I am a looong time listener of Rush Limbaugh and a looong time reader of Human Events. But what annoys me is that rather than being the vanguard or voice of the conservative movement, they sometimes tend to be shills for the GOP. That is the case, too, with the Heritage Foundation.

I like the Heritage Foundation. Don't get me wrong. I enjoy their material, which I have often put to use in defending or explaining the conservative view of a given issue. However, I must say that their defense (http://www.qubetv.tv/videos/detail/1847) -- by way of Matthew Spalding, director of Heritage's B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies -- of Bush's immigration reform misses the mark on certain points.

Spalding really put a nice spin on the reforms, and it would take far too much time and space to refute what is said, so I would like to say a little on what was not said.

It is so ludicrous to have a bill that says will enforce the other bills, a law that says we must enforce the law. I might as well tell my employees, "Oh, I see the problem now. All you who were violating company laws, it was actually my fault. I am making a new company law that states you must follow all company laws. I realize when you received the company handbook that you may have thought that was optional. Hopefully this new law clears up the matter."

Also, any "amnesty" -- or whatever you want to call it now -- is not merely thumbing your nose at those who legally came into this country, learned the language, and made something of themselves without federal interference. But it is also taking money from their pockets -- in effect, punishing them for doing things legally and do something for themselves and their new country. For what you are saying is, "Oh, you who came into this country by the front door, obeyed our laws and worked so hard to make a living and a life for you and your family, we're going to take your money and pay for those who came into this country illegally, refuse to become apart of society and don't obey the laws. Furthermore, since you have so much money that you can pay for your own car and even your own education, we're going to take it and give it to those who have no driver's license and will not get an English-speaking education, if any education at all."

Indeed, remember: the federal government has no money. No, people have money. So when the government says, "We will help pay for a house and an education and transportation for all illegals." What they mean is: "You all, hardworking American citizens -- including legal immigrants -- will pay for all of that. You worked for it, but they get it."

Rather than admiring those who came here with, almost literally in many cases, only the clothes on their backs, started at the bottom of the ladder and worked their way up the ladder -- and in many cases, going so far as to get their own ladder (at the risk of extending the metaphor too far) -- we instead rob them to pay for those who will not do this.

Another point which seems to be pushed under the carpet is that all that money pouring into the coffers of illegals does not stay here: it goes back to where the illegals came from! Yes, in study after study, it has been shown that the money that illegals receive from handouts or work is sent out of the country. Estimates run from 50% to as much as 80% (depending on the study -- which is hard to do, anyway, since we are talking about "undocumented" people). So all that money that overflows those coffers flows right out of the country from which it came. Thus we are essentially financing the economy of not just this country, but others as well -- and going bankrupt in the process.

Now, before people rush to push the "incompassionate" button, or to release the "melting pot" kracken, please note -- and please note this well -- that I am not against immigration. It is indeed how this country was made. I am against illegal immigration. I am against taking money from those who earn it to give to those who refuse to earn it.

And I am against amnesty. I am against telling legal immigrants that they will be punished for being legal immigrants, and telling illegal immigrants they will be rewarded for being illegal immigrants.

I am all for giving people incentives and assitance -- but only when they need, will use it, and keep it benefiting the country that gave them all of that.

Well, as with so many issues, that is just the tip of the iceberg. But let's at least start to address what is so seldom addressed in the major media outlets and by so many "think" tanks.

Yes, Virginia that is a gang sign (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57224)!*.  Well, it could be an honest mistake Or maybe Virginia actually does welcome gang bangers. After all, we don't want to discriminate, now, do we?



*Sorry about not hyperlinking it they way I should, but Townhall's hyperlink manager was not functioning at the time I posted this.

I read with interest Doug Giles' excellent article Christianity Sucks and Islam is Awsome? It expresses much of the frustration many feel when so many in the MSP and the entertainment industry (EI) try to link the actions of Islam with "right wing Christianity."

