28 posts tagged “conservatives”
Mark Alexander of the Patriot Post has written an essay entitled, “The Time Has Come.”
Alexander eruditely castigates President Barack Hussein Obama’s Marxism with some side shots at the Leftist controlled Democratic Party. He notes that BHO’s Healthcare Reform efforts via the Dems are amounting to socialism. Then Alexander praises America’s electorate for its seeming awakening from a blind sleep concerning BHO’s schmoozing of American voters in 2008.
JRH 12/19/09
The JudgeRight blog has an excellent post which I might label a Conservative Libertarian perspective. Directly below is a comment I posted there.
This real good JudgeBob! The thing is though most people are not good managers of their personal affairs, hence the bondage of individual credit card debt and the inability of to budget an affordable insurance plan.
The reality is these people do need direction on how to manage their affairs. Is government the solution? I can't believe that! Government management of personal affairs is transferring debt bondage to government bondage. No matter how well intentioned government management may be designed, the individual will be lost in the bureaucracy of rules and regulations which tell an individual what is affordable or good no matter the actual need of the individual.
Hence the government managed collective becomes despotism. Not Good!
Do I have a workable solution that would make my fellow accountable responsibility Conservatives happy and placate Leftist collectivism? Dear
God in Heaven I wish I did.
In the realm of the dreamer perhaps there is a marketable service that competes to offer individual (or individual families) management services in a free market private basis that is contractual yet under government regulation to limit abuse. This would add a little culpability to the buyer beware paradigm yet keep government management off the table.
It is a little mixture of socialism and capitalism that I am certain that would make both Leftists and Conservatives unhappy at a cursory observational glance.
JRH 12/16/09
I received this email from Burr Deming of Fair and Unbalanced (FU to their fans):
At FairAndUnbalanced.com, we devote a day to linking to interesting sites around the web. Yours usually makes the list, although often with a dissenting note.
Tomorrow, Sunday, a more critical than usual piece will appear. I notice that you often offer an analysis of opposing opinions with a direct link to encourage readers to compare for themselves. I hope you will see this as an attempt to follow your own good example.
Best wishes,
Burr
I am actually grateful that I am the subject of someone’s disapproval. It is an indication that fans and foes alike are reading my content.
In either case I will post Deming’s essay followed by my response.
Here is Mr. Deming’s criticism:
_____________________________
Violent Religious Fanatics
By Burr Deming
11/22/09 12:00:56 am
As John Houk at SlantRight explains Islam to Muslims and those who hate them, the message is that Muslims are given instructions to show to all non-Muslims the face of violent intolerance.
Houk's logic is this: there are fanatically fundamentalist Muslims who have turned to violence as an expression of faith. And there are, to be found by diligent search, passages in the Qur’an which can be used to reinforce those actions. Most Muslims are peaceful, according to Houk and those he quotes, but they are merely deluded about the nature of their faith. Radical violent sects know the real faith, as does Houk.
Protests against such conclusions from Christian experts who bring up similar passages from the Christian Bible do not sway him. One example is the 108th Psalm, which offers a prayer for the death of an enemy of the faith and the discarding of his widow and children. That and other such scriptures, to Houk, merely represent occasional anomalies from the main thrust of love and peace. Passages in the Qur’an are to be taken seriously.
So the killing of Dr. George Tiller by an anti-abortion activist is an exception to a peaceful rule, while the killer of military personnel at Fort Hood represents the future of Islam, even if most adherents disagree.
I can dismiss, as a lunatic fringe, death advocates such as Reverend Wiley Drake, who celebrates the killing of Dr. George Tiller. I am a little more concerned about his prayers for the violent death of the President.
Although I do not think they represent most Christians, I am concerned about the growing popularity among conservative radical Christians of Psalms 108, the prayer for violent death of the enemy. Tee-shirts and slogans link the violent passage to the President: "Psalm 109 8 prayer for Obama".
