When one declares oneself to be a conservative, one is not, unfortunately, thereupon visited by tongues of fire that leave one omniscient. The acceptance of a series of premises is just the beginning. After that, we need constantly to inform ourselves, to analyze and to think through our premises and their ramifications. We need to ponder, in the light of the evidence, the strengths and the weaknesses, the consistencies and the inconsistencies, the glory and the frailty of our position, week in and week out. Otherwise, we will not hold our own in a world where informed dedication, not just dedication, is necessary for survival and growth.

William F. Buckley Jr., Feb 8, 1956, NR

Saturday, April 18, 2009

The following are some thoughts from Laura Beth, a friend of mine who is a conservative woman and involved deeply in the community and regional politics. I am posting as is...

For those of you who don’t believe that an assault on our First Amendment rights is brewing, get a load of this.

LA Times op-ed columnist and a law professor at the Georgetown University Law Center Rosa Brooks has joined the Obama administration as an advisor to the undersecretary of Defense for policy, but not before writing her final column on April 9 calling for a federal bailout of the newspaper industry. In her article Brooks advocates increasing "direct government support” for public media (scary!) and, even scarier, creating licenses to govern news operations.

Our founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves if Ms. Brooks’ proposal were to come to fruition. Not only does it fly in the face of one of the very first issues expressly addressed in the Bill of Rights, it’s incredible that an adviser to our federal government would even consider bailing out an industry that “free enterprise and competition marked for failure – or a transition into something else,” as Ken McIntyre, media & public policy fellow at the Heritage Foundation, so rightly points out.

Brooks admits that (she) "can't imagine anything more dangerous than a society in which the news industry has more or less collapsed". And on this point, I wholeheartedly agree. But what Brooks is missing is the fact that the news industry isn't collapsing - it's merely evolving with new technology.

People my generation and younger obtain their news differently than previous generations, and have vastly different expectations of the type of the news we read. We get most of our news from the internet and expect it to be both immediate and free. Not only that, but we may also read the same story from several different sources in order to formulate our own thoughts and opinions on the subject. Newspapers, and even the nationally televised news channels, simply cannot meet our needs and expectations. Mark my words, before too long, newspapers and television news will join scrolls and stone tablets in the graveyard for obsolete media.
Ms. Brooks, this is not the time to cry “Do not go gentle into that good night”; instead, it’s time to recognize that the aging prize-fighter’s winning streak is over, and allow the champ to disappear quietly with his dignity.
Providing a licensing system and/or a bailout package in the hopes of reviving the struggling news media industry is not only expressly contrary to the rights expressly granted to the people by our federal Constitution, but also completely disregards the valid reasons that these rights were granted to us in the first place.

The term “free press” obtained its origins from the abolishment of licensing printer/publishers. In 1688, when England abolished the office of Imprimenteur, “works could then be published without first obtaining the permission of the government officer”, as Thomas Paine elegantly explained in his 1806 letter on the Liberty of the Press.

In fact, the common law view to this very circumstance was expressly addressed in Blackstone’s Commentaries, a major legal text of the 18th century. It reads, "To subject the press to the restrictive power of a licenser, as was formerly done, both before and since the Revolution, is to subject all freedom of sentiment to the prejudices of one man, and make him the arbitrary and infallible judge of all controverted points in learning, religion and government."

One of the primary reasons for the freedom of the press clause in the First Amendment is to eliminate government censure, but the practice of licensing journalists would practically guarantee that widespread censure is exactly what would occur.

Preventing governmental censure is also a primary reason that the media should reject any and all “direct government support”. If the government is licensing and financially supporting the national news media, they are merely a hairsbreadth away from controlling its content. Then, what would be the point? Joel Brinkley, a visiting professor or journalism at Stanford University said “no one would trust the news industry if it accepted heaps of government money.“ And you know what? I think he’s right.

However, it’s already started. In a March 18 article in The Nation, John Nichols & Robert McChesney admit that “Today the government doles out tens of billions of dollars in direct and indirect subsidies, including free and essentially permanent monopoly broadcast licenses, monopoly cable and satellite privileges, copyright protection and postal subsidies”, as if calling the postal subsidies instead of mini-bailouts will make it all better. So far, the Obama administration has been silent on the issue, and media experts don’t believe that there will be any chance of an actual bailout for the newspaper industry. Even so, legislation is in the works to allow newspapers to operate as tax-exempt nonprofits as long as they don’t endorse political candidates, effectively censuring editorial columns nation-wide in one fell swoop of the pen.

I am positively flabbergasted that the movement supporting a “broadsheet bailout” is gaining momentum. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised since Ms. Brooks apparently isn’t on her own; several formal journalists from media powerhouses such as the Chicago Tribune, Time magazine, and the Washington Post have gone to work for the Obama administration after the ax had fallen. But what gets me is that it now seems as if the journalists’ self-preservation is quickly superseding the defense of rights that journalists have fought for centuries to protect because of their advocacy of programs that would essentially eliminate the freedom of the press.

Thursday, April 16, 2009

Tax Day Tea Party - Birmingham, Al

Surely everyone who may read this knows of the Tea Parties that were held across our land yesterday. I thought I would give you a brief commentary fro my perspective, as I was part of the Tea Party in Birmingham, Al last night.

A week or so ago, I was contacted by one of the organizers to help with the volunteer security arrangements for the event. By the time I was bale to get in touch with the appropriate persons, it was merely 36 hours before the event and no one knew how many would attend. I walked into the park at about 430 pm and there were about 150 people milling about. I looked for the organizer I had been talking to and we waited for others, all the while he was distracted time after time with many things going on at the park.

Before this was over, more than 6,000 people were in the park. Sean Hannity had a live feed from there, and radio personalities Rick and Bubba as well as a few local market talk show hosts spoke at the event. It was absolutely amazing to me that a crowd this large turned out in probably the most red of red counties in the nation.

It was a republican grassroots movement that has probably never been seen. Despite the mainstream media's portrayal of the event, as well as some juvenile commentary regarding the event, across the nation people are fed up with out of control government. Fed up with bailouts and taxation. Fed up with an administration that only three months in office has launched the most liberal and immoral assault on liberty ever seen. Fed up with a President who says that we are not a Christian nation, but a nation of citizens.

This movement must continue. It must gain traction and become a monthly event, allowing the numbers to swell, and the voices to grow. We must not let the left hijack this country as it is attempting to do. Check our local area and join the organization that organized the event. Join in, and help stop the overwhelming onslaught against freedom.

Friday, April 10, 2009

I Will Always Give Credit Where Credit is Due

Hello to all! I know this post is a long time coming, but as some of you know, my wife and I are expecting our first baby, so my time has been consumed by attending to all of her needs. My promise and commitment to you all is that I will be posting as much as time permits me to. Having said all of that, allow me to share my first post with all of you!

