Conservatism

By Larry Bernard

When it comes to the politicians I want representing me you don't have to agree with me 70% of the time, you don't have to agree with me 60% of the time. But their are ten issues that to me Matter.

I: I Have the Freedom to Speak, and the Freedom to associate so long as I'm not undertaking criminal conduct:
The Constitution is pretty clear on this issue but Senators Obama and McCain both fail and fail broadly on this issue. McCain-Feingold, Restricting public speech, even meddling with baseball (If roids in baseball are a problem, its a crime let the DEA handle it). Neither of these men respect my right to speak (and how I choose to donate is my speech as well) or the freedom for me to associate and govern my free associations myself.
II: I have the Freedom to own and use a gun so long as I am not a criminal, mentally disabled, or unable to be legally responsible. So long as I am not using it in commission of a crime:
McCain gets a C on gun rights but unfortunately I use the system they use in Grad School where a C is really an F. The Only Solace is Senator Obama is so bad on Guns he has passed Regular F and is now a holder of The Super F
III:We do not Nationalize Health Care.
McCain gets a C on this issue for talk. But again a C is failing. When other Senators and Congressmen fight the political mythology on Health Care they speak of the actual health care crisis. Whats really going on wrong in the Health Care system. McCain just says "ummmm Free market solutions." its that half assed attitude which will lead to the ruin of what is good (and a lot is good) in American health care. Again like with Gun issues the only Solace for the McCain campaign is Obama has a Super F. Which is frightening because in the Primaries he just had a D
IV:Humanity should grow, not decline:
This is a larger critique of John McCain and the contemporary view on Global warming. Lets set asside the is it/Is it not real bit for a moment. Energy equals wealth in a nut shell. By saying that people in the West should have less energy consumption your saying their should be less wealth in the west. By saying people in the third world should not be allowed to grow their energy consumption your saying you should damn those people to poverty for generations. Thats at its core an idea which is so contrary to capitalism its rather Ruinous. On this Standard McCain actually has the Super F because he wants to make people fail more and Obama only has an F
V:The United States of America is great:
America is an exceptional nation in the world, and in human history. And because of the good it has done and the good it will do America Deserves the best defense through Hard and Soft Power it can get. Here John McCain actually gets a passing grade an A-. Obama however gets an F+ (and he teases at getting a D)
VI:People should be Free to spend their money.
Buisnesses, families, individuals. Government should tax them as little as possible:
 Due to the Global Warming plan and John McCain's attacking the Bush Tax Cuts when he needs the political points with the New York Times he gets a C on this issue. Which is failure. Obama gets an F+ only because on a recent CNBC interview I saw he said he might raise taxes, more/Less/or not at all then he has promised.
VII:Judges should be appointed that respect the constitution and the rule of law:
McCain gets a B- here. Its still passing but because he has shown contempt for the first and second Amendments and I doubt he will appoint judges who are any better then he is. Likewise his own I like Alito/no I don't talk. Here Obama gets an F- and he is teasing a Super F
VIII:So long as States aren't being stupid you should respect Federalism:
If your California with Pot and Gay Marriage, or Oregon with Euthanasia you lose this right. On this issue John McCain has a Solid A. And Obama gets a Solid D- (because he thinks its ok for it to happen when it can subvert the laws in other states.)
IX: Criminals should be Punished for breaking the law:
McCain gets an A- on this one, due to his desire to grandstand with crusading against Criminals but Obama due to his years in Illinois in the legislature gets a D-
X: Unless Business and Capitalism is doing something illegal you shouldn't badmouth them:
You say "we need to pass reforms" fine and dandy I can go along with that. But when you attack drug companies and oil companies over their profits the way John McCain has you get a C and Obama gets another F

These are the 10 ways a politician will lose me.

CONSERVATIVES FACE THE SLOW, COUCH-BOUND DEATH OF COWARDS IF WE REFUSE TO ENGAGE A WAR ALREADY WELL UNDERWAY

In the years leading up to 1775, the British had continually tightened their grip on the colonists. The efforts of the colonial governments to engage the Crown and the Parliament to present grievances, or to even open a constructive dialog, had
met with no more than polite smiles to their faces, derisive sneers behind their backs, and a massive military build-up to deal with the increasingly restless American population seething with resentment.

