A true American Conservative

A couple of weeks ago, Arlen Specter officially left the Republican Party and joined the Democrats. I say officially because Arlen Specter had always acted more like a Democrat than a Republican anyway.

The mainstream media quickly picked up the story and spun it as the looming death of the once-great Republican Party - arguing that Republicans must moderate and become a “big tent” party like the Democrats in order to survive. Their argument is based on a couple of faulty premises.

First, it presupposes that the Republican Party has drifted extremely to the right. Ineed, many commentators have been repeating the talking point that the Republican Party is the furthest to the right it has ever been. Unfortunately, this is not the case. In fact, the Republican Party is the furthest to the left it has ever been.

President Ronald Reagan was inarguably further to the right than the modern day Republican Party. President Reagan proudly trumpeted his Conservative principles – principles such as limited government, right-to-life, and low taxes, and his success speaks for itself. Not only was Reagan the most successful modern day President, but his landslide electoral success is the kind of success Barack Obama can only dream of; moreover, it was done without the aid of voter fraud groups like ACORN.

The Republican Party is nowhere near as Conservative as President Reagan was. People like John McCain continue to tell other Republicans to moderate, when the blueprint for success should be telling them to return to their conservative principles and abandon this wave of big-government that has gripped them.

The second faulty premise the media has latched onto is the idea that the Democrat Party is a “big tent.” On the contrary, the Democrat Party has been wholly overrun by extreme Leftists, with the ultimate result being the rise in power of America’s first-ever Marxist President: Barack Obama.

Sure, the party has allowed the likes of an Arlen Specter to join their caucus, but it is only because they feel it weakens their opposition. Now that Arlen Specter has joined the Democrat party, they have stripped him of his seniority on any committees – contrary to promises made by Harry Reid in the event of his defection.

The party will do this with any disagreeable members, as when they threatened to remove Joe Lieberman of his committee positions, and they ran a leftist against him in his primary in order to attempt to remove him from office. The Democrat Party is not acting as a “big tent” party when they simply segregate any members who do not fall in lock step with their extreme Left base.

In actuality, the Republicans are the “big tent” party, but this is their problem. Too many Republicans are pre-occupied with appearing bi-partisan and moderate. Moderates, however, are people who have no core principles, or people who chose the path of political expediency over any principles they do have.

This popular push for moderation perfectly setup Barack Obama’s victory in November. Americans were faced with the choice between a liberal, Barack Obama, and a confusing man who seemed to have no core philosophy because he was always pandering to the Left in an effort to “reach across the aisle.”

Political parties are supposed to be a group of people who form around a set of core principles and create a platform based upon those principles. That does not mean everyone in the party must agree one-hundred percent on everything, but they must agree on the core principles they form around.

Unfortunately, liberal Republicans have injected so much of the Democrat party’s liberal ideas into the platform that the conservative principles have become dim, and the result is a muddled and confusing platform that often seems contradictory. This is why Arlen Specter leaving the Republican Party is actually a good thing. It is one-step closer to weaning out the liberals who have dulled the party’s platform.

Contrary to the current talking points circulating, if the Republican Party wishes to survive, they must continue to wean the Arlen Specter’s, John McCain’s, and Charlie Crist’s. Then, they can rebuild the Republican platform on Conservative principles and give the American people bold, legitimate candidates for office, instead of “the lesser of two evils.”

President George W. Bush

With the election and subsequent inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama (based on hallow platitudes such as hope and change), it seems appropriate to reflect upon the possible legacy left by our 43rd President. The Presidency of George W. Bush will undoubtedly remain mired in controversy for quite some time. Indeed, his Presidency was far from perfect; however, history will eventually reflect his time in office as both honorable and successful.

