Archive for the ‘Conservatism’ Category

Michael Jackson – Conservative?

December 13, 2009

Let me start this out by letting everyone know that I enjoy Michael Jackson’s music. He is, without a doubt, the greatest entertainer of this, and many, many generations. Even though his music and performance style is contradictory to the style of music I generally prefer, I still am able to enjoy his music. I am not a Michael Jackson apologist though. I do not think that he was right to do most of the stuff he did and found him to be a generally weird individual that would have benefited from psychiatric evaluation. I also think that he was, in fact, a liberal, but only because of preconceived notions and he never really thought about it. I will show some examples of conservative themes in Michael’s songs.

In the song “Wanna Be Startin’ Something” from the iconic “Thriller” album had the line, “if you can’t feed a baby, don’t have a baby”. This is an undeniable conservative principle of self-responsibility. It is a simple common-sense solution that escapes liberals. They would tell you that it is alright to have a baby when you can’t afford to feed it because the government would help you take care of it. Creating a sense of entitlement and have them completely dependent on the government. Whenever conservatives in Washington try to stop this eternal loop of dependency, liberals cry foul charging Conservatives with not caring about children. Nothing could be further from the truth, but liberals never let the facts get in the way of a good campaign slogan. Conservatives believe that you should wait until you are financially and emotionally ready to have a child. It is better for the child and the parents. Apparently, so does Michael Jackson.

I don’t think anyone can deny the overarching conservative ideals set forth in Jackson’s “Man in the Mirror“. “Change starts with the man in the mirror” is about as conservative as it gets. Not relying on other people, or waiting for the endless bureaucracy of the federal government. If you want something to happen, do it yourself. The ultimate in personal responsibility. We saw this come to fruition with the Tax Day Tea Parties and the 9/12 march on Washington. These were citizens disgruntled with the way things were going on in Washington so they took it upon themselves to do something about it because “change starts with the man in the mirror”, it does not start with the failed ideals of the liberal movement.

Lastly, Michael Jackson shows his utter contempt with government in his song “They Don’t Care About Us“. In the song he describes how the government has failed to stop racism and brutality of African-Americans. Equality does not exist. The only way to stop the terrible chain is to change the hearts and minds of those who still harbor feelings of fear and resentment towards African-Americans. This must be done through human nature. Liberals tried to force the issue with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but you cannot change people’s hearts through legislation no matter how good-natured the legislation is. 45 years later, there still exists attitudes of racism and fear for people which, Jackson correctly asserts, that the government has failed to stop, simply because Government, no matter how well-intentioned it is, cannot change people’s minds or opinions, only people can.

Jackson understood that the government was there to provide necessary services, but could not be relied on to solve all the ills of the world. If the ils of the world were to be solved, the human race, working without the government, would be the key to change. Michael Jackson believed, as conservatives do, the empowering individuals is more powerful than laws and regulation that have only proved to beat down individuals under the guise of  “the greater good”. It’s been over 40 years since President  Lyndon B. Johnson declared “War on Poverty”. We’re still fighting and we will fight that war in perpetuity because liberals love it when people are dependent on the Government. They should take a lesson from Michael Jackson and explore personal responsibility.


No More Souters!

May 1, 2009

That was the rallying cry in 1992 after his vote in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case that sought to overturn Roe v. Wade. He was appointed by Bush (the first President Bush) but tended to vote more liberally. Bush tried to nominate a moderate to appeal to everyone, but he nominated a liberal and alienated his base (which he did a lot). So when it came time for him to nominate another Justice in 1991 (which ended up being Clarence Thomas) the rallying cry was “No More Souters”.

