Check out Mark Steyn at CPAC. He provides a few wonderful arguments about why Conservativism needs to triumph in our world, all from the prespective of a legal immigrant.
Conservativism
Archived Posts from this Category
McCain Accidentally Reveals the Truth
McCain appeals to conservative critics. In this article we read McCain state:
“I’m aware there’s a very fine line between inspiring in unity and pandering. You know, you’ve got to present it in the right way, of course.”
And this is all you really have to know about McCain. He isn’t about principals or issues; he’s about presentation.
McCain can try to appeal to Conservatives all he wants, but his voting record already belies that. McCain is no Conservative.
McCain’s pandering includes these gems:
“I do hope that at some point we would just calm down a little bit and see if there’s areas we can agree on.”
The areas we disagree on happen to be more important than the areas we agree on, Johnny-boy.
Our message will be that we all share common principles, common conservative principles, and we should coalesce around those issues in which we are in agreement and I hope respectfully disagree on a few specific issues there’s disagreement on.
You mean “disagreements” like your violation of the First Amendment (McCain/Feingold)? You mean disagreements like on amnesty for illegal criminals who’ve sneaked into our country? You mean disagreements on tax cuts (McCain opposed them, stating the Stalinist–I mean Democratic party line that they were beneficial to the rich). All that is supposed to be ignored because we agree with you on Iraq?
Oh wait. We don’t agree with you on Iraq either, Johnny-boy. You oppose waterboarding, prefering to let terrorists kill innocent civilians. Apparently, our agreement is that you supported the “surge.”
So McCain agrees with us on the surge and that’s supposed to make everything else go away? Iraq is improving (case in point: it’s not in the news anymore!). Iraq will not be an issue for our next president. But illegal aliens, taxes, and First Amendment rights will be.
Tell me again in what way I should be pleased that McCain agrees with me on the surge?
In my opinion, I say let McCain have the Republican Party. It’s time for Conservatives to get together in our own party. Why not just have the Conservative Party as the third alternative? You have the Dems, the Dem-lites (I mean Republicans), and the Conservatives.
Imagine the political power the Conservative Party would have, once Conservatives realized there was another option rather than supporting the candidate who is only 97% evil instead of 98% evil!
Now that it appears the Republicans are going to be dumb enough to nominate McCain, it leads more credence to my rationale as to why I am no longer a Republican. I see no ontological difference between McCain and Hillary. Thus far, I think Ann Coulter had the best reasoning: President Hillary is better than McCain simply because the Republicans in Congress would know they’re supposed to oppose Hillary. With McCain, you’d get the same bills and they’d want to support “our guy.”
I remain a Conservative, and there are no Conservatives on the ballot this year. Not only that, McCain is anti-Conservative when you look at his voting record. As a result, I’ll most likely be sitting this one out. Honestly, this election is a bit like this last Super Bowl. I didn’t like either team, didn’t watch it; I don’t like any candidate, not voting for ‘em.
(Wouldn’t it have been nice if Fred hadn’t waited until it was too late?)
Liberalism: The dreaded feeling that somehow, someway, it’s Bush’s fault.
The Tolerance Liberals Display When They’re In Charge
In a word: None.
That’s right. The Marine Corps opened a recruiting station in Berkeley, home of the (thought) free, land of the (not so) brave. The Berkeley city council, in a fit of liberal tolerance, voted 8-1 that: “if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome guests.” Furthermore, these people who pretend that they want freedom for everyone, are forcing the Marines to give Code Pink (i.e. the Commies) a parking space in front of the recruiting station once a week for six months, as well as a free sound permit so they can protest in front of the station.
There are, of course, no conservatives in Berkley. This is what pure leftist dogma will get you. You either tow the party line, or they’ll harass you. Quoth the mayor: “I believe in the Code Pink cause. The Marines don’t belong here, they shouldn’t have come here, and they should leave.”
