You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Conservatives’ category.

 “A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. And a recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his.”

– Ronald Reagan

Might we be saying something similar in 2012?


In the last article, I touched briefly on the natural law/perpetuation argument of why Proposition 8 is logical. A well-meaning comment shifted my plan for Part II, redirecting me to elaborate here on the “due process” argument. The Prop 8 opponents here suffer from another logical fallacy, that of over-generalization. I’ll boil it down.

Here’s the background to understand the marriage argument. Back several years ago, a group of physicians and terminally ill patients in Washington sought for the Supreme Court of the United States to declare that the patients had a constitutional right for the physician to intentionally prescribe them an overdose of drugs to facilitate ending their lives. The question they offered to the court was whether they had a constitutional right to determine how to end their life.  The case was Washington v. Glucksberg.

The court already had process for dealing with those claims to “rights.” They ask two questions: first, is the alleged “right” properly defined; second, is the alleged “right” deeply rooted in the history and tradition of our nation. As for the patients, the court concluded that the “right” was properly defined as the “right to physician-assisted suicide.” The court remarked that yes, defining it properly has a lot to do with the outcome. It referenced the Dred Scott decision, remarking that in order to avoid the narrow preliminary question of “can one person ‘own’ another,” the pro-slavery folks asked the court “Can the court interfere with someone’s property rights.” When viewed this broad, surely the chance for a successful attack was minimized.

Prop 8’s opponents presented a similar strategy. Instead of “can a person marry another person of the same sex,” the appropriately narrow question, they have expanded it against any attack by describing it as “the right to marry a person of one’s choosing.”  More on this later.

This segues into the second question: is the alleged “right” is deeply rooted in the history and tradition of our nation? The answer here is categorically no. Gay marriage is a recent fad. The historical record is absent of the right to marry a person of the same sex.
And the state has made exceptions since the beginning of our nation’s history, as noted in Part I: blood relationship (commonly referred to as “consanguinity” in legal jargon); consent; and age (children or folks generally under 18, or 16 with parental consent—referred to as “infancy” in legal jargon). Why can’t sex be a defining characteristic?  (To be addressed in Part III).

But back to the alleged “right” again as defined by Prop 8 opponents, the “right to marry a person of one’s choosing.” If this really was the question, and no further analysis was required, what could possibly not be encompassed within that definition? Nothing, really.

“[You should] fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage entirely. The most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake is to transform the notion of ‘family’ entirely.”
— Homosexual Activist Michelangelo Signorile, “Bridal Wave,” OUT, December 1993 – January 1994.


“[We] will dethrone the traditional family based on blood relationships in favor of the families we choose.”
— Homosexual Activist William Eskridge, “The Case for Same-Sex Marriage,” 1996.

And that’s the unstated goal—the right to make a family of whatever composition desired.  This notion sounds like true “freedom.”  But what is freedom?  Does freedom involve knowledge?  For example, I can opine all day long about the politics of, say, Nicaragua, but the more I actually know about Central American politics, factually, the “less” free I am to say whatever willy-nilly thought comes to mind and the more constrained I am by the truth.  With marriage, it is no different.  The less I understand about marriage, I can claim any intrusion upon the free ability to marry anyone is unjustified.  The more I know, however, about the function of a family, why a family exists, what the purpose of a family is, the less able I am to freely redefine its structure.  Once the qualities and attributes of a family are known, then one can see why true freedom is best served by Prop 8, a freedom addressed in the California Constitution: to “secure and perpetuate [freedom’s] blessings,” given by God.

Part III will discuss the the functions and qualities of a family and how Prop 8 is suitable to perpetuate freedom’s blessings within that context.

As all conservatives are aware, a problem has developed within the Republican Senate delegation. Well three problems actually: Senators Arlen Specter (PA), Olympia Snowe (ME), and Susan Collins (ME). Senator Specter has the distinction of being first up on the election ballot in 2010 of these three.