But the fact is, such link is no suprise!

That is the MSP and the EI for you! Or, more accurately: that is political correctness for you. At root of the political correctness movement is the belief that there is no objective truth (despite what the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution say!). The PC movement's John 3:16 is: What is true for you may not be true for me. Aside from the fact that this goes completely counter to the very definition of "true" (and let's remember the great PC safety net: I've made up my mind, so don't confuse me with the facts) -- indeed, "objective truth" is redundant, except in America -- there is something more insidious going on here.

Likewise in Frank Pastore's interesting article, he asks Who Speaks for America's Evangelicals? Again, something more insidious is going on here. Hint: This article should be entitled "Who gets to say who speaks for America's Evangelicals."

Every tryannical government began by removing God from the public sphere. Why? Without God, without objective truth, there is a vaccuum that is filled by government. Which is what pleases the Democrats so much.

What do I mean?

Well, consider a presidential election of the recent past. A particular candidate of the Democrats had the audacity to say that there are some people who drive pickups and have (gasp!) rebel flags on those pick ups, and they are often left out of political debates, but they have concerns we out to hear. Well, all of the other Dem candidates had a fit! They immediately distanced themselves from him -- even making clear that he doesn't represent the "mainstream" of the party -- explaining that we don't need to listen to those folks.

Now, ordinarily people would have found this to be untenable discrimination. But no such recriminations came from the MSP / EI community. Why? Because "those people" are bigots and racists, and therefore we do not need to listen to their concerns.

In short: they're not PC.

The difference between a Constitutionalist and a Democrat is that the Constitutionalist says that every person matters, and every person has rights, because certain rights are God-given and thus humans have no power -- or right! -- to play with them, decide who gets them; whereas, the Democrat says that there is no God, so all rights are within our purview, and thus we decide who will get them. This is the very heart of the PC movement.

A few other recent examples. The MSP / EI joined Moslems in expressing outrage over the depiction of the religion's founder in a Dutch cartoon. Among Moslem groups protesting such depiction was the Moselm Student Association of Michigan State University. One professor emailed them:

"As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU I intend to protest your protest. I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians, cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders, murders of Catholic priests (the latest in Turkey ), burnings of Christian churches, the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt , the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims, the rapes of Scandinavian girls and women (called "whores" in your culture), the murder of film directors in Holland , and the rioting and looting in Paris France.

This is what offends me, a soft-spoken person and academic, and many, many of my colleagues. I counsel your dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Moslems to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile "protests."

If you do not like the values of the West - see the 1st Amendment - you are free to leave. I hope for God's sake that most of you choose that option. Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans."

Well, of course that ignited more protests in response. People called for his dismissal from the university!

Similarly, remember when 9/11 first happened? There were school districts who decided that we need to "understand" the Moslems in order to "solve" the "problem." So they mandated that students wear Moslem clothing and take Moslem names and learn the Koran. Have they ever decided to "understand" Christians by mandating students wear Christian clothing and take Christian names and learn the Bible?

Or more to the point, take for example the election in which both parties featured among their candidates ministers. The Dems, in fact, featured two. However, because of all the cry of "separation of Church and State," the minister on the Republican side decided to divest himself of his title and ministry and campaign as a business man. But neither of the Dem candidates did likewise, nor were they even asked to do so.

Which is again why I say that Patore's articles should more correctly ask who gets to decide who speaks for evangelicals? Remember, the MSP / EI community decided that Fr Richard McBrien and Fr  Andrew Greeley (two very anti-Catholic Catholic priests) get to speak for Catholics, and Bishop John Shelby Spong (also known as the "believe whatever you want as long as you come to Grace Cathedral" bishop) gets to speak for mainstream Christians, even though actual practicing Catholics and mainstream Protestants disagree vehemently with these MSP / EI annointed men.