I wonder when the ACLU will jump in saying that the city is discriminating against the Marines. Oh wait, they won’t.
But imagine what would happen if, say, Dalton, GA told the NAACP group that they had to provide a parking space for the KKK and allow the KKK to protest once a week. Imagine further what would happen if the mayor said: “I believe in the KKK’s cause. The NAACP doesn’t belong here, they shouldn’t have come here, and they should leave.” What kind of uproar would that cause?
Need I even ask the question?
Double standard, thy name is liberal.
Check this headline: Non-believing US voters feel demonized
Isn’t this about like saying “I feel unicornized”? I mean, seriously, if you don’t believe in the supernatural, how can you feel “demonized”? :-P
The article cites how atheists aren’t trusted in politics. (BTW: it’s not just atheists, I don’t trust anyone in politics.) But then it ends by saying:
“Many of the candidates would be acceptable to me regardless of their religious faith,” Stark told AFP. “Jimmy Carter (who became president in 1977) was perhaps the most personally strident conservative Christian — and I think he did a wonderful job.”
Well THAT’S YOUR PROBLEM RIGHT THERE. Anyone who thinks Carter “was perhaps the most personally strident conservative Christian” cannot be trusted to vote well.
As I walked into work today, I noticed something: It’s frickin freezing, Mr. Bigglesworth. Oh how a dose of Global Warming would have felt nice at that moment.
In any case, it got me to think about the math involved in Global Warming. I’ve read recent articles about how the Arctic has a shorter winter now, that average temperatures are up over 20 degrees, etc. Frankly, I don’t believe those reports, but let’s pretend they are real.
The supposed increase in temperature caused by Global Warming is 0.6 degrees C. If temperatures are up 20 degrees in the Arctic due to shorter winters, then why is the Global Average only up 0.6 degrees?
There are only two ways this could happen. 1) The increase in the arctic is offset by colder temperatures elsewhere; or, 2) there is a large enough pool of temperature data that increasing one sample while the rest remain relatively flat “waters down” the spike in the Arctic so it ends up just being 0.6 degrees total.
Either way, the temperatures would only be rising in the Arctic. The Arctic is not Global. Ergo, Arctic Warming, not Global Warming.
Then again, how dare I insist that people use the correct definition of terms. It’s so intollerant…
Let’s See How The Media Is Not Biased….
First we hear that Huckabee has a 2-1 lead over Romney in polls in Iowa. (Let us leave the issue of biased polls aside for the moment and pretend they’re accurate instead of pollaganda.)
The very next day we have this story where we learn that Huckabee said such horrific (if you’re a leftist) things as:
I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk.
And:
In light of the extraordinary funds already being given for AIDS research, it does not seem that additional federal spending can be justified. An alternative would be to request that multimillionaire celebrities, such as Elizabeth Taylor, Madonna and others who are pushing for more AIDS funding be encouraged to give out of their own personal treasuries increased amounts for AIDS research.
These quotes are given to us by the AP. Only problem.
Huckabee wrote this in 1992.
That means the AP knew about this for FIFTEEN YEARS and only reported it when Huckabee got a lead in the polls…
Obviously the media isn’t biased.
(And by the way, I’m still rooting for Fred Thompson so it’s not like I’m carrying water for Huckabee.)
I just wrote a comment over on the T-blog that I think deserves repeating here. It was in response to a rabid Ron Paul fan (but I repeat myself) who is anti-war. I had commented about how Ron Paul would be nice as a president because he’d abolish the IRS just in time for Dhimmitude, to which Rabid Ron Paul Fan sarcastically stated we are in no danger of Dhimmitude in America. To which I said:
… I wonder how it’s possible for someone to say we are in no danger of Dhimmitude in the US right now and therefore we ought to be anti-war when the only reason there is no danger of Dhimmitude in the US right now is because we have soldiers with M-203s saying, “Allahu Akhbar THIS” over in Iraq.
We’re free from oppression because our troops are over there. I, for one, am grateful.
