The recent election and a personal discussion altered a view that I, and many conservatives, possess about the country. For many years conservatives have talked about something called the "silent majority." This population of quiet conservatives vastly outnumber those in the country who want the big government, totalitarian Democrat agenda. Every so often, when needed the most, they come out to vote Republican and save the country. Nixon was the first to speak of it in America, and Regan may have been elected by it (Wikipedia). In the 80's, when Reagan won by two landslides, this may have existed. But the country has had a vast shift in the past twenty to thirty years, and that "silent majority" may no longer be there.
One conversation I had with an Obama voter blossomed this idea growing in my head. The person seemed to agree with me about the moral decay of the country, especially when referring to young people. It centered around the lack of respect children tend to have for themselves and others throughout the world, leading to increased violent crimes (Canada.com, UKGuardian) and teen pregnancies (Guttmacher.org). So why pay lip service to the awful changes in the world, and then vote for someone who is part of the problem? How can anyone support a party that exacerbates the issues he or she advocates against? Because, although people will recognize the death of a great country, the "comfort" of a "benevolent" government that takes responsibility for you is easier. The values that make us a civilized nation are eroding, but the false promise of a government that will "promote" them takes the blame off of you. For example, the schools take most of the pressure of parenting off of parents, including when it comes to basic needs (NPR.org). How great! Right?
Whether conservatives like it or not, people take government help when they can get it, and almost everyone receives aid and/or subsidies without being aware of it (NYTimes). A portion of the "silent majority" has become part of the welfare state, willingly or unwillingly. So what does that mean for conservatives?
One of the biggest mistakes made in the last election was thinking the conservative "silent majority" still existed and was going to come out in droves to vote Republican. Obviously this didn't happen. Conservatives have to understand the reality that we are a nation of takers. This can be frustrating, and Ron Paul expresses that well (WashingtonPost.com). Frustration aside, the next step requires a change in tactics. The time has come to convince, not just inform.
Rush Limbaugh often says that experience is the best teacher and converter for conservatism, and he is correct. I have convinced people to switch over to the truth by pointing out what will happen. Inevitably a, "See, I told you so," comes.
Which brings me to my final point: be patient. It took over one hundred years for the liberals to kill America, and it will take just as long, if not longer, for its rebirth. Don't get caught up in the pop culture instant gratification trap. What conservatives must do is be forceful, use liberal institutions against them, and don't be afraid to speak out (more on this as I formulate my thoughts). The liberals use our strengths, kindness, beliefs, and morality, against us. It's time for us to use their flaws, selfishness, immorality, and hatred, against them.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Benghazi
Distractions have been put out by the press to hide the administration's response to Benghazi. One possible reason for the Benghazi cover up is the ultimate goal behind why Benghazi was allowed to burn. I believe the administration's reaction to the Benghazi attacks was planned to support federal control of the internet.
The White House blamed an anti-Islamic video that appeared on YouTube for spontaneous protests against the U.S. consulate. The administration claims the protests got out of hand and led to the sacking of our consulate in Libya (YahooNews). This seems highly unlikely. The biggest problem is the timeline.
The video at the center of this excuse was produced months before the Benghazi incident and was barely seen (CNN). It wasn't as if this was a popular well known video that the entire world was enraged over. What was even more suspicious was the apology issued for the video from the American embassy in Egypt before any barrage began (Twitchy.com). Why would the State department apologize for an old movie that no one saw before any outrage over it even started? It's likely the White House knew an attack was imminent and let it happen, so they could tie it to the video.
In fact, it has been proven that the administration did have knowledge of a possible assault on the consulate. Warnings were expressed months before that more security was needed (TheHill.com), and these requests were denied (ABCNews). In addition, the force led to protect the consulate wasn't American, and the area itself was not fully secured (MotherJones.com). It also soon became clear that the militants planned this offensive (NYTimes), making this notion of an "all-of-a-sudden" uprising look foolish. Plus, during the attacks, pleas for help from the consulate were ignored, and the military was told not to assist (InvestigativeProject.org). So why was this situation allowed to occur? Why not fully protect our American representatives overseas and prevent something that was easy to predict? Why not help when the assault was underway and let the situation play out to its obvious conclusion?
To me, the answer is easy. The Democrats have something to gain from the murder of four Americans: internet oversight.