The American colonists were the worst possible sort -- highly educated, well-read, well-informed, and having had a taste of freedom and self-reliance unparalleled at that time. They were smart, savvy, and hacked off. But While the citizens were arming themselves and forming militias, the colonial governments were loathe to act in any way that might incite the Crown (with some exceptions - the Parliament had already declared Massachusetts in a state of rebellion). On March 23, 1775, the Virginia legislature met in a church in Richmond, rather than the Capital at Williamsburg, to avoid confrontation with the British. How typical, but Henry was having none of that.

Patrick Henry proposed that an organized company of infantry or calvary be formed in every VA county. Several speakers got up to preach moderation, to await replies from their most recent proposals to Parliament, and various forms of inaction. Henry spoke last, and it is said that both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson sat in stunned, jaw-dropped silence after this speech. 15 months later, Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence, which echoes the words of Patrick Henry. And well, we know what Washington did.

More...
I bring this up here and now because America has for the majority of a century been in a slow descent into oligarchy and tyranny, of freedoms traded away for comfort, of confiscatory taxes by a government that spends our treasure like a drunken whore on ever-more corrupt and useless things, a self-sustaining and ever-more bloated and leftist bureaucracy. It is all at the hands of the American left, abetted by a highly partisan, dishonest, and outright treasonous press corps.

The Left has been at war with us, frankly since the New Deal. In recent times they have used courts to impose their will on us, in ever-bolder assaults on th Constitution and upon decency. The press browbeats middle America, Christianity and any form of moral order. The Republican Party has devolved into Dem-lite as they parlay away those freedoms which remain. Boys and girls, it is high time we faced it. We are in danger of losing EVERYTHING the Founding Fathers held dear, and which we SHOULD hold dear. The Democrat Party plays low and dirty, while we respond with calls for comity, civility, compromise. Bah! Send them to hell, I say.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Hear excerpts of Patrick Henry, [EPU in brackets]:

MR. PRESIDENT: This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offence, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings. Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry [Democrats] for the last ten [40] years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves, and the House? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these war-like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies [Fariness Doctrine] necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force [the courts] must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These [leftist judges] are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask, gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry [radical leftists] have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? [The Wuss Party, apparently] Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten [40] years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves.

Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free² if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending²if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak [facing further losses in both Houses]; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary [and not getting judges confirmed]. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British [PC policeman] guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot[sound familiar?]? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three [100, maybe, if we motivate them]millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations[oh, but we can't mention God in any meaningful way, even in the Wuss Party]; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston[and California, where the courts have usurped yet again]! The war is inevitable²and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen [Republican Senators] may cry, Peace, Peace, but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!

So, while the national elections play out in 2008, which we can only minimally control at this late date, engage the war that has been going on for decades. Democrats and squish Republicans OWN your city councils and school boards, even in Republican cities and suburbs. Go to your first public meeting. After you get through picking your jaw up off the floor, aghast at what is going on under your very nose - THEN go to war. Fight them, oust them, replace them with soldiers of conservatism.

THAT is what Patrick Henry would have you do.

cross-posted at www.redstate.com

[Promoted - Michael Johns - former White House speechwriter and Heritage policy analyst - has a powerful memorialization of William F. Buckley. - Jon Henke]

By Michael Johns

It can be said that modern conservatism knows only two times. There was the time before him and there was the time after him, and those two times could not be more contrasting. In this stark contrast lies his larger-than-life legacy, and let there be no mistake: It is a legacy that will endure the ages.

As word of William F. Buckley, Jr.'s passing reached his many students, admirers and colleagues last February, it seemed each had an account (some grand, some small) of how this intellectual giant memorably impacted and touched their lives, their vision, and their work. In the aggregate, they tell the story of a man whose immense collective qualities--genius, boldness, industriousness, persuasiveness, and (perhaps least appreciated) kindness and generosity--were without equal in modern American public life. Even in death, Buckley is bringing conservatives together more effectually than many conservative leaders are doing in life. It should surprise no one. To have had the good fortune to have brushed upon Buckley during this life was to leave impressed, inspired, and reinvigorated in the purpose-driven life that he lived admirably and which he cultivated in a whole generation of conservatives who, now in his absence, carry forward his torch.