In the majority opinion for Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Souter wrote:

overruling the first was anything but a surrender to political pressure and an unjustified repudiation of the principle on which the Court staked its authority in the first instance. So to overrule under fire in the absence of the most compelling reason to reexamine a watershed decision would subvert the Court’s legitimacy beyond any serious question

So wait. When the Court rules in favor of abortion with no Constitutional authority to do so it is somehow, not giving in to political pressure? Read the opinion. There is nothing that says that a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy is in the constitution. All it says is that is protected by the right of privacy that was created in the Griswold v. Connecticut case. Aside from that, it is a history of abortion. The argument was that abortion has been happening since the beginning of time, so we should not limit ourselves. Well, Justice Harlan, you know what else has been going on since the beginning of time? Slavery. Does that mean it is OK? Of Course not. Does it only apply to Abortion? Polygamy has also been going on since the beginning of time. How DARE the Court deny my right to marry as many women as I want.

So now that Souter is retiring, I can only hope that Obama chooses a Justice that actually follows the Constitution, but seeing Obama’s record of implementing a far left agenda, that has about a zero percent of happening. IT is sad that this country will continue to be shaped by people who are not elected and have life terms. It has become nothing of what the founders intended it to be. The Court is FAR the “least dangerous branch“. I would go as far as saying that the Supreme Court is the most dangerous branch, but that honor currently goes to Nancy Pelosi and the disgraceful Congress. But just so I can go on record: No more Souters!

Ron Paul’s Tax Credit Misnomer

March 12, 2009

What? Ron Paul not making any sense? Now I have heard everything. The video is from a recent appearance on Neil Cavuto’s show. The main argument of the segment was earmarks. Earmarks are indeed a problem with Members of Congress; they can’t help themselves with their pet projects. There is an old saying that goes “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Well, it is very true for earmarks. When legislation was passed, congress had no way to see how the oney they just appropriated was being spent, and often, it was not being spent the way they wanted it to be (shocking, I know). So they decided that the best way to have the money spent where they wanted to be was to put it into legislation and thus, earmarks were born. I am not talking about earmarks though.

No, I am talking about one little quote by Ron Paul at around the 2:00 mark. Where he says that he does not vote for appropriations bills, but he does vote for tax credits. That way he can get “more money back to the people”. Sounds nice. However, it is wrong. You see, if Dr. Paul votes for tax credits, he is voting for more government spending. According to Brookings and the Urban Study Center (neither is a friend to conservatives)

The press has widely reported that the difference between Senate and House stimulus bills is mostly about tax cuts (Senate) versus spending (House).  That’s wrong.  The main difference is about who runs the spending programs-the IRS or program agencies

The Heritage Foundation states:

This kind of credit is actually a spending program because it directs money to a targeted group based on political considerations. Economically, it is no different than if Congress passed a spending bill that simply sent checks in the same amount to the same people. The only difference is that it is run through the tax code.

The Tax Foundation, an organization dedicated to letting people have the most of their money as possible says this about Tax Credits:

While some might consider this a wise compromise, it is not the best solution for from an economic perspective. There is no way hold businesses harmless through tax credits from a minimum wage increase; nor is it equitable to provide tax credits to some businesses that employ minimum wage workers and not others. Targeted tax credits simply cannot accomplish the stated goals and they have a number of negative consequences for the overall economy.

So, it seems that everyone is in agreement that tax credits are spending under a different name. But somehow, Dr. Paul votes for tax credits and votes against spending. Things aren’t adding up here.

Todd Thurman

What Color is the Sky in Andrew Sullivan’s World?

December 4, 2008

I ask because Andrew Sullivan cannot live on this planet and think that what he writes is factual. His denigration of a once-great magazine has been documented elsewhere, but I wanted to further shine light on his pseudo reporting.

His post on December 1st claims “We are All Obamacans“. He hails his pick of “centrist” cabinet members. You know those centrists like Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle, Janet Napolitano, and Bill Richardson. Granted, the rest of his cabinet could have been a lot worse (although no one would be worse than Jane Harmon for CIA Director), but I would hardly call it “centrist”.

His voting record for te 110th Congress is also not very “centrist”. Time and time again, Obama votes straight party line. He either voted party line or didn’t vote. He only crossed party lines a few times. The left claims that he only voted down party line in the Senate because he was a Junior Senator. That is true, but it is hardly the mark of a reformer.

