Posts Tagged ‘Conservative’
Maybe it’s just me but I’m tired of the same old same old in our politics. The big-box monopoly parties have morphed into two sides of the same coin, two heads on the same bird of prey. Today our choice boils down to the Conservative Republican tax and spend, infringe personal liberty, and outsource or sovereignty policies or the Liberal Democrat tax and spend, infringe personal liberty, and outsource or sovereignty policies. But of course, since we don’t want to throw away our vote we must vote for one of the big boys. Conservative? Liberal? Tweedle Dee Or Tweedle Dum?
As a voter I’ve had my Damascus Road experience, the scales have fallen from my eyes, and I have reached the point where I would rather throw away my vote voting for someone who might actually try to find a different way to operate our government besides taxing like the Sun King and spending like a drunken sailor. (By the way, do you know the difference between how a drunken sailor spends and how the Republicrats spend? The drunken sailor is spending his own money.)
And what might this different way be? How about this for radical: let’s return to constitutional government? WOW! what a concept.
How did we arrive at the current situation? James Madison in his speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788 said, “There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.” We didn’t get here all in one jump. First the camel said, “Can I just stick my nose in your tent to stay warm?” and finally the generous man found himself out in the cold as the camel settled down for a nice warm nap, one inch at a time.
The compassion of our people built a safety net for those who needed help, and the greed of the lazy have turned it into a hammock. America, the Land of the Free has turned into America, from each according to their abilities to each according to their need. The willingness to share our heritage has led America to welcome more immigrants each year than the rest of the world combined, and the abuse of our generosity has turned into a migration invasion that threatens to overwhelm us and destroy the future of our children. Taxes imposed to meet the ever-swelling demands of government have turned into a blatant wealth re-distribution program that makes most pyramid schemes look fair. Sometimes I think our government looks at a productive citizen as merely a source of residual income. Or as the ads promise, our leaders lay on the beach of self-importance and our checks just keep pouring in. We are no longer respected as Citizens. Instead, we are coveted as consumers, or human capital.
Albert Einstein said, “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
If we want a different world we have to start at the only place we have the absolute sovereign ability to make a change, we must start with ourselves.
I quit the Republican Party once it was obvious that the Republican majority in Congress I had spent my entire adult life working for was just a change in leadership and not a change in direction. I quit calling myself a conservative after the second Bush debacle made it obvious that the conservative movement had been hijacked by the neocons and I realized that you can’t defend a captured position. You can’t conserve what has already been lost. I realized that we as a people, we as a federation of States need to find a different way.
One thing I know, no one person can do this alone. No one group can do it. To make any headway in the face of the electoral monopoly held by the party of power the many third party groups are going to have to coalesce into en effective opposition. We can’t let divisions divide us any more, egos will have to be suppressed, and we will have to bond together with everyone dedicated to limited government, personal liberty, and economic freedom.
None of us can roll this big rock up this steep hill by ourselves. However, together we can.
Winston Churchill said, “If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
Looking at the increasing speed with which the Progressive regime is building its command and control structure, the future is invading the present at an ever accelerating pace. Their living document has made the Constitution a dead letter. Their mixed economy has as many people on the dole as on the job. The Fed’s printing press is burying us, our children, and their grandchildren taking out a mortgage on lives that haven’t been lived and spending money from taxes on work that hasn’t been done.
We must unite if these United States are to once again become the land of the free and the home of the brave instead of the land of the free lunch and the home of the knave.
Quoting Ben Franklin, “We must hang together, gentlemen…else, we shall most assuredly hang separately.”
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2013 Robert R. Owens firstname.lastname@example.org Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens
One of the complaints lodged against conservatives by liberals, often even by libertarians, is that in matters such as abortion, drug laws, and marriage laws “you can’t legislate morality,” they claim that though they personally oppose one or all these things, it really comes down to a personal choice of the individual and the government should stay out of it. But their hypocrisy is exposed when you talk about some of the things they want to legislate, such as requiring all to pay into government “charity” in the form of welfare, limiting access to firearms, dictating what type of medical insurance you can or must have, what kind of food your children can have, and a myriad of other “nanny state” doctrines.