Our Vice President; Mr. Joseph Biden, was absolutely right. He told us before Barry was elected that our young president would be tested by a foreign relations challenge before the end of their first six months in office. Well, he was right. Two times over! First, N. Korea and their little cherub like dictator announced to the world that they were planning on launching a rocket to "send a communications satellite into space." In reality, this was to test their first long range rocket and show to the world that N. Korea is more than a dirt poor country where people out in the country eat mud.... and each other because they're so poor. In response to this announcement, the POTUS said, "I am going to send a couple of guided missile cruisers to sit off the coast of the Korean peninsula to shoot this thing down if they can actually get it off the ground." OK, now, I am with the POTUS so far. I actually respect him a little more at this point, unfortunately that respect would be short lived. Then the day comes where the Koreans launch this thing, and our response is....... (insert cricket sounds here...). Ok, thats not "entirely" true. The POTUS was woken at 2am to learn of the news that N. Korea fired the rocket, at which time he assembled his crack foreign relations team (lead by none other than Hillary Clinton herself) to formulate a response. After many, many hours of brainstorming they had a plan! Go to the U.N. security council and let THEM slap Kim Jong Il's little hand. Brilliant! If nothing else, Barry is consistent. He told us that once he was POTUS he would seek world consensus before acting. Kudos Barry! So, what was the U.N.'s decisive edict? (Insert cricket sounds here......) Yep, thats right, nothing... well, "maybe" impose more sanctions on the country where human flesh is the dish de jure.
OK, foreign relations crisis numero dos (I am practicing my Spanish... we are going to need it soon)! Terrorists (a.k.a. Pirates... Yaaaaaaaaaar!) have taken a U.S. flagged cargo ship off the coast of Somalia. Why is this significant? After all, these kids in their lil boats have been doing this for a loooooong time. Well kiddies, if you read and know your history, you would know that this is the FIRST TIME IN OVER 200 YEARS that a ship flying a U.S. flag has been boarded and held. Can anyone tell me what President Jefferson's response was to the piracy the last time one of our ships was taken (Cue my Marine friends here....)? The answer can be found in the second line of the Marine Corps Hymn, "From the shores of Tripoli." Thats right kids, President Jefferson's response was to send in the Marines because he knew that acts such as these could not be allowed to go undeterred (side note, this is also where Marines got the nickname "leathernecks." But thats for another rant.) What has been our valient president's response thus far? Insert cricket sounds here. Ok ok ok.. thats not entirely true. He did dispatch a U.S. Navy destroyer to shadow the ship as well as sent a team of F.B.I. hostage negotiators to talk to the "misguided young Somali men." Huh? Team of negotiators? Come again? What about that whole "The U.S. will NEVER negotiate with terrorists" thing? I want to know why we dont have a Marine Expeditionary Unit parked in some Somali port right now. Well, I know the answer, but it makes me want to vomit, so maybe someone else can give me another answer to make me feel better. Sigh....
If you couple those two incidents with Barry's "Apologetic World Tour '09," the POTUS BOWING to the king of Saudi Arabia, giving the P.M. of England some DVD's that wont play in British players, giving the Queen of England an Ipod and giving the finger to our dead war heroes at Normandy... I am seriously beginning to question this man's ability to lead. Also, look at the fact that he went to Europe "hat in hand" so to speak to beg for more NATO troops to be sent to Afghanistan and was told again to go pound sand. Where is the egalitarian spirit that was going to unite the world behind us? I can think of one quote from the movie "A Few Good Men" that so eloquently sums up what happened to us on November 4th, 2008: "Col. Jessep: You fuckin' people... you have no idea how to defend a nation. All you did was weaken a country today, Kaffee. That's all you did. You put people's lives in danger. Sweet dreams, son."

Monday, March 16, 2009

Congress Is On The Warpath

This past weekend I was entertained by what was originally an HBO mini-series on our founding father, John Adams. I got the three DVD set from Netflix, and spent about 10 hours engrossed in the biography of one of the most impressive men in our nation’s history.

What was particularly interesting was the interactions and friendship between Adams and Thomas Jefferson. It portrayed a relationship that is exactly that which I have decried for years as what the nation needs to see from its political leaders. Adams, a devout Federalist, believed to the core that a strong Federal government was necessary to the freedom of the nation. Jefferson, influenced by Locke and others, believed that it was the individual and the sovereign states which held the powers and the responsibilities. He served as Adams Vice-President, and the two were good personal friends while political opponents. Their deaths, which occurred within hours of each other on July 4, 1826, ended the lives of the last two signers of the Declaration of Independence.

So while these two men possessed complete opposite views of the size and responsibility of government, agreed on one thing: The role of the government was to protect the rights of individuals guaranteed under our Constitution. Today, our government, and particularly those on the left, find that the power of government should be used for personal folly. Senator Christopher Todd (D-CT) decided that he would target specific individuals with the United States Tax code. The issue arises from the massive and absurd bailout bill given to companies to weather this recessive storm. AIG received massive amounts of that money, and gave their executives $165 million in bonuses. Now, forget the ethics of the bonuses. I am opposed to them in principal, as the company failed and is needing citizen’s money to survive. I want to focus on the targeting of the bonuses.

Dodd and his colleagues rushed to pass enormous amounts of bailout money with no oversight, in an attempt to correct a regulatory system that had no oversight. It is taxpayer money and should not have gone to pay huge bonuses for failure. Yet, there was no such provision in the bill. Dodd wants to target these bonuses with special tax legislation. Do you think that is a legitimate function of government? I say not. I say a government that will write into a tax code provisions to tax at immoral and surely unconstitutional rates is out of control. Do you think that these fat cats deserve the money? Do you think they deserve individual action by the United States Congress? Is say they do not, and that any sanctioning of this measure is indicative of supporting the most tyrannical of regimes.

What is to stop them from individually targeting the money of families? is someone else’s success today, it could be yours tomorrow. Even John Adams would find this reprehensible, and I think is rolling over in his grave. United in spirit, there men, yet again.

Sunday, March 8, 2009

What Happens When I Accidentally hit Publish

Oops. I would wipe this out but since you all are having fun in the comment section.

(Note: This was originally blank, but I had to add something.)

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

A Post to Jennifer

This is an open post to Jennifer, who is one of the creators of Conservative Convictions and has now decided to leave it.

I tried to figure out what the problem was, so I scrolled down and found your last post here, Jennifer. The one titled “Short and to the Point.” I think that semantics is what is causing the problem. Let me try to explain. You write that you “have been reading over and over on conservative blogs that they wish Obama complete failure, but I truly wonder if they understand the ramifications of what they are saying. If Obama fails in keeping us safe and protected, then that means that you are in essence asking for another 9-11.” That’s true, Jennifer, but I must explain that although I hope he keeps us safe I hope his socialist policies are a “complete failure“ and I believe we are on the same exact page. I think that’s where the misunderstanding lies. We conservatives can’t wish for him to succeed when that would mean his socialist policies succeed and there are scads of them, but that doesn’t mean we don’t want him to keep this country safe. So, just like Rush Limbaugh, I hope he fails too, as long as his success means his socialist policies succeed. There are going to be some people, including conservatives, who will disagree with that. It's okay. It's the way I feel and I have a right to my opinion, as you have a right to yours, as they have a right to theirs.

I read the comments in the “Short and to the Point” post and can see why you felt you were under attack. I personally believe it is a matter of misinterpretation of what you wrote. I don’t hate Obama, but I do hate his politics and absolutely hate where they are leading this country! I want to make it clear that there were also some things that Bush did and didn't do that I also hated, and although Obama isn't directly responsible for the mess we are in now, what he has tried to implement since he has been in office will prove to be a disaster.

You are one of the creators of this blog and one of it’s most valuable writers. I don’t know why you believe you aren’t eloquent because it isn’t true. Your opinions and insight are needed every bit as much as anyone's. I hope you will reconsider and return, and I have to tell you that if you don’t, it is truly our loss! Whatever you decide to do, I wish you the best in all that you do. Although I know that you have already given this a lot of hard thought, please think about it a bit longer. It's my belief that you are appreciated far more than you know!

God bless you.

The Blessings of Liberty

Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was. . . . But his actions betray a transformational liberalism that should put every centrist on notice. As Clive Crook, an Obama admirer, wrote in The Financial Times, the Obama budget 'contains no trace of compromise. It makes no gesture, however small, however costless to its larger agenda, of a bipartisan approach to the great questions it addresses. It is a liberal’s dream of a new New Deal.'
- NY Times columnist David Brooks, March 2, 2009

David Brooks, Peggy Noonan, David Frum, Christopher Buckley and other self-described conservatives who supported the candidacy of president Obama perplexed me. There is a nascent desire to get along and not to confront what needs to be addressed in all of us, even among those who, like Brooks, should have known better. I have discovered a more ominous threat than the desire to get along and that threat is fear, the fear that makes some receptive to vapid messages like Hope and Change. When did this happen, how did so many of us become fearful and susceptible to the irrational?

America has been a blessing to so many for so long that we have had the security to listen to revisionist history, politically correct moral equivalents and accept them as equally valid points of view, because there was no threat. We have been so removed by time and distance from the lack of liberty, that we take our own for granted. Now that our way of life is under threat and people are losing their jobs, their retirement incomes and security that we will endure, we no longer have a national understanding of the blessings of liberty. Even those whose instincts tell them that as the moderate Gerald Ford observed, that the government that is big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have (paraphrasing), are uneasy about standing up to those who would enslave them.

Liberty from the tyranny of government and the free (non-coerced) exchange within a market economy is at the core of what defines my conservatism. I also believe that what John Adams said regarding America is true: "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." My Christian faith, which is core to my being also informs my conservatism. Some will try to characterize that faith as intolerant or impractical and focus on that but my response is that you don't know my God!

I, like Jennifer, am bowing out. I appreciate the invitation to join the fine folks here and to contribute as an author but in ordinary times our differences would be academic. I think there's consensus, even among those of us who disagree, that this is no ordinary time. As I mentioned to Jennifer, I believe I am responsible for the sharp differences and fissures that have revealed themselves here. I am unyielding and stubborn in the best of times but when I sense danger, I am intractable. It is my view that some of the ideas put forward here are decidedly not conservative in the classical liberal, modern conservative tradition. I'm not talking about the difference between Ron Paul followers with neo-cons on the war in Iraq, I'm talking about more fundamental, basic issues about ownership of production, do the producers own what they produce or does the government? I say the producers because that embodies the wisdom of our founding fathers.

