It is Time to Drop the Word Conservative

Let me start by saying first-of-all that I am not claiming that we abandon the 'conservative' principles we hold dear. So do not reply telling me that I have given up, threw in the towel, betrayed the movement, etc... I also am not saying that we begin trying our hand at the liberals game and try to 'control the language'. What I am saying though is that we need to stop letting ourselves be branded or that we cease to hold on to a term we have held for long and that we simply begin to call ourselves and the people we oppose by their correct names.

The word "Conservative" refers to someone who wishes to retain, to 'conserve' the current order of the world. In simpler terms, a conservative seeks to ensure that things remain the same. Let me be clear, under this definition, we are no longer 'conservatives'. This is an obvious point as we no longer wish to conserve our current position in the world.

On the off chance you do not believe me, consider:

• We have sought, not the continuation of things as they are, but of things as they were.
• To this end we have sought not our current government, but a smaller one. i.e. different government.
• We have argued for lower spending, not our current budget, but a smaller different one.
• We have argued against the high taxes we have had repeatedly imposed upon us, and argued against this continued practice. i.e. we have argued for an end to the current system.
• We wish our government to be held accountable to the people, and held in check by its laws and restrictions, especially its limits on power. In other words, we want our system to be governed differently from the way it is now.
• We seek an end to government handouts and demand a return to self-reliance.

This list could go on, but the point is obvious. Even arguing that the things that we want were in the past, it cannot be argued that these things persist still. We do not live under a constitutional republic any longer, we wish to impose it and make it permanent. We do not live in a free-market system any longer, but wish to create it so that the forces natural to it can take over. We no longer have individual freedoms that are protected by our government, but we instead have freedoms that are routinely violated by the same government we wish to reform.

Simply put, the very system we are said to want to protect and 'conserve' no longer exists. Today, to be a conservative is to want government intervention, to desire handouts, and to accept taxation as a necessity for the common good. In other words, to be a conservative today, is simply to be a slightly less radical liberal. This is because the beliefs held by the people that call themselves conservatives are no longer in place. The things that are in place are the very government programs that we want to end, the taxes we want removed, the bureaucracies we want dissolved, the regulations we want lifted, the practices we want ended. Nothing in our current government is left to us to conserve. Even our founding document is now more of a decoration than a document to be enforced. It would be simpler to find a genie to grant wishes than to find things we wish to conserve.

In short, we are now the radicals. If you do not believe me then read the tenth amendment to someone who calls themselves a liberal. If you are not hounded for being 'crazy' then I am truly amazed. We are now the crazies. This sounds insane to think, but consider the crazy ideas many people now accept without question. We now live in the world that gives credence to the remark that "the lunatics are running the asylum." When it is the lunatics who run the world, is it not logical to assume that it is the sane who are called crazy? Insane? Radical?

The term conservative no longer applies to us anymore and so it seems we need a new word to identify ourselves with. This term already exists. That term is "Classical Liberal". A word from which Progressives originally snaked the term 'Liberal' in order to change their colors for a time. The simple fact is that we have always been Classical Liberals. We simply have allowed the Progressive movement to re-brand us as conservatives in order to make us sound old and dusty. This no longer has to be.

That term is our term and many already identify with it. As long as we allow ourselves to be called conservatives, the progressive movement will always be able to tell the world how it seeks to change the world. As the very word conservative contains within it the meanings they need to place the blame on our shoulders, our possessing it, even reveling in it will simply be a hindrance.

In order for us to win this battle, we must educate everyone and tell them what it is we mean. The word conservative cannot be tolerated anymore as confusion can only be created by such a word. In preaching a change of government, we must not also incorporate words that confuse our intent. We cannot preach change as the "Conservative Party" or as the "Grand Ole Party". We must leave behind us our tendency to cling to things that possess a certain tenacity for it is this tendency toward the present that people wish to avoid.

This world can still be won with ideas as long as their exists one person's mind which is not yet made up. These minds however do ask for consistency in message, and it is best that we choose even our words carefully so that we do not get confused with the current set of ideals.

Vindication and Agitation

I am back after a long hiatus. School continues to be disruptive to my hobby of yelling at no one, for no one to hear. Well, the GIVE act has almost vindicated me and the prediction I have made in December of last year. I need to get my congressman on the phone and ask him what in the world he thinks he is doing voting for that, but whatever. That is between me and him.

Since I took off to do a great many things at UNLV, a great big amount of ruckus has been made about bailouts, and even more about a bunch of guys getting their bonuses. Well, of course we could not block those bonuses; I mean, that would have been unconstitutional. Though that does not seem to be the reason for that. This is evidenced by a great many people clamoring for a tax on their bonuses. Gee whiz, that almost sounds unconstitutional. I mean... taxing particular people, and making the tax retroactive. Nah, I am just stupid. Besides, who cares about the constitution? It is our money!!

Let me first make the obvious point that if AIG was not bailed out, this conversation would not exist. But who cares about little facts like that? Let's just go grab our respective pitchforks and go hunting. The simple fact is that this IS our fault. It is not like AIG walked into our homes in the dead of night and took this money. The government, that we voted in, taxed it from us and gave the money to AIG while so many were crying out about some mysterious and vague end-of-the-world scenario. That is not to say no one cried out about these bailouts. Many, like me, were down right angry we were even considering it. Then we allowed them to fulfill their contracts, as was constitutionally required of us. Low and behold, one of the contracts we allowed them to honor included the bonuses.

Well people are outraged that their money is going to these big corporate execs. People are so angry now that they are even happy that we are going to take all their money via tax. Why are we allowing this? Does it not strike anyone as strange, or dare I say wrong to tax these men and women in particular?

Let me put this differently. What if it were you? What if, for whatever reason you want to choose, the government decided to tax you in particular? What if the reason was you do not give enough to charity? Or maybe it is because you earn an 'inordinate amount' of money in comparison to others in your same job? Or maybe it is simply because you happen to be registered for a certain party, or voted for a particular guy?

'No! That is different.' Certainly the circumstances and reasons are different, but can you tell me it wouldn't be done? With this 90% tax that is going through congress right now, we are giving congress precedent. This means that this belief that it could not happen to me goes away. You could argue that the reasons are different, but does that mean whatever reasons given for the unconstitutional tax levied on them are any more or less important then the ones that could be levied on you? You could say that this reason makes it justified, or that it was a punishment for a 'wrong' they have committed. However, could I not make up a reason for doing the exact same thing to anyone else and then claim that this reason is just as justifiable as the ones for this atrocity?

Once this door is opened it cannot be closed simply by crying bloody murder. If we take these bonuses, then there will be no reason why we shouldn't levy a tax on someone for having done something, anything. All we would need would be the proper motivation for it, whatever that motivation happens to be at that time. Maybe sexual preference, skin color, the fact that your hair is parted on the left. All that is required is that someone at some point makes up a good enough reason, and soon the rights of an individual are infringed "for the right reasons".

This is why a diminishing of rights of one, diminishes every person's rights. So you cannot allow this, even IF you think this is a good reason. The rights that protect you protect them as well. By giving the federal government permission to tax anyone in particular, you have given the government permission by assent to do the very same thing to anyone including yourself.

Why should I care though? Some people I know may want everyone to root for this. After all "the libs brought it upon themselves." Once all hell breaks loose these friends of mine will undoubtedly be the ones laughing all the way to the gas chamber. The reason I am against this line of logic is simple; I live here too. Though I warned people and was insulted, and am still insulted. Even though I put up with crap from every 'know-it-all' who listens to NPR; the fact still stands. I live here and I do not think I will be moving for awhile. Laughing at people for making mistakes, even horrible ones will not repair anything. It will get me and everyone else nowhere. We all must simply get together and vote for every conservative we possibly can in two years. When the problem is fixed, that will be the time we can go say I told you so.