"I would like to be a Christian," a friend once remarked, "but I can't think of anyone I would like assassinated." The spread of violent fantasies directed toward the President and others is not itself shocking. That those violent wishes are accepted, endorsed, and advanced in Fellowship Hall each Sunday is shocking to those seeking to practice a religion of peace.
One concern is the effect of such violent sentiments on a few of the less inhibited among the unhinged. "There is no place for such prayers in any of our faiths," says Rabbi Brad Hirschfield on belief.net "and until we all stand up and say so, at least a little blood will be on all of our hands."
Another friend is sympathetic but remains outside any religious faith. "If there is a God, you have to think she'd support the separation of Church and Hate." As in all things, I'd like to stand with the Lord.
I'm for Separation of Church and Hate. Mr. Houk goes his own way.
- Deming of FU blog
________________________
So once again I have received the accusation of “Hate.”
Thus when Mr. Deming says he is for “Separation of Church and Hate” it is an obvious reference to my Christian and pro-life advocacy. It is also a back-handed (although it be polite) common Leftist accusation of Christian hypocrisy. The typical hypocrisy accusation runs something like this: If Christians are all about peace, love and tolerance why do they ignore violent references in the Bible as well as condemn alternate lifestyles (e.g. homosexuality and transgenderism) and the violence of Islam?
Before I begin a response let me shock (or in the critic’s mind confirm the hypocrisy accusation) the Left and Muslims. I also I am for “Separation of Church and Hate.”
Violence in the Bible when associated with the direction of God is prescribed against unrighteousness, i.e. people full of sin. It is in function with the purpose of securing land for the descendants of the child of promise. The descendants of the child of promise (today known as Jews) were to be an example to teach the world the way of God.
The violence of the Quran by contrast when associated with the direction of Allah is prescribed too violently and humiliatingly to conquer, subjugate, convert or kill all those in the entire world who do not submit to the will of Allah as voiced by Islam’s prophet Mohammed.
The descendants of the child of promise were not exempt from upholding the righteousness of God in the Old Testament version of the Bible. Indeed the non-Jewish/non-Hebrew Assyrians and later the Babylonians were used as an instrument of God to remove the Jews from their land due to forsaking the way of God for the way of the very people the Jews ejected for sin.
Christians have no business rendering evil for evil. If an abortionist murders unborn children, it definitely is NOT a righteous act to murder the abortionist. This is why the New Testament enjoins Christians to pray for those in authority. The implication of praying for those in authority is that punishment in the earthly realm is the province of earthly authorities which exists by the will of God. God judges a human being that will culminate in The Last Judgment when a human spirit’s life is read like a book hopefully through the filter of the Grace and Mercy inherent in the sacrificial Blood of Jesus Christ. Without the Blood of Christ a human is definitely in eternal trouble. Through the filter of Christ a human is under the measure of the Almighty God’s absolute understanding of the actual thoughts behind one’s actions – good or bad. There is no fooling the insight of God with persuasive arguments.
On the other hand it is a Christian’s duty to vocally share the Mind of Christ with others. The Mind of Christ is best discerned in the Word of God. Hence the moniker of Bible believing Christians as opposed to Progressive Christians. Progressive Christians (i.e. Leftist in nature) cherry pick the Scriptures adopting verses that validate humanistic thinking.
Bible believing Christians definitely are not perfect in interpreting Scripture; however there is more agreement than disagreement.
I always find it amazing when a Leftist or Progressive Christian calls one who asserts his Christian Bible faith a hater in criticizing homosexuality or Islam. It is also fascinating that followers of Mohammed’s Islam play the victim and cry hater toward those who know Islam’s history and are aware that Islam’s theo-political dogma has not officially changed since the day of Mohammed. Certainly there are Muslims who have become Westernized to the extent there is an enjoyment of Western Liberty and Freedom. Nonetheless it is doubtful that most of the Muslims who deem themselves moderate would renounce the words that Mohammed expressed as the word of Allah in the Quran or the authoritative traditions of the Hadith or Sira.
