About Me

Name: JayPeriod
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Senator Specter Finally Gets Something Right

Today, Sen. Arlen Specter (RINO-PA), announced that he is leaving the Republican Party when he seeks re-election in 2010.  Actually, he left the Republican Party a long time ago, he finally has the decency to make it official.  This RINO will not be missed by the core (read: conservatives) of the party, neither.

Read more on this topic by Jay Period at Ideally Conservative.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Auto Bailout

What comes around, goes around.  For decades, the UAW has poured billions of dollars into elections to get Democrats elected into office.  No matter what Republicans offer, the UAW uses worker's union dues to fund the campaigns of their Democratic opponents.  Yesterday, the UAW was at the mercy of the Republicans to save their cans.

The UAW will no doubt use this as a rallying cry in the next election to get their workers to revolt against Republican candidates.  They will remind their workers of the vote that could potentially bring an end to their gravy train.  They'll ask those worker to put into office candidates who will go along with their status quo.

Would things have been any different, though, had the Republicans got on board and voted for the bailout?  Would the UAW have thanked them by donating to their campaigns or suggesting workers elect them?  Of course not!  They would have donated millions to their opponents and called them every name in the book.  In other words, nothing would have changed.

Maybe, the UAW should have stayed out of politics, all together.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Where Do Republicans Go From Here?

The election is over and the people have spoken; the Republican party is out of touch.  For the second straight national election, Republicans have been handed defeat and a message.  After the last election, they did not get the message, obviously, but will they get it now?  Where does the party go from here?

There has been much speculation since Tuesday night that there was a division within the McCain/Palin camp as to who was to blame for the loss.  It's clear that before he picked Palin, there was very little energy in the Republican campaign.  Palin, for whatever shortfalls she may have had, got the conservative base interested in the election.  She did not support amnesty, did not favor limiting free speech, and did not work to alienate conservatives just to win a few moderates.  The election was as close as it was because of her.

Clearly, the Republican Party must move backward to go forward.  They need to go all the way back to the Reagan era and collect themselves.  They must eagerly embrace conservative values, fiscally and socially, and put candidates up for election who embody these values.  They must remove from office and leadership those individuals who are the furthest from these values.  No more "Log Cabin" Republicans.  No more pork spending Republicans.  No pro-illegal Republicans.  No pro-choice Republicans.  We must be the true conservative party, or it is time to start a new one.

There are many faces on the horizon who can do just that.  Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal are just a couple that come to mind.  The Party must begin to promote and recognize them.  They must parade them out and give them serious face time.  They must tout their records and accomplishments.  There are others, too, that must be given the spotlight.  These individuals can show the American people that the Party has heard their message, loud and clear.

Finally, they must cast off those who do not fit this mold.  Those in congress who have helped the Left grow government to unimaginable size, those who feed at the pork trough must be left to fend for themselves.  The Party must put up REAL conservatives to battle against them and fund them.  They must invest in the defeat of these closet liberals and let the new crop know that those kinds of actions and votes will not be supported.

If the Republican Party will follow this direction, the country will respond, seeing that the message has been received.  If, though, they feel the need to trot out more middle of the road, big spending fat cats, I can't blame them for voting Democrat.  At least the Democrats let you just who they are.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I Just Can't Listen To Him Anymore!

I work in a location that has news going on a regular basis.  It is Fox News, at least, so I don't have to listen to the likes of CNN, MSNBC or the networks, fawn over Obama, but when he speaks, even Fox broadcasts it.  The more he speaks, the more I really dislike him and his agenda.

First of all, he speaks with such an arrogance.  As he begins to lay out his agenda and ideas, his voices screams that he knows better than everyone in America.  I really believe he thinks this way, too.  He knows more than us on health care, the military, international affairs, etc.  He goes on and on and on with his babble and even when he's wrong, as with the surge, he thinks he's better than us.  I just really can't listen to him anymore!

Second, the way he treats our allies makes me wonder who's interest he has at heart.  He speaks with such hatred and angst with regard to Iraqi President al-Maliki, but feels that what is best for our country is to sit down over a cup of tea with Ahmadinejad, Hamas and Hezbollah.  If I were al-Maliki, if Obama became President, I wouldn't give the man the time of day.  Does Obama realize that Iraq is now an ally?