Time for some indentured learnitude.

Christmas is over and I am ready to come back and talk to myself again. During the campaign I, like many other college students, were bombarded with Obama imagery, free concerts and voter turnout rallies. During one of these I happened to walk by an Obama booth. The campaign stumper there told me all the usual, and my favorite line I was fed was 'You know Obama is going to give you 5k for college right?' I am sure this type of bribe works on a lot of people. Of course I brought up all the usual, “Where are you going to get the money?” “We are going to end the Iraq war. Then we will have all the money we need.” “That won't save enough money.” It continued for awhile of course.

It seems to never occur to anyone in college that money does not grow on trees. I always found that strange since presumably they all work for a living. I am a broke college student. I know people are having a hard time keeping up with bills. Still many college students are now rejoicing in their handouts. After the election I manged to sit down and think over this fact. When I mulled over it for a bit, I went temporarily insane because of what I figured out.

First of all this money must come from somewhere so therefor taxes go up, therefor prices go up and job losses go up. None of this is helpful obviously but this is also well covered by many before me. Let us assume for a second that the Obama stumper was right and let us say that the Iraq war would cover all of this. The simple fact is that colleges are businesses. It may seem to many libs to be somehow evil but these schools are not teaching law and economics for their health, they do it for a profit. Every college prices the tuition to restrict and attract certain groups of people. Higher prices tend to hit the high capita families, other colleges target middle classes and still others target upper lower classes. What do you think will happen if you throw 4k into the mix? If colleges really were these ultra accepting institutions that wanted to get more lower income families into college, then they could just lower the tuition cost 4k. The simple fact is that they are priced where they believe they can get the most money. Unfortunately what will almost certainly happen is that tuition will actually increase 4k across the board.

This gets better. To get these 4k dollar government handouts, an individual needs to work for 100 hours of community service. So tuition goes up 4k a year meaning people who are just making the cut, like me, are no longer able to afford college. So now I am expected to go to college full-time, work full-time, study for about three hours (I am lazy) a week and perform 100 hours of community service. I find it strange that conservatives are always being compared to Hitler and called racists and made out to be somehow evil, yet with all this evil scheming going on we still have not reinstituted indentured servitude. Man, if I could only remember what amendment to the constitution banned that.

This was the part that made me go nutso for a week. What is wrong with people? This in reality is worse then indentured servitude because most indentured servants were indentured because they had to pay off a debt owed for coming to the new world, in this case I would effectively lose over seventy credits of hard work and money spent. It seems you do not need whips to enslave a college student.

I am sure it will be only a short while before someone tries to pass this off as a 'free market solution'. Why is it liberals believe that a 'free market' always involves massive government interventionism? The last I checked, the free market was supposed to be a bastion for individualism. It seems that now the free market is a gigantic charity auction with more suits then Italy has made in the last half century.

Of course this would be bad on its own but wait theres more! I know, this is one sick game show. The Obama Biden team have come up with yet another way to make this worse. The tax-credit (handout for those of you who have not been paying attention to this scheme) is fully-refundable to any college student. Call me crazy but I think you do not need to be a college student to figure out that if you sign up for one class at a community college then you will rake in a lot of dough. This problem is a bit more iffy as it is possible that Obama may get some restriction on this to reign in government abuse. Wait... never mind; I forgot where we were.

Normally this next paragraph would be the part where I lament that our constitution is no longer being followed but I am sure that train has gone and passed and blew up somewhere in the Gobi desert. No the entire collection of college students will take one in the rear end coming this next fall. If people would just read or maybe just think a little then all our problems could be solved. As long as people go looking for a handout from big brother though this is not going to happen.

Even crazy glue can't keep his trap shut.