In the case of the Leftist and homosexuality: the Leftist uses the term “hater” against the Biblical Christian yet have no problem whatsoever in either maligning Biblical faith as irrelevant. Often times the Left vocally expresses anger against Biblical Christians wishing to express their faith in their community at public functions with the hyperbole of Separation of Church and State. The Separation of Church and State idiocy is merely a Leftist legal maneuver to prevent Christians the free exercise of the religion in public. This makes Christianity the Leftist’s favorite religion to hate. The Leftist propaganda is this: it is ok to promote Progressive (err … Leftist) propaganda in public (e.g. schools, City Councils, et al) but is offensive to Leftists for Christians to do the same. The Leftist cares little if Leftist ideology is offensive to Biblical Christians let alone if it stifles both Christian Free Speech and the free exercise of religion simultaneously. Now that is hypocrisy.
Then there is the odd co-habitation between Leftists and Muslims (also Muslim apologists) who seek the public acceptance of the free practice of Islamic theo-political religion even though the dogma of Islam if it ever becomes the legal standard would require the death of Leftists for insulting Mohammed, Allah and Islam. If you think that is stretch then look at the intolerance that exists in Muslim dominated nations.
In this perspective I am not a hater. Rather I am an advocate of Free Speech and Freedom of Religion. In respect to Islam I am an exposer of a theo-political doctrine (one might even say a cult) that wishes the destruction of American Free Speech and Freedom of Religion.
JRH 11/23/09
_____________________________
Response to Alluded Accusation of ‘Hater’
John R. Houk
© November 23, 2009
____________________________
Violent Religious Fanatics
© 2008 (sic) FairAndUnbalanced.com
Leftists must certainly fear the charisma of Sarah Palin. They have already begun dissecting her new book catching discrepancies. One has to wonder why the MSM did NOT embrace the same scrutiny about President Barack Hussein Obama’s lies and/or deceptions about his protectiveness over his original birth certificate or his school records. This is not to mention his connection to racist spiritual leaders and avowed Marxists. Most of this stuff should have been met with transparency rather than paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for legal bills in clouding transparency.
Yet Sarah Palin has been vilified ever since she hit the national spot light via Senator McCain’s choice of running mate to entice Conservative Republicans to look away from some of the issues that instilled mistrust. It is part of this vilification that drove Sarah Palin from the Office of Governor of Alaska. Palin’s spot light did not include independent wealth or moneyed Leftist organizations (or individuals) to pay for the legal bills to fight back the Alaska State Congressional Dem inquisition to discredit Palin’s stature.
Incidentally the multiple ethics violation accusations have all been dismissed. The Alaska State Dems even failed to latch on to the most palpable scandal; viz. the firing of Alaska’s head of law enforcement. The sour grapes produced by being fired left recrimination for not going after the ex-husband of Palin’s sister. Evidently the sister’s ex-hubby was a wife abuser which included threatening the sister and their father. Palin’s reason for firing was is irrelevant since Alaska State enables the Governor the prerogative to dismiss. After the MSM did a great job of covering the opinion of the fired Chief, there was little covering of the Chief’s lack of substantiation.
Then there is President Obama. Only an idiot can believe the President has adequately participated transparent full disclosure as he promised in his deceptive campaign. The Left and the MSM still continue to ignore Obama and continue to plow the field of dirt to stick on Sarah Palin. The conclusion for Leftist examination of Palin can only be one thing. That thing is fear. The fear is Sarah’s stature will influence future voters as either a force to reckon with or perhaps even a potential Conservative Presidential candidate.
Thus there will be some excoriation of Palin’s book recently released: “Going Rogue: An American Life.”
JRH 11/16/09
I was a bit miffed with Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich’s support of RINO Dede Scozzafava over Conservative Party Doug Hoffman in the New York State House race in District 23. Gingrich attempted to salvage his stand for Party loyalty over Conservative loyalty when Scozzafava dropped out. At that time Gingrich endorsed Hoffman.
Apart of all the Republican Party at all costs mentality, Gingrich has written an awesome Veteran’s Day message. Gingrich praises civilian police officer Sgt. Kimberly Munley for not waiting for back-up taking down fifth column Muslim terrorist Major Nidal Hasan after being wounded.