The administration allowed a U.S. border agent and several hundred Mexicans to die in Fast and Furious in support of their anti-Second Amendment stance. Is it not possible then to imagine they would use the death of four Americans to push for government oversight of the web, the last truly unhindered bastion of free speech? The Democrats lament that their monopoly on the media has ended and that the new media is viable competition (NewsBusters.org). Hence, they have to find a way to garner public support for federal internet controls. They would argue that it would help to prevent horrible occurrences like Benghazi from ever happening again. Remember that it was Rahm Emanuel, an Obama cabinet official, who said never let a good crisis go to waste, for it allows you to do things you would not otherwise be able to do. (NationalReview). If they weren't trying to go after the internet, the White House could have blamed Benghazi on something that was more feasible, like Pastor Terry Jones, who has burned Korans and is offensive in his outspokenness against the White House (TheBlaze.com). But that wouldn't further any of the left's goals. By using a YouTube video, the government can make the case for regulations that "ensure" things like Benghazi never happen again.
Never underestimate the lengths to which the left will go. The only thing they care about are their ends, and any means to reach those ends are acceptable.
The White House blamed an anti-Islamic video that appeared on YouTube for spontaneous protests against the U.S. consulate. The administration claims the protests got out of hand and led to the sacking of our consulate in Libya (YahooNews). This seems highly unlikely. The biggest problem is the timeline.
The video at the center of this excuse was produced months before the Benghazi incident and was barely seen (CNN). It wasn't as if this was a popular well known video that the entire world was enraged over. What was even more suspicious was the apology issued for the video from the American embassy in Egypt before any barrage began (Twitchy.com). Why would the State department apologize for an old movie that no one saw before any outrage over it even started? It's likely the White House knew an attack was imminent and let it happen, so they could tie it to the video.
In fact, it has been proven that the administration did have knowledge of a possible assault on the consulate. Warnings were expressed months before that more security was needed (TheHill.com), and these requests were denied (ABCNews). In addition, the force led to protect the consulate wasn't American, and the area itself was not fully secured (MotherJones.com). It also soon became clear that the militants planned this offensive (NYTimes), making this notion of an "all-of-a-sudden" uprising look foolish. Plus, during the attacks, pleas for help from the consulate were ignored, and the military was told not to assist (InvestigativeProject.org). So why was this situation allowed to occur? Why not fully protect our American representatives overseas and prevent something that was easy to predict? Why not help when the assault was underway and let the situation play out to its obvious conclusion?
To me, the answer is easy. The Democrats have something to gain from the murder of four Americans: internet oversight.
The administration allowed a U.S. border agent and several hundred Mexicans to die in Fast and Furious in support of their anti-Second Amendment stance. Is it not possible then to imagine they would use the death of four Americans to push for government oversight of the web, the last truly unhindered bastion of free speech? The Democrats lament that their monopoly on the media has ended and that the new media is viable competition (NewsBusters.org). Hence, they have to find a way to garner public support for federal internet controls. They would argue that it would help to prevent horrible occurrences like Benghazi from ever happening again. Remember that it was Rahm Emanuel, an Obama cabinet official, who said never let a good crisis go to waste, for it allows you to do things you would not otherwise be able to do. (NationalReview). If they weren't trying to go after the internet, the White House could have blamed Benghazi on something that was more feasible, like Pastor Terry Jones, who has burned Korans and is offensive in his outspokenness against the White House (TheBlaze.com). But that wouldn't further any of the left's goals. By using a YouTube video, the government can make the case for regulations that "ensure" things like Benghazi never happen again.
Never underestimate the lengths to which the left will go. The only thing they care about are their ends, and any means to reach those ends are acceptable.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Petraeus
By now many know of the Petraeus sex scandal (which is preposterous after what Bill Clinton did). And several people have a sense that it is not the real story behind what is going on. Simply put, distraction is.
When I heard that Petraeus was part of the Obama administration, it confused me quite a bit. After all, Petraeus was hated by the left, calling him "General Betray-Us" for lies the left concocted (Sweetness&Light.com). So now that Petraeus is being hammered in the traditional media, his reputation destroyed, it is no surprise that he was initially embraced by the administration. But that is still not the point.