At times, President Bush’s actions were somewhat contradictory - especially in the eyes of conservatives.  He attempted to privatize Social Security, but then he created a new Medicare entitlement. He presided over a 1.3 trillion dollar tax cut, but he spent like a drunken liberal (not using his veto power until five and a half years into his Presidency). In addition, he used TARP funds to bailout the ailing and over-regulated auto industry (which did not address its underlying problems), and he made only symbolic gestures at securing our borders. In the long run, however, his failures will be overshadowed by his incredible accomplishments:

National Security

National Security is an area in which President Bush does not get proper credit. Even such a short time after he has left office, his success in keeping our nation safe is wildly obvious. President Bush fought the War on Terror head on, instead of turning a blind-eye as his predecessor did. Even in moments of immense criticism and partisan bickering, he kept his resolve and “stayed the course.” In doing so, he kept the homeland safe for the remaining seven years of his Presidency (a feat the Left refuses to acknowledge). Numerous terrorist attacks were subverted, such as an attempt to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge and another to blow up several planes en route to the United States from London. Moreover, by bringing the fight to terrorists abroad and the evil regimes that support terrorism, the Bush Administration liberated millions of people from tyranny.

Without strong national security, such as we have seen the last seven years, no type of domestic agenda may follow - not even President Barack Hussein Obama’s Marxist utopia. On September 11, 2001, our nation witnessed that fact first hand when Al Qaeda directly attacked our economy by flying two large passenger jets into the World Trade Center buildings.

Economy

Throughout his two terms in office, President Bush was constantly attacked on his handling of the economy. For the most part, these attacks were unjustified. For starters, President Bush inherited a recession from his predecessor. Soon after, our economy was attacked by terrorists on September 11, 2001. What followed was an amazing, yet predictable (to conservatives) turnaround spurred by simple market forces aided by a 1.3 trillion dollar tax cut. Undoubtedly, Keynesian economics of the type we are seeing now would have had an adverse effect (America has never spent its way out of a recession). What followed was several years of economic growth and private sector job creation covered up by the Leftist mainstream media.

Then, along came September of 2008 and the era of government bailouts. In the short run, President Bush will continue to take the blame for our economic downturn. In the long run, such blame will be mitigated in light of his success with national security; however, until the actual events that transpired are disseminated to the public, the truth of who is to blame will remain obscured. The general public is widely uninformed of the massive regulations permeating every sector of our economy.

Indeed, our regulation-happy Democrat Congress and their drooling lapdog, the so-called mainstream media, have absurdly blamed our economic woes on deregulation from the Bush Administration. Such accusations willingly ignore the warnings of President Bush and other Republicans that argued for more regulation on the floor of Congress; yet, those warnings fell on deaf ears of Leftist Democrats such as Barney Frank who claimed that there was no approaching problem. Instead, these ideologues have rewritten recent history in order to distract Americans from the actual prosperity they enjoyed the majority of time the Bush Administration was office.

Protection of the Unborn

President Bush has been exemplary in his efforts to protect the life of babies in the womb. In his first days in office, President Bush signed an executive order that banned international aid for abortion (an executive order that President Barack Hussein Obama quickly rescinded). In 2003, he signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban into law, which outlawed that horrendous procedure. Then, in 2004, he signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act into law, which criminalized an act of violence resulting in the death of an unborn baby.

Moral Character

A President’s character is a very important part of his time in office (although, this aspect of the Presidency is often disregarded by the Left). The Office of the President of the United States is bigger than any one man, and it is important that the man who occupies it does so in a manner that brings honor and respect to the office as a whole. Of course, President Clinton disregarded such notions. Indeed, he brought dishonor and mockery to the office and himself.

President George W. Bush restored honor to the Presidency. He is a man of high moral character. He says what he means, and he means what he says. President Bush did not waste his time playing politics, having sex with interns in the oval office, or pardoning FALN terrorists. As a matter of fact, President Bush used the power of pardon with great care. He had half as many pardons as many previous Presidents, and he had no “midnight” pardons as he was leaving office.