Third, he is just so out of touch with reality and capitalism, that I just want to bash my head against the wall when he speaks.  Bigger government and more taxes.  I think he really thinks those things made America what it is today.  He wants more government involvement in our lives from education to health care.  Of course, to pay for that government intrusion, he'll need to tax all the evil people with money, but actually only those rich people who have worked for their money, not like the Democrat rich who got it the "old fashioned way" by inheriting it.  I just can't listen to him anymore!

Finally, his history is so far from reality, I can't believe him in anything.  He keeps talking about our military being stretched so thin and our deficits being so large.  He believes President Bush has decimated our military and spent like a drunken sailor.  I think he forgets that it was a Republican controlled Congress, before they went wild, that kept Clinton's spending under control and forced him to cut the size of government.  It was also Clinton who cut the military so drastically that Russia now feels confident that they can push us around.  Reagan would have never let them get away with it, and they wouldn't have tried.  Clinton cut the military so much that we can barely fight in two small republics in the Middle East.  If the Democrat controlled Congress would cut earmarks and worthless programs, as well as stop the flow of money south of the border from illegals, we'd have plenty of money.

Eight weeks.  That's how much longer we have to listen to him.  Surely, in that amount of time, the American people will come to their sense and tell him soundily, "We just can't listen to you anymore!"

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Religion And The Democratic Party

God is not a Republican or Democrat.  That's what we hear, usually from Democrats, when the idea of religion gets infused into politics.  I'm sure that's what we'll be hearing this week as the Democratic Party tries to paint itself and the choice for young evangelicals.

I heard an interview this morning with Relevant Magazine founder, Cameron Strang.  He had been scheduled to open the Democrat Convention in prayer, but as he realized he could be viewed as endorsing one candidate over another, one with polarizing views on abortion, he retreated from the engagement.  In his explanation, he cited that young evangelicals looked at both parties and their positions, and believed that both held positions that were in line with their beliefs.  He specifically mentioned the positions of abortion and war, stating that the Republican's view of war seemed at odds with the pro-life issue.

I'd like to give some clarification for our young evangelicals who might be a bit confused on the issues.

Evangelicals have held to a pro-life position on abortion since before Roe v. Wade in 1972.  The idea that life begins at conception, is valued by God and deserves special protection fits neatly in the Bible and the faith of most Christians, if not all.  On this issue, almost all Democrats struggle to identify themselves with evangelicals.  They have looked at ways to overcome this for the last several election cycles.

This year, many have decided to bring in the war issue into the pro-life argument.  This is really nothing new, as they have tried with the death penalty for years, trying to show some "inconsistency" in the view.  On the surface, one could make the argument that killing innocent people in the midst of war seems a bit out of line with the pro-life position.  On the surface, that could be a strong argument.

As you dig deeper, though, the fallicy becomes clearer.  Unlike most evangelicals, Democrats view the actions of all people as equal morally.  Careful here, I said actions.  All people are created equal, as evangelicals hold to, but not their actions.  Thus, Democrats will view the actions of Saddam Hussein and Mother Theresa as morally equal.  Thus, they would view an attack on Saddam just as they would an attack on Mother Theresa.  To evangelicals, this is just no the case.  Justice must be served, and God does have a history of using governments and war to mete out that justice.

The Bible is repleat with war.  When the children of Israel disobeyed and abandoned God for idols, He sent the Babylonians to destroy Jerusalem and carry away into captivity the Israelites.  As time went on, the Babylonians were defeated by the Persians for their disobedience, and so on and so on.

There can be no doubt that innocent people have suffered in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the actions of the Jihadists could not be allowed to continue.  Add to that the fact that Saddam had gassed his own people, condemned them to unjust prisons and rape rooms, and it does not become difficult to see the greater good of war to dispose someone like him.  In fact, we are currently facing similar problems in places like Darfur.  Relying on the "good" of the oppressors will never provide the relief the oppressed will need.  Action may be required.

So, while there are many pro-lifers who feel action to protect the innocent, even at their own risk, may be inevitible, they do not do so without compassion for the innocent.  What happens on the other side of the coin is that there is no action taken on the guilty and the innocent suffer far further.  I'm sure at this point in time, most Iraqis would admit to some suffering and loss, they would admit, though, that it would have been far worse if no action had been taken and would express great thanks for the gift of life and freedom they have been given.

So, as young evangelicals begin to look for politicians to look to, I hope they will not simply look at the surface.  I hope and pray they will dig deep into issues and see which really are more in-line with the foundations of their beliefs.  If they can't, then how deep are their beliefs, if they can't handle a little digging?