Almost a month later the country is still not told what occurred while the administration allowed four Americans to die. Who made the call that permitted the murders of Americans? Why did they do nothing while literately watching them die? Why the cover up and blaming on an internet video that had nothing to do with the attack? The answers must be bad. Several cabinet officials have positioned themselves to escape before anyone finds out. Hillary Clinton, who has set herself up to leave at the signs of any trouble for a while (Wonkette.com), refuses to testify on the Benghazi debacle in front of Congress (WashingtonExaminer). Eric Holder and Timothy Geithner are also making noise about quitting an Obama second term (Examiner.com, WashingtonPost.com). So, after such a supposed great election for Obama, why are many hinting at leaving? How many will be hurt greatly from the truth? Yet, this is still not the point. There is more.
The country is about the change, big time. There is the Fiscal Cliff looming (CNNMoney), Obamacare about to hit (Heritage.org), thousands of regulations passed within a few months (Breitbart.com), and God knows what else. The nation's economy and status in the world is in shambles. A second recession may hit (BusinessInsider, as if the first one ever ended!), and our embassies are attacked with no fear of repercussions(CNN, NYTimes). The military is about to be gutted (HuffingtonPost), and our schools are fully fledged brainwashing centers with songs dedicated to Obama, our new lord and master (CBSNews.com). Therefore the president and his protective media is happy to change the subject and promote a story that will trick the American people into ignoring not only Benghazi, but everything else that is about to ruin this country. Furthermore, I believe all this was planned, whether the president was reelected or not. If the Republicans won, it would have been just as much of distraction as it is now.
The left will stop at nothing to hide what they are and what they do. It is up to us to give their true nature light.
When I heard that Petraeus was part of the Obama administration, it confused me quite a bit. After all, Petraeus was hated by the left, calling him "General Betray-Us" for lies the left concocted (Sweetness&Light.com). So now that Petraeus is being hammered in the traditional media, his reputation destroyed, it is no surprise that he was initially embraced by the administration. But that is still not the point.
Almost a month later the country is still not told what occurred while the administration allowed four Americans to die. Who made the call that permitted the murders of Americans? Why did they do nothing while literately watching them die? Why the cover up and blaming on an internet video that had nothing to do with the attack? The answers must be bad. Several cabinet officials have positioned themselves to escape before anyone finds out. Hillary Clinton, who has set herself up to leave at the signs of any trouble for a while (Wonkette.com), refuses to testify on the Benghazi debacle in front of Congress (WashingtonExaminer). Eric Holder and Timothy Geithner are also making noise about quitting an Obama second term (Examiner.com, WashingtonPost.com). So, after such a supposed great election for Obama, why are many hinting at leaving? How many will be hurt greatly from the truth? Yet, this is still not the point. There is more.
The country is about the change, big time. There is the Fiscal Cliff looming (CNNMoney), Obamacare about to hit (Heritage.org), thousands of regulations passed within a few months (Breitbart.com), and God knows what else. The nation's economy and status in the world is in shambles. A second recession may hit (BusinessInsider, as if the first one ever ended!), and our embassies are attacked with no fear of repercussions(CNN, NYTimes). The military is about to be gutted (HuffingtonPost), and our schools are fully fledged brainwashing centers with songs dedicated to Obama, our new lord and master (CBSNews.com). Therefore the president and his protective media is happy to change the subject and promote a story that will trick the American people into ignoring not only Benghazi, but everything else that is about to ruin this country. Furthermore, I believe all this was planned, whether the president was reelected or not. If the Republicans won, it would have been just as much of distraction as it is now.
The left will stop at nothing to hide what they are and what they do. It is up to us to give their true nature light.
Monday, November 12, 2012
Tuesday's Election
This past election has many on the conservative side questioning how the election was lost to a president who seemed easy to defeat. With the economy in shambles and the Libyan consulate scandal so close to the election, many wonder if we have become a nation of takers who are content with the federal government caring for its citizens. Do the number of Americans receiving government aid outnumber those who are producing wealth, and are those on the government dole concerned about anything other than continuing the enrichment of themselves through federal and state programs? (WND). Bottom line, have we become a socialist nation? (And by the way, both CNN and the Huffington Post break down possibilities for the Romney loss, but conveniently leave out the above mentioned reasoning, in typical left-wing media fashion (CNN, HuffingtonPost.com).)