Perhaps the best measure of President Bush’s high moral character was his ability to withstand the vicious attacks from the Left brought on by Bush Derangement Syndrome. He withstood attacks to such an extent, that many will remember him as a poor communicator who could not defend himself. The truth, however, is that President Bush viewed the office of the President as above partisan politics, and he would not allow himself of his administration to sink to their level. Instead, he focused on doing the job to the best of his ability with a strong moral compass as his guide.

There are many other accomplishments of the Bush Administration that seem to fly under the radar, such as his strong appointments to the federal court or his high relief to the continent of Africa. Those major accomplishments will also remain apart of the Bush legacy. All in all, the United States is better off after having President Bush as our President for eight years. No President is perfect, but President Bush was a damn good President. Someday, his legacy will reflect that fact.

“…as I hear the questions and the statements today, it seems to me that there’s a kind of hear no progress in Iraq, see no progress in Iraq, and most of all, speak of no progress in Iraq.”  - Senator Joe Lieberman

Senate Hearings

General Petraeus testified before the Senate earlier this week. Almost everyone saw the sound bites, especially the three major Presidential candidates getting in their TV face time. McCain was disappointing. Clinton and Obama were a disgrace. The whole ordeal was a disgrace really.

We keep having these hearings where General Petraeus gives us significant evidence that the surge in Iraq is working. We are winning the war in Iraq; yet, the questions from the Left are “When can we leave?” and “What will it take for you to tell the President we have lost?” None of the Democrats said anything about winning the war. They are not interested in victory. A United States victory is politically disastrous for them. Their political interests come before the interests of the United States.

All that being said, it is wholly unbelievable that these hearings are happening at all. I kept trying to picture General Dwight D. Eisenhower being forced to testify before the Senate after D-Day. Would the Senators ask him what his exit plan was? Would they ask when we could expect to leave? Or, what it would take to tell the President that the war was lost?

This is sickening. We are fighting a war – like it or not. The Senate pressuring the General to leave before the war is done is unprecedented in American history. Wars are unpredictable and brutal; however, we are winning the war. The Surge has worked.

“They got their budget passed. Sometimes it takes our Congress awhile to get its budget passed.”

There has been a lot of talk in the various media outlets of the Left about Rush Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos.” As a participant in Operation Chaos, Republican Voters are asked to temporarily switch their party affiliation to Democrat and vote for Hilary Clinton in an effort to, above all, create chaos among the Democrats and keep them fighting amongst themselves. Then, in November, Republican voters will switch back and vote for Senator John McCain.

At first, the talking points consisted merely of how exit polls showed that Operation Chaos seemed to be working and how “unfair” and “undemocratic” it was to vote, insincerely, in the other party’s primary. (Conversely, the Left had no problem with Independents and Democrats selecting John McCain as the Republican nominee.)

Recently, however, the Leftist media has changed their talking points to accusations of mass criminal law violations of Republicans in Ohio and other states – states where voters are required to sign some sort of pledge of sincerity when the switch party affiliation. Many people are now “investigating” the possibility of brining criminal indictments against insincere Republicans who voted Democrat in Ohio. If convicted, such voters could serve jail time for violating state criminal law.

In reality, such indictments would be nearly impossible to convict, because it requires a trial court to get into the mind of a voter and determine what he or she was thinking. It is really just an effort by the media and others on the Left to scare Republican voters in upcoming primaries from doing the same, and to prevent them from helping Hilary Clinton as they did in Texas and Ohio earlier this month.

On its surface, however, attempting to criminally punish voters based on their sincerity – indeed, their very thoughts - is eerily reminiscent of George Orwell’s Thought Police in 1984. Of course, an authoritarian state with absolute control over the lives of its citizens is exactly what they Left desires in the end anyway.

“A candidate for change.” That is how supporters describe Barack Obama on a daily basis. “Change.” How vague is that? Exactly what change can Obama bring to the United States? Perhaps we should attempt to answer this riddle by looking at Senator Obama’s legislative accomplishments. In his three years in the United States Senate, he has brought about so much change that it has left many of his supporters speechless. With so many to choose from, it is hard to name just one.

In reality, Barack Obama has no major accomplishments as a United States Senator. Does his vague promise of change actually promise no major accomplishments as presidents as well? Oh no, of course not! What Presidential candidate would fill his campaign with vacant buzzwords and clever rhetoric? Certainly not Barack Obama! He’s “a candidate for change.” Well, with no way to ascertain Obama’s vision of change in his 3 year career as a United States Senator, perhaps we should look at aspects of the man’s moral and personal life.

On the other hand, God forbid we talk about his personal life. This is a campaign about the issues. Let’s just stick to the issues. Okay, which issues? Change? Hope? Some other uniquely vague verb pulled from Webster’s dictionary at random? The truth is that we have no real way of judging Obama as a candidate besides looking into the judgments he has made during his personal life and estimating what kind of judgments he may make as President of the United States. Recently, such an investigation into Barack Obama’s personal life has been taking place, and several disturbing issues have come to light that question his legitimacy as a Presidential candidate.

The first thing that comes to my mind is his friendship with a domestic leftist terrorist. As I described previously, Barack Obama has a questionable relationship with William Ayers. William Ayers is formerly a member of the Weather Underground, a domestic terrorist organization that operated in the 1960s and 1970s. It officially declared war on the United States in 1972, and it was responsible for over 25 bombings and attempted bombings of government buildings, including the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol. It’s stated goal was the violent overthrow of the United States government in an effort to bring about the Socialist revolution; moreover, it a September 11, 2001 article in the New York Times, Ayers stated, “I don’t regret setting bombs.” Furthermore, I feel that we didn’t do enough.”

Unfortunately, Ayers was given a light prison sentence because of procedural wrongdoings, and he is now a Professor in Illinois. Obama has received campaign support of Ayers and has served on the nine member Woods Fund Board with him. According to an article in the Politico that I previously referred to, a prominent doctor in the area who knows both men referred to them as “friends.” William Ayers belongs in a prison cell for the rest of his life.

Another very questionable relationship of Barack Obama is his association with the Chicago area criminal slumlord Tony Rezko. While Obama was an up and coming politician in the Chicago area, he had a few controversial land deals with Rezko, some involving taxpayer money – including the purchase of two adjacent home lots in which Obama’s mansion and Rezko’s home now stand. Obama has since called the purchase “a mistake.”

It is hard to do worse than to associate with a domestic terrorist bent on the destruction of the United States; however, Barack Obama’s pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Write is at the top of the list with William Ayers. In a sermon given at Barack Obama’s church in 2003, Rev. Write had the following to say:

“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes three-strike laws and wants them to sing God Bless America.

No! No No! God damn America … for killing innocent people.

God damn America for threatening citizens as less than humans.

God damn America as long as she tries to act like she is God and supreme.”

He certainly sounded like a conservative at odds with the Left. It was, in fact, one of his most eloquent speeches to date. His discussed victory in Iraq and Afghanistan, not retreat. He promised to lower taxes and regulations for business and attacked Democrats who believe they can keep business from going overseas in spite of higher regulation and taxes. Indeed, it was a very good Conservative speech.

They look back with nostalgia to their glory days of the 60s and 70s - when the radical Left was in full swing and open about their want for a Socialist Revolution in America. To cover up their failures over the last several decades they have hidden behind different self-given titles: Marxists, Communists, Progressives, Socialists, Leftists, the New Left, and even Liberals (although there is nothing liberal about a Liberal in the classical sense).

This is the kind of speech McCain needs to keep giving if he wants to united the Conservative base. Attack the Left for what they really are: Socialists filled with nostalgia for their glory days. Continue to point out that those programs didn’t work in the past - in our country or anywhere else in the world, and there is no reason to expect they will work this time.

Two of the Weather Underground’s most prominent members, William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, avoided serious jail time because of “improper” FBI surveillance. Since then, however, they have been outspoken and unrepentant about their time with the Weather Underground. In fact, in a September 11, 2001 article in the New York Times, Ayers stated, “I don’t regret setting bombs.” Furthermore, I feel that we didn’t do enough.”

Ayers and Bernardine are now prominent leftists in the Chicago community. It has become a sort of rite-of-passage for politicians representing their district to meet with them and get their support for office. In 1995, Barack Obama did just that, and State Senator Alice Palmer accompanied her successor to their home in Hyde Park for the meeting. According to The Politico, prominent physician in the area who attended the meeting described the two as friends. One would think that Obama would wish to clear up any allegations of him associating with a terrorist; however, both Obama and Ayers have refused to discuss their relationship. Moreover, from 1999 through 2002, both Obama and Ayers served together on the Board of the Woods Fund of Chicago group, and Ayers has donated money to Obama in the past.

This association with members of the Weather Underground naturally invites questions about Barack’s involvement and asscoaition, and Americans have the right to ask those questions to a person running for President of the United States. Perhaps Obama shares the same goal of a Socialist state in America.

The important thing about Nader declaring his candidacy is its inherent benefit to the Republicans. Nader is a leftist, and just like in 2000 and 2004, a few leftists from the Democratic will once again break ranks and vote for Nader - effectively taking votes away from the Democratic candidate. Of course, Nader’s impact will be so small that it will only help in a close election.

Once again, however, this incident has once again illuminated the Anti-Democratic and Elitist policies of the Democratic Party. According to the Politico, “Democrats say they will work behind the scenes — and use court challenges, if necessary — to try to thwart his access to ballots.” Moreover, in 2004, the Democrats were responsible for tactics that resulted in Nader’s denial from ballots in several states, and Nader currently has an impending lawsuit against the Democratic Party. I foresee future lawsuits as well.

In a true Democratic society, isn’t it a necessity that any citizen be allowed to run for office without obstruction? This election season, above all, has shown quite clearly that there is nothing democratic about the Democratic Party.

Thus far in the campaign, we have been bombarded with endorsement after endorsement for McCain, and McCain wears each endorsement on his chest like a war medal. However, none of those endorsements, including Romney’s, are going to motivate the Conservative base to go out and vote for him.

His strategy for winning over Conservatives seems to be a two part approach: One, gather as many Conservative votes as you can through endorsements of high ranking members of the Republican establishment. Two, hope that the remainder of the Conservative base will be motived by their opposition to the much more Socialist policies of Barak Obama and Hilary Clinton. Whoever advised him to take this course of action should be fired.

Regarding the first approach: As I said earlier, endorsements do not mean a thing. They obviously do not make a candidate more or less qualified to be President, and they certainly do not represent the Conservative base. McCain, the media, and Left fail to realize that the Conservative movement is united by principals and ideas - not by people. There is, of course, no denying that this may gain a few measly votes, but none to be of any real consequence. The entire base certainly can’t be gained simply by a series of endorsements.

In regards to the second approach: Opposition to the Socialist principals of the Democratic Party didn’t drive Conservatives to the polls. Instead, conservatives were disenfranchised with the liberal policies of both parties and stayed home - similar to this situation and John McCain’s liberal policies.

Instead of this ineffective approach, McCain should be more proactive. He needs to go on conservative talk radio instead of shunning them and earn his self proclaimed title: the Straight Talk Express. He should go on talk radio and either defend or denounce his liberal positions. More importantly, he should underscore the major areas of conservative difference between himself and the two Democrat candidates - especially their willingness to retreat from Al Qaeda. Defending his positions in liberal news outlets like the New York Times has no effect on Conservatives. In fact, his willingness to cooperate with the liberal media, the endorsements of liberal papers, and his refusal to appear on talk radio can only have the opposite effect of winning over Conservatives.

I would obviously much rather see a McCain presidency than a Clinton or Obama presidency, but McCain is going to have to start working pro-actively to earn Conservative support. If not, he will lose the election no matter which candidate he faces in the general election.