I am also unrelenting in the face of a threat to me or mine and I say no to Hitler taking the Sudetenland, I mock those who pronounce "peace in our time." Analogies often fail, so let me be direct. Do I want Barack Obama to succeed with his plans? Hell to the no (forgive the ethnic expression)! I have studied this man and his words, his background and associations, his tactics and his actions, he is a lying Marxist in the Saul Alinsky tradition. My beliefs don't accommodate another view, my family is under threat from this man and his collaborators and I am locked and loaded!

God Bless you all and Good Luck!

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Farewell, My Friends.......

This is not an easy thing for me to do, because truly I had such high hopes for this blog and our success in making a true difference. Fulfilling a vision that I had for my country's future. I know I am not the most eloquent writer so I left some of the really tough ones to those more equipped to do it justice and tried to put my unique spin on things. Lately, as most of you have probably noticed we have pretty much disappeared off of the face of the earth and have only been kept up to date with Ken and TAO's guest posts. (Thank you by the way!)

My emotions and feeling have been through the ringer lately because I just don't feel like I fit in anymore. I consider myself a conservative because I truly want less government interference in our lives, and less spending. I thought conservatism was about individual responsibility! What I was truly surprised to find though was this blind hatred. This all or nothing mentality. I just don't have it in me to hate the man and wish his failure. To some, this does not make me conservative and so be it. I am tired of trying to convince people of my views. I personally think it makes me an optimist. It makes me realistic and practical...to steal TAO's words. I have fought hard against Obama, since he first became a candidate and don't like him any more now. He scares me, especially when I think of what he has done with this stimulus bill, or BULLSHIT as Patrick likes to describe it. :-) I have a feeling that there are a lot of emails in store for me, to my lovely NJ representatives. in the future.

I am not giving up the fight nor am I giving in. I just don't feel that this blog is right for me anymore. I feel like everything I've written lately has brought in some people and opinions that completely contradict everything I am trying to say and these are not liberals, but conservatives. I am not accomplishing my goals and that really was my whole point in this endeavor. This blog is better run by those that share the same views and opinions and mine definitely seems to be completely my own right now. I treasure all the authors and commenters here, and hope that you will continue to fight the good fight in whatever way you think best. I will continue to visit and give you my input (I'm too stubborn to stay away) but being an author here will only continue to cause questions about what conservatism means or doesn't mean and that is another issue that has been talked about to death. I find the constant bickering harmful in the big scheme of things, and that was never my purpose here.

I also have some personal issues that have been taking up a good majority of my time, and if I can't do something with my whole heart, I don't do it. It's not fair to me and it certainly isn't fair to the readers. So I will leave with a heavy heart knowing that what I am doing is best for me and the sake of the blog. Thank you for giving me this chance to write and be heard even if you didn't happen to agree with me all the time, or any of the time for that matter. I truly am thankful for the friends I've made and the times we've spent together bringing this blog to fruition.

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

So What Is A Conservative? Guest post by TAO

I seriously debated whether or not to post this because I am tired of the same old rhetoric that has been taking place here at CC. When we started this blog we had a vision but it seems that we can't even get past defining what beliefs make up a conservative. If we can't agree on what conservatism is about, how the heck can we bring others to our cause? Frankly, what I have seen lately is disheartening. If the public opinion of Obama starts to drop, where is the conservative movement? Are we there, with a solution? With a vision? With anything? Have we thought about how to win people over or are we simply content to sit on our blogs and complain about how things aren't going our way. This was a well written post about what conservatism is about and two words stick out.....realistic and rational. Is that how you would define yourselves? I certainly hope so because that is what this country needs right now. I have highlighted a few of the statements that really stood out to me.

So What Is A Conservative by TAO

WOW! Post one favorable article about Obama and the hate mail is overwhelming and the followers are falling like leaves in a fall windstorm!

So, lets ask the existential question: What is a Conservative?

Yes, and I mean 'existental' like in existentialsim; like in starting from disorientation and confusion in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world.

Traditional Conservatives believed in smaller government, lower taxes, balanced budgets, isolationism, and in the concept of live and let live.

Now, very simply, did Ronald Reagan give us smaller government, lower taxes, balanced budgets, isolationism, and or did he remove the government and society from infringing on our personal lives? Not really. Bill Clinton actually gave us smaller government and balanced budgets but he failed in a couple of other areas; so he is also a 'not really' too but since he never claimed to be conservative then that really comes as no surprise. Did George Bush, Sr. achieve any of the conservative values that some of us hold dear? Not really, but then again he never claimed to be a true conservative.

Then we come to George Bush, Jr., and we have the biggest government we have ever saw, lower taxes, the greatest deficit we have seen, and he has put our personal liberties at risk all over the place but we allowed it because it was done for national defense. I will not even discuss isolationism....

We need to accept the fact that 20 years of supply side economics, the great idea that Ronald Reagan implemented and George Bush, Jr., followed up on has led us to the economic collapse that we are experiencing today. Economically we have turned back the clock to the 70's in regards to some statistics, the 80's for others, and now the stock market is at 1997 levels.

Now along comes Barack Obama and the hatred and anger felt by a newer version of conservative thought is just appalling. Now, you can point to the liberals and their hatred of George Bush as a justification for your own actions but true conservatives are realistic and rational and they do not need to point fingers to justify their own actions.

Now, one thing about conservatives is that they were never followers; they would rather walk alone than blindly follow anyone. I cannot sit here and and find pride in myself nor try to justify the fact that I want a President to fail. I didn't want George Bush to fail but I did not agree with his decisions in a lot of his policies and I cannot let him hide behind the fact that he kept us safe or he was strong on defense. The truth of the matter is a President is responsible for everything and the success and or failure of his tenure is determined by the totality of his actions.

That is true no matter who the man is or which party the man professes allegiance to.

This financial meltdown was as predictable as a scheduled freight train; it is hard for me to believe that I am the only one that saw it coming and sold all my investments in 2008. It really isn't hard to understand that you have not really created any economic wealth if the median household income is stagnating.

It also isn't all that hard to grasp that concept that if you believe that WWII was what ended the depression then you also believe that government spending does create economic growth because WWII represents nothing more than immense government spending for war material. In this particular case the government all centralized economic planning.

When David Stockman, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and Dick Cheney are all running around claiming that "deficits don't matter" all conservatives should have an issue with that because we know that deficits do matter. It makes no difference who the President is or what his party affiliation is.

Alan Greenspan did a wonderful job killing the internet bubble with increasing interest rates. Why did he not do the same with rising real estate values? A bubble is a bubble. Now Alan has gone from being a disciple of Ayn Rand to being a socialist by claiming, "...we just might have to nationalize banks once every 100 years or so to get a fresh start...." That wasn't Barack Obama that is trying to nationalize the banks its actually conservative republicans.

This country is a mess; it is a mess due to greed and arrogance. Both of which existed well before Barack Obama became a Senator let alone President.

I am sorry but I do not want him to fail. Because if he fails this country will suffer deeper and longer than what is necessary; that means all of us will suffer.

I may not like the stimulus package anymore than I liked the bailout package and I am not going to switch to calling on TARP and the other a jobs program. TARP is a bailout package for our financial system and the stimulus package is nothing more than worthless tax cuts and spending.

Neither of which would have been necessary if we had had true leadership in the White House and in Washington over the past 20 years.

We all know that all economic decisions are based upon the simple equation of supply and demand. For 20 years we fertilized supply with tax cuts and various other programs and no matter what tax cuts are wealth redistribution if they are not fair and across the board. Programs that benefit the poor are income redistribution and tax cuts that favor the rich are wealth redistribution. What cuts one way also cuts the other.

A majority of Americans were disgusted with George Bush and that was why they voted for Barack Obama in record numbers. That is the way representative democracy works. That is why, if you want to keep the party in power that you believe represents your values the best then you should demand that they do not rob and steal or take bribes, that they should not hit on male interns, and that they should make government smaller and balance the budget.

If you truly believe in the principles of conservatism then it would seem logical that it would be easier to expect the party that you support to believe in your principles and govern by those principles than it would be to expect the opposition to believe as you do.

We have already nationalized AIG, that occured under the Bush Administration. We will have a 40% stake in Citibank by the end of the week and by April that will be up to 60%; that is more than half which means they will be nationalized and the same thing will eventually befall Bank of America. It may not be what the American people want but the executives of Citibank, Bank of America, and quite a few others have no problem with it.

