power are dishonest people that cheated to get where they are." They may not even know it themselves but modern liberalism implicitly is linked to this.
According to the ad, the original sin is obeying the status quo, following the way of the law of nature is the path to salvation, something will happen where only the faithful survive, and a "perfectly performing society."
This is why the liberal establishment is against any and all faith for it violates the rebuking of all "supernatural ideas" requirement for their salvation. Their radical base, shown for what they are in this ad, has infected the rest of what would otherwise be a good establishment with these principles. This religion is not the way of peace and harmony as they say, but of a world revolution where they kill us and win. It is a sick fantasy dreamed up by Karl Marx and extended by V. I. Lenin, defeated by Reagan and the spirit of America, and living on virally in today's society. Its followers have yet to be thrown out by the Democrat's leaders and many of them are embraced today by those such as Barack Hussein Obama (as he has a "friendly relationship"-Obama camp has said- with Bill Ayres, one of the Weatherman Underground).
It scares me so I thought I'd write a bit about it.
-----------
Note for future posts: I hope to do another Liberal Religion one and will get some data about the upcoming State Rep Election (Boorsma, Leatherman, Farnsworth) in the next few days.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
The Abandonment
I say 'rebellion' because here I'll be discussing what is being left out on the general field as they unceasingly attack Obama. Many of the subjects may be reiterated behind a radio mic or on a television camera but this blog will customize the take on issues to show how they affect we the people and what we can do about them. So sit back and enjoy...
So what's happened??? The Republican Party is in shambles, loyalty is still high but the core principles have disappeared, they've nominated an uninspiring candidate not representing the base in any way, and Republicans across the nation in offices, elected by people wishing the government out of their lives, are expanding the bureaucracy. Many will blame this on the current President Bush.
During the Bush presidency we've seen everything from the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (which, following 9/11, I feel is needed) to the Medicare Prescription coverage expansion. The last time I checked, a $400billion entitlement expansion isn't the kind of conservatism Bush ran on in 2000. The whole compassionate conservatism thing was based on transferring government bureaucracy to private charity (based off the book 'Compassionate Conservatism' by Marvin Olasky). Frankly its plain frustrating when our politicians dont represent what we voted them in to do.
But I digress. I don't mean to tear down Bush too much: he's still... a good supporter of faith-based initiatives, got an iron backbone when it comes to the war, good on taxes, and good on NAFTA. I just mean to say that there are many instances in which the current administration has betrayed conservative principles. Now couple that with the current election situation and you generally have a frustrated base.
It's no secret that McCain is a lost soul, not a 'maverick', who can only inspire through fear. He's been bipartisan (which is to say, he's whored away his principles and given concessions to senate libs), he's been unifying (yes...again, concessions to libs), but these aren't the kind of traits that conservatives look for. We want an outsider who, like Bush, can stand strong with courage and create a majority. We see this in Mitt Romney: he's the kind of hostile-to-Washington candidate Reagan was.
A conservative who won the governorship of a liberal state. A conservative who was defeated by the same influence he seeks to end: the Washington culture. It is this culture that has tempted those that have betrayed our principles; we sent Bush there and they assimilated him. We sent a handful of Congresses there and they kept up the rhetoric of fiscal responsibility while allowing a spending spree on earmarks. This is why they lost in 2006: they ceased to be Republican conservatives.
So where are we now? I believe we have a decision to make. McCain is not our party leader. For the time that position is the President's. If McCain is to unexpectedly win in November, I will continue to remain loyal to Mitt. My leader will reflect my principles. I will not have a hero from a war two generations ago misrepresenting conservatism and changing the meaning of the word.
So what's happened??? The Republican Party is in shambles, loyalty is still high but the core principles have disappeared, they've nominated an uninspiring candidate not representing the base in any way, and Republicans across the nation in offices, elected by people wishing the government out of their lives, are expanding the bureaucracy. Many will blame this on the current President Bush.
During the Bush presidency we've seen everything from the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (which, following 9/11, I feel is needed) to the Medicare Prescription coverage expansion. The last time I checked, a $400billion entitlement expansion isn't the kind of conservatism Bush ran on in 2000. The whole compassionate conservatism thing was based on transferring government bureaucracy to private charity (based off the book 'Compassionate Conservatism' by Marvin Olasky). Frankly its plain frustrating when our politicians dont represent what we voted them in to do.
But I digress. I don't mean to tear down Bush too much: he's still... a good supporter of faith-based initiatives, got an iron backbone when it comes to the war, good on taxes, and good on NAFTA. I just mean to say that there are many instances in which the current administration has betrayed conservative principles. Now couple that with the current election situation and you generally have a frustrated base.
It's no secret that McCain is a lost soul, not a 'maverick', who can only inspire through fear. He's been bipartisan (which is to say, he's whored away his principles and given concessions to senate libs), he's been unifying (yes...again, concessions to libs), but these aren't the kind of traits that conservatives look for. We want an outsider who, like Bush, can stand strong with courage and create a majority. We see this in Mitt Romney: he's the kind of hostile-to-Washington candidate Reagan was.
A conservative who won the governorship of a liberal state. A conservative who was defeated by the same influence he seeks to end: the Washington culture. It is this culture that has tempted those that have betrayed our principles; we sent Bush there and they assimilated him. We sent a handful of Congresses there and they kept up the rhetoric of fiscal responsibility while allowing a spending spree on earmarks. This is why they lost in 2006: they ceased to be Republican conservatives.
So where are we now? I believe we have a decision to make. McCain is not our party leader. For the time that position is the President's. If McCain is to unexpectedly win in November, I will continue to remain loyal to Mitt. My leader will reflect my principles. I will not have a hero from a war two generations ago misrepresenting conservatism and changing the meaning of the word.
Hello
Conservababble, noun, any speech that is verbal, printed, or symbolic concerning how to achieve that which is Right, right, and good for America. See Ronald Wilson Reagan.
I feel that its time to give my two cents away to whoever will take them on this thing called the internet. I feel its time for change. I feel that many leaders on the Right have followed Bush's example and betrayed their principles and their followers. I feel its time for a little rebellion.
These leaders would not have us rebel. They would not have us fight and divide the Republican territory like gangs in Post-Katrina New Orleans. They fear Barack Hussein Obama. I, like Jefferson, hold that a little rebellion once in awhile is a good thing. That, after 28 years, the inherently good Republican establishment needs cleansing. Its time to burn down their cities. Shake things up a bit. We need to show them how to take back the political initiative of the age. How to be truly conservative again.
I hope to use this blog to generate some conservababble in the community surrounding me and, perhaps, the nation as a whole. Though the word may sound a little peculiar, the essence of the word is a grass-roots movement in the making. Join up, be a soldier in our little rebellion. What would Reagan do?
I feel that its time to give my two cents away to whoever will take them on this thing called the internet. I feel its time for change. I feel that many leaders on the Right have followed Bush's example and betrayed their principles and their followers. I feel its time for a little rebellion.
These leaders would not have us rebel. They would not have us fight and divide the Republican territory like gangs in Post-Katrina New Orleans. They fear Barack Hussein Obama. I, like Jefferson, hold that a little rebellion once in awhile is a good thing. That, after 28 years, the inherently good Republican establishment needs cleansing. Its time to burn down their cities. Shake things up a bit. We need to show them how to take back the political initiative of the age. How to be truly conservative again.
I hope to use this blog to generate some conservababble in the community surrounding me and, perhaps, the nation as a whole. Though the word may sound a little peculiar, the essence of the word is a grass-roots movement in the making. Join up, be a soldier in our little rebellion. What would Reagan do?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
