Mrs. Clinton the Progressive

They have gotten themselves into a terrible mess. The Democratic Party has turned their fate over to uncertainty because they have allied themselves with less than moderate people. Many people complain about how the Republican Party listens to religious voters a lot these days. Whether it is true or not, there is another side to this issue you might not notice as much. If the Republicans Party is supposedly listening to religious voters more and more in this day and age, then there can be no doubt the Democratic Party is listening to the far left wing of this country.

Case in point: Senator Joe Lieberman. The senator from Connecticut, one of the few Democratic senators I respect, is fighting in the primaries against Ned Lamont, a white guy. Mr. Lamont touts himself as a Democrat “…who will stand up for Connecticut and stand up for our progressive democratic values.” Now in most political circles, progressive is still a title that one does not want to shoulder. However, this politician believes he will win with such a title. Whether he will win or not is not the point, however. If Senator Lieberman fails in the Democratic primaries, he has stated he will run under the banner of an independent. This is all fine and groovy; however, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, a moderate with rightward leanings (if you can believe her talk), has stated she will not support such a candidacy by Senator Lieberman.

Consider what this means for just a moment. If Mrs. Clinton does not support Senator Lieberman and instead pledges her support for Mr. Lamont, a man who is an anti-war progressive, it shows us that all of Mrs. Clinton’s tough talk on the war is as dependable as Windows ME. In fact, such support for a progressive should send off warning flags to the country that Mrs. Clinton is in fact as liberal as “foaming at the mouth” Randi Rhodes and The Daily Kos. Of course, if you listened to her, you would think she is simply a moderate politician who happens to have been associated with very liberal policies in the past.

Without a doubt, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is in league with the far left. That is why the Democratic Party is in a mess. Mrs. Clinton’s positions demonstrate one of two possible situations she and the Democratic Party find themselves in today. She is either part of the far left or she is terrified of this new powerful political body within the Democratic Party. I suspect she is a far left politician naturally, but it shows you that even she cannot escape their grasp. The far left is far more powerful in fact that the religious right when it comes right down to it. When was the last time you saw Republicans as a whole actually doing what religious conservatives wanted them to do?

Whether or not Lieberman wins his reelection (personally, I doubt he will), the point here is that you must watch who your politician supports. Looking at these type of facts will point you toward the real intent of someone like Hillary Clinton. Time will tell whether Mrs. Clinton’s deception holds for the 2008 elections. Whether it does or not, however, the Democratic Party will have to deal with this ever growing problem of being controlled by radio show hosts who have audiences that can barely support them in the ratings.

Anther fine lesson from Conservative Textbook.

Burned

Hi folks. I know today I was supposed to post my weekly article, but I burned my hand a little bit (nothing serious, just can't use it because it HURTS BAD). So I can't finish my article that I had begun earlier today. I'll post in a few days when I can touch my keyboard. Sorry about this.

Another fine injury report from Conservative Textbook

PS - For those of you wondering why it is I can't write a blog article but I can write this, that's because I had someone else write this injury report.

2006 Part I

Seems like just yesterday I was getting emails about the 2005 elections. Yet here we are again in a far more important election year. It’s time to start up the campaign machine, so to speak.

The question of the year is simple – who will be in power in 2007? On a national level (I can’t speak for any local elections except those in Colorado), things look grim. Indeed, they look very grim for the Republican AND Democratic Parties. The media, for what it’s worth, says the country is in an anti-incumbent mode this year. I suspect that is relatively correct. The media, for what it’s worth, claims that will devastate the Republicans who are in control of Congress. I suspect that could be possible. While I am not blindly optimistic about the elections this November, I am not running around in terror like some conservatives are this year. An anti-incumbent attitude will hurt the Democrats too.