Some conservatives, including myself (initially) felt this was true. When Barack Obama won, it felt as if the electorate was lost. After all, Romney received nearly two to three million fewer votes than John McCain did four years ago (BCNN1), and McCain was not nearly as popular. But upon closer inspection, my views have changed a little.
According the above article in BCCN1, Barack Obama also received fewer votes, nine to ten million less than in 2008. Due to the Republican loss and media malpractice, this has gone nearly unnoticed. In fact, I cannot seem to find any major news outlet that even mentions this, because it is extremely devastating for the administration. Granted this does not change the fact that Republicans lost, and there is no suggestion that Obama's victory should be down played. The election does clearly show that a majority of Americans, however small, cared more about themselves than the country in this election cycle. However it also shows that Obama's supposed huge mandate and popularity does not exist. In fact, he just hit above fifty percent approval (BusinessInsider.com) after approval ratings in the forties for months.
So when combined, around twelve million people did not vote in this election. How would they have voted? No one may be able to say for sure, but clearly they would have voted against Barack Obama. The unfortunate part is that they also refused to vote for Romney. My take on this is more aligned with Liz Marlantes of the CSMonitor who says Romney just wasn't a good candidate (article here). I differ with her reasoning, but her premise is correct. I feel Romney wasn't conservative enough.
But how can one say that after a majority voted for socialism? Well a few points.
First, many in the Republican party feel cheated by the Republicans, and if your base does not turn out, you lose. There is a history of bad blood between Conservatives and Republicans. Conservatives say Republicans are too moderate and therefore refuse to vote Republican (BeforeItsNews.com). Republicans often attack conservatives as being too "purist" on several issues, sometimes resorting to name calling (Politico, TheHill.com). Then there is the Republican leadership, who gives into the administration's demands and consorts with Obama too often (Reuters). Also, Romney viciously went after fellow Republicans during the primary, angering many supporters of other candidates. I believe a significant number of Conservatives, Libertarians, and right-leaning Independents stayed home on election day.
Second, the actual election results kept the power structure about the same. The Republicans still control the House of Representatives, the Democrats the Senate and the Presidency. If there had truly been a huge push for socialism and the Democrats, they would have won super majorities in both Houses, and along with the Presidency. This happened in 2008 because Barack Obama was an unknown and historic figure, not due to the promotion of socialism.
Third, Romney, being moderate, did not distinguish himself enough from Obama. For example, he would talk in terms of rich and poor and passed Romneycare in Massachusetts, the precursor to Obamacare. He also let Obama and the traditional media hammer him on several issues with little response or counter punch from Romney. During the third debate, which centered around foreign policy, Romney did not go after Obama at all on Benghazi, an obvious soft spot in the Obama presidency. It has always been my belief that if you give someone a choice between a "full-on" vision and "light" version of that vision, people will choose the former. Plus, if you don't fight back, but instead claim your attacker is nice guy, as Romney often did, you look weak and give your opponent the opportunity to define you. That is a definite problem Romney had.
So what does this all mean? We must keep fighting and keep the conversation going. There were twelve million people who did not vote in the last election and need to be convinced that conservatism is what they should support next time. If the Republican party cannot realize that, if they continue to push for moderates and moderate ideas that cannot win, then maybe it's time to put our enthusiasm and strength behind something else.
Some conservatives, including myself (initially) felt this was true. When Barack Obama won, it felt as if the electorate was lost. After all, Romney received nearly two to three million fewer votes than John McCain did four years ago (BCNN1), and McCain was not nearly as popular. But upon closer inspection, my views have changed a little.
According the above article in BCCN1, Barack Obama also received fewer votes, nine to ten million less than in 2008. Due to the Republican loss and media malpractice, this has gone nearly unnoticed. In fact, I cannot seem to find any major news outlet that even mentions this, because it is extremely devastating for the administration. Granted this does not change the fact that Republicans lost, and there is no suggestion that Obama's victory should be down played. The election does clearly show that a majority of Americans, however small, cared more about themselves than the country in this election cycle. However it also shows that Obama's supposed huge mandate and popularity does not exist. In fact, he just hit above fifty percent approval (BusinessInsider.com) after approval ratings in the forties for months.