It may be said too often of the recently deceased, but it must be said emphatically of Buckley: We will not likely see his type again.
 

Promoted. This adds tremendously to the discussion and I'd like to associate myself with everything Alexander has written. We'd like to think The Next Right is a small part of the solution to the problems Alexander and Jon have identified. -Patrick

Partly in response to Jon's earlier post, I think its important for all of us to look seriously at the right side of the blogosphere and see why we are ineffective.

And this is the truth.  By any measure of effectiveness, we are way behind.  In terms of money raised, attention brought to candidates, or ability to drive a message.

The reason, above all, is that their side is full of activists, and ours is full of pundits.  Spend a few minutes perusing some of the top liberal blogs and everything is about driving attention to a specific race, or something else thats happening NOW, with a means of taking action.

On conservative blogs on the other hand, you have a thousand different bloggers who all want to be a talking head on one of the cable networks.  Everyone has an opinion and feels the need to explain why they are correct.  As such, most of the time the rightosphere is just a circular sounding board.

Granted, there have been a few moments when we've been more.  Dan Rather & the Bush National Guard records.  The fight over the Arlen Specter judiciary chairmanship.  The Harriet Miers nomination.  The early days of the Fred Thompson pre-candidacy. 

The challenge for the rightosphere is for us to actually work together, and not just be ten thousand individuals moving randomly in varying directions. 

I think things are improving, partly because there seems to be a shift in the center of the conservative blogosphere from simply news and opinion (Captain's Quarters, Instapundit, Power Line) to more activism-focused blogs like RedState, The Next Right, Newsbusters, etc.  But we have a long way still to go.

I am tired and frustrated with the failure of our Party to confront the growing power of the "taxing" class. The class in our electorate that benefits directly or indirectly from raising taxes. Let's face it, their numbers are legion and growing exponentially to a point where their power is irresistible to any elected public official, even with the best of intentions.

It is no surprise to me that the "taxing" class has developed over the years a foolproof -- well, almost foolproof -- method of raising our taxes without our consent or knowledge.

Conservatives have just witnessed the complete sale out of our economic values over the last eight years, and now we are told, it's the Progressive Republican candidate, John McCain, who will get the job done, if we only get aboard his bandwagon as good Republicans. I am sorry, I cannot honorably follow this advise. I intend to support fiscally conservative candidates for Congress and my state and local offices. But I will no longer go to the polls to vote for  "Republicans" who will sell out to the taxing class as soon as they obtain office.

I am not really convinced we even have a viably democracy at this time. The power to generate more and more funding to fund the growing taxing class, even when we haven't consented to being taxed, has taken our sovereignty from the people, is putting our Republic at risk of being just an illusion.

ex animo

davidfarrar

~Snooper~

As the title to this post implies, I am no longer a Conservative and here is why.

I believe in our Founding Fathers and the documents they created which created this country. I believe in Traditional America. I believe in our United States Constitution as it was written and as it was intended and as it was designed.

Through the years, serving my Nation, I have watched the enemies within strip the Constitution of its preeminence of our society and replace it with a morphed socio-communist-anarchist and tyrannical form of governance and that is not what I served to protect.

Within the last three weeks, I, and others, have appeared on the Blog Talk Radio show Political Pistachio. The segments are here, here and here. In these segments we discussed the List of 45 that the current crop of belligerent idiots currently unconstitutionally conducting the country's business in DC are gradually accepting and they don't even know it. I was under the misunderstanding that they were smarter than that.