Neither party has done a good job this session. The Republican majority has fumbled, crashed, and burned their most opportune session in decades. The Republicans had a chance and the numbers to get some real work done on the national level. They lost that chance nearly the minute they got it. I blame Senators McCain, Specter, Graham, Chafee, and various other Republicans for a great deal of the blunder that has occurred this past session. On the other side of the aisle, however, the Democrats have done a nearly equally poor job. Their far left fringe base that controls most of the party’s elected officials is just as angry with their senators as the conservatives are their own senators. Neither party seems to be able to stand up for what their constituents desire. Neither party seems to be able to legislate what they were voted to legislate.

Why, you may ask yourself, has this happened? Why is it that our elected officials on both sides seem to be unable to stand up for what their supporters want? I believe it is because they are listening to the wrong sources. On the Republican side, our elected officials who are not doing what we want them to do are listening to the older media such as newspapers, CBS, ABC, and other sources that are reserved for liberals and old people. Of course, to please The New York Times AND conservatives is impossible. It is easier to please The New York Times, however, because results are seen immediately in the editorials and on the front page. However, in the long run, Republicans will only lose ground if they try to please The New York Times. On the Democratic side, a similar problem exists. Democrats are listening to far left wing pundits such as Air America, the Daily Kos, and Al Gore. Such sources are out of the mainstream of American culture, and thus the Democrats find themselves serving a base that is not quite compatible with American culture (to be absolutely accurate, that base hates Americans, American culture, and even themselves when you get right down to it). They can’t please foaming at the mouth Randi Rhodes and America at the same time.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is what I believe the problem is at this time with our elected officials on both sides. Will 2006 fix this problem? No. This disconnect with our politicians will only change after we slowly weed out politicians that don’t legislate what we put them in office to do. It will take time and effort, but that is the only solution.

Another fine lesson from Conservative Textbook.

Stop The ACLU Blogburst

Responding to reports that phone companies are turning over private details about Americansí telephone calls to the National Security Agency, the American Civil Liberties Union today launched a nationwide initiative to end illegal government spying.

ACLU affiliates in 20 states today filed complaints with Public Utility Commissions or sent letters to state Attorneys General and other officials demanding investigations into whether local telecommunications companies allowed the NSA to spy on their customers.

"We cannot sit by while the government and the phone companies collude in this massive, illegal and fundamentally unAmerican invasion of our privacy," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "And unfortunately, we cannot wait for Congress to act. The ACLU is mobilizing its members and supporters nationwide to demand investigations into this shocking breach of trust. And we are asking the FCC to use its authority to uncover the facts about how far the president's illegal spying has gone. The American people want answers."

True to form, Romero has twisted the facts of this case around to scare the unsuspecting liberal minded, apathetic imbecile who supports him and his anti-American organization. To this point, each and every legal scholar who has looked at the program has agreed that no laws have been broken.

Congressional leaders, including Dick "the dick with the turban" Durban have come out in favor of changing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to cover this type of operation. Each one has touted the benefits and necessities of this program for the national security of the United States and its people.

Democrats are approaching this from the oversight angle. That if the President was given authority to conduct this operation in just the same manner that it already has been, it would provide some oversight with teeth under which the President is less likely to abuse the power.

Republicans are approaching this from the stand point that the President needs this program and having it written into FISA would provide him with the tools to conduct it.

I agree with both actually. No matter who is in power, it is always possible for power to be abused. But as both parties have recognized the need for the program and both have expressed the need for it to continue, what is the ACLU's beef?

I'll tell you what their beef is. They are the perpetual fly in the ointment. If they aren't causing trouble over each and every thing the federal government does, they feel as though they aren't doing anything at all. After all, if they agreed with the stance the government takes, their significance would be non-existent.

This is a fund raising campaign. If they make a big enough stink about this, the apathetic morons will give them more money. If by chance they prevail in any one of these many lawsuits that they are planning, then they can circumvent the legislative process and again, they make money off the government.