Newt proceeds to praise other incidence of American heroism stretching from the fall of the Berlin Wall to roughly 1776.
It is this phrase that I found to ring sadly true with the present American government:
“Hero” is not a word we use a lot these days. We have a media dedicated to destroying, not showcasing, greatness. We have popular culture determined to celebrate victimhood rather than heroism. And we have a regime in Washington that seems more at home with international autocrats and dictators than America and its heroes.
But the inescapable fact of America is this: Ours is a country founded and defended, not by conciliation and sophisticated diplomatic gestures, but by honor, bravery and sacrifice.
Our heroes are not incidental to our nationhood but an essential part of it. Why? Because America is not, contrary to what our President believes, merely a nation among nations. We are, on our best days, closer to what Ronald Reagan believed: A shining city on a hill.
“A shining city on a hill” is an honorable way to view America rather than as a nation at fault for all the world’s woes in the 20th and 21st century. Do you not think so as well?
JRH 11/11/09
A lot of Conservative Political Action Committees (PAC) not affiliated with a political candidate love to take credit for their part in a candidate’s victory. When a candidate loses either try to spin their part as a success or are silent.
I start out this way because a Conservative candidate that was attempting to buck the Two-Party System in America gave a good shot but lost in New York district 23. That candidate was Conservative Party nominee for the House of Representatives Doug Hoffman.
I learned the reason for Hoffman’s loss. It was not because Hoffman polled third behind Democrats and Republicans. He actually polled second at 45% to %49%. Leftist Democrat Bill Owens won by a mere 4%. The travesty for Hoffman’s loss is the Republican candidate battling Hoffman and Owens realizing she was not going to win dropped out of the race and endorsed the Leftist Democrat Owens. That RINO Republican was Dede Scozzafava.
One may ask, “Why is a Republican supporting a Democrat for Office in this time of growing voter mistrust of Democrats and Leftists?”
Scozzafava was truly a Republican in Name Only. She supported the Democratic Party Leftist platform which included Pelosi favoritism for abortion and social transformation rendering the U.S. Constitution irrelevant. This is the very same thing President Barack Hussein Obama represents as well.
Hoffman has a remarkable amount of reputable Republicans endorse him over the Leftist Scozzafava. This I found a blessing for the Conservative base that is reemerging as the voice of Americans. I was a bit disheartened to hear that Republicans such as Newt Gingrich supported Scozzafava for no other reason than Republican Party loyalty. Newt should have realized that blind Party loyalty will not make significant wins as former Presidential candidate Senator John McCain proved. Senator McCain was a RINO that really had only a couple of attractions for a Conservative Republican; viz. his rough reputation as a maverick and his Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin. McCain banked on his maverick image of making his own decisions regardless of Conservatism or Leftism. McCain should have been wise enough to utilize Palin better bark at Obama’s Leftist credentials and past associations. This is especially so since the Obama campaign utilized the MSM to castigate Palin’s image with down right made up Leftist lies.
Thus goes Party loyalty! Down the proverbial drain!
If the Republican Party used the opportunity to get a Hoffman win with GOP financial resources, Hoffman would have definitely won that race. Sure Hoffman is NOT a Republican but does anyone believe he would caucus with Leftist Democrats? This was a non-Republican Conservative who would not support the Pelosi way as Scozzafava would have. You have to know that Owens is merely a rubber stamp for the Obama/Pelosi Leftist agenda for America.
I am on the Club for Growth mailing list. Club for Growth as any good PAC group would have gave a spin self-gratifying personal spin on Hoffman’s loss. Regardless of Chris Chocola of Club for Growth’s personal spin, the point made of why Doug Hoffman should have won is very relevant for future Conservative and Republican politics of the near future.