I bet Obama’s campaign advisors are searching for a gag that will effectively muffle his speaking. I don’t think it would help in this case though. If you haven’t heard, then let me be the first to tell you about Obama’s latest gaff. This one is about seven years old.

In 2001 Obama gave an interview with the local NPR station WBEZ in Chicago. This of course being before he was planning to run for US senator or president, he spoke his mind as liberally as he could. There were many wonderful quotes from this. A few examples are such as these.

“the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.”

“It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf”

“one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.”

Each of these quotes by themselves is scary. The second is my favorite though. Obama there was trying to state that the constitution does not define what the government is supposed to do for you. I think this is proof positive that Obama has ADHD. He was a professor of constitutional law in Chicago and he couldn’t even bother to read a couple pages in to see Article I section VIII? Maybe he skipped that, and Article II section III. This is somewhat amazing at first but take a look at the rest of this tape that surfaced on Youtube and other sites and it becomes apparent what he means.

The first quote was his reasons for believing that the Warren court was not really that radical. This was the same court that banned prayer in school but hey, who am I to judge. Those evil Christians had it coming. Naturally this is a very important quote as of late. After all, he has been speaking of redistributing the wealth. Some claim this means nothing, but in reality context is everything, and the context is his belief that we should re-interpret the constitution. If you do not believe that then just read quote number two.

Later in the tape he was asked about how to bring about this change. (Do you understand now why change isn’t always good?) He stated that he did not feel optimistic about these types of changes being made at the court level. (i.e. he doesn’t think anyone could get away with it.) However he never said it couldn’t be done legislatively. Of course it could be done legislatively; if you read the constitution then you will know that. The question is should it be done, and unfortunately he seems to answer that question for us today and in that interview.

This certainly came at a bad time for Obama. It has been only a few weeks after Joe the Plummer reared his head and the ripple was still going. Now this causes even more people to look at him and see that dreaded S word on his head. He is already considered foreign. The only thing he really had going for him was that many people falsely believe that McCain would just be more Bush. This fear is now being combated with a bigger fear; the fear of socialism and all other forms of totalitarianism.

To this I ask the question who is really surprised that Barrack believes this? Ideas of socialism permeate his speeches, radicalism drips from every word he spews from his mouth. Are people really this blind or do they want so bad to teach the Republican Party a lesson that they are willing to destroy the country?

His pastor subscribes to black liberation theology, a philosophy derived largely from socialism. William Ares (known lovingly as the fireworks specialist. He is available for parties and insurrections) is a radical from the 60s. Normally that would be all you need to know to know Ayres is bad but it is worth noting that he was also a bomber and a self described communist. These comments are unfair though. After all, lots of us detonate bombs in our capital. It’s a game we play called “guess what kind of timer I used this time.”

“But these are all past associations, they mean nothing.” Even allowing that, doesn’t Obama tie in really well with Obama? I think that association works great. People are starting to wake up and figure out what is going on. Unfortunately early voting has been going on for a bit so this revelation will have a reduced effect.

His third quote that I pulled was by far the scariest. Sure, the first one smacks of socialism and the second one shows just how little he knows about the constitution, but the third one calls for action “on the ground”. If you substituted “political and community organizing and activities” with “Proletariat organizing and activities” then you have a near verbatim quote of Marx and Engels. Revolution is what that one is about, specifically with regard to “redistributive change.” His own website tells you that you must ask not about what change he can bring but the change you can bring. That is as fascist/socialist as you can get without wearing the colors.

“Your being paranoid.” Maybe, then again there is a reason we have more then one country in shambles because of these ideas. Countries like the USSR, Cuba, Italy, and Germany don’t convince people to help them out by promising gulags. It is always some form of Utopia that is promised. Barrack wants us to believe that if we vote for him then the middle class will prosper and the ‘evil’ rich will be brought under the reins of the government. Health care will be affordable (‘free’) and everyone will be given a fair shake. He doesn’t mention that we will also be under his thumb and that the fairness of our shake is entirely up to him, congress and bureaucrats. If you believe that he would never abuse his power like that then look at Russia under Lenin. Even if he were incorruptible then would you want to bet that the next guy will be also?