Most occupiers of the Dishonorable Halls of CONgress know exactly what they are doing and they need to be impeached through the normal - read that Constitution - process and removed from office. The Constitutional process is two-fold...removal by impeachment or by physical means. I am ready for both but prefer the former. "We The People" agree to be ruled by consent. If we are no longer being ruled by consent than that form of rule is no longer Constitutional. Unless, naturally, the Constitution has been rescinded without the consent of We The People. I am not familiar with any legislation that has invalidated the Constitution so I can only conclude that it is still our Document of Law. Sometimes I wonder.

The Communists of the late 1940s and early 1950s has vowed to take the United States over from within and they have been widely successful in that endeavor. I am constantly reminded of a statement by Varga: "The fact that the Soviet Union and the greatly shaken capitalist countries showed themselves to be in one powerful camp, ranged against the Fascist aggressors (during World War II), showed that the struggle of the two systems within the democratic camp was temporarily alleviated, suspended, but this of course does not mean the end of the struggle." - World Economy and World Politics, June 1949, Page 11

I am also reminded every day of Marshall Tito: "Our collaboration with capitalism during the war which has recently ended, by no means signifies that we shall prolong our alliance with it in the future. On the contrary, the capitalistic forces constitute our natural enemy despite the act they helped us to defeat their most dangerous representative. It may happen that we shall again decide to make use of their aid, but always with the sole aim of accelerating their final ruin." - Continental News Service, November 8, 1946 and quoted in the "communist Threat To Canada", Ottawa, 1947, pp. 10-11

Now, I don't know about you but, I have heard these same sentiments in recent years. Have you? If not, you need to be paying more attention to world events. They haven't come from the old USSR in recent years but, they have come from the Islamic Nations, 57 of them to be exact. I have also heard these sentiments coming from within my own country from anti-Americanist groups with one member of a particular group that asked the question, "What's wrong with communism anyway?". Amazing. Naturally, the woman that asked that question caught on digital video was obviously an old used up hippie Code Pink skank.

We hear from the theoretical "peace activists" and the theoretical "anti-war" crowds terms like "bourgeoisie" and "corporate" this and that, don't we? Whenever I hear such things, I am reminded of others that have stated the exact same verbiage.

Dimitry Z Manuilsky: "Today, of course, we are not strong enough to attack ... To win we shall need the element of surprise. The bourgeoise will have to be put to sleep. So we shall begin by launching the most spectacular peace movement on record. There will be electrifying overtures and unheard of concessions. The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent, will rejoice to cooperate in their own destruction. They will jump at another chance to be friends. As soon as their guard is down, we shall smash them with our clenched fists." - Lenin Law School on Political Warfare, Moscow, 1931.

Lenin: "Hatred for one's own government and one's own bourgeoisie-the sentiment of all class conscious workers ... is a banal phrase if it does not mean revolution against their own governments. It is impossible to rouse hatred against one's own government and one's own bourgeoisie without desiring their defeat." - VI Lenin, Selected Works, Vol. V, p 147.

Lenin: "A revolutionary class in a reactionary war cannot but desire the defeat of its government ... And revolutionary action in wartime against one's own government undoubtedly and incontrovertibly means not only desiring its defeat, but really facilitating such defeat." - VI Lenin, Selected Works, Vol v, p 142.

Read that last one again. Then again. Then again. And when you finish it the third time, read it again and again until you have a full understanding of its intent and impact. Where do we see and hear this today? Nancy Pelosi has applied Lenin's tactic recently in her San Francisco Chronicle interview. Throughout that entire interview which I have downloaded and saved, San Fran Nann has committed High Treason. She willfully and willingly lied. She willfully and willingly emboldened our enemies. She ultimately thanked our enemy Iran for killing our troops and thanked them for being so kind and benevolent.

Many people will not accept the fact that Iran and the United States, thanks to Jimmy Carter, have been in a state of war since 1979. We have no diplomatic relations with Iran. Iran does not have an embassy in the USA and the USA does not have an embassy in Iran, thus, no diplomatic ties, thus, a state of war exists between us. Period. And Nancy THANKS Iran for being so kind?

I say I am no longer a Conservative because the term's implications have been lost. One merely needs to look at the GOP/RNC to gain an actual account as to what a Conservative is not.