When the conservative movement was in its darkest hour, needing direction from its shrinking leadership in Washington the most, the 79-year old Specter failed to answer the call. Specter’s brand of mushy “go along to get along” Republicanism is precisely the type which ensures a minority position in government. Specter is the kid on the school yard who had his lunch taken away, and decided to buddy up with the bully rather than punch the bully squarely in the mouth. In other words, lacking in spine and leadership.

As in the movie “A Knight’s Tale,” Senator Specter has been weighed, measured, and found wanting. To be sure, this is not meant to be a judgment of his personal character, rather his political character. For that reason, Senator Specter MUST and likely will be forced into retirement by the RNC during his primary campaign.

Who’s the man to accept the challenge? Pat Toomey.

Toomey was a U.S. House Representative for the 15th district of Pennsylvania from 1999 until 2005. He ousted the incumbent Democrat, Paul McHale, Jr., by ten percentage points to gain this position. In 2004, he challenged Specter in the Republican primary and narrowly lost with 49.18% of the vote. This after then-President George W. Bush and then-Senator Rick Santorum closed ranks and endorsed Specter.

Since January 2005, Toomey has served as President of the Club for Growth, a 501(c)(4) political organization and PAC which funds the campaigns of various conservatives across the nation.

When examining Toomey’s voting record, several things of note jump out.
He is a strong supporter of:
1. expanding economic development and free trade;
2. prayer in public schools;
3. privatizing social security;
4. school vouchers;
5. tough criminal sentences;
6. second amendment gun ownership;
7. lower taxes; and
8. military spending.

He is a strong opponent of:
1. abortion;
2. expanding healthcare entitlement programs;
3. relaxed enforcement of immigration laws; and
4. UN approval for military action.

He is scored by several special interests as follows:
– 72% by CATO Institute for pro-free trade record;
– 100% by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) for protecting legal immigration;
– 80% by the National Taxpayers Union (NTU) for protecting taxpayers;
– “A” by the NRA for second amendment gun ownership protection;
– 17% by the National Education Association for voting against the interests of teachers unions;
– 100% by the Christian Coalition for pro-family voting record;
– 0% by NARAL for voting against pro-abortion interests.

This is a record that conservatives can get behind. If he does decide to enter the fray and run for Specter’s Senate seat, he can expect support from all over the nation. Including this author.

Here is where Bob Riley explains the Stimulus money Alabama is taking. He has rejected much too, just like Jindal. Click Here.

Also, folks, Another STIMULUS is on the way!!!

I am not surprised that Ms. McCain doesn’t like Ann Coulter…Coulter has been less than kind about her father. I will forego any personal attack against Ms. McCain, I find it meritless (although she is quickly making herself a public figure). I also agree with Ms. McCain that the Republican party is “unhip,” but would disregard making any personal insult to Donny Osmond. Further to suggest that Obama is the “hippest” politician is hysterical. You mean more hip than…Oh wait, I’m pretty sure it’s easy to have that role. Instead of “hip,” can we have “experienced,” “competent,” more than just “present?”

Where I will contend with Ms. McCain is her suggestion that Ann Coulter is embarrassing to Republican women. I will refine Ms. McCain’s statement and suggest (actually outright state) that Coulter is a biting satirist, and certainly not for the sensitive palate. I will also state that Coulter is not a Republican woman, although she leans to voting Republican. Further, as I have defended Rush Limbaugh’s life, I will too defend Coulter.

Coulter is less insulting than Jeanine Garafalo, far more accurate in her statement, and definitely more qualified, having graduated from the University of Michigan Law School, and sitting on law Review. Her work is impeccably cited. Coulter is also a champion of hardcore free speech, I think given this credential, and her rise to stardom despite the censorship of the media, she is largely the reason people like Senator McCain EVER even had a voice (and I trust she will ignore Ms. McCain’s attempted snipe).