The fact is that the people are starting to see him for what he is. This is a problem because his real self is just plain scary. The polls are beginning to reflect this as the AP shows McCain just one point behind, well within the 2.5% margin of error. Well Halloween is on Friday so maybe Obama will go as himself. That might scare the children though.

Where is the self-destruct button?

I am an idiot. I must be because when I saw the House shoot down the bailout I honestly thought that those representatives were standing on principle. Turns out all they really wanted was some more pork. It was kind of like a Jambalaya from hell. Don’t believe me? Look at the bill yourself. http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/latestversionAYO08C32_xml.pdf

I look at this crap; The Mental health Parity Act, The Hurricane Ike Disaster Relief, The Secure Rural School and Community Self-determination Plan? No it turns out the real reason we didn’t pass the bailout the first time is because several House members needed an excuse to usurp several banks and loans. “I didn’t vote for the bailout, I voted for the disaster relief.” “No, you see, I really voted on the Mental Health Parity Act. Do you hate the mentally challenged?” I am sick and tired of these creeps covering their own behinds. A well trained sniper would have a hard time taking a shot at their butts. Where are the courageous representatives who stand up and say “No, I will not tolerate this. I will stop you from going beyond your enumerated power and stop this bill.”

If you look at the votes on this bill on congress.org, then you will see those that, hopefully, did just that. Unfortunately only the few seemed to pay attention to those pesky words in that irritating document our founders mistakenly wrote. I don’t doubt that if our founders had another go at it John Adams would have said “Hey, you know what we should add in here? We should add something like ‘and the congress shall have power to impose their will upon the markets in times that shall be determined my congress.’” On the bright side, Jefferson’s spinning body could be harnessed for some green energy.

If they were not so isolationist, I just might switch my registration to Libertarian. Unfortunately the Republican party has been taken over by cowards and moderates. (Moderate is liberal speak for a Democrat who is quite fond of elephants.) Most people at the grass roots are happy for the mere existence of Sarah Palin. Unfortunately her existence does me little good if McCain insists on her reading from scripts.

However do not get me wrong. Our ideas are not dead. The fact that I am posting this up here on the internet proves that. Trickledown theory is still popular, collectivism is still opposed harshly and the peaceniks still tick most people off. Conservatives are not dead, Conservatism is not dead. The party though, it is crashing. Politics have taken over and instead of standing up for what we believe in, the politicians stand up for what will get them re-elected.

These people are starting to disappoint me. It seems that there is little chance of people like me just getting rid of these guys the old fashioned way. So join me and let’s find that self-destruct button. Maybe we could start all over again, but most likely not. Until the Republican party grows a backbone we wont be able to do this our most sacred duty, which is get these guys out of office.

Censorship gone wild!!!

I think Keith Olberman needs to stick to football. In another interview with Scott Mclellan, Keith Olberman came to this startling conclusion, “Fox News is biased”. I won't necessarily disagree here, it is hard for Fox News or any News channel to be unbiased but this seems like a case of the pot calling the kettle black, only the pot is "blacker" than the kettle. Numerous liberal pundits are complaining that shows like The O'Reilly Factor and Sean Hannity are parroting the White house talking points. To be more specific the problem apparently is that these shows mention the White house talking points at all. Somehow by acknowledging the existence of these talking points and, God forbid, agreeing with some of them Fox News is guilty of being biased. The definition of biased here seems to be "agreeing or disagreeing with any point not previously 'agreed upon' by the liberal media." If this is the definition then yah, Fox is biased.