This liberal ideology forces people to do and/or pay for things that they are opposed to, and takes away their personal choice. So how do they justify this? By saying it is “right,” “just,”, “fair,” meaning of course, moral. So they are perfectly willing to legislate morality, as long as it is their brand of morality. I have even heard a Christian liberal in my church say that these things are all in alignment with Christ’s command to love others and to care for them. I guess he doesn’t mind that forced charity is not charity at all, or that free will was endorsed by Christ, or that there are better ways of doing this than having the government do it.
My libertarian friends on the other hand would tend to agree with the liberals on the items in the first paragraph, and with me on the items in the second paragraph. And that is good in that it is at least consistent. However, libertarianism is pretty much “anarchy-lite;” it is basically opposed nearly all laws and to anything that presumes to define what is acceptable or unacceptable in society.
A conservative looks at all laws and taxes with a critical eye, yet they recognize that to have civil society requires some laws and the taxes to support them. All but a true anarchist agree that laws are needed to protect against violence, define protected property rights, provide for honest commerce, and protect against government abuse of personal rights. Conservatives recognize that there are legitimate reasons to have other civil laws, such as highway standards, building codes, professional certification, and traffic laws.
The real hypocrisy of saying that you can’t legislate morality is the simple fact that any law that protects people from the rule of the strongest is in fact a legislation of morality. Morality is the core basis of civilization.
The United States has had an extremely difficult time perfecting an energy policy that makes sense. The bill forming Department of Energy was signed into law in 1977. There are some good things that came out this in the form of standardization and unification of power distribution into the regional, national, and (with Canada) international power grid. However, one of the main goals given the DOE at its formation was to lead the US to energy self-sufficiency.
After more than a quarter century, we are more dependent on foreign oil than ever.
This wouldn’t be surprising if we had no energy resources. However, we are one of the most energy-rich countries in the world. We own more in-the-ground fossil fuel, than any country. We own vast deposits of uranium. We have great potential for more hydroelectric production. We have many resources for other alternative sources of energy. To understand our place in the energy world, consider these facts:
Total US Oil Reserves:
21 billion barrels proven reserves (CIA World Factbook)
134 billion barrels other estimated recoverable reserves (US Dept. of Interior)
0.727 billion barrels strategic petroleum reserves (CIA World Factbook)
155.727 billion barrels total US recoverable reserves
Other Fossil Fuels
2,175 billion barrels of recoverable oil in shale (Bureau of Land Management)
4116 billion equivalent barrels of oil in recoverable US Coal reserves (US DOE)
Adding the estimated recoverable reserves to the proven reserves, the United States ranks third among all nations in the size of our oil reserves, slightly behind Saudi Arabia, and Canada.
The US contains the largest coal and shale oil deposits in the world. The US has 161% more oil in shale than in the total world oil reserves. Even more amazing, there is enough energy in known US coal reserves alone to eclipse that of all the oil on earth by 400%.
Processing petroleum from oil shell involves mining the oil-bearing shale, crushing the stone, and passing it through a high temperature retort. We currently have the technology to do this, but because it is only competitive when the petroleum price is high, the technological development has not yet advanced into research on reducing the cost of production.
One technique that may make the process competitive with deep well petroleum is that of in situ retorting in which the oil shell is reached by drilling shafts through which heat is pumped releasing the oil which is then pumped to the surface. Certainly, as world oil prices go up oil shell will not only be viable, but attractive.
The myth that oil from coal is not economically feasible has been disproven by South Africa. During the years of the world trade embargo against apartheid, coal-rich South Africa developed a process, and built several plants, each of which produce about 100,000 barrels of oil per day. The Chinese are in process of building as many as 27 of these plants in various parts of China.
Beyond the possibility of converting coal to gasoline, coal holds the spot as the number one producer of electricity in the United States. Even with the huge environmental burden, taxation, and political interference coal still remains the mainstay of the electric industry and one of the most important sources of heat for buildings. When the battery and quick charge technology is finally perfected to have total electric vehicles, it will be coal energy in the form of power grid electricity that drives those cars.