So, what does that tell YOU about free markets when the titans of capitalism are begging to be nationalized? When people begin to claim that something is TOO BIG TO FAIL...thats socialism plain and simple.

One thing conservatives understand is that it isn't just the poor or minorities that expect something for nothing from the government; some of our biggest and most powerful companies and quite a few rich people expect the same thing. Thats why government must play fair and impartial; something it has failed to do for the last 20 years.

Sorry I cannot entertain you with Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity rants; no one is paying me big bucks to type bullshit....

If Barack Obama can cut the "inherited" deficit (which is what he really said) in half by 2013 then good. But I also want to know what he plans to do about the deficits he will create; I also want to see his budget and see if he plays any of the tricks that are so popular in Washington in regards to our true deficit. I will also want to see how sincere everyone in Washington is about dealing with our future liabilities.

If a man is willing to roll up his sleeves and deal with the reality of our current situation then I do not care what color he is or what party he associates with. I will get right in the trenches and help. Its not about the man, its not about the party, its about the country; my country and yours.

But I am not interested in leadership that 'fiddles' while the country slowly crumbles and burns. If being conservative means hoping and praying for the failure of a black liberal President then I am not that type of conservative. If being a conservative means doing the right thing, putting your country first, and respecting the rights and opinions of others then by God sign me up!

Conservatives are realitistic and rational; they will call a spade a spade. They are not bimbo cheerleaders for one party over the other. If you are a conservative then you believe in individualism and you respect thinking for ones self both by yourself and by others. Its not about seeking out only those that agree with you or finding comfort in being part of a commentators fan club.

Its not that complicated and it does not involve doing mental flips and turns. Its pretty cut and dry and direct to the point.

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Obama Signs Stimulus...Guest Post by Ken Taylor


"So this is how democracy dies, with thunderous applause." Senator Amidala, from Star Wars II Attack of the Clones.

America as we have known it and loved it came to an end in Denver, Colorado as Barack Obama signed the single largest transfer of power to the federal government that he calls, "The Economic Recovery Package." Obama socialism in The United States has begun and it began with, "thunderous applause."

The 787 billion dollar socialist spending bill, rushed through Congress without a single Senator, Representative or citizen having the first opportunity to read or review this massive transfer of power to the government shakes the very foundation of our Nation as the end of Constitutional individual freedom and responsibility is being replaced by government control and socialist programs designed to create dependency rather than freedom.

The rush to pass without review was intentional in order to get a Presidential signature before Americans had an opportunity to protest this government take over at the hands of Obama and the Democrats. In their tingling leg worship of Barack Obama the media refused to vet this take over and the American people were denied an opportunity to find out what this President and the Democrat Congress are forcing down our throats.

More than 32 new government programs are included in this debacle. Programs designed to eliminate self reliance and force government dependency. All without the first opportunity to find out what is being forced upon us nor the details of this deconstruction of our Constitution and our Republic.

And because of blind worship of an inept President the bill was signed to, "thunderous applause." Using 10 pens which cost the American people 78.7 billion dollars per pen Obama with a air of arrogance signed a portion of his name with each pen and then proclaimed with the satisfaction that his American socialism had begun, "it's done."

Yes my fellow Americans, "it's done." The beginning of the end of our freedom. "It's done, " the beginning of the end of Constitutional principles that have sustained our Nation since 1788. "It's done," the beginning of a European style socialism created by Obama for Obama and because of Obama. "It's done, " and it was done with ,"thunderous applause."

Ken Taylor

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Guest Posting by Ken Taylor


The House version cost 820 billion dollars. The Senate version, 837 billion dollars. Now the, "compromise," only a measly 789 billion. The bill will have a price tag after interest of well over one trillion dollars awaiting the President's signature. Resulting in Barack Obama having his victory to begin the march to socialism in America.

Whether it is called ,"The Economic Stimulus Package," or, "The Economic Recovery Package, " this bill which will be sent to Obama's desk and soon after we wil witness the greatest transfer of power to the federal government in the history of The United States. Little of this debacle has any chance of creating a job or stimulating any aspect of the economy.

It is loaded with liberal pet projects and massive government spending all of which is designed to give control through spending to the government. Arguments against it are called un-American. Proposals that cost less by removing the pork were not even considered. Proposals that actually put money back into the pockets of the American people through legitimate tax rate cuts were called old and failed ideas.

As the bill began receiving stiff opposition from House and Senate Republicans and especially as the American people started seeing through the garbage and realizing that this bill was nothing more than a liberal wish list of spending and government programs, poll numbers began drastically dropping and the bill was quickly losing favor with the people.

Obama reacted with frustration and anger similar to a child who was not getting his way. The only thing missing was the stomping of feet and tears because we heard the whining and the small tantrums as he spoke to House Democrats during their 100 thousand dollar retreat in Williamsburg, Virginia.

In his press conferences, radio addresses, speeches at various functions Obama has used every opportunity to insight fear in the American people in order to get his way and force this bill down our throats though its passage. His attitude has been, "whether you like it or not we are facing Armageddon and only I can save the day with my bill."

Using phrases like, "the worst economy since the Great Depression, " which it is not, and ,"total economic collapse," also words like, "catastrophe," and , "Armageddon," if the bill was not passed Obama created an atmosphere of fear. He is used this fear as a tool to get the bill passed and literally scare the country into accepting socialism.

In the final analysis that is exactly what this bill is. The beginning of a complete and likely irreversible march to socialism in The United States and Obama is using fear to get his way. He does not care what it costs, he does not care what the ramifications will be, he does not care that this total socialist spending bill is contrary to everything that our Constitution stands for.

He does not care that the bill does almost nothing to stimulate the economy. He only cares about changing the very fabric and foundation of our country from a free Republic of and by the people to a government controlled socialism with Barack Obama as its leader and author. This is what he meant when he campaigned on the mantra of change and the change from freedom to socialism is what he is beginning with the passage of this bill.

In 1981 when Ronald Reagan took office he faced an economy that had 21% inflation, interest rates in the high teens which made purchasing a home and affording the payments nearly impossibly but also not very desirable. The country because of Carter embargoes and windfall profit taxes faced a fuel shortage that had Americans waiting in line sometimes hours to get what little gas was available.

Reagan's response to a far worse economy than we are facing today was to encourage Americans not scare them. He reminded us of who we are as a free people. Spoke of America as, "the shining city on a hill," and the best hope for the world. He encouraged Americans to stand in our freedoms and told us that are best days were before us.

He talked of his faith in the ability of Americans to revive the economy and backed these words up with action as he dropped tax rates for individuals and business returning money to the people from the government knowing that true stimulus comes from the people and not the government.

Reagan never promoted fear but created optimism. He never talked of weakness but stood fast through strength. He encouraged Americans and believed in America. He gave real hope and not fear mongering platitudes. And Americans responded. The economy soon turned around and America experienced the greatest peace time economic growth in our Nations history.

Reagan displayed true leadership and the people responded. Obama does not lead he creates fear. He does not provide an example to follow but uses scare tactics to get his way. While the economy is suffering because of the recent down turn, much of the problem lies in the fear that Obama and others like him are creating through their gloom and doom approach that has Americans afraid to spend and business afraid to hire.

All of this creates a climate of economic failure, job loses and a general atmosphere of gloom throughout the country and the world. I am not saying that optimistic words alone can change the current atmosphere, but continually discouraging Americans does not create an atmosphere of recovery either.

Reagan trusted the American people to promote and finally make the economic recovery of the eighties. He understood the necessity of letting the people control their money and their future. Obama trusts the government and complete social control of the people and every aspect of American life.

And he is succeeding through fear in creating the American socialism he wants. This bill is just the beginning. We are witnessing at the hand of a completely incompetent President the total change of our foundational principles and the creation of a new form of American government. A government of Obama, by Obama and for Obama.

Ken Taylor

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Welcome To A New Author

The newest addition to the CC team is CKinAtlanta, and I ask that you welcome him and make a point to take in his particular sense of style.

CK and I have been friends for a few years, although not in the blogosphere. This is his first run at bloviating on a blog. He is a conservative animal with a particular wit and sarcasm that you will find interesting. He also has a brain that is full of the most irrelevant information I have ever seen. He knows everything about that which is important to no one.

That is said in jest; CK has a masterful way at getting his point across and you can't help but laugh no matter which side of the political roadway you drive. Other than his choice of universities, he is a great guy.

I will let him write his own introduction beyond this. Welcome CK, and take the gloves off when you step in!

