Dropping pebbles of thought into our conservative echo-chamber

Posts tagged ‘conservative’

Letting the DNC Rewrite History

Former President Bill Clinton’s scheduled speech tonight at the DNC convention reminds me of just how often we, as conservatives, have allowed the Democrats and the liberal media (redundancy!) to dictate the narrative and rewrite history.

Seriously, I have been hoping for a long time to see this trend change, but even with social media taking a large chunk out of the dinosaur news networks, we are still allowing the liberals to get away with an insane amount of propaganda.

Maybe it is because I am old enough to remember how things were when they actually happened.  Our newest set of voters was still in diapers during Clinton’s last term.  The Democrats work to take full advantage of the naiveté of youth, which is why they target younger voters and deceive them.  What disturbs me most is that all too often conservatives go right along with the deception unwittingly.

But I fully remember Bill Clinton’s first election.  This is because I actually supported Clinton.  Don’t hate me!

It was a definite year of discovery for me.  It was the year that I discovered first-hand how blatantly deceptive the liberals can be.

I was young.  The 1992 election wasn’t my first, but it was close to it.  I was angry at George H. W. Bush for his myopic “family values” platform.  Ross Perot had some good sound bites, but I thought the guy was a bit of a lunatic (and it turns out that I was right).  Bill Clinton was the “cool” candidate, much like Barack Obama was portrayed in 2008.  Hell, he could play the saxophone!  He went on popular shows like Arsenio to prove it.  Even most conservatives will still say that Clinton is a likable guy on a personal level.

But, in reality, Bill Clinton was Barack Obama 1.0.

Clinton’s first campaign was very much like Obama’s.  The Democrats pilloried Bush for going back on his pledge to not raise any taxes, even though it was the Democrats in Congress that placed that poison pill into an unrelated bill that Bush felt he could not veto.  Clinton promised to lower taxes and bring us all together as a nation.  He gave us empty platitudes.

What we got instead was almost IDENTICAL to Obama’s first two years in office.

As soon as Clinton got in, he and his Democrat allies in Congress passed one of the largest tax increases in the history of the country.  Then Bill and Hillary went to work to push a universal health care plan, dubbed “Hillarycare”.  The only difference was that they did not have a super-majority in Congress, like Obama.  The nation recoiled at Clinton’s actions.  They were so incredibly unpopular that Republicans swept the House and Senate races to gain control for the first time in 54 years.  The sweep was nearly identical to the one in 2010.

Citizens of the United States had developed a clear case of buyer’s remorse.

At that point, there were only two differences between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.  Without the presence of Ross Perot in the elections, Clinton would never have come close to winning, either time.  He never managed a majority of the popular vote.  But Clinton did something else that Obama failed to do; after he got his clock cleaned in the mid-term elections, Bill Clinton decided to portray himself as a centrist.

Today, we have liberals like Barack Obama going around telling the country that his ideas are the same as Clinton’s, and that those ideas worked.  And he is allowed to get away with it.

Not even conservatives will call him on it.

But the truth is that the ideas that brought us prosperity in the 1990’s were not so popular with Clinton.  He fought against them tooth and nail, and went so far as to wage a war with the Gingrich-led Congress that would shut down the government.  If Clinton had gotten his way, and had retained control of the House or Senate, we likely would not have seen so much prosperity, even with the technological boom.  Clinton went kicking and screaming against ideas like welfare reform (vetoed three times), until he was forced into a political position where he had to sign such ideas into law.  He then turned around and portrayed ideas like welfare reform and a balanced budget as hallmarks of his administration, with the liberal media in full cooperation.

But those ideas did not originate from Clinton, he opposed them at the outset, and he only came to get on board when it became politically expedient for him to do so.

The boom in technology was enough to spur our economy to great heights, not because of Clinton’s policies, but despite them.  In fact, Clinton ignored several pitfalls that caused our economy to take a large downturn near the end of his administration.  Several companies were cooking the books.  Many of the prosperous internet corporations had no physical inventory of which to speak.  When the bubbles burst, Clinton didn’t care.  He was on his way out.