So why can’t we do what South Africa did? Why can’t our oil reserves produce the in range of Saudi Arabia or Canada? Why can’t we get research going to make our Shale oil reserves competitive?
I don’t think it is the fault of the DOE. I think it is the fault of some bad policy coming out of other parts of our federal mega-bureaucracy.
Politically and militarily we had strategic reasons to buy from other countries – if we use their oil, we are saving ours for future use, and we became such a valuable customer to oil producing countries they became our “friends” during the cold war. Both of those are probably valid strategies, and both served their purpose; but they also helped drive us to foreign energy dependency.
However, that was not the reason that US oil production dropped precipitously over the years. The main reason was environmental. In part this was caused by regulations by the EPA, and by such things as species protection. But way beyond that was the general liberal mindset against profits from big companies, distribution of wealth through taxation, excessive time and legal interference on new permitting, and outright banning of drilling in large tracts of known oil reserves. It became too costly and extremely time consuming to do exploratory drilling and to sink new wells into currently producing fields. The Global Warming fiasco with the almost unanimous blind support of the left just about did in the fossil fuel producers in America.
If we had taken half the so called “stimulus” money and put it directly into increased domestic fuel production, we would have seen the economy turn around, and energy cost, thus the cost of everything else, going down. Our number one priority should be to become energy independent as soon as possible, and number two should be to start advancing our energy technologies in all areas.
Over turn the Socialists in Power and take us back to the Government envisioned by the founders. – The billionaires are coming
Koch brothers to host Conservative politicians and business leaders at California resort to discuss how to influence politics
Conservatives, Wall Street chiefs and industrial magnates will discuss Barack Obama’s ‘anti-business’ stance at Rancho Mirage, California.
Amid great secrecy, about 200 of America’s wealthiest and most powerful individuals from the worlds of finance, big business and Conservative politics are expected to come together on Sunday in the sun-drenched California desert near Palm Springs for what has been billed as a gathering of the billionaires.
They will have the chance to enjoy the Rancho Mirage resorts many pools, spa treatments and tennis courts, as well as walk in its 240 acres away from the prying eyes of TV cameras.
But the organizers have made clear that the two-day event is not just “fun in the sun”. This will be a meeting of “doers”, men and women willing to fight the Obama administration and its perceived attack on US free enterprise and wealth.
As the invitation says: “Our goal must be to beat back the unrelenting attacks and hold elected leaders accountable.”
David and Charles Koch enjoy a combined fortune of $35bn (£22bn), run the second largest private company in the US, Koch Industries, and are increasingly using their riches to push their Conservative interests within America’s political process. Nobody knows precisely how much they spend on Conservative elections and lobbying Congress, but it is thought to be scores of millions of dollars.
By similar vein, the guest list for their gathering on Sunday is unknown. Past attendees at the twice-yearly event include supreme court judges, rightwing media celebrities such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, prominent governors of southern states such as Bobby Jindal (Louisiana) and Haley Barbour (Mississippi), as well as leading figures from Wall Street and energy companies, and titans of industry.
The format of the gathering will be similar to previous Koch events, the last of which was held in Aspen, Colorado, in June. The assembled tycoons will talk about some of the present day horrors – the growth of government and state regulations, what they call climate change “alarmism” and “socialised” healthcare.
Then they will share ideas about how to tighten their conservative grip on politics and the judiciary by bringing the government back to the vision of the founders..
But this year’s reception will differ in one important regard: it will have an opposition. For the first time, a coalition of progressive, communist and George Soros funded liberal groups has formed to try to counter the power of the Koch brothers.
The anti-Koch gathering will be staged down the road from the Rancho Mirage. It will hold its own, open communistic meeting as opposed to secretive – panel discussion and a rally designed to highlight what its organizers see as the pernicious impact of the Kochs on the Conservative democratic process.
Among the panel speakers will be Robert Reich, the labour secretary under Bill Clinton. He believes the Kochs represent what he calls a perfect storm that is battering American democracy. “This is the worst I’ve seen it in my lifetime. In the late 19th century, robber barons would deposit bags of silver and gold on the desks of legislators. We’ve progressed significantly since then, but once again big business is engaging in politics.”
The conservatives have been helped by Citizens United Ruling , a landmark ruling by the supreme court in January 2010 that opened the door to corporate spending on political campaigns for the first time since 1947. The ruling led to a splurge of secret outside funding in the 2010 midterm elections in which about $300m was spent, a threefold increase on 2006.
The Koch brothers made good use of the ruling. Again, how much they invested in the elections is not known, but Americans for Prosperity, the Tea Party-aligned movement founded and funded by the Kochs, has put its own spending at $45m.
Critics of the brothers point out that many of the ways they seek to influence politics serves their conservative interests. They lobby for lower personal and corporate taxes, which doubly benefits them as individual taxpayers and as owners of a company.
Since 2006, the Kochs have been the largest political funders of any energy company in the US. They have backed think tanks and campaigns that have opened the truth about climate change.
They have sustained the conservative fight through the Tea Party movements against government regulations.
I saw a political cartoon today that has Patrick Henry saying, “Give me liberty or give me civility.” The apparent point being that civility is a limit on liberty. There is a saying that people in the old west tended to be rather polite, because everybody was armed; to the degree that is true, people voluntarily limited the offensiveness of their speech as a matter of prudence. The reality is that anything that governs any action is a limit on liberty, which is why the Founding Fathers held the idea of limited government as a basic tenet of the foundation of our republic.
There is a balance that should be maintained between complete freedom to say and behave in any way a person chooses and in civility and polite behavior. Politeness and civility come from a person’s upbringing and the social culture of society.
When I was a child, in the 1950’s, society was considerably more polite than it is today, not only in speech, but in grooming, dress, and general behavior. Men were careful of their personal appearance, were chivalrous, tipping their hats (everyone wore a hat), stepping aside to allow others to pass on the sidewalk, holding doors for women, children, and the elderly, and watching their language in public.
The big change to this came from the younger members of my generation in the late sixties and seventies. Inspired by left-leaning professors, it started with college students who refused to honor the draft, developed into opposition to the Viet Nam war; running counter to traditional patriotic support of our soldiers during time of war. This bloomed into the hippy era, drug culture, free love, abortion rights, women’s rights, environmentalism, and a general anti-establishment philosophy. They rose up in a mass rebellion against pretty much every social and moral more of the time.
From the close of World War II, the Soviet Union was very actively working to foment this type of unrest through agents and contacts in the American Communist Party, the Socialist Party, labor unions, the universities, and the media. These have elevated extremism to mainstream politics via left wing groups from followers of Alinsky, SDS, Acorn, and various other “community organizations” and radical groups.
The McCarthy hearings of the early fifties identified some of this activity, but concentrated most on the film industry, where they were fairly successful in disarming that propaganda effort. The irony of the Soviet success in placing socialist plants and creating civil unrest was that, while they ended up succeeding beyond their original hope, it did not cause a push for Soviet style communism, but instead a push toward greater liberty; almost, but not quite, an anarchy type of freedom.
There were some very good things that came from all this. Freedom of speech and expression were given a greater emphasis than ever before. Women gained equality in the workplace and a greater say in the political and civic arena. Citizens became openly hostile toward public corruption and cronyism. Industrial pollution and toxic waste has been reduced by probably 90%.
Business has been changed from the type X labor/management conflict model to a more win/win approach. Families have switched from a rigid patriarchal style, to more of a partnership with greater parental involvement with children. All these are examples of the good that came out of this period of unrest.
However, there were almost an equal number of bad things that came from this period; it was a sort of a “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” situation. The polite civility of our parent’s generation didn’t completely disappear, but it was badly damaged and greatly reduced.
The use of slang, poor grammar, and of aggressive, offensive, and threatening language greatly increased. Self-discipline and personal accountability have been replaced with selfish hedonism and victimization. The concept of earning respect was replaced with deserving respect. Our children have been raised to believe that competing is bad, and winning isn’t important; everybody deserves the same reward regardless of personal effort and performance.
Political correctness has created a society unable to address differences between cultures, races, or other social distinctions, while at the same time destroying the concept of the American social “melting pot.” We now have Afro-, Hispano-, Asian-, etc. Americans who believe the culture and values of their homeland or racial group is more important than their identity as Americans. We have inadvertently created a new type of segregation.
So in addition to the many good things, the history of the Baby Boomers and their children has created all kinds of bad fall-out. Examples are extremely high rates of birth out of wedlock, huge numbers of abortions, huge numbers of single parent families, widespread use of drugs, illogical environmental and social laws, great loss of heavy industry, tremendous growth in government and the taxes required to support it, and a less civil, more crude society.
A second irony is the left accusing the right of using violent rhetoric when the use of extreme aggressive violent language, hyperbole, rhetoric , and imagery has been an invention and mainstay of the left; they are now accusing a much more mild right, in particular the Tea Party and talk radio, of abusing freedom of speech with excessive use of violent language. For any liberal to make such an accusation is not only ironic, but also hypocritical.
Personally, I would like for people on all sides of the political spectrum to avoid aggressive language and instead endeavor to express their ideas and opposition with more accuracy and less emotion. I don’t think this will really happen, because the left is steeped in the concept of using every crisis to drive an emotional following to a loud attack on their opposition.
I recently stated that I dislike seeing the Republicans “playing nice” with the Democrats; and I definitely feel that way. I think the Republicans need to respect the right of the Democrats to their opinions, but I also think Republicans need to strongly counter those damaging and anti-American ideas.
Modern politics is more clearly than ever aligned between not just conservative and liberal, but right and wrong. The conservatives are simply right, and the liberals are simply wrong, and there is nothing in that to compromise. I would rather see congress unable to ever pass another law than to pass one more law that will hurt our country.
There has been much made of a pre-election campaign poster that pictured Democrats that were targeted for defeat by Republicans with the graphic of a crosshair to emphasize the concept of their being targeted. This symbolism has been used for years on political media by both political parties and individual candidates. Harry Mitchell used a photo with his opponent centered in the crosshairs – if only we had known he was attempting to incite murder, we could have had him arrested. At least according to the liberal hysteria coming from the left. I have probably a hundred photos of liberal and Democratic examples of what they are so eagerly condemning the conservatives and Republicans. A few are posted below.
This is a graphic used by the Democrats in the last election. Notice the targets on the states where they hope to defeat a Republican, or did they REALLY mean to kill a Republican? Absurd? Of course it is, but no more so than what they are saying now about the right.
A subtle hint of violence from a liberal protest march.
Satire, not hate from our liberal friends.
Why on earth was this person not arrested? No hint of left-wing inducement to violence here.
Aliens demanding their constitutional (what?) rights in Phoenix.
Lefties proudly desecrating the American flag. This is actually violence against America, but the left has no trouble supporting this right to free speach.
Since the left has been doing this kind of protest and campaigning for the last several years, and since they are saying this type of rhetoric causes crazies to kill, we shoud brace ourselves or an onslaught of mass assassination and murder. Of course the caveat is that it’s only bad if it does not reflect their view… Would the word hyprocrite be appropriate here?
The fact is that this type of protest and advertising does not cause deadly actions. In the United States there have been four presidents assassinated and twenty attempted assassinatiion of a president. Of these only three were politically motivated; the rest were all perpetrated by an unbalanced person with their own incomprehensible motivation. Interestingly enough, almost all of these were committed by a relatively young male, a loner, unemployed, with previouse social and legal problems, who acted alone. This sounds very much like the man who committed the outrage in Tucson. I don’t really want to mention his name, because that is what he apparently wants – fame.
Instead of dwelling on the murderer, or misplacing blame, we would do well to mourn the loss of Christina Green, Gabriel Zimmerman, John Roll, Dorwin Stoddard, Dorothy Morris, and Phyllis Scheck. Their love ones have lost them from this life, and we have lost an unknown number of blessings from their being taken. Let us remember in our prayers Representative Giffords as she fights her battle to regain her life, as well as Bill Badger, Ron Barber, Eric Fuller, Susan Hileman, George Morris, Pam Simon, and Mavy Stoddard all of whom were wounded by the killer. May God bless them all to have a rapid and complete recovery.