I expect that Ms. McCain is trying to make a name for herself, not too different from her Father (being a darling of the liberals, nearly a lapdog). I hope that she will refrain from gaining this name by putting down public figures who worked their way to the top, and didn’t have a public figure as a father, and therefore didn’t ride coattails. The ONLY reason Ms. McCain gets in the spotlight is because of her father, and because she is going against the grain of conservatism (but not her father).

Way to take the road MOST travelled Ms. McCain…unlike Ann. No matter what you think of Coulter, you can’t deny she sticks to her guns. Can you imagine what a SUPERSTAR Coulter would have been if she was liberal? Her attacks would have been spotlighted at the Oscars, and she would have been NYTimes Chief Editor.

Thank God Coulter took the road less travelled.

“This just in, Obama lifted the George Bush ban on stem cell research…and now Obama really did make people like Christopher Reid walk! Get your lollipop on the way out!”

Ladies and Gentlemen, doesn’t that sound fantastic?! But hey, we left out something…Embryonic stem cells, research that has NEVER generated a cure (as opposed to adult stem cells), and…its on EMBRYOS…a.k.a. experimenting on Unborn Children! I would bet that most people would not support someone harvesting an unborn child to experiment on them…as it flies in the face of the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for that unborn child, but unfortunately, we are LOSING THE P.R. WAR.

Other than our “Navy Seals” on the conservative front: Coulter, Limbaugh, etc, there are few people that are even taking on the P.R. War (Breitbart has at least been giving it a try with Big Hollywood), and as a result, we lose. Let me clarify the point. When I talk to some conservatives, they say (as we had one comment on a recent article) that we are no longer intellectual because we have Sean Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh, and Beck. Three words: Krauthammer, George Will, and Fr. Neuhaus what we actually have is both a popular and intellectual voice, which is a great thing. I’ll go further.

Recently I attended a symposium where some very intelligent liberals spoke. Afterwards the audience talked about how wordy and confusing their discussions were. Very true. Academics speaks to a certain taste, and popular speaks to another. And guess what?! Entertainment speaks to another. We as conservatives have GOT to understand the power of entertainment, the popular voice, the common understanding. STOP just saying “low taxes,” and start saying, “We have a lot of people that need relief, that need the burden of taxes off of them. We need to cut more than income taxes, so the family next door has more to put on the table…” STOP saying “We don’t need Universal Healthcare,” and DO say “We need healthcare for everyone, and we will do it this way: we’ll give hospitals easy paths to construction, and simplify insurance by streamlining regulations.”

And when Obama has a crowd together to applaud experimenting on unborn children, let’s understand the power of the audience. Remember, Obama ONLY had 52% of the vote against a very weak candidate. People do not love him like the media is saying, but we have GOT to provide an alternative.

We’ve been hearing a lot about Rahm Emanuel, James Carville, and Rush Limbaugh. Let me give you another side:

You probably know the background. Emanuel and Carville found a poll that asserted Limbaugh had a low approval rating. As a result, they decided to peg Limbaugh as the head of the Republican party. That’s the front story. For your entertainment, and possibly insight, let me provide an alternative story.

Limbaugh, contrary to the popular shouting, is brilliant. Regardless of one’s opinion on his politics, there is little doubt that Limbaugh is one of the greatest marketers of all time. He’s also the greatest radio personality of all time…and has 40+ years experience (we’re looking at Jonathan Krohn to take his place). Bottom Line: He doesn’t just walk into traps, especially by people like James Carville.

Further, his soundbyte didn’t come off the radio (the “I want him to fail” soundbyte). Nope. It came off an interview with Sean Hannity. Notably, Limbaugh NEVER does interviews. He did a few radio spots during the election, but he really leaves it to the radio show.

In my mind, it looks like he baited the liberals, and in the process, placed conservative values at the forefront of Republican politics…leading people to ask the question, “Is Limbaugh the leader of the Republican party?” and leaving Michael Steele to unfortunately put his foot in his mouth. This left Limbaugh with no other choice than to bite back. But I don’t think this is a bad thing.

The result was not that Limbaugh became the face of the Republican party, but instead reasserted his place as head of the conservative movement. But more happened: the Conservative movement was pushed to the forefront of the Republican party…finally. That wasn’t intentional by Rush (along with a skyrocket in his ratings)? Yeah and George Soros is broke.

All this calculated effort by conservatives just might get the Republicans back in power…again. Hopefully they’ll not make fun of us this time.

Jindal nails an interview with Time Magazine. You’ve got to watch this. It’s why people are talking about him for President.

Apparently, democratic operatives, despite our crisis, have enough extra time to conspire against private citizens.

Read about it, click here
And here, click here

At a family gathering this past weekend I encountered, as one does with family gatherings, a variety of viewpoints from folks spread across the nation. It provides a chance to avoid the vicious intellectual laziness which often plagues conservatives who are not challenged.

The topic of discussion centered on Obama’s economic plan, and  I said that I couldn’t support Obama’s economic plan and expected it to fail. He responded, “Don’t you want him to succeed?!” Knowing that I gladly confess to the lordship of Christ over my life, he expected my undying support for our nation’s leader.  But God does not only call us to love with all our heart, but also with all our mind.

And so, at that moment, a blisteringly true analogy arose in my mind and I said this:
Suppose that I borrowed 500 large [$500,000] from a loan shark named Knuckles, and I have two options. Option 1 is that I can save and budget and pay it of little by little. Option 2 is to pay it off in one lump sum. If I choose Option 1, I must be faithful to do it over the next several years and it won’t come due for a while. If I choose Option 2, it comes due tomorrow.

Then I see a man who has a small concrete pit. He claims he’s trying to pound this lead into gold to pay my debt. He says “Choose Option 2, because if I’ll pound this lead long enough, it will turn into gold.”  Should I praise the guy’s efforts and refuse Option 1 in the hopes that Option 2 will suddenly prove to be a great success? Surely not, especially if I want Knuckes the loan shark not to break my legs!

Let’s review the historical record and see how Obama’s plan, deficit spending, has as much of a chance to save our economy as pounding lead to turn it into gold:

Keynesian economists (those who believe you can “deficit spend” and “jumpstart” the economy) have been rescued twice in the times it has been tried, but by private enterprise. The inflation begun in FDR’s programs was held at bay by the massive private enterprise which took off during WWII. Then we had a huge military industrial market that had nowhere to go after WWII. We maintained this and it somewhat staved off the effects of the weakened dollar, but not for long, because LBJ came in and offered the socialist “Great Society”, where we would declare war on hunger. He put tons of funding into government programs, and with the withdrawal from Vietnam in later years, we were left with climbing inflation and a bad economy. This resulted in Carter, who proposed exactly what Obama’s suggesting.

Carter’s choice was so wrong that he earned his own economic vocabulary term, stagflation. It nearly killed us because we really had no engagement of private enterprise to compensate for the fallacious Keynsian premises of Carter’s bailout.

Reagan took over and went full-out on the USSR, which staved the decline of the dollar. With the collapse of the USSR, and George H.W. Bush’s drawdown of the military, we lost the private enterprise directed at military Cold War spending which was keeping us afloat, a floatation which, in WWII and the Cold War, had masked the effects of the inherent fallacy of “government spending to rescue an economy.”  Thus, we were set up for Clinton’s “It’s the economy, stupid” where he could point out the failing value of the dollar and blame it on conservative policies, when in reality it was bloated gov’t spending that had created the hole and private enterprise which had historically kept us from sinking any lower.

Now, we have Obama wanting to do the same thing: deficit spend, and on top of that he wants to pass huge taxes on corporate America, the only group which kept us financially stable during the previous failed attempts to do the same. I suggest that this is alchemy—hoping for something that can’t possibly work, with real consequences coming down the road, not just from Knuckles the loan shark, but from the generations to come.

Of course, then, I shouldn’t give Obama points for trying something that has no possibility of working, but I should stand firmly to convince him and others in the liberal leadership to change course, to promote the free market, and give up dreams of fixing this problem with the futility of deficit spending.