Saturday, February 7, 2009

All Enemies Foreign and Domestic

John Locke's Second Treatise on Government details a fundamental truth, a natural law, if you will with regard to man. He said that every man ought to own himself (not be the subject of a king or tyrant) and that he ought to own the fruit of his labor. In other words, he said that man is entitled to life, liberty and estate (property). The, I believe, divinely inspired, Thomas Jefferson, when tasked for making the case for rebellion against the crown, tapped Locke's wisdom as well as that of another Scotsman, Hutcheson, who fleshed out the concept of unalienable rights.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Is there any American that argues that this isn't the essence of what separates us from the rest of the world? On the steps of the Washington Mall, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. called these "magnificent words."

To reinforce the significance of Locke's and Hutcheson's thoughts and Jefferson's recognition of their centrality to the American ethos, our founding charter, The Constitution contains the words, more closely resembling Locke's concept. This concept is so important that is contained within our Bill of Rights. The 5th amendment's "due process clause" contains these words, "nor shall any person...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The 14th amendment was intended to secure the rights of former slaves. Again, in section 1 of the 14th amendment in the due process clause these words are written "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." I think our framers made their point, life, liberty and property are sacred to Americans and central to who we are. On another thread, I will tell you how and why those words are responsible for the greatest economic juggernaut in history if you don't understand already but we have more urgent business now.

In 1848, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels summed up what they hoped to accomplish in the Communist Manifesto in one phrase, the elimination of private property. Private property rights in this country, that which makes us distinctly American, have been under assault since then. Private property rights secure freedom and liberty from the tyranny of government. The Lochner decision, Williamson vs. Lee Optical and others have eroded the concept of property rights to replace them with the nebulous concept of "economic rights." Economic rights erode property rights. Education, health care and social security are not unalienable rights. Unemployment compensation and food stamps are not unalienable rights.

Patriots threw tea from the struggling British East India Company, a monopoly granted by the crown to enforce its right to impose the Stamp Act, into Boston Harbor for the equivalent of today what would be less than a dime. From that time until 1913, there was no tax on income in America. In 1848, Marx and Engels urged "heavy progressive taxation of income."

Thanks for the history lesson Bardo, so friggin' what?

Along comes the 44th President of the United States, having explained in clear terms that what he wants to do is to dismantle what makes us distinctly American and he is doing it with alacrity. In the audio above, Obama describes what he thinks is America's fundamental flaw, the Constitution ought to list what government's obligations are to its citizens, including the redistribution of wealth. If the recording was a little too professorial for you, he told "Joe the Plumber" that he wanted to spread the wealth around. Has he spread some wealth?

The American concept, post civil war, post Wilson and FDR, has never been under more threat than it is today. Barack Obama is an intelligent man who has just pulled off a coup on the American way of life without a shot being fired. Why should I fear islamo fascists when the person at the helm of my government wants to destroy what I hold dear faster than they and apparently with our permission?

Friday, February 6, 2009

Short And To The Point.....

I have been reading over and over on conservative blogs that they wish Obama complete failure, but I truly wonder if they understand the ramifications of what they are saying. If Obama fails in keeping us safe and protected, then that means that you are in essence asking for another 9-11. Do you really want his absolute failure that bad that you would risk human lives to see it happen.? If Obama doesn't succeed in getting this country's economy stable once again then we are looking at a Great Depression like our lifetime has never seen. Is that worth the joy of seeing him fail? To me, my country's welfare supercedes my personal feelings for who is in charge of it. I am not picking up for him nor do I support his actions so far as president, but I just don't understand why people cannot see the big picture? I can't help but wonder if he does something you agree with, would you wish it doom, just because he is the one who accomplished it? Does it have to be all or nothing? Black or White?

I don't want his "liberal" policies including his "Distribution of Wealth" to succeed. We have said over and over on this blog that we will fight him when the need arises, but this blind hatred accomplishes nothing. I love this country and I wish her the best, regardless of who happens to be president at the moment. Can you truly say the same?

"I have more love for my country than hatred for it's president" .......me

Thursday, February 5, 2009

Conservatism and the Bailout

From Foxnews.com:

President Obama's economic stimulus plan has topped $920 billion after the Senate agreed Wednesday to give a tax break of up to $15,000 to homebuyers in hopes of revitalizing the housing industry. [emphasis added]

Excuse me while I bludgeon myself against the cold brick wall outside my door.

*multiple thuds followed by wretched screaming*

What I want to know, very simply, is how anybody who could even be considered conservative (or even moderate) can:

1. Justify adding ANYTHING more to this massive pork bill, or,
2. Justify trying to keep trying to perpetuate what's left of the housing bubble which is a part of the reason we "need" this "stimulus" bill.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, also known and the perversion called Porkulus, continues to grow beyond any reasonable number. And while there may be debate on what the government may be able to do to fire up the economy, this ain't it!

I suspect the following ideas will be wasted, as the GOP in the House only grew a spine because they could only make the news if they were unanimous, and the Senate will eventually get the bill over a trillion before someone "reaches across the aisle" and spends another trillion (over the first). And I've heard all kinds of bipartisan crap on how to justify racking up another trillion.

So here's conservatism applied to the concept of stimulus and see if anything in the current Porkulus bill will survive:

Government Does Not Create Jobs (except for government jobs) - Part of the concept of the stimulus is that it will "create jobs" (or save jobs, in case those created jobs aren't). The problem with this is that government can only create "jobs in two ways: Either by creating work with make-work jobs that will eventually stop being funded (the FDR way), or by simply adding people to the government dole by hiring them to do something. Either way, it doesn't produce a product or service that grows the economy. So any idea of spending money to "create jobs" can be discarded.

Command and Control - In my latest post over at my blog, I did a little comparison between the self-destructive effects of the old Soviet economy and the current state of our government. The Soviet model featured the command economy. The highlight of the command economy is that it stifles productivity and innovation (as in bread lines and rationing). Anything in the stimulus bill that attempts to control the means of production for political reasons (stimulus directed to fighting climate change by subsidizing electric cars) is counterproductive.

Eff Yu Pork - Whether you call it pork, or earmarks, or targeted stimulus (bet they'll steal that line), there's no reason ever to use the concept of a stimulus to advance personal pet projects and magic cash for their home states or districts. Enough people have highlighted the inanity, so I'll leave it at that. No pork for you!

Borrowing for Tax Cuts - A conservative stimulus plan would naturally involve lessening the burden of taxes on businesses and individuals. But in the world of Porkulus, these tax cuts have two inconsistencies that render them dumb. First, some of the tax "cuts" are not a reduction in taxes. They are the growth of entitlements for those who do not pay income taxes. And targeting people who are financially on the edge just means they'll be able to invest it in the trailer park retirement plan, more commonly known as lottery tickets. Second, we're running a massive deficit. And while reducing taxes is not a bad idea, borrowing billions to do so sets a dangerous precedence. A related note is more spending to "help" the poor. A government check never motivated anyone.


So now we've eliminated everything contained in the corpulent flesh of Porkulus. And we've done so because we will never grow the economy by growing government, as every dollar that goes to government does not go and grow in the private sector. This leaves only a couple of ways we can stimulate the economy.

We must reduce taxes and regulations. I know I just eliminated the tax cuts above. But my expectation is that we pay for any tax cut by eliminating redundancy and pointless regulation, which requires oversight (which is always inadequate). But as the sheer volume of regs shrinks, the people who are responsible for enforcing the remaining ones will actually need to work more. I don't advocate cutting government jobs right now, as putting people out of work is not a good idea.

And I'm not expecting a balanced budget this year. In fact, there will be deficits. But that brings us to the other secret to recovery.

We must freeze all spending and grow out of debt. One of the things that caused the balanced budget in the late 90's was that government spending did not outgrow increased revenues. And as the engine of the free market starts kicking in, a government that doesn't increase its spending will not only begin to shrink deficits, and maybe the debt, but it will also reduce itself as a percentage of the economy. And as we start growing and creating surpluses, some of that can service the debt, and some can be used to reduce more of the tax burden.

That's it. This plan will not require another trillion in pork and BS, and will begin to address the conditions that led to the current series of crises. And only in shifting away from an expectation of government intervention can we create lasting stability in the economy, and in the country.

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

From Another Perspective.....Guest Post from TAO

I have read an article on Shaw’s blog at Progressive Eruptions and it triggered some thoughts to come back to me that I had lost over the last few months. We get so wrapped up in the moment that we lose sight of the bigger picture from time to time and I realize that I lost sight of how I saw the election of Barack Obama earlier on.

I know most people still see this election as a fluke; that somehow Americans became infatuated with false hopes from a messiah or it was just a guilt trip over race; that would be fine if we just viewed the voting as only a political act. Most elections are just political events and that is what they will remain.

But every now and then you have an election that is transformational; it represents more than just a political vote, much more.