Here is the email Chocola sent to me:
JRH 11/6/09
************************
Hoffman Comes Up Short in NY-23
Chris Chocola
Sent: November 4, 2009 12:03:50 PM
Club For Growth
As you have probably heard by now, Club for Growth PAC-endorsed candidate Doug Hoffman lost his underdog bid in yesterday's special election in New York's 23rd congressional district. Nominee of the Conservative Party of New York, and the first third-party candidate the Club PAC has ever supported, Doug finished with 45 percent of the vote, but fell short to Democrat Bill Owens' 49 percent. The official Republican nominee, Dede Scozzafava, took 5.5 percent of the vote and played the spoiler after dropping out of the race and endorsing the liberal Democrat in the final days of the campaign.
Doug's loss is a disappointment, but our efforts shined a national spotlight on the campaign and sent an important message to Washington insiders. The day the Club for Growth PAC entered the race, Doug was polling at 17 percent - with our help, he gained 28 points in just 36 days, and came very close to pulling off an historic upset against both major parties. It's now clear that had the Republican Party supported Doug or any serious conservative from the beginning, he would have won going away.
Party labels aside, conservatives lost nothing last night, as Scozzafava and Owens are both avowed liberals in support of Nancy Pelosi's agenda in the House of Representatives. Doug Hoffman was our only chance to bring real change to Washington, and in little more than a month, we almost helped him pull it off.
As attention turns now to the 2010 election cycle, there are a few lessons to be learned from last night's results. First, the Club's PAC reaffirmed its unique ability to identify and promote economic-freedom candidates early on and to draw conservatives around the country to their cause. Second, the Republican establishment learned that in these difficult times, voters - especially center-right voters - are drawn to principles, not parties. And most importantly, conservatives learned that the principles of limited government and economic freedom are ascendant heading into next year's elections, and that the Club for Growth PAC stands ready to fight effectively for those principles wherever we can do the most good.
Thank you for all you did in the historic NY-23 race. I say "historic" not because we won this battle - we didn't - but because I have a good feeling that this battle will set a tone for and pay dividends in the coming battles against national health care, for limited government, and to mobilize grassroots free-market citizens to rise up in other election contests in 2010.
Best Regards,
Chris
_____________________
Hoffman Lost BUT Should Have Won
John R. Houk
© November 6, 2009
_____________________
Hoffman Comes Up Short in NY-23
Chris Chocola
President, Club for Growth
2001 L Street, NW, Ste 600
Washington, DC 20036
PH: 202-955-5500
Government mandated disclaimers --
Donations to the Club for Growth are not tax deductible for federal income tax purposes. We do not accept donations from corporations, labor unions, foreign nationals, or federal contractors. Donations may be used for political purposes such as supporting or opposing candidates. No funds will be earmarked or reserved for any political purpose.
Yesterday I read a Liberty Council authored Christian Newswire article that validated Conservatism, Christian Family Values as well as Biblical moral values. The article basically was a ‘smack the red headed step-children’ of Leftism and the homosexual agenda in its hubris over President Barack Hussein Obama and the Leftist Dems “Change” mantra of the 2008 election.
In summary here is the summary of the Conservative/Family Value victory:
n Virginia voted in a Conservative Republican Governor, Lt. Governor and Attorney General while contrastingly showing the Virginia Dems the door.
n Incumbent Leftist Dem Governor John Corzine was defeated by Republican Chris Christie even though the Leftist darling President BHO campaigned for him and the MSM polls showed Corzine leading in the polls.
n In May 2009 the lawmakers of Maine produced a bill signed by the Governor legalizing same-sex marriage. On November 4, 2009 Maine voters chose Biblical Morality over lawmaker Secular Humanism by repealing the legislation. Leftists and homosexual ideologues made sure via the comment route to inform a State legalized same-sex marriage by law rather than judicial fiat.
To my joy I discovered slanted right political wit Ann Coulter wrote an article demonstrating the Conservative cause is alive and well. My fellow Conservatives read it for some mirth. Counter-culture Leftists and homosexuals read it and weep.
JRH 11/5/09
Here are Parts 1 and 2 to Mark Alexander’s essay on The Rule of Law. The essays are an indictment on the Left turning the U.S. Constitution into a “living” document rather than a framework for the Rule of Law in America.