It got more interesting when another pundit began to explain that it was unconstitutional for Fox to parrot these talking points. Let me first ask that, if this is true, then do we get to ban MSNBC, CNN, New York Times and Air America if and when Obama wins? No? Then your problem isn't that Fox is repeating, or more accurately reporting, white house talking points but that those points are not your talking points. Hypocrisy like this is rampant throughout the media. To address the constitutionality of this we must consider the argument itself. I cannot find a link to this so I am going to have to do this from memory. (Let me ask my very small audience at this time to please send any sources you have. I would like any of them.)

From Bennett in the morning sometime at 4 AM (I know, quite an ungodly hour, so forgive me if I screw this up.) a female pundit stated that it is unconstitutional for Fox to, and I quote, "Be a mouthpiece for the government" Even ignoring the obvious problem involving their complacency toward being a mouth piece for the Clintons during their stay, this argument does not fly. The only thing in the constitution that could possibly be misconstrued as making it unconstitutional to "be the mouthpiece of the government" is the freedom of speech and press part of amendment I. This fails to address anything regarding this as the government is not directly or even indirectly prohibiting them from speaking. However, it would be unconstitutional for liberals to prohibit Fox from speaking by forbidding them to tell their side of the story.

If you are at all surprised by this then you are not aware of the Fairness Doctrine. It is an attempt to bring back rules and regulations that more or less shutdown talk radio which is completely dominated by conservatives. All this is done in the name of being equitable to both sides. Unfortunately not everyone wants to have another viewpoint shoved down their throats. Although I do think people should look at both sides, I do not believe in mandating it. If you want to see me switch sides on an issue, add the word mandate. Most everything could be accomplished without mandates.

If you still are not convinced that we shouldn't allow this then all you need to do is ask yourself what if when the republicans got back into office they decide to use these rules against you. Censorship is censorship, it doesn't matter who does the censoring.

Victory is ours!!! sort of...

The supreme court rule against the D.C. gun ban this week. That's the good news. The bad news is that it was only by a 5 to 4 vote. Thanks to that swing vote of Kennedy's we have won this battle. I find it somewhat terrifying that four of the Supreme court justices have not read the Constitution of the United States. You know, the one they are supposed to interpret. This will undoubtedly change however with the new presidency. If Obama is elected and the congress stays heavily liberal then they together will appoint more radical judges. Great!!! More Ginsburgs. This is rather irritating to a NRA member like myself.

Some comments about this come from various places. Despite how much he infuriates me at least I agree with McCain here

Today's ruling makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans (courtesy of NPR http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91934910&ft=1&f=1001)

Obama also gave a sort of praise

Today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country," he said, adding that "what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne," but the decision reinforced that "if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe. (also NPR)

I think this is interesting as he stated that "what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne." No Obama, it is what isn't constitutional in D.C. isn't constitutional anywhere in the U.S. period.

What was the dissenting opinions? Well Stevens tried to make the point that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the "militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keep and bear arms" demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only. (wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_v._D.C.) Would you have me assume that if I had read to sentences that read "In order to protect Jill's right to eats Ice cream, Jake's right to have brass knuckles must not be infringed." to mean that Jill should get the brass knuckles or that Jake can only possess them if Jill's right to eat ice cream is in danger? The preamble just gives a reason why the law exists (aside from protecting from a tyrannical gov't). Many laws have that kind of crap right at the top. Read the beginning of the constitution or the declaration. Read the beginning of the (thankfully) failed law called the climate security act of 2007.

Of course Breyer brought up how many people die because of guns. I am glad to say fear mongering hasn't gone out of style. Gun bans don't work. This has been proven numerous times. Do you think it is a coincidence that D.C. was the murder capital of the U.S.? Never mind, this point has been driven hard enough already and the only ones who believe this drivel anymore are the zealots.

Thankfully there are somethings we can do. If we can bring back the GOP as the conservative party and take back the congress from the radical left wing MoveOn mesmerized dems then we can impeach every on of those justices. That's right, Impeach. They can be impeached too. (read Article II last section if you don't believe me.) If we don't band together soon then we may not live in a free world for long.