Think back to 1960 when Kennedy beat Nixon. Kennedy, much like Obama, was a political newcomer who ran in against some pretty established Democratic political warhorses in the primary (Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Adlai Stevenson, and Stuart Symington) and he came out the winner and let’s not forget that he was a Catholic.

Which back in those days was about as foreign of a concept as electing a half black man to the Presidency is today.

Then JFK runs against Richard Nixon, who at the time was Vice President to a very highly respected and popular President and wins. Nixon, in those days was just about as popular with the Republican base as John McCain was to conservatives today. There is no way to compare Eisenhower to George Bush; other than they both served two terms.

Kennedy represented change, he represented about as much to that generation as Obama represented in this election to a whole new generation. Did Kennedy live up to the expectations that his supporters had for him? No, not at all because he actually didn’t accomplish all that much during his short time as President. But we just might have to realize that he represented the ‘first wave’ of the social change that racked this country during the 1960’s and represented a societal transformation.

Transformations, which usually are defined by historians, but realistically, they should be obvious to us, much like recessions and economic experts; historians should only confirm what we already know. Was Kennedy a transformation? Obviously, having been a child during the 60’s it was a totally different society and I would argue that Reagan represented a transformation, but it was less social and more economic; his transformation involved our views of the military, international intervention, and the beginning of the concept of government deficits don’t matter.

Kennedy changed a whole generation and their concept of themselves, society, and government. Reagan did the same. I venture that Obama represents now what those two did then. Of course, back then I am sure that quite a few scoffed at the idea of JFK amounting to anything long term, even within the Democratic Party and lets not forget that George H. W. Bush called Reagan’s economic plans, “Voodoo Economics.”

So, what does that mean? Very simply, it means that besides the Republicans some of the old time Democrats, such as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, are going to have trouble adapting.

The Republicans picked Barry Goldwater as their 1964 candidate, a real conservative in the very true sense of the word and Lyndon Johnson basically ended any future that the conservative wing of the Republican party may have had of recapturing control of the party until Ronald Reagan in 1980. If history repeats its self then that translates into the re emergence of conservatism in….2028!

Sometimes elections are a lot more than just elections. Sometimes they represent a fundamental change in society that slowly but surely manifests its self on a much broader scale as time goes on.

It might be best to see Obama in this light and deal with that as a potential reality then it is to just consider him a one term fluke.

Saturday, January 31, 2009


Since the votes were tallied and the final election results were in naming Barack Obama winner of the 2008 election, there have been countless discussions and postings concerning conservative support for Obama because he would be the Nation's President. After all whether one votes for the person who sits in the Oval Office or not he is the President of all Americans.

Over the last few days this conversation has come to the fore front again with Obama telling GOP lawmakers that they cannot follow Rush Limbaugh and expect anything to get done. On the other side of this coin Rush has stated that because of his conservative beliefs and principles that if Obama pushes the socialist agenda that he stated during the campaign he does not want him to succeed because of the path it would take the Nation.

Now that Obama is President of the United States, then the question for conservatives is once again, " do we support Obama because he is the President ?" To this question, as a conservative, I would have to follow my conscience and principled beliefs and say emphatically, "NO !"

There are those, who because he is President, that would consider this attitude to be unpatriotic and nothing that I state here will convince them otherwise. But to my fellow conservatives I offer this explanation as to why we cannot support Obama or even state that we do because he is the President.

Though I do not support Obama, I still and always will respect the office of President of The United States. But for me to use that respect for the office and state that because a certain individual is holding that office, I should then support what he does would be hypocrisy on my part.

Nothing that Obama has stated as his policy, goal o the direction he wishes to take this Nation agrees with my political, moral and ideological beliefs or principles. For me to state that I support the President but not his policies is a similar argument that was used by the left concerning the status of our troops and their mission in Iraq.

Throughout that political discord liberals continually stated that they supported the troops but not their mission. Conservatives countered the cry from the left with, " how can you say you support the troops but not what they are doing ?" The same argument holds for Obama. How can we as conservatives state that we support the President but not what he is doing without falling into the same counter accusation from the left that we used during the troop support argument ?

If I am completely honest with myself and my convictions, then I have to admit that I do not want Obama's agenda to succeed and therefore cannot support him just because he is the President. If he insists on continuing the agenda that he has stated and that he has already begun how can I state that I support him and hold true to my beliefs and principles ?

Of course I would hope for the sake of the country that he understands the short and long term ramifications of what he is doing and what he plans to do and the negative impact it will have on the country. Not to mention that the socialist ideas that he presents take this Nation down a path that was never intended by our Founders.

I believe that the moves that he has made and is planning on making weaken this country and make us even more vulnerable to attack from our enemies. He is taking us back to a pre- 9/11 atmosphere and as such the security of this country could be threatened in a way that it has not been since that fateful day in 2001.

His socialist agenda promises to take this country down a path that may never be reversed. I ask you, how many government programs once started have ever been stopped ? The answer is zero and Obama plans expanding government more than any other President including Franklin Roosevelt.

If we do come under attack, as an American I will rally behind the President as we should and pray that he has the wisdom and sense enough to handle the situation in a manner that protects and preserves our Nation. But to state that I will support him just because he is President is not holding true to who I am and those values and beliefs that have formed my ideas, my morals and my principles.

Do I want him to fail ? Absolutely not ! But I cannot support what he plans which will bring failure and insecurity to this country both economically, morally and in the protection of the country and our people.

Did I agree 100% with President Bush ? No, in fact there were numerous times that I did not support what he was doing. His immigration stand, increasing entitlements, bailouts just to name a few were policies that I could not support. But generally I agreed with the direction Bush wanted to take the country and in the way he stood fast in protecting the Nation after 9/11. As a result I could support him while disagreeing with certain policy issues.

Obama presents and entirely different situation. I find nothing that he says or any part of his very liberal agenda that I can agree with. I do not believe that what he is and will do has any possibility of taking this Nation anywhere but Socialism and weakening our security. How then can I support him as President ?

Our Founders faced a similar dilemma when they gathered to ultimately bring about the birth of this country. They respected the British Monarchy, but not the King who held the throne and especially not his policy toward the Colonies. As a result they created a new form of government that was formed from their beliefs and principles which came from the inability to support King Charles and his agenda for the Colonies. Had they supported the King, they would never have signed the Declaration of Independence.

Am I suggesting that we rebel against the Obama Administration and begin a new Nation ? No, but I am suggesting that we take every opportunity to make it known through the blogosphere, discussion with friends and family and especially in constant contact with everyone and anyone in Washington, that we do not support the President's agenda and emphatically know that it will take us the wrong direction and threaten the security of each of us.

This is our responsibility as a citizen. Our Constitution begins with the words, "We the people." These words were not written by James Madison because they had a certain poetic ring to them. They were included at the very beginning of the document that created our government and the laws that formed our Nation as a testament of who we are and what our responsibilities as Americans are to each other and our country.

Those in government do not dictate to us what we are to do, even the President. It is our responsibility as Americans to tell them what we expect and then hold them accountable to those expectations. As a whole we Americans have forgotten this blessed liberty which was instilled in this country from the very beginning.

Is it radical to stand against our leaders when we disagree with them ? Some today consider it to be. But if we truly believe in our Constitution and understand how our Nation was founded and what the words found within this precious document provide in freedom, then we will also understand that we cannot support that which we believe is wrong and it is our duty to stand against it especially if it is the agenda of a President whose ideas and policy promises to change the very foundation of our country and the principles instilled by our Constitution.

Ken Taylor B

Friday, January 30, 2009

RNC Takes First Positive Step

After a day of casting multiple ballots, the Republican National Committee voted to make former Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele as Chairman.

There are some concerns about Steele, as he is more moderate than most conservatives would prefer. However, he is a fresh breath of air into party that needs to modernize, and decide that they are tired of the 1050s look...

I listened just moments ago to the acceptance speech delivered by Steele, and it included references to "conservative principles" and the conservative party. I think there is some danger here that he truly does not understand what is needed, but for now, his attempts at making the party cool again are working....Let us hope that he considers tax cuts cool...

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Just When You Thought the CC Crew Had Gone Far Enough....

(Please start the music before reading. It's more fun that way.)