Two last examples to keep in mind, should anyone believe this is just a matter of silencing un-PC religion. Consider Wal-Mart. They are constantly being harassed (including with lawsuits) by civil rights groups, pro-illegal immigrant groups -- noting a pattern? You should. That's the point. They're all groups who support the Dems, but until recently, (for those who, unlike the Conservative Ninja, do not follow the public disclosures of donation patterns by big business) Wal-Mart gave mostly to the Republicans. So, the Dems set in to shut them down. But they couldn't just say, "You don't like us, so we're closing you." That would be too obvious. No, they ignite groups one would be called bigoted or closed-minded (or whatever other buzz words they want to use) to oppose. Think I'm a little paranoid? Going a little too far?

Again, check the donations for other similar companies, or just big business in general. What you will find is that those who normally give more to Republicans than Democrats are having more political problems than those who donate more to DNC coffers. (Which is tilt toward the DNC in big business donation patters. It's not the mystery the MSP and the EI think it is.)

My last example should suffice on this last point. Ever hear of Enron? How about Global Crossing? Of course, we have all heard of the former, few if any of the latter. Why? Enron had more ties to the RNC, Global to the DNC. Hmmm.

Now, before anyone objects and misses the point of the post, let me hasten to say that if, for example Wal-Mart is guilty of unacceptable treatment of immigrants and minorities, than, by all means stop them! Not my point. The point is that many other companies who are in fact guilty of such treatment are not bothered, because of how much they swell DNC coffers.

Also, Enron should have the book thrown at them. Punish to the full extent of the law. Not my point. My point is that other companies are as guilty or more guilty, but continue on, business and usual, because they fill DNC purses to the breaking point.

And thus the point of the whole post: the Constitution and political correctness are polar opposites. The Constitution says that we all have certain inalienable rights, and, thus, there is nothing that any person can do about it. But political correctness says there are no inalienable rights, there are only rights and we decided who gets them. And right now, the PC MSP / EI is indeed saying that Christianity sucks and Isalm is awesome, and, moreover, that we will decide who gets to represent Evangelicals -- and all Christians, and even all religions, for that matter.



PS: A quick response to those who think the Moslems who bombed the Twin Towers are no better than Christians who bomb abortion clinics should keep in mind that whenever an apparent (or actual) Christian bombs an abortion clinic (or government building, or whatever), there is an immediate denunciation from all corners of Christianity -- Catholic and Protestant -- thus indicating that such bombers are the misguided fringe. No such denunciation follows Moslem atrocities, thus giving the impression that such atrocities are committed not by a misguided fringe, but by the true-believing mainstream. This point could be expanded, and there are other points. But this was supposed to be just a quick response.

I've been listening to the campaigning on both sides.

Yada, yada, yada.

It seems basically the same tripe we hear year after year. It is no wonder "things" just don't seem to change, no matter who is in office.

Well, then, Conservative Ninja, what would you like to hear?

Thanks for asking! Here are some important issues and what I would like to hear anyone campaigning say. Although the issues are currently hot topics, my take on them might surprise some.

1 Taxes
Sometimes, when listening to just the words of the candidates, I wonder: who is the Democrat and who is the Republican? It often seems as if the only difference is how much each side wants to spend. Essentially, both sides have said, "Well, we have all this stuff we need to pay for, now we have to figure how to pay for it all."

Wrong!

The question is not: How do we pay for all of this? But: Should we be paying for all of this?

Remember: the Constitution calls for taxes only to support the necessary functioning of government.

I would like to hear a candidate say that he or she will look at every spending bill and ask, "Is this necessary for the federal government to pay for?" More often than not, the answer is "NO!"

We have become Pavlov's dogs: every time there is a crisis (legit or, more likely, manufactured), we say the federal government must do something. Every time we want something done, we say the federal government must do something.

My question is: why? Remember, too, that "program" is another word way to say taxes. Every time the fedreal government reveals a new program, it means taxes. And people always say, "Well, that's a good program, so it's ok to tax us to pay for it." Instead, whether the program is good or not, we should ask whether the federal government should even have such a program in the first place, whether that program might be best handled by individual states -- or whether each one of us should pick ourselves up by our own bootstraps.

There used to be a saying in the GOP: Thanks, Uncle Sam, but I can do it myself. Now even the GOP is saying: Thanks, Uncle Sam, but I could use some more.

Essentially, what taxes has come to mean in this country is a system whereby the federal government takes your paycheck and then determines what it wants to buy (ultimately votes), and then gives you what is left over.

I want to hear a candidate say first, that the question is not how to pay for it all, but should we pay for it all? And I would like to hear a candidate say that more power will be given to state governments, let them determine their budgets, etc.

2 The Environment
We are constantly hearing about disaster after disaster that will befall us unless we allow the federal government to control our lives. Why, even the National Review, founded by the "patron saint of conservatives," stated that we must accept as fact global warming, and now determine the "conservative" response.

Aye, now there's the rub: this whole idea of "accepted science." Much of the MSP and Hollywood has taken as "accepted science" global warming and other environmental issues. One of the main problems with this notion is that, as history quite definitively proves, science is not...well, science. That is: it is not perfect. Errors have been made in science -- in information gathering, in testing, in hypothesizing, in concluding, etc, etc, etc.

Another problem is that by saying, "We accept as fact global warming [for example]," you have thus obviated any need for further testing, experimenting, hypothesizing, etc -- in short: you have nullified the scientific method!

Yet another problem is -- to continue with global warming as our example -- even if we accept as fact global warming, so what? So the earth is warming, is that good or bad or neither -- ie natural! What those who say "global warming is fact" are really saying is "global warming is fact -- and it's bad."

A tangential problem is that those who call themselves pro-evironment, are in turn saying that everyone who is against them must thus be anti-environment. But fallacies in the arguments of liberals will be the subject of a future post.

I would like to hear a candidate who is not afraid to say, "Hey, I'm not taking that as accepted science." Or, if it is "accepted" to any degree, at least say, "Well, now, what does that mean?"

I would like to hear a candidate who is not afraid to call junk science junk science, politically motivated science politically motivated science.

I would like to hear a candidate say, "Hey, when we are starting to worry about cow flatulence, we have gone too far. When we say we must alter our eating and even driving habits as a result, we have definitely gone way overboard! Enough!"

3 Abortion
Wait! Abortion? Haven't we agreed not to make that a litmus test? Well, first of all, every issue is a litmus test by virtue of it being an issue. If it didn't matter which way a candidate went on an issue, it wouldn't be an issue. No matter what issue you bring before the candidate, by bringing it to the candidate, you are saying, "Which way you go on this determines whether I will vote for you." In other words: "This is litmus test!" So, let's call a moratorium on the whole "litmus test" bilge! (Plus, as stated, more on that in my future post on liberal fallacies.)

Now that we got that out of the way, I would like to hear a candidate say that this is an issue, and maybe the most important issue, because how one defines life itself and the significance concomitant with that definition, will in turn determine how one defines everything else. How else explain you that killing a baby whale is a crime, but aborting a human baby is not.

Even how we define human life and the significance that results from that definition impacts everything else. For example, if "human life" is defined as only someone who can walk (to use an exaggerated example to make a point), it makes it easy for us to say let's get rid of all people with no legs or non-functioning legs.

I would like to hear a candidate say, "The issue is not an issue of women's rights vs baby's rights, but of human rights and life itself." Moreover, I would like to hear a candidate say, "To call 'it' a parasite is still to call it life, because, by definition, a parasite is a life that subsists off another life. And because 'it' is a human life, we must be concerned. Remember, too, that 'zygote' and 'embryo' and so forh are terms for stages of life, and a woman does not carry in her womb stages but life. And again, because 'it' is life, and more: a human life, we must be concerned."

4 Separation of Church and State
Quite simply, what I would like to hear a candidate say is: It's not in the Constitution -- or even implied in the Constitution (at least not the way those using it as a weapon define it)! In fact, the place where that phrase first appears is in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists assuring them that the Constitution guarantees that the fedreal government will not infringe upon their rights to worship as they please.

Ironic, isn't it? (Disgusting, more like.) The very same people who keep trying to stop believers from acting as believers in public, claiming "separation of Church and State," then turn around and have no problem having the federal government say whom churches can and cannot hire, for example.

Moreover, this separation is often taken as far more than it implies. For example, an elementary school girl was not allowed to write about God (her own chosen topic) for her essay, because, said the school district, that violates separation of church and state. Well, that girl is no church and the school district, though it would like to be -- and even acts as if it were -- is no state.

And it is often used to cudgel only a certain segment of society. For example, a certain Catholic Republican has had to assure people that, though he is Catholic, he will not let that influence how he votes on the issues. Yet a certain Islamic Democrat has not had to assure people that he will not let Islam influence how he votes. Likewise, a certain Socialist Democrat (excuse the redundancy) in the federal government has never had to assure people that he will not let socialism influence how he votes.

Well, these are just a few of the issues I would like addressed, and what I would like to hear the candidates -- any candidates, regardless of party, or anything else -- say. There's more, but this is a good start.

I suppose this should have been my first post. Typically, the first post of a blog is supposed to describe the purpose of the blog. I have done that with previous blogs, but not this one: I just jumped right in and started posting.

However, I thought I would give a little description of this blog, anyway.

I started this blog partly out of frustration with what I was hearing on radio and television. It was so one-sided and biased it was annoying. As if to add insult to injury, the mainstream press then turns around and claims it's not bias.

And it's not just political / news outlets, either. For example, how many episodes of Law & Order (all three versions) are what my friends and I call "statement episodes" (episodes that are nothing more than a 1-hour political statement)?

Indeed, I consider the mainstream press (MSP, as some like to abbreviate it) and Hollywood (shorthand for the entertaiment industry in general) two sides of the same hideous coin (or two heads of the same horrible beast). This coin (or beast) is really just the communication wing of the DNC.

Well, anyway...I thought I would -- just for fun, just as an experiment, and just to work out the frustrations -- start a blog to air my humble opinions. Now, understand: I am nobody famous, I am not one of the movers and shakers; I have no radio or television show, no podcast. I am just someone with an opinion. If you like it, fine! I'm glad. If not, fine! You'll find others you like, I'm sure.

To for everyone what Keys to the Right asked in the comment to my first post, if you like what you read here, please feel free to blog roll me. I would be honored.

Members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy unite! 



PS: In case you were wondering, I'm not actually a ninja. I used that just for fun. I practice a few different martial arts, but ironically ninjutsu (the art of the ninja) is not one of them. But, Conservative Kung Fu Kravist, for example, is not only too long, but too clumsy.

First of all, excuse the redundancy of the post title, but anyway...

Was anyone else bothered by the DNC "debate"?

What a farce!

I could go on for years about what was so bad, but one bothersome facet was that here were people who along the campaign trail, in ads and speeches, claimed they would be tough on terrorism, tough crime, make the tough decisions. But then first, they turn tail when liberal / left bloggers demanded they stay away from the "right wing agenda" of Fox News. So...Osama? Can deal! Brit Hume? Too scary!

So what do they do instead? Constantly appear on CNN (aka, the Clinton News Network). And nobody called them on it.

But it gets worse...

Instead of an actual debate, an actual discussion of the issues, they have youtube viewers make videos, and Anderson Cooper "ask" the questions. Please! As if Cooper's softballs were not enough, they had to go to youtube softballs.

The whole night was a farce. The whole night was a mockery of democracy. Yes, there were declamations of "This is the modern townhall." No. This was the modern way of looking cute (actually, making me ill) and avoiding the real issues.

Oh yeah, our country's future looks bright!

NOT!!!