So when combined, around twelve million people did not vote in this election. How would they have voted? No one may be able to say for sure, but clearly they would have voted against Barack Obama. The unfortunate part is that they also refused to vote for Romney. My take on this is more aligned with Liz Marlantes of the CSMonitor who says Romney just wasn't a good candidate (article here). I differ with her reasoning, but her premise is correct. I feel Romney wasn't conservative enough.
But how can one say that after a majority voted for socialism? Well a few points.
First, many in the Republican party feel cheated by the Republicans, and if your base does not turn out, you lose. There is a history of bad blood between Conservatives and Republicans. Conservatives say Republicans are too moderate and therefore refuse to vote Republican (BeforeItsNews.com). Republicans often attack conservatives as being too "purist" on several issues, sometimes resorting to name calling (Politico, TheHill.com). Then there is the Republican leadership, who gives into the administration's demands and consorts with Obama too often (Reuters). Also, Romney viciously went after fellow Republicans during the primary, angering many supporters of other candidates. I believe a significant number of Conservatives, Libertarians, and right-leaning Independents stayed home on election day.
Second, the actual election results kept the power structure about the same. The Republicans still control the House of Representatives, the Democrats the Senate and the Presidency. If there had truly been a huge push for socialism and the Democrats, they would have won super majorities in both Houses, and along with the Presidency. This happened in 2008 because Barack Obama was an unknown and historic figure, not due to the promotion of socialism.
Third, Romney, being moderate, did not distinguish himself enough from Obama. For example, he would talk in terms of rich and poor and passed Romneycare in Massachusetts, the precursor to Obamacare. He also let Obama and the traditional media hammer him on several issues with little response or counter punch from Romney. During the third debate, which centered around foreign policy, Romney did not go after Obama at all on Benghazi, an obvious soft spot in the Obama presidency. It has always been my belief that if you give someone a choice between a "full-on" vision and "light" version of that vision, people will choose the former. Plus, if you don't fight back, but instead claim your attacker is nice guy, as Romney often did, you look weak and give your opponent the opportunity to define you. That is a definite problem Romney had.
So what does this all mean? We must keep fighting and keep the conversation going. There were twelve million people who did not vote in the last election and need to be convinced that conservatism is what they should support next time. If the Republican party cannot realize that, if they continue to push for moderates and moderate ideas that cannot win, then maybe it's time to put our enthusiasm and strength behind something else.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Here We Go...
The political signs haven't all been taken down, the pundits talk of the election is still fresh, and the hit to many conservatives still hurts, yet the Obama administration forges ahead with their anti-gun agenda.
Many know of Obama's hatred of the Second Amendment. He attacked some as "bitter Americans clinging to guns and religion" (Radio Active Liberty) and said he favored a new assault weapons ban (ABCNews). So it's no shock that the day after his administration voted to begin final talks on a United Nations bill that would regulate, through international law, gun sales (Reuters).
A liberal might question, "So does the treaty ban guns in the U.S.?" Well not exactly. "Does it infringe on our Second Amendments rights?" Not yet. "So then whats the problem?" a liberal would shout.
The issue with liberalism is not what they prevent you from doing, but how hard it becomes to do it. In many Northeastern states, buying a gun is an arduous and frustrating process. Often permits are required, and you end up spending more time and money filling out paper work and acquiring licenses than you do actually picking out a firearm. This prevents many from practicing their Second Amendment rights and allows liberals to claim they are allowing the possession of firearms through what they call "common sense" and "appropriate regulation." Throw in further increased costs due to the United Nations Treaty, and even less will purchase firearms.
When it came to coal, Obama said he would allow coal plants to be built, but it would bankrupt those building them (Examiner). He has the same idea when it comes to guns. The United Nations treaty would increase the price of guns by limiting international sales, which is dominated by U.S. gun makers. The loss in revenue due to decreased overseas sales would force gun makers to increase prices. That in turn would make it more difficult for citizens to buy guns, and that would lead to even fewer gun sales. In the end, guns would be extremely expensive, and many gun makers would have to close up shop. So sure, anyone would be able to own or make a firearm, it would just bankrupt them to do it.
Many know of Obama's hatred of the Second Amendment. He attacked some as "bitter Americans clinging to guns and religion" (Radio Active Liberty) and said he favored a new assault weapons ban (ABCNews). So it's no shock that the day after his administration voted to begin final talks on a United Nations bill that would regulate, through international law, gun sales (Reuters).