Those with spines of linguine and Obama voters beware!!! For in their great wisdom and folly, the shiny batch of conservative malcontents that got together to rub out this blog called Conservative Convictions have extended and invitation to the great and plaid master of the ever-out-there-ish-ish blog entitled Sane Political Discourse to come before you as a regular and postify his confrabulations (and made up words (and parentheses (ad nauseum (because he can (6 this time (count 'em))))) for your reading pleasure and eventual mental reprogramming. And so, here he is, to explain himself in only ways he would dare, he who is the wisdom and the light, the legend of legends, and more humble than the greatest of the humbly humble, the illustrious Patrick M!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*tenuous applause*

Okay, that was a little over the top, but if you can't start out with an overblown, ego-feeding intro, what's the point? SO let's get to the real intro, Patrick M style:

The Beginning - I grew up in small-town Ohio. Spent eight F'ing years in Catholic School. Went to college around here before going to Dayton to finish. Moved back. 'Nuff said.

Writing - I started this worthwhile pursuit in 7th grade. I wrote on a pre-Mac apple clone, printed out on green and white striped tractor feed paper (that you couldn't tear the tractor feed off of). It was a festival of dick and fart jokes. I moved on to some short story and poetry by my last year in high school. It was a few years later that I wrote a short story that created the universe which you can find on my blog Stories from the Front Row, which may lead to the book (also in process). And the poetry, such as it is is on yet another blog. More on the blogging.

Workage - I've really found two things that I seem to do well: dealing with people and figuring out anything electronic. I've worked on computers since I was 6 (an Apple II Plus), have spent more time working at various locations for RadioShack (long story) and after some really crappy jobs mixed in there, I find myself doing Internet Tech support. At least people are glad to hear me because I am on the same continent.

Comedy of Errors - I can divide my love life into several periods. I'm not going to go into details, but there are three significant ones, one that scarred me emotionally for a long time, one that lacked a personality, but led immediately to the third, who left me with two children and an intense dislike of bad mothers who squeeze out children. It's been over a year since I became fully single again, although I still have to deal with my ex, because of the kids, despite winning full custody. But, one thing she gave me (despite bills, BS, and two children was:

Blogging - I fired up SPD shortly before booting her ass from my apartment. Essentially, my writing had ground to a halt between working and taking care of three children (yes, I'm counting her as a child) nonstop. So, with things in motion to remove her from my daily annoyance, I decided to get into the world of blogging. I churned away for several months, fleshing out some of my ideas, putting myself into the role of a presidential candidate, and generally begging family to read my blog so I had more than a hit or two a week. But one weekend, I was listening to a rebroadcast of Hannity, when someone called in from KC Missouri, and mentioned her blog. That happened to be Dee over at Conservatism with Heart. And from there, I began to visit and find more blogs, mostly conservative, some liberal, some completely socialist. And from there, I grew SPD to something worth reading. I don't remember how I ended up there, but I made my way here by way of Jennifer's blog. Again, 'nuff said.

The Politics - If you have yet to visit SPD, let me give you my particular conservative slant, as discussions here have really revealed all the splits in greater conservatism. I'm more of the libertarian mold. I focus mainly on the fiscal and governmental role aspects of conservatism and have conflicting views with my social brethren over government enforcement of morality. In other words, while I have aspects of my faith that lead me one direction, they sometimes conflict with my belief in limiting government involvement in our daily lives. A post I did on abortion explains this tension the best. And I am far from a party man, especially when the GOP has abandoned many of the principles that catapulted it to power in 1980 and 1994. Which means I can finish with:

Blogging Philosophy - One thing that I decided when I started blogging was that I didn't want my blog to degenerate into incessant namecalling, which was a hallmark of the extremist blogs. So, while I'm not above copious amounts of humor, blasting someone who deserves being blasted (Mike "Huck-a-duck" Huckabee, and mocking those who deserve to be mocked Barney Frank), I generally treat every politician with a minimum of respect, and will judge them only by their comments and actions of the day. Except Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, and their tinfoil hat brigades, because there has to be someone to laugh at.

Big Honkin' Finish and Plugs - It's getting late in the day, so I'm going to have to go to sleep (or pass out while typing). But I shall return to pontificate soon enough. And since I'm not a fan of crossposting my stuff, you'll be able to delve into more of my buttery goodness by clicking on this big-assed link to my other blog: Sane Political Discourse. I promise I won't staple anything to anything in the process. And if you want to email me on anything you don't want every mofo ever ill-bred to read (and response is guaranteed), it's patrickmspeaks@gmail.com.

Thank you, and good night.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

White Men Can't Jump So Be Nice to The Black Guy

Into the White House strolls the most unprepared President in modern history, but Barack Hussein Obama is also the first person of color. He has no resume to recommend him, save a series of rather remarkable electoral successes. He also comes in with the most radical agenda in the history of this country, except for perhaps Woodrow Wilson and FDR. Nearly 49 million people voted against him, yet, he enjoys stratospheric popularity, even among elected Republicans. Why?

I'm no psychologist but I've seen this before. The phrase that comes to mind used to be the subject of 80s sit coms. "Some of my best friends are_____." I have a theory about Obama's outsized popularity and it has nothing to do with issues. It has to do with fear. As infants, we are born with only one fear, the fear of falling. As we mature, we take on all kinds of phobias and among adults, the fear of public speaking has long held the top slot, followed by the fear of snakes, heights, etc.

If you could do a double secret blind poll of white adults, for many, the fear of being called a racist would rank right up there with the fear of public speaking, which ranks higher than the fear of death. So it stands to reason that so many, who would be naturally critical of Obama, have backed off. Now, it's also current reality that most conservatives (those that would be critical) are also not black.

Now, as one born in an era when the clerk typed "Negro" in the box for "race" on my birth certificate, I hereby give leave to white conservatives to criticize Obama. White liberals, feel free to chime in too! One of the phrases that emerged from the Bush administration that I really liked (although, I didn't like the program it was associated with) was the soft bigotry of low expectations. Now, I know that this will subside somewhat over time as it becomes clear just how radical and wrong Obama is, but by then, much of the opportunity to make a difference may be lost.

To be clear, I'm not advocating the kind of hateful rhetoric that was assigned to Bush by the left because most of that was mean spirited and reflexive. I'm talking about considered expressions of honest philosophical differences. Besides, I'm sick of seeing the guy playing basketball while he's in motion and everyone else is standing still. He must take after his mother's side athletically, because the pictures indicate that you couldn't slide a piece of paper between his shoes and the floor when he "jumps" and everybody knows white men can't jump!

Obama Will Explain to the Arab World That We Aren't the Enemy....

...and they will apologize and quit trying to kill us!
(Did I tell you the one about the... oh, nevermind!)

Obama chooses Arab network for first TV interview
CAIRO, Egypt – President Barack Obama on Tuesday chose an Arabic satellite TV network for his first formal television interview as president, delivering a message to the Muslim world that "Americans are not your enemy."
The president expressed an intention to engage the Middle East immediately and his new envoy to the region, former Sen. George J. Mitchell, was expected to arrived in Egypt on Tuesday for a visit that will also take him to Israel, the West Bank, Jordan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

"My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy," Obama told the Saudi-owned, Dubai-based Al-Arabiya news channel.
WOW! All we have to do is tell them that we aren't their enemy and they will stop trying to kill off the infidels. Interesting? Why didn't President Bush think of that? Oh, yeah. I remember! President Bush was busy trying to protect us after radical Muslims destroyed the Twin Towers and killed off 3,000 innocent civilians. I guess he wasn't in the mood to tell them that "We aren't your enemy."

Note to Obama: They don't care! We aren't Islam and their agenda is to kill off everyone who doesn't convert to Islam. Gads, this is so infuriatingly frustrating! They will stop trying to do us in when pigs fly.

Another excerpt from the article:
"What I told him is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating," Obama told the interviewer.
Read it all here.

Yes, it's America's fault because we are dictators, folks! That's why 9/11 happened. That's why the USS Cole was attacked. By the way, Clinton was president when the USS Cole was attacked. I suppose he wasn't friendly enough either.

Well, Obama is going to talk to them and tell them that we aren't their enemy and everything will be hunky-dory. After all, they are simply misguided people filled with love for all people and don't have a prejudiced bone in their bodies. This entire thing is a simple misunderstanding and is all our fault because we are dictators. BARF!

Just a reminder. Perhaps Obama needs to watch it:

Please scroll down for another new post as well............

Settled....Once and For All.........The gloves come off!


I truly started this out as a comment in the last post, but I think we need to get this settled once and for all, and this is the only way I can think to do it. I am frankly tired of other "conservatives" coming here and telling us how to run our blog. I can safely say that none of here have done that to you have they?? If so, please by all means enlighten us. Most of your comments here are about his policies......and none of here have ever said that we are going to support the policies. So where is the issue, the problem, the misunderstanding??