The ACLU is listed as a non-profit organization. They claim to be non-partisan. But it seems awfully odd that the only members of Congress that are members of the ACLU are Democrats and that the ACLU publicly opposes any proposal sponsored by Republicans. And it seems awfully odd that each time they win a case, they take a larger cut of the settlement than their clients.

The ACLU feeds of the weak minded. They rely on the apathetic uniformed morons who fill out the little form and send it in with their $25 each year to get their little card in the mail so that they can go around saying that they are "card carrying members of the ACLU". If these people had half the intelligence that they claim to have, they would look into the dealings of the ACLU and come to the same conclusions that we have. That their actual goal is destruction of the United States as we know it.

President Bush and other administration officials have neither confirmed nor denied a USA Today report that the NSA is collecting the calling records of ordinary Americans in its effort to detect the plans of al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations.

Bush has said the administration's anti-terror surveillance programs are legal and constitutional.

The ACLU was planning to file actions with state utility commissions in Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia and Washington. Other states were expected to be added later. Source

So the ACLU will sue these companies for helping our government to detect terrorists? All the while, the ACLU has a massive database of its own members, their financial information, and much more private details than the NSA could ever hope for.

Sign the Petition To Stop Taxpayer Funding of the ACLU.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay or Gribbit. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board

Odd

Odd, isn’t it, that people can complain about their position in the world, and yet at the same time, demand to maintain the status quo that is keeping them in their pitiful position in the world. In France, protests are of course occurring. However, instead of Muslims protesting the bigotry of the progressive French, it is students and union bosses who are protesting the likely passage of the First Job Contract.

The First Job Contract passes revolutionary measures in France, namely that of allowing employers to fire workers under 26 without cause during their first two years of employment. French President Jacques Chirac has been caught in a firestorm between the two opposing sides of this bill. There are those who want the bill applied and enforced, and there are liberals who want the bill destroyed. Chirac has decided, according to reports, to proceed with signing the bill; however, he will amend it nearly immediately.

By now you should be asking yourself a question – why is this bill even is existence in the economic paradise of France where welfare, guaranteed jobs, long vacations, and less work for the same pay are the rule of the land? While the liberals in this country bemoan our 4.8% unemployment rate, the French are enjoying an unemployment rate of 9.6%. However, please recall that one of the primary protestors of this new law is the student population. The French student population currently enjoys an unemployment rate of 22.2%.

What is wrong with France? Why is this country of unions, socialism, liberalism, and bigotry against Muslims and Christians having these unemployment problems? The answer to that is very simple – unions, socialism, and liberalism. The First Job Contract allows employers to fire unproductive workers under the age of 26 during their first two years on the payroll. Currently, if an employer hires someone under 26, that person basically can’t be fired (red tape the size of Texas gets in the way). Therefore, what is an employer going to do if he or she can’t trust a new worker? That employer is going to hire someone over 26 who he can eventually fire (remember though, it’s very hard to fire anyone in France). If employers aren’t going to fire young people, the youth population is going to be severely unemployed (22.2% to be exact). Even though it is easier to fire someone over 26, it is still very hard to fire someone in France. The unemployment rate over 26 will also be high because of these rules (9.6% high to be exact).

I would like to draw you back to the beginning of this article. It is the students who are protesting this new law. It is also the students who are in dire need of jobs. If this law were to pass in its true form (which it won’t, according to Chirac), my prediction is that unemployment for those under 26 would drastically decrease. Why worry about hiring someone if they can be fired easily? It would cause those under 26 to be a very attractive demographic to employers, and it would cause the brats under 26 to develop a work ethic not unlike that of the American youth (that shows how far gone the French really are in the first place).

Odd, isn’t it, that the people protesting this new law are the exact people the law would benefit the most.

Another fine lesson from Conservative Textbook.

We're All Dead!

Since I am on spring break, I have decided it is the appropriate time to discuss something dire. Ladies and gentlemen, we are doomed. In fact, we are so doomed that I don’t think it really matters anymore.

Allow me to explain myself. Actually, allow someone else to explain it to you. Senator John Kerry (who served in Vietnam), explained on the radio that, “I can say to an absolute certainty that if things stay exactly as they are today absent some unpredictable change in what's going on, within the next 30 years the Arctic ice sheet is gone… Already you have the Greenland ice sheet beginning to melt ... If that melts, you have a level of sea level increase that wipes out Boston Harbor, New York Harbor - I mean, it's just stunning what we're looking at.”

Good glory! Sounds awful, doesn’t it? Now of course, that would be simply a disaster. However, I’m not worried about it. You see, we don’t even have to worry about the ice caps. Our planet will be long dead by that point. Al Gore, by way of his friend, explained to us some time ago that he “… believes humans may have only 10 years left to save the planet from turning into a total frying pan.” This frying pan would be the result of global warming.

Good glory! That is even worse. Forget about melting ice caps, we’re all going to be dead 20 years before that happens. I’ve got a question about all this, especially Al Gore’s revelation – what’s the point? Do you really think it will be possible for us, even with the Kyoto Treaty, to mend this damage before we all die? Seems to me that even in the dreams of liberals, we’re already dead! Maybe that’s why John Kerry’s family (a separate entity from John Kerry, as we all know) owns several SUVs, five obscenely large mansions, a jet liner, and a yacht, all of which are polluters. John Kerry knows it is futile to try to stop our inevitable death.

In the mean time, before I die of heat stroke from Al Gore’s frying pan or drown from John Kerry’s floods, I’m going to go up and enjoy several days of snowboarding in the above average snow pack of several world class Colorado ski resorts (I snowboard, I don’t ski – skiers are crazy and unsafe on the slopes, so I refuse to be a part of them).

Another fine lesson from Conservative Textbook.

Ready, Set, They're Off!

If you are a regular reader of my blog, you are aware an organization that I believe holds great promise is in the works. This organization is Regenerate Our Culture. As a launch sponsor of this new website, I am please to announce that it has gone live! Regenerate Our Culture is ready to rock!

Regenerate Our Culture is managed by several recognized bloggers including Tim Sweetman of Agent Tim, Kristin Braun of Spunky Jr., Alex King of Smarthomeschool, and Jake Smith of Mission36Teen. Regenerate Our Culture is dedicated to the purpose of regenerating our culture into one that is based on a Biblical world view.

Now that their website is up and running, make sure to stop by on a regular basis to check out the new materials and opinions they post.

Another fine announcement from Conservative Textbook.

The United States and Protectionism

Dubai Ports World is a company we are all quite familiar with due to recent media and political coverage. Dubai Ports World has now agreed to sell its operations to a U.S. owned entity. Is this a victory for America? In my opinion, this is by no means a victory; it is nothing less than a startling defeat for America. Allow me to explain my position.

I could care less about who ran the loading and unloading of our ports. It really doesn’t matter that much to me as long as that entity does not take the security duties that are currently executed by the port authorities and the United States Coast Guard. However, what is startling about Dubai Ports World’s defeat is that it signals something far larger than many people realize. Primarily, it signifies a renewed birth of a dangerous economic ideal – protectionism. Protectionism is a twisted form of nationalism. Nationalism is a philosophy I subscribe to on nearly all levels; however, protectionism is a branch of capitalism that does not follow the guidelines of a prosperous economy. Protectionism occurs when a country ends all (or nearly all) foreign investment in favor of producing all goods and services within itself.

Protectionism was a viable economic policy centuries ago when we did not have the ability to transport goods and services long distances. Countries had to be self sufficient in order to survive. In our modern world, protectionism no longer is a viable option to maintain our standard of living. The American standard of living, by far the highest standard of living in the world, is built upon not only our (generally) business friendly laws, but also by foreign investment. Many of the products we enjoy, such as clothing, iPods, tools, and computers (people don’t enjoy Windows, but they do enjoy Macs) are made outside of America. This lowers their costs. When their costs are lower, we are able to buy other products ands services with the saved cash. This in turn increases the standard of living.

What would happen if we stopped allowing foreign investment in America? Clothing, iPods, tools, computers, and countless other products would increase in price. This, of course, would make it more expensive for families to buy these important products (who can live without an iPod?). They would either continue to buy these more expensive products and have less money available for other needs, or they would forego buying these products in the first place. In any case, the standard of living would decrease.

Do you now see where the danger in the Dubai Ports World situation lurks? Protectionists are taking the leading role in forcing foreign investment to think twice about coming to America. This is not an isolated case. In fact, other foreign companies have been forced to not invest in America in recent months. These are signs of protectionism, and they signify possible dangers for the future economic strength of America.

Another fine lesson from Conservative Textbook.

The Future

I have talked about my optimism for the conservative movement in America. My belief is that this movement, grounded in the ideals of freedom, equality, and self-motivation, is poised to be in the forefront of American politics for many decades to come. As a philosophy, the conservative movement is still very young. Most consider the modern conservative movement to have gained the majority rule when President Ronald Reagan took the office of the presidency.

I would like to address the topic of college students and the conservative movement. As many of you know, college professors (and high school teachers) are likely to be liberals. Though this is not a crime, many times professors will add a little political spice to their lectures where it is inappropriate. It is at this point that these professors become activists, giving a political tirade to a captive audience. Now before I go on, I wish to say that there are many excellent teachers and professors out in the field. Three of my community college professors fit into this category. One in particular (my accounting professor) is the best professor any student could wish to have in a class. All three of these professors keep their political views to themselves in the classroom. In fact, I have no clue as to the political orientation of one of the three. This is how it should be in the academic world. Unfortunately, it is not always so with professors.

What about the professors who become left wing activists in front of students? What is to be done with these professors? In my opinion, the best thing to do is to expose them. Such was the case with Sean Allen of Aurora, Colorado. Sean produced proof positive that exposed his geography teacher as abusing his privilege to teach the young kids in his class. Ward Churchill of the University of Colorado at the People’s Republic of Boulder was also exposed, though not quite in the same way. Students must take the lead and begin to alert the school officials to these teachers. Unfortunately, many times academia will not take actions against such abuses of power by teachers and will subsequently dismiss students who alerted them to such situations. When that point is reached, it is the duty of the student and the family to take more drastic measures, such as alerting the news media to such incidences of unnecessary politics in the classroom.

Of course, this sounds all fine and dandy, but will it work? Will students really stand up for what they believe at the risk of a grade in the class? I have to admit, this would be difficult even for me. A good portion of my self-esteem comes from straight A’s in my classes (there are other activities, of course ☺). However, when push comes to shove, I believe most conservative students would address the issue. If not directly in front of the professor, in other ways such as alerting the proper school authorities to such grievances.

It can be done. The conservative movement has come so far in the past decades. It has grown from a significant minority with no voice or power into the majority political force in the nation. The conservative movement has broken down the stronghold of the liberal media. It has beaten back many of the unrelenting attacks of communism in disguise (socialism). Conservatives now have a voice in nearly all aspects of the culture. Academia is one of the last spider-holes of liberal dominance with no conservative outlet. Along with many other conservatives, I believe we are beginning to see the slow erosion of that monopoly in the form of students taking a stand. All movements start out small and isolated as in the cases of Professor Ward Churchill, Professor John Daly, and Jay Bennish. However, these cases show that some students are willing to stand up to liberals. When young people see others doing something, it is much easier to follow suit. These instances will no doubt embolden conservative students to insist on fair and balanced school lectures and studies. These instances will, in time, create a movement in the academia to chip away at this last bastion of the liberal monopoly.

Another fine lesson from Conservative Textbook.