However, I believe in the Conservative Ideology and this is what I believe this means: I believe that Conservatism is best for providing the physical needs of all of mankind. I believe that Conservatism provides the best medium in which to satisfy one's spiritual needs. I believe Conservatism is the best medium in which to express one's individuality. I believe Conservatism is the only and best vehicle in which to grow an economy. I believe Conservatism and Capitalism goes hand in hand and one cannot have one without the other. I believe Conservatism promotes individual inspiration. I believe Conservatism promotes personal achievement without government intervention. I believe Conservatism renounces Big Government and government intrusion into States Rights to govern people of any particular State. I believe Conservatism means the lowest possible taxes. I believe Conservatism promotes self-governance, self-control and law abiding citizens. I believe Conservatism means swift justice. I believe Conservatism adheres to the Founding Fathers and the documents they created to form this nation. I believe that Conservatism defines that which is right and that which is wrong. I believe that Conservatism is polar opposites of the major tenets of communism/socialism (nature developed on its own; humans are merely graduated beasts; there is no definitive right or wrong; all religion must be overthrown)

Under Conservatism, we have the freedom to try...and fail. We have the freedom to try and try again. We have the freedom to persue happiness but we have no government guarantee of happiness...any happiness we achieve is ours and ours alone. We have the freedom to fail and succeed on our own volition and efforts and not to expect or demand government hand-outs. We have the freedom to buy and sell as we so choose to do. We have the freedom to be as free as we choose to be. We have the right to choose between right and wrong and suffer the consequences thereof as defined by society...not the federal government. We are free to be as educated as we choose to be. We are free to raise our children as we see fit and not some unconstitutional organization such as CPS.

Conservatives are law-abiding citizens and always have been. Period. It doesn't mean that Conservatives never do anything illegal or wrong but we know that there are consequences and those consequences are ours alone and not the fault of anyone or anything else. Conservatives believe in personal responsibility. Conservatives take their lumps and move on and don't whine about it.

By default, a True American Patriot is a Conservative plain and simple in my line of reasoning. Some would disagree but, that is to be expected. And, that is one of the freedoms that we have and share without fear of losing our individuality. Socialism/ communism on the other hand, does not allow these freedoms and neither does American "liberalism" or Islamic Fascism.

Forest, Meet Trees

“Over the past two hundred years, industrial civilization has been relentlessly undermining the Earth's chemistry, water cycles, atmosphere, soils, oceans and thermal balance. Plainly said, we have been shutting down the major life systems of our planet. Compounding the ecological crisis are decaying economies, ethnic and class conflict, and worldwide warfare.”

--Bill Plotkin, The Wild Human,” Shift Magazine, July-August 2008
 

Navel-gazing over which flavor of Republican is the authentic one, the correct one, or even the one most likely to win elections will not help the Republican cause, much less the nation or the world. I've read through a number of blog posts here and have yet to see one that addresses the actual challenges we face, both as a nation and a species. If Conservatism is to survive as a philosophy, the real question is how to apply basic Conservative principles to the multiple crises facing us, which are, at their root, environmental. Social, economic, and political structures can only exist in environments that support them. Any philosophy that cannot be applied to the business of living becomes a historical artifact.
 

Let's pick a random example: The approaching collapse of global fisheries. You may remember the collapse of the California salmon fishery a few months back. (Here in the Pacific Northwest, at least, it made headlines.) I mentioned it to a conservative of my acquaintance, and he blamed sea lions. Well, sea lions have been eating salmon for hundreds of thousands of years without destroying them, so let's take a look at the human side of the problem, the part documented by studies of the actual fisheries: ag and industrial runoff, dams, and overfishing. The standard Republican solution? Individual freedom and a free market, with plenty of competition. In other words, more of the same that created this crisis. Personal responsibility apparently applies only to individuals' sex lives, not their economic lives.
 

What would an principled conservative alternative to government regulation of fisheries, look like? Could it possibly have something to do with the conservative principle of self-restraint? After all, salmon fishermen would seem to have a vested interest in the preservation of salmon. Would a group composed of members of that industry be able to maintain and enforce limits? In such a group, would the interests of small fishermen be represented, or would it, like most industry groups, eventually become dominated by the biggest and best-connected?
 

This might be a useful topic of debate on this site, and could be applied to the issues of climate change, pollution, energy generation, anything. So far, the Republican response to environmental issues seems to vacillate between, “What problem?” and “It wouldn't be a problem if it was legal. Damn liberals.”
 

A major reason that the public is turning away from the Republican Party is the perception that Republicans will always vote for short-term profits for corporate stakeholders with the risks outsourced to the general public. Then, for example, when cancer rates rise due to toxic waste from industry, conservatives demonize liberals for wanting to broaden access to health care. The current public perception of Republicans, particularly Bush-style Republicans, is that they will not vote for anything that would genuinely benefit all or most people, but only what benefits themselves and those who fill their campaign coffers. Increasing numbers of people are driven away by this “heads I win, tails you lose” approach to governance, as well they should. Could the concept of personal responsibility be applied to corporations? How would that work without the force of law behind it, particularly when dealing with corporations that are economically larger than small nations?

Or consider this postulate to the Conservative belief in the sanctity of life and the right to private property: Damage to the environment is, at its root, a public health issue, and a theft from individuals in the form of reduced earnings and increased expenses due to ill health and premature death.
 

Paul Hawkin, Amory Lovins, and Hunter Lovins, in their book Natural Capitalism, point out that natural systems (carbon/oxygen cycle, hydrologic cycle, etc.) operate free of charge. Damage to these systems is not factored into the cost of goods, meaning that normal accounting procedures ignore them while we all pay the price in diminished resource base, a degraded environment, and consequent ill health. This book-cooking is the basis of classical economics and makes the Enron scandal look like cheating on a third grade math test.

If Conservatism could remember it has a common root with Conservation, acknowledge that environmental problems do exist, and contribute something to the debate other than foot dragging and obfuscation, it just might survive.

Of all the insidious conservative rationales for witholding support from John McCain, the most foolish one has to be the idea that by allowing Barack Obama, Republicans will save the party from being redefined leftward.  Yet, some clearly not-stupid people cling to this canard as a justification for abstention.  What this amounts to is an act of petulance gussied up in the finery of lofty principle.

These intractable conservatives have convinced themselves that a McCain victory in the fall will be interpreted by the press as a rejection of the core principles of the Republican Party by the rank and file.  However, there is no reason that this must be the case.  There are other ways to interpret a McCain victory, and the responsibility for how it is ultimately portrayed rests in the hands of Republicans themselves.  A vote for McCain need not be a vote for a cap-and-trade system for reducing carbon emissions when it can more accurately be described as a vote against windfall profits taxes and extreme regulatory controls.

But, in the end, a McCain victory won't be interpreted in either way.  When the election is over, and the media outlets start pouring over the exit poll results, the winner is going to be defined by the war in Iraq.  McCain supporters won't be going to the polls because they think he has the best answer to the global warming/climate change "crisis".  They won't be going to the polls to show appreciation for his efforts toward campaign finance reports.  They won't be going to the polls because they believe he was right to have opposed the Bush tax cuts in 2001.  None of those things will register very highly, if at all, among the priorities of McCain voters.

Instead, the winner will be decided on three issues, any one of which could take precedence over the others between now and November:  (1) Gas prices, (2) the economy, and (3) the war in Iraq.  None of McCain's stances on any of these issues is a threat to conservative orthodoxy or the traditional Republican Party platform.

However, if Barack Obama wins the election, you can rest assured that it will be interpreted by the press as a wholesale rejection of the every bit of conservatism that marked the Bush years by the voting public as a whole.

Starting with my show earlier this evening, then moving on to Jenn's Political Jungle, then Doug's Political Pistachio and finally at JPA Live, all BTR shows, I was inspired to pen this post. We talked about a wide range of topics from the purposeful lying of the Leftinistra to win political positions and directly killing and wounding our Troops fighting a war that THEY started in the process, to the unconstitutionally directed CPS to stalkers on the internet. We talked about idiots killing themselves over losing their homes and how the CONgress is responsible for the current self-induced oil quagmire and the global warming myth. We talked about how Pelosi kicked our Troops right square in the cods and thanked Iran for killing our Troops. I'll repeat that last one, one more time...Pelosi kicked our Troops in the balls and then thanked Iran for sending high explosive ordnance to our enemies in Iraq that are killing our Troops. What a gal, eh?