JRH 9/14/09
Senator Ted Kennedy passed away on Tuesday August 25, 2009. I read some of the praise remarks of the late Senator. The one I remember best is the “Lion of the Senate.” I think a more apt description for Senator Kennedy is the “Lion of the Left.”
I have also read some of the comments by some of my fellow Conservatives which can be summed up in the invective goodbye of “Good Riddance.” Amazingly some more vile words were used as well.
I was no fan or friend of Ted Kennedy; nonetheless my fellow Conservatives who detest Leftist ideology you should respect a man who spent much of his adult life serving the United States as an elected Senator from Massachusetts.
I was about seven years old when President JFK was assassinated. I was about twelve years old when Senator RFK was assassinated. My lower working class family was staunch Democrats believing that President FDR saved America and American people from jobless poverty of The Depression. It did not matter if there were moral or political differences with Democrats. All that mattered was Joe Working American had work and thus food to put on the table.
I would even venture to say that my family could give a hoot about politics in general. The man that enabled Americans to work and take care of his family was a Democrat; ergo every President my family voted for was a Democrat. Mom would not talk about it but I bet she even voted for McGovern.
What I am getting at is that it was engrained into me the Kennedys were Democrats and hence of the line of the saviors of the American worker. Because of this familial attitude, an emerging affinity to politics in general and my impressionable youth; I too was a bastion of the Democrat Left with a huge appreciation of (neoconservative) Democratic Party Hawks like Senator Henry (Scoop) Jackson. My admiration of Jackson was to be the evidence of my current Republican Neocon slant in politics.
Nonetheless, from ages twelve (1968) through nineteen (1976 and Carter) I was an altruistic ideologue Leftist.
Then the first President I was eligible to vote for – Jimmy Carter – turned out to be an indecisive idiot. How in the world could a Democrat President manage the American economy into despair and allow America to have the air of a decrepit paper tiger abroad?
The 1980 election campaign approached. And as if Sir Lancelot came on his horse to save the honor of the Democratic Party, Senator Ted Kennedy decided to challenge the incompetent incumbent President Carter. Man as a young Leftist I was drooling. Unfortunately my fellow Democrats did not overwhelmingly share my Kennedy adoration.
Before Senator Kennedy announced his candidacy the opinion polls placed huge favor on Kennedy above the incumbent Carter. Unfortunately as the campaign came into full swing, Carterites were able to use trust issues because of the Chappaquiddick scandal that Senator Kennedy was involved in on July 18, 1969.
Was Ted drunk? Was married Roman Catholic Ted having an affair with Mary Jo Kopechne? Was there a sex act being performed before Ted ran the car into the river? Why did Ted abandon Kopechne in the submerged car swimming to safety and not call for help? Why did Ted wait until the next day to report he was the driver?
All these questions were never answered adequately probably due to big money, political familial patronage and political power in general. Kennedy’s demise to dethroning the incumbent Carter was a “Can you trust this guy?”
And so my last Democratic Party Lancelot bit the Presidential dust.
I was a confused Leftist with the choice between President Carter and Ronald Reagan. Considering my indoctrination and the Reagan Cold War rhetoric he often spoke, I thought a vote for Reagan was a vote to push buttons and launch the nuclear arsenal.
So I voted Libertarian in 1980. Thank GOD President Reagan won the day! I evolved into a Conservative.
If Senator Ted Kennedy had pulled the upset and defeated incumbent President Carter for the Democratic nomination, would I have stayed the Leftist path? As much as I despise Leftist ideology today, I cannot fathom when or if I would have become a Conservative with a President Edward Kennedy.
JRH 8/26/09
Democrats falsely accuse the GOP of sending Americans to disrupt the President Barack Hussein Obama and/or Democrat townhall meetings. The reality is concerned Americans want to be heard. The further reality is when false accusations from Democrats fail to incite shame; the Left goes to the next step; i.e. to sending goons to beat up concerned Americans.