The media blamed George W. Bush for Tyco, Enron, WorldCom, and the like, but those crimes were all committed under Clinton’s watch.  Apart from that, Clinton’s administration had more high level corrupt scandals than even Obama’s.  They made Nixon look like a choir boy.  But the dinosaur media covered for him, and portrayed him as an enigmatic superstar.

And we let them.

And now we are letting them tell everyone how successful Clinton was as a President.

Why..?

Because we allowed them to create that narrative and let it become ingrained as common knowledge.

We even went along with it to a degree, and we’re paying the price now.  Obama is able to fool much of the populace with this narrative.

We’ve got to stop letting this happen.

Advertisements

Aborting Obama

Some time ago, I wrote about the issue of abortion and I posited that there was a spectrum of views that could be measured–with a 0-100% ratio–where 0% was the view that abortion should be illegal under any circumstance, and 100% was the view that abortion should be legal under all circumstances.

It looked something like this:

100% Legal  [—————|—————]  0% Legal

I argued that any view on the subject of abortion would fall between those two extremes.

For instance, the view that abortion should be legal only in the case of rape, incest, or endangerment of the mother’s life would fall on the scale roughly at 15%.  The view that abortion should be legal until the third trimester would fall roughly at 85%, and the support of so-called “morning after” pills would fall somewhere near 30% on the scale.

One could quibble with the percentage points that I assigned to any particular viewpoint, but the overall theory was sound.

I further submitted that there were not two sides of the abortion debate, but three; pro-choice, pro-life, and pro-abortion.

My own position on abortion is such that I have had many debates with people representing views from nearly every point along the scale.

I am a conservative with a very thick libertarian streak.  I personally believe that abortion is heinous and despicable.  I mourn every child lost at the hands of an abortion doctor.  However, I still believe that the decision to carry a pregnancy to term must remain in the hands of the woman, and not in the hands of government bureaucrats.

This position doesn’t win me many friends, to say the least.  Most of my fellow conservatives disagree with me vehemently, and, although I believe that they respect me, this disagreement has led to some pretty heated debates.

Most liberals disagree with me too, because I would restrict abortion access to the first trimester, if it were left to me.  However, it is nearly always a distinct faction of liberals that hotly debate against my position, and they are the ones that I would describe as pro-abortion.

It seems counter-intuitive that there would be a class of people who believe that abortion is a positive thing, but I assure you that they do indeed exist.

Certainly Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was pro-abortion.  In fact, Sanger was a noted eugenicist.  She believed in abortion as a means to cull the population of “undesirable” races.

But even Sanger’s extreme views fell within the abortion scale that I created.

I have debated the abortion issue with many people on all sides of the spectrum for many years.  I thought that I had heard it all.  I believed my scale to be an absolute representation.

Until I met Barack Obama.

President Obama’s views on abortion are so very extreme that they do not fit on the scale that I created.  He doesn’t just believe that abortion should be legal under all circumstances…

He actually voted that a baby who managed to survive the abortion process could be denied medical care outside of the womb.

That, my friends, is not pro-choice.  It isn’t even pro-abortion.

That is MURDER.

Infanticide.

With the Democratic National Convention gearing up, and all of the political winds pointing to their focus on women’s reproductive issues, Obama’s extreme position is something that should not be left ignored.

We need to hammer this home; over, and over, and over again.  The Democrats simply can not be allowed to set themselves up as the champions of women’s rights with this kind of blood on their hands.

Not now, and not ever.

A Devil’s Advocate for Todd Akin

I’ll be candid here…

Missouri Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin

In my daily life, I cuss quite a bit.  It’s a habit that I developed when I was very young, and haven’t quite been able to kick.  I purposefully try to avoid using profanities in my writing, but I am definitely going to use one here, so…  If you have virgin ears (or eyes, as the case may be) you might want to turn away now.

This is the quote that got Missouri Senate hopeful Todd Akin into so much trouble:

“It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down,” Akin said.

This isn’t just stupid; it is so far beyond fucking stupid that I can fully understand why Akin’s current opponent in the Senate race donated money to his primary campaign.

Okay, I am done cussing, and now I am going to flip the script…

If you have no desire to witness a contrived defense of Akin, skip down to the next bolded line..!