In the State Senate he had more experience so he could be more like a “Centrist” right? Well according to the New York Times he sponsored several things that would not be considered “centrist”. He sponsored far left bills like Universal Health Care, embryonic stem cell research, provisions against treating minors as adults in certain criminal cases, and the real kicker, a bill that would set up funding for Supreme Court Races.

So people like Andrew Sullivan claim that the GOP painted Obama as far left leaning liberal. Obama has shown more evidence that he is a leftist liberal then he has shown that he is a “centrist”. Doesn’t stop Sullivan from reporting it as fact.


Old Ideas in a Web 2.0 World

December 3, 2008

Many may ask, why cling to old ideas in a world that is rapidly changing at the drop of a hat? I graduated from college four years ago, and when I graduated we all still took notes on paper. There was no WiFi and one Ethernet port per classroom on the off-chance that someone brought in a laptop. Now, four short (and might I add quick) years later, all freshman get a laptop, the school is completely networked for WiFi and no one takes notes on paper. So in a world where everything changes quickly, why cling to old ideas? Why, because they work. They worked in 1776, 1876, 1976, and will continue to work. Even though everythging around us is changing freedom, liberty, and prosperity remain constant. The government was the problem then and remains to be the problem. The more we can weaken it, the better. Poeple have always been the best advocates for themselves.

A lot has been said, since the election, that the conservative movement is dead (especially by sites like The Daily Kos and Talking Points Memo). The conservative movement is not dead, nor do we need to press the “reset button” as some have stated. All we need to is realize how valuable things like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other social networking sites really are. The message does not need to be changed, just the way we deliver it. The days of postcards, and robocallers are dead. That is how we came to power in the 80s and mid-90s. That was 15 years ago. A lot has changed since then.

We also need to promote the right message. We cannot get tied down in the petty games of unimportant problems (the Obama birth certificate is the most recent and most ridiculous). We need to focus on the real issues, not issues that are irrelevant to the average person (McCain learned this the hard way with William Ayers). We also need to have plans for our policies (as Eric Cantor pointed out). I think most of the conservative blogosphere is doing a relatively good job of that, but we need to be doing a lot better.

A week, or so, ago I was in the headquarters of Americans for Tax Reform attending a social media roundtable with a who’s who of young conservatives. The main speakers were the people behind The Next Right and RebuildtheParty (the same people).  The purpose of these gatherings is to share best practices and tips with other conservatives. Since this was the first meeting, they just gave an overview of why the Web is important to the future of conservatism. That also happened to be the day the Washington Post article about Obama’s success on the Web came out so that was the main subject. I believe the mark was missed. All they talked about was incredible it was that he got 13 million names to sign up for his e-mail list. How much of a genius he was and how techy he was.

As my colleague so astutely pointed out, Obama is not some Internet guru. He was a social sensation. Had Reagan been running in 2008, he would have had 13 million e-mail addresses too. Obama captivated people and made himself available on the Internet. It was very smart strategy for Obama to invest so much time and money in the Internet from the very start of his campaign, but he just tapped into an already existing market that was waiting for him. No one on McCain’s side was waiting for him, so he started from scratch. He did all the same things Obama did with YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and the like. He just didn’t captivate people. How did Obama get this ready-made network to tap into? The left blogosphere made it for him.

The left blogosphere rose to prominence by pointing out missteps of Republicans. When what was said didn’t match with what was done, they were on the Web informing people. the right rarely does anything like that. Instead, the Web is treating like talk radio. Instead of going after policiy issues, they go after misstatements that are, most of the time, taken out of context. That will only succeed in driving people away. Matt Sheffield should be a model to us all. His site, exposed Dan Rather’s misrepresentation of facts on Bush and helped to get him off TV. That is real activism that people can get behind. My Colleague, Conn Carroll, has been doing his best to keep up with the trials of the left.

If we are to succeed in the 21st century we need to adapt to new technology as it changes, not after we lose elections because we were scared to adapt. We can be the trendsetters. We have to be.