A liberal might question, "So does the treaty ban guns in the U.S.?" Well not exactly. "Does it infringe on our Second Amendments rights?" Not yet. "So then whats the problem?" a liberal would shout.
The issue with liberalism is not what they prevent you from doing, but how hard it becomes to do it. In many Northeastern states, buying a gun is an arduous and frustrating process. Often permits are required, and you end up spending more time and money filling out paper work and acquiring licenses than you do actually picking out a firearm. This prevents many from practicing their Second Amendment rights and allows liberals to claim they are allowing the possession of firearms through what they call "common sense" and "appropriate regulation." Throw in further increased costs due to the United Nations Treaty, and even less will purchase firearms.
When it came to coal, Obama said he would allow coal plants to be built, but it would bankrupt those building them (Examiner). He has the same idea when it comes to guns. The United Nations treaty would increase the price of guns by limiting international sales, which is dominated by U.S. gun makers. The loss in revenue due to decreased overseas sales would force gun makers to increase prices. That in turn would make it more difficult for citizens to buy guns, and that would lead to even fewer gun sales. In the end, guns would be extremely expensive, and many gun makers would have to close up shop. So sure, anyone would be able to own or make a firearm, it would just bankrupt them to do it.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Don't Lose Heart!
It has been a while since I've posted, but I feel now that I have no choice. We are in extraordinary times, and we need to remain resolute. The nation had a major set back. It is apparent now that a majority of Americans are OK with an all powerful government that appears to provide all that everyone needs. People have traded the uncertain greatness of capitalism for the certain mediocrity of socialism. I believe we now face an inevitable economic collapse, which is why we need to remain strong, so on that terrible day we are able to turn and say, "See, I told you so. Now, here is how we fix it." In the coming months I will be putting together a new website, different of this one, that will work to not only talk about the events of the day but provide the background, including the history of our nation, that shows how conservatism is right, not just an idea. So please keep posted, and let others know as well. God has put this fire in me to do this, and God knows I would not have if Romney was elected. Therefore, I believe this is God's plan, and we should all take heart knowing He is on our side. God bless you, and God bless America.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Herman Cain
It wasn't too long ago that I wrote about Herman Cain and his connection to Clarence Thomas. This connection continues with the left's most recent attack. Herman Cain is doing well in the polls and remains on top of the Republican ticket. So, characteristically, the traditional media tries to ruin him. Politico recently put out an article saying Herman Cain was involved in a sexual harassment scandal (article here). Herman Cain has admitted to being accused of sexual harassment, but the allegations were found to be false. Despite the total lack of any truly offensive behavior on Cain's part, his admittance of the occurrence, and a description of what the apparently offensive act was, the media, for almost a week, has been hammering Cain on the issue.
This is eerily similar to Clarence Thomas, who was accused of sexual harassment during his confirmation hearings for the United States Supreme Court (CHNM.GMU.edu). These were also unfounded allegations made to destroy a black Conservative. A liberal even hoped Clarence Thomas would die (MRC.org). It is amazing how the Democrat party, who wishes to be the party of minorities, can so harshly demean black men, and use the same method each time.
Allegations like these from the left are laughable, considering it covered up and lessened the proven sexual misdeeds and law breaking of Bill Clinton and John Edwards. What is not funny is how the left can't stand to see minorities doing well outside of their party. Look for more attacks on Herman Cain to come. The last thing the left needs is a successful black man who rose to the top without their help.
This is eerily similar to Clarence Thomas, who was accused of sexual harassment during his confirmation hearings for the United States Supreme Court (CHNM.GMU.edu). These were also unfounded allegations made to destroy a black Conservative. A liberal even hoped Clarence Thomas would die (MRC.org). It is amazing how the Democrat party, who wishes to be the party of minorities, can so harshly demean black men, and use the same method each time.
Allegations like these from the left are laughable, considering it covered up and lessened the proven sexual misdeeds and law breaking of Bill Clinton and John Edwards. What is not funny is how the left can't stand to see minorities doing well outside of their party. Look for more attacks on Herman Cain to come. The last thing the left needs is a successful black man who rose to the top without their help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)