I am going to play devil’s advocate here and attempt to defend the indefensible.

It won’t be easy!

I mean, “legitimate rape”..?  That doesn’t sound very easy to defend.

But we all know that some claims of rape are untrue, or even fabricated out of thin air.  Have we already forgotten the Duke LaCrosse team and Crystal Gale Magnum?  Have we forgotten about Tawana Brawley?  More to the point, I know for a fact that some women have engaged in completely consensual sex, and then have later made the accusation that they were raped.  What their motives may have been–revenge, money, or whatever–has no real bearing to the point I am trying to make here.

As for the next part of the sentence “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down”..?

All I can say, in this case, is that a woman who is being brutally assaulted physically and is terrified, in fear for her life..?  Such a condition doesn’t sound very conductive to conception to me.

Some married couples are able to have children at the drop of a hat.  I have always envied them, in a way, because when I was younger I always wanted to have a big family, even if families like the Duggars (of 19 Children and Counting fame) kind of freak me out a little.  But some couples have an extreme amount of trouble trying to conceive even under the best of conditions, and any fertility doctor would say that there are conditions which are more conductive to conception, and conditions that are not.

That’s about the best defense I can come up with, and I am DONE defending Akin, because he really doesn’t deserve it, and I feel a little dirty.  Anyone who skipped to this line would probably feel comfortable reading freely from here.

The truth is that there is a double-standard for us, as conservatives.  It isn’t just because the media has a different standard for us than they have for the liberals that they almost universally support.  It is because we hold ourselves to a higher standard, as well.  We can not expect the double-standard in the media to ever go away if we abandon the standards we hold for ourselves.

It just doesn’t work like that.

As a conservative candidate for the Senate, Akin should have been well aware of this, and thus his gaffe just isn’t excusable, despite my attempted defense of him.  He showed an astounding lack of sense in every aspect, and his selfishness in refusing to drop out of the Senate race may very well cause that seat to go to Democrat Claire McCaskill, whom I despise.

That’s really sad.  I hate to see it.

But I would hate to see us abandon any sense of principle in favor of crass political concerns much, much more.

If we do that, we might as well just give up and join the DNC.

Why the Democrats Can Win Elections

My first day back in college (today) was fairly instructive, if unintentionally so.

As an accounting major, I am taking a business class.  It’s pretty standard stuff.  Nothing too extreme.  Apart from a fairly decent narrative from my professor, I would have been bored to tears.

Until he said one thing that woke me up pretty quickly…

He began to expound on the two philosophies of wealth; infinite wealth and finite wealth.

Infinite wealth is the theory that wealth is created, and therefore in unlimited supply, whereas finite wealth theorizes that there is only so much wealth to be had, thus anyone with too much of it prevents others from attaining more.

At one point, he asked us to raise our hands if we believed that wealth is created.

A no-brainer, right?  Or so I thought.  Of course, I raised my hand.

When he asked about finite wealth, to my dismay, more than half of the class raised their hands, at which point the professor went on to briefly say that there is merit in both theories.

Did he really believe that, or was he simply “going along to get along”?

Either way, it made me uncomfortable, because there can be no merit whatsoever in the theory of finite wealth.

The notion that there is only one pie to be divided–and that those who have a bigger slice are taking away from others–ignores the person who baked the pie.

Hard work creates wealth.  Without it, there is no pie at all.  But Barack Obama and his supporters are legion, and they believe that the pie willed itself into existence.  Moreover, they believe that they deserve an equal slice of that pie, whether they helped to bake it, or not.

If I buy a house that is in poor condition, and work to clean it up and repair it, the house would be worth much more (theoretically) than what I originally payed for it.  In this way wealth and prosperity are created.

I’m sure that I am preaching to the choir here, but seeing so many people mindlessly buy into the notion of finite wealth first-hand really did open my eyes (wider) to the stark differences between conservatives like me and the liberals that we oppose on a daily basis.

And with people who are that thoughtless having the power to vote, it is no wonder that ideologues like Barack Obama and other liberal Democrats can pander to them enough to win elections.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: