My response to Ann Coulter’s article “The Reign of Lame Falls Mainly on McCain”
Nov 6, 2008 politics
The Reign of Lame Falls Mainly on McCain
While Coulter made some excellent points in her article, such as the fact that we can’t blame Obama for raising taxes on the rich since McCain voted (twice) against Bush’s tax cuts because they favored the rich, and that we couldn’t go after Obama’s illegal alien aunt because of McCain’s stance on amnesty for illegal aliens, she made one point that I strongly disagreed with:
Have you ever noticed that whenever Democrats lose presidential elections, they always blame it on the personal qualities of their candidate? Kerry was a dork, Gore was a stiff, Dukakis was a bloodless android, Mondale was a sad sack.
This blame-the-messenger thesis allows Democrats to conclude that their message was fine — nothing should be changed! The American people are clamoring for higher taxes, big government, a defeatist foreign policy, gay marriage, the whole magilla. It was just this particular candidate’s personality.
The part I strongly disagree with is her assertion that in order to be conservative republicans, we must not adopt what she calls a “defeatist foreign policy”. The truth is, as I point out in my reply, that we cannot continue our current foreign policy if we are to return to the traditional conservative roots of the Republican party:
Ann, unfortunately, the Republican party can’t change as long as it advocates this imperialist, interventionist foreign policy that you apparently advocate as well. Part of changing the GOP back to its conservative roots is appreciating a sensible, non-interventionist foreign policy like traditional republicans supported, Robert A. Taft for example (Mr. Republican). Neoconservatives promote the warfare state, and neoliberals promote the welfare state. The constitution provides for neither. If we are to change the GOP, we must adopt a sensible foreign policy and it must stop with the scare tactic propaganda to promote unnecessary (and extremely expensive) war in order to achieve its imperialist agenda.
“It does not take a majority to prevail… but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams
Tags: 2008 election, Ann Coulter, barack obama, constitution, foreign policy, GOP, John McCain, neoconservative, Robert A. Taft
Why did John McCain lose the 2008 election?
Among other reasons, this is the primary:
Although, not even the current GOP platform was enough to save John McCain. The GOP needs restructuring, preferably from the ground up. The GOP needs to heed the founders of this country and the framers of the Constitution. They took great care in writing the constitution and for us to ignore it is a downright shame, and it cost the GOP the election.
Tags: 2008 election, constitution, John McCain
Tuesday, November 4th is election day
Nov 4, 2008 politics
The choice is yours: elect a moderate Democrat, or a Socialist? (or a statesman?)
Of course, the moderate Democrat is John McCain, and the Socialist is Barack Obama. Of course, Democrats will defend Barack Obama to their grave that he is not a Socialist, but his words speak otherwise. Although Democrats have a great point that Republicans have supported Social Security, Medicare, and a progressive income tax, all socialist ideas, coming right out and saying that you want to implement wealth redistribution is rather frightening. It should be no wonder that Obama has socialist tendencies after being mentored by Frank Marshall Davis.
Republicans, however, are not off the hook. Besides the above mentioned, McCain is pro-amnesty, anti-gun, pro stem cell research, anti-free speech (McCain-Feingold), and loves to vote with Joe Lieberman, a man who also should not have a big “R” in front of his name, for obvious reasons. McCain either swindled the American people or the American people are in fact more liberal than I thought. Then again, why did both candidates have to shift right in their rhetoric in order to gain acceptance? Why did McCain have to choose Governor Sarah Palin in order to appeal to his conservative base? That begs the question then, are conservatives just plain ignorant? I think the answer is plainly obvious.
The only real choice today is a third party candidate, and preferably Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. The only real hope for America (sorry Barack) is to restore the principles of the Constitution of these United States of America.
Now, get out and vote!
Tags: 2008 election, barack obama, chuck baldwin, constitution, constitution party, democrats, John McCain, republicans
Why the GOP is a one issue party
Sep 9, 2008 Ron Paul, politics
Major points of the video:
After Sarah Palin’s speech at the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis, Palin became the life of the party, and an admittedly formidable foe to the Democrats because of her out-of-the-beltway conservatism, and has made everyone forget that party leaders are uninterested in the conservative values that she represents.
Conservatives have been uncomfortable with John McCain because of his support for capaign finance reform, opposition to drilling in ANWR, his vote against the Bush tax cuts, his suscribing to global warming histeria and his support for a bill that would have granted amnesty to illegal aliens.
However, despite McCain’s liberal positions on other issues, Republicans seem to think that he is the best man to fight the war on terror.
Rudy Giuliani and Joe Lieberman were selected to represent the party at the RNC. Giuliani is extremely similar to Hillary Clinton in almost every area except for the war, but his ability to invoke 9/11 suddenly makes him a Republican star. Lieberman, despite being further to the left than Obama, is also selected to speak. Lieberman was Al Gore’s running mate in 2000. He supports universal health care, supports partial birth abortions, he is anti-gun, and opposed Samuel Alito’s appointment to the Supreme Court.
When WTMA host Richard Todd asked Cindy Mosteller why the Republicans were embracing Joe Lieberman, she said “Because he understands the importance of 9/11. This is a big tent party.” However, the tent was apparently not big enough for Republican congressman and presidential candidate Dr. Ron Paul, who was not allowed normal credentials at the RNC, despite his own convention (rally for the republic which drew more than 12,000 people) discussing reducing the size of government, returning to the constitution, and bringing the Republican party back to its conservative roots, and Ron Paul being introducted by Barry Goldwater Jr. whose father, Barry Goldwater, was the conscious of the conservative movement for half a century. Paul was not even let into the doors at his own party’s convention due to his opposition to the Iraq war, despite him getting more votes in the primaries than Rudy Guiliani and Fred Thompson, who both had speaking roles at the RNC.
When Cindy Mosteller was asked why anti war Republicans like Ron Paul, North Carolina congressman Walter Jones, or Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel are not given a voice at the convention, she replied, “If you get a tent too big it’s bound to have holes in it.” She added, “Hagel could not even get up on a national stage and even make a case… and you know why? Because the surge has, by God, worked.” So much for the big tent.
You are not to be tolerated in the Republican Party if you agree with the majority of Americans who are against the war in Iraq, yet being pro gun control, pro socialized health care, pro-choice, and pro-amnesty is perfectly acceptable as long as your are pro war. If you are a staunch conservative, yet against the war, you are no longer welcome in the Republican Party.
The definition of a neoconservative is one who believes that America’s greatness is measured exclusively by our willingness to dominate the globe politically and militarily. For neocons, foreign policy is primary and every other issue is secondary.
The 2008 McCain campaign (and nomination) represents the takeover of the Republican Party by neoconservatives. Sarah Palin, who once supported anti-war conservative Pat Buchanan for president, now mouths the same neoconservative foreign policy rhetoric that defines the new GOP.
Sarah Palin, like Spiro Agnew to Richard Nixon and Dan Quayle to George H.W. Bush, will be a conservative vice president who has virtually no impact on the moderate President they serve. McCain will more likely appoint Joe Lieberman as Secretary of State than give Sarah Palin any responsibilities more important than office secretary.
The only reason McCain picked Sarah Palin as Vice President is to pacify traditional conservatives on the many issues they still care about so that in Republican victory, McCain and the neoconservatives can get to work on their only issue - War.
Tags: 9/11, Al Gore, amnesty, ANWR, Barry Goldwater Jr., Bush tax cuts, campaign finance reform, Chuck Hagel, Cindy Mosteller, conservatism, conservative values, constitution, Dan Quayle, democrats, Fred Thompson, George H.W. Bush, global warming, GOP, gun control, Hillary Clinton, illegal aliens, Joe Lieberman, John McCain, neoconservative, Obama, partial birth abortion, Pat Buchanan, rally for the republic, Richard Nixon, Richard Todd, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Samuel Alito, Sarah Palin, Secretary of State, Spiro Agnew, supreme court, surge, universal health care, Walter Jones
McBama the great deceiver
Sep 2, 2008 politics
Yes, Barack Obama and John McCain are essentially the same person. Sure, they differ on issues such as health care, the war in Iraq, and other partisan politics - but how are they similar? McCain and Obama are both pro-immigration. McCain and Obama both want to let the federal reserve system continue to destroy the dollar. Both are war mongers. Obama has advocated invading Pakistan and McCain, as everyone knows, wouldn’t mind our troops being put in harms way in Iraq for another century. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who thinks that 500,000 deaths of Iraqi children is “acceptable”, is on Obama’s foreign policy advisors list. Neither Obama nor McCain would take a nuclear first-strike against Iran off the table in favor of diplomatic negotiations. Obama and McCain both voted for the Patriot Act, which allows for needless invasion of privacy and erodes personal liberty in the name of a false sense of security. Both Obama and McCain are members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Obama and McCain are both in bed with and corrupted by special interests and lobbyists, despite both adamantly denying such. McCain and Obama both support the majority of, if not every word of, the ten planks of the communist manifesto. McCain and Obama are two sides of the same coin, two shills for global government, masquerading as opposing candidates and campaigning on wedge issues designed to avert attention away from the issues that will determine the direction of the country. They both talk out of both sides of their mouths. Don’t be fooled! Read, understand, and defend the Constitution! Please check out Chuck Baldwin for president 2008!
Tags: Albright, CFR, communist manifesto, constitution, Council on Foreign Relations, Federal Reserve, Iran, lobbyists, Madeleine Albright, McCain, nuclear first strike, Obama, Pakistan, warmonger
Supreme court shreds 4th amendment
Apr 23, 2008 politics
In yet another example of the federal government trampling on state law, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday, April 23d that police may use evidence obtained during a search following an illegal arrest (by state law).
City detectives seized crack cocaine from David Lee Moore in Portsmouth, Virginia, in a search of his vehicle following an arrest for driving with a suspended license - which turns out to be an offense for which only a court summons can be issued according to state law. Although the arrest was unlawful, the Supreme Court ruled to allow the evidence to be used in a conviction.
The fourth amendment reads, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
A review of the definition of “probable cause” in the Oxford Companion to American Law reveals that probable cause requires that there be “information sufficient to warrant a prudent person’s belief that the wanted individual had committed a crime (for an arrest warrant) or that evidence of a crime or contraband would be found in a search (for a search warrant).” Concerning arrest and search, in the case of the Virginia man, it is impossible to make a connection between any other crime and driving with a suspended license, and therefore is also impossible to suspect that contraband might be found during a search.
Much like the ambiguity in the “thought crimes bill” (H.R. 1955), police officers can now arrest you at will - as long as they suspect that you have committed some crime, however substantiated that belief is - in order to conduct a search following arrest.
The slippery slope of eroding personal liberty and constitutional protection no longer seems like a fallacy. Fourth amendment, you’ll sure be missed.
Tags: constitution, David Lee Moore, fourth amendment, supreme court, virginia