We also talked about how Conservatives tend to get some Good Guys elected and then "take a break" for about 20 years and then wonder just what in the hell happened while they were resting.

We talked about how the Leftinistra are in constant campaign mode, 24-7-365 while the Conservatives are in campaign mode 6 weeks out of an election to one hour after the polls close. We talked about how the Leftinistra are always in attack mode and manage to make it look like the Conservatives are the rabid hounds. That MUST change and change quickly. This is why we have McCain running as a Reagan Era Conservative when he is nothing of the sort.

This is why we have a flat-out communist (Obama), a budding Leninist (Hillary) and a Liberal (McCain) running for President and everybody seems to think there are liberals and conservatives running. This is simply unacceptable. Wake the hell up people. Damn.

We also talked about name-calling and we have decided that the libtard moonbats can kiss our asses. They can kiss our asses because THEY start it and then whine about us returning fire and this is the reason why...for YEARS and YEARS, the GOP/RNC/Conservatives have maintained the air of "we cannot stoop to that level" and in so doing, back down from fights, thereby losing ground. The GOP has lost so much ground that they have moved left, following the lead of the Leftinistra into a self-induced quagmire of ignorance and emotional ramblings.

We also talked about the possibilities of bringing True Conservatives together in the medium being offered at The Next Right and how the Leftinistra has methodically over a period of 30 years or so managed to infiltrate both political parties and are trying to move this nation into the United Socialist States of America while the GOP/RNC falls into that trap. Some of us get it and some don't. Pathetic.

We also discussed how we MUST take this nation back at the ballot box because if we don't, the only other alternatives are to roll over or resort to armed conflict. I would much rather do the voting revolution but I am also willing to do the other if need be.

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."...Thomas Jefferson

Homeland Security be damned.

Is it not readily evident as to what the trollops of the DNC and RINOs of the RNC are up to? Can you not see? I can and I did not bleed and shed blood for my Nation I served only to see it given away to the Marxist (Obama), the budding Leninist (Hillary) and the Liberal (McCain) and their blind followers, swallowing the communist, socialist and liberal tenets of each.

I will vote against either Hillary or Obama and hold my nose for McCain but this is THE last time. McCain is being touted as the Reagan Conservative. I remember Reagan and McCain ain't him or anything close to him...not by a long shot.

We MUST draw The Line in the sand and actually stand guard over it. We cannot turn our backs on that line because the Leftinistra will move it. Read and memorize and pass the List of 45 along to everyone you know or don't know.

We MUST return to the Constitution as it was written and intended and how that is done is by studying the document and Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention as well as the federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. Byrd carries a copy of the Constitution but it is obvious he has never understood it if he has read it at all.

The Line IS the United States Constitution and there are no substitutes nor is there any room for emotional heart strings. If laws proposed cannot be reconciled with the Constitution; if edicts cannot be reconciled with the Constitution; if organizations formed cannot be reconciled with the Constitution, they are simply set aside as dross.

It is time. What will you do?

Labels: 

Promoted -- we need to reclaim the idea of the web as a place for organic self-organization and self-government in contrast to the top-down philosophy of the left. -Patrick

What is the blogosphere saying?  Can we get it on the web?  How can we use this to raise money online?  

These are questions that each of us who are "online" strategists hear from our clients.  And they miss the point about the power of the Internet for political change. 

Not to beat a dead horse, but the web -- as a medium, as a place -- plays a crucial role in politicking today, and we can foresee it playing an ever-increasing role throughout the 21st century.  It is key part of the solution to the right's woes, but it plays a minimal role in the problem.  The problem, as Alex Castellanos, veteran media strategist identifies in a National Review column, is that Republicans can't communicate a core principle (singular). 

Read on.