I truly have to wonder if the people who come on here just to attack this blog, and you know who you are, actually read it. When I say read, I mean really read and try to understand it, not just pick out words here and there and try to twist them around. As we have said time and time again, we will fight Obama when he goes against our beliefs, values, and vision for America. How can you possibly find fault in that?

I have repeatedly said that I will challenge him on his policies and his actions that I think are wrong. Already, in my opinion, it's not a good start for him. I have already said that in my previous comments and posts, so I can't imagine you finding fault in that either.

So the fight begins and the fight will continue as long as necessary. Gayle, Craig and Patrick, also has been taking him to task on their blogs, if you happen to read it, which I highly suggest. Mine and Roberts, haven't seen much action since we have been devoted to this blog and have let ours go for a little bit. We all have different opinions on certain issues, if we didn't we wouldn't be human. Our opinions come from our background and our experiences and something would be seriously wrong with this picture if we all agreed on everything. That is one of the reasons for various authors.....to offer varying viewpoints on the issues that we are faced with.

I do have a few questions for you to answer and maybe, just maybe, we can break through this battle and come together as conservatives. If not, then there frankly isn't much hope for 2010 or 2012. If we can't even find common ground among ourselves than how are we supposed to be a united front against liberalism?

Let me ask you a few questions if I might......

What steps have you taken to change anything besides venting on your blogs?

I have already contacted my representatives, telling them my opinions on the issues as they have been happening. Other than that, I really have no other ideas at the moment, so if you have anything productive, please do share.

Do you feel that we should sink down to the level of the way the liberals treated Bush?

I do not. I don't like his policies and if you have read anything I wrote, I've said that time and time again. To lower myself to petty name calling and Obama bashing does nothing in my opinion but lessen my integrity. How easy it would be to do that....but I hold my actions to a better standard than that. Just a couple months ago you were all complaining of Bush's treatment and yet you do it to Obama? Don't you find that just a little hypocritical. Do you find it wrong that we don't sink to name calling? Like Gayle said we are all different and we express it different ways. We, here at CC have taken the high road because we feel it is very important to see the vision and follow that road, and not get lost in the other paths.

Do we crash your blogs and tell you how wrong you are and that you are not true conservatives.?

What gives you the mindset to do that to ours.

Why is it wrong to see the bigger picture here instead of focusing on the man himself?

When I say bigger picture, I mean the future of America. His policies now will affect tomorrow, and our children's tomorrows.....shouldn't we be focused on that rather than the man himself. Would you really rather see another 9-11 or the Great Depression just to see the man fail? To be able to tell say, I told you so? Is that what you want for your children's future? I certainly do not. The only time I want the man to fail is when a policy goes against what I want for the future of America. To make a general statements saying "I hope the man fails" is ultimately saying the same about America and I just can't wish that this great nation fails because of our dislike of the president.

I sincerely hope that you answer these questions and are able to see that we want the same things as you do. We have the same goals.....a conservative future!

Monday, January 26, 2009

Bootstraps By Patrick (Our New Author)

This post is by Patrick at Sane Political Discourse, and I am happy to announce that he has agreed to join our team. I've been reading his blog for a while and I love his no-nonsense way about him. He tells it like it is. It is not only refreshing but desperately needed at this critical time in history. Welcome aboard Patrick!

Let me begin by excerpting one more sentence (with critically necessary edit) of the president's inaugural address:

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies.

While I was reading through the multitudinous comments to my Wednesday and Thursday posts, one thing tied them together. And it also reminded me of some of the dumbest comments of the dumbest Obama voters (the ones who expect Obama to magically make their problems go away). And

Far too many people have become dependent on others to survive.

I know, it's a statement of the obvious, but it had to be done. Because at this point, with the deepening recession, we're approaching the point where we can be cast irrevocably into the type of command economy that worked so well for the Soviets. And with the mentality that others must provide us stuff, we're poised to accept it.

Now here's where I tie my earlier posts together. The Obama/Newdeal v2.0 post was about, in essence, unrelenting assumption of power and responsibility over our daily lives. My post arguing that the old guard of the civil rights movement are becoming the source of racial tension now has a side corollary: far too many in the black community still cling to the idea that the deck is stacked against them, and therefor government is required to "balance" things for them.

Other things catch my eye. Walking past the TV a minute ago, I saw two stories mentioned at the bottom of the screen (over the three seconds it took me to get from the kitchen (for coffee) to the bedroom (to type this)) indicating two states were having financial problems keeping up with unemployment. Every news break on the radio details the latest bad numbers. Hell, the damn commercials try to sell shit based on the idea the economy's doing a swirl around the crapper.

Oh, and don't even get me started on the assload of bailouts pouring forthwith from Washington, and how people claiming to be conservative saying that they "have to do something" to justify it.

But this post is not about blaming the government. Because blaming other people is a step on the road to expecting government intervention in the name of "fairness." And the simple fact is that we are reaching a point where we're simply going to run out of money trying to "help" people.

I know, because I've been there (and am still not wholly free of government largess).

So here's the point. We need to get responsible for ourselves and for our families, and encourage others to do the same.

Now I know many of you are already self-sufficient. And I know there are people who have had bad things happen that are overwhelmed by the hits that keep coming. But for this to work, it's time to take it to the next level.

I'll be honest, it won't be easy. But the idea is that we take care of our friends, our family, and ouur neighbors so that the government doesn't have to. I do make exceptions, though, if people seek self-destruction despite our help. But you all know the differnece between the person who blows his money on crap while his ouse gets foreclosed and the family that's struggling to keep up with medical bills while one parent is on the roles due to layoffs. We need to embrace our common faith, both in each other and in God (or an equivalent morality for you atheists). We need to support those businesses that serve us best and that strengthen our community (even to returning to some semblance of the Buy American mentality). And charitable giving should be embraced to help other people, tax deductions be damned, which means donating time, food, personal items, and clothes instead of just money to a charity.

And we need to demand that people in our personal circle take care of the messes they have created, the children they have produced, and others they impact daily.

Simply put, we're not going to drag ourselves out of this mess by waiting for the Stimulus of the Week (add that under Asshat of the Week?) to show up from Washington or the next check from the state to deposit (I assume you go direct deposit rather than messing with paper).

This is not a new idea, but it is forgotten as we isolate ourselves (oh, I'm guilty here). It would be truly amazing if we banded together at the local level to support each other rather than sitting around in our houses looking to far-off governments to plunk their magic twanger and bring relief and prosperity through the most inefficiency method.

So grab up them bootstraps and start a'pullin'.

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Positive Outlook........Half Full or Half Empty?

I am going to expand a little on Robert's last post called the Call to Conservatives. I do not like Obama. Let me make that loud and clear right now. I have a problem with a lot of his policies and I have the feeling that in the future, we will be addressing them as time goes on. The election is over, done, finito and no amount of whining and complaining is going to change the outcome. The worst possible thing we, as conservatives can do right now, is to wallow in self pity instead of fullfilling the vision that we see as our future. I ask you what good it does to sit on our blogs and complain? What possible good does bitterness serve us? As individuals we can make a difference. As a united front, there is nothing that we cannot accomplish but as evidenced in the comment section of the last post, we are not.

"You must start with a positive attitude or you will surely end without one." ~Carrie Latet

It's actually a very easy concept to grasp. When I first learned to ride my bike, I fell down time and time again. It would have been very easy to just sit down on my bruised butt, cry a little bit (or a lot), and complain about how hard it was to ride, and give up. I didn't do that. I got back on the bike, probably a little more gingerly than before, mind you, but I got back on and tried again. I fell again, but I got right back up, and tried again. After a bruised butt and ego, and a lot of Band-Aids, I finally learned to ride my bike. It wasn't easy, and certainly wasn't always pretty but I did not give up. I rode that pink bike with the handlebar pom-pom's, like I was Lance Armstrong. Eventually, I even managed to ride with no hands, but that is getting off track......Anyway, the point to this little flashback was to demonstrate the importance of a positive attitude.

"It is our attitude at the beginning of a difficult task which, more than anything else, will affect it’s successful outcome.”
~William James

It might feel good to sit on our blogs and whine and complain about the state of things, but until we take a pro-active role in changing things, nothing will get accomplished. We need to have a positive outlook in order to make the changes that are necessary to bring our vision to fruition. We need to stand by our convictions and fight with all the ammunition in our corner. This country needs direction and we need to be the ones to supply it. Together we can do that.........

"Sometimes we are limited more by attitude than by opportunities." ~Anonymous

"People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it." ~Anonymous

"I never saw a pessimistic general win a battle." General Dwight David Eisenhower

"If you have the will to win, you achieved half your success; if you don't, you have achieved half your failure." ~ David Ambrose