**While this deals with just one aspect of the argument, other issues need to be looked at more deeply, including welfare and social security, among other things.  Many times the "easy" solution is actually the least Scriptural and compassionate.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

With No One Left To Choose From, Bush Endorses McCain

Apparently President Bush was hoping for a better choice, too, as he is now endorsing Sen. McCain, the only choice left.  While the President has had months to hear what each candidate had to say and put his sway behind the one who would reflect his beliefs and opinions, yet he waited until there was only one choice.  That shows the problem most Conservatives are facing.

Conservatives of all backgrounds have lamented the lack of someone with true Conservative credentials.  Now, we are left with but one choice.  We must now decide to back McCain, stay home, or do the unthinkable, vote for a Liberal.

The only hope we are left with is the hope that McCain will begin to build bridges with us.  We know he can compromise, but he usually does it with people he agrees with, Liberals.  He will still need a majority of Conservatives to vote, so maybe he'll be interested in working with us.

So, as the President throws his weight behind the only man still standing, let's watch and see with this man does and says.  Only time will tell.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Socialism, Capitalism and Christianity

Compassion is a word that is thrown around by both Democrats and Republicans.  While both sides approach the subject from complete different directions, both are determined that their brand of compassion is the Christian attitude.  So, I thought I would address what both forms of compassion entail, in respect to Christianity (since this really is a Christian nation).

First of all, socialism cannot be compatible with Christianity.  It is, in fact, at odds with Christian teaching.  Socialism is determined to provide equality and welfare by government intervention.  This is what both Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama want.  The idea is that the government must take care of every aspect of life, from fair wages to health care to care for the poor.  Christianity, as Jesus taught, teaches that it is up to the people, as individuals, to care for one another.  This is why they are incompatible; socialism preaches government responsibility by compulsion and Christianity preaches individual responsibility from love.

Capitalism, on the other hand, relies on Christian compassion.  Without that, it has the potential to be detrimental to society.  If capitalism is to be compassionate, people must respect one another and be driven by love for one another.  It becomes mandatory that those with means care for those who do not.  They must exercise restraint, resist greed and help those who cannot help themselves.

As we look at the early days of Christianity, communal living was evident.  Scriptures teach that all lived in harmony and had all things in common, where those who had used their excess to care for those in need, as they had need.  That does not mean that all were equal, or that those who had means split those means equally with those who did not have means, but rather they provided for the necessities of those who could not do so for themselves.  It by no means meant that they simply gave to the poor without requirement that they attempt to care for themselves, but that they were expected to attempt to work and provide what they could.

In this respect, socialism is the antithesis of Christianity.  It expects that all will take what they have and distribute it to those who have less, regardless of their need or attempt to care for themselves.  It, then, produces class warfare, envy and laziness.  It is often done by compulsion rather than freewill.  Therefore, it goes against the very teachings of Christ.

Yet, capitalism that has lost its Christian soul, is ruled by greed and selfishness.  That will have no compassion, either.  When, though, a capitalist realizes his duty to be a blessing through his Christian principals, he will have compassion and will fulfill the teachings of Christ.

The problem with our American society, though, is that we have lost our Christian soul.  This is not to say that those without a Christian underpinning are unable to act with compassion, but those that follow the teachings of Christ, dutifully, are more predisposed to show consistent compassion.  On the other side, socialists hold that the greatest form of good in the world is government, therefore violate the very foundation of Christian teaching.

Truly, unless this country return to its Christian foundation, neither socialism nor capitalism will provide the true compassion required to return this country to greatness.  Clearly, though, capitalism provides the only path to that.  The socialism of the left can only lead us down a destructive path, to be sure.

***This is reposted at Ideally Conservative, a new blog by JayPeriod.***

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Marginalizing The Conservative Base

As you listen to the news, even on Fox, commentators continuously speak of the idea that John McCain should ignore and write off the Conservative base of the Republican party.  They speak of the idea that there is no pleasing them for McCain, so he might as well forget them.  I'm sure the MSM would love nothing better than that.

The biggest problem with this is that it marginalizes the base.  Rather than McCain having to compromise and actually change his position on issues important to the base, he can just write them off, believing that they would rather have him than either of the Democrats.  This could damage the Republican Party, not just in this election, but in elections to come.

The Conservative base of the Republican Party will not tolerate being marginalized.  It would not take long before the base would determine it in their best interest to form a third party.  In the short term, the Republican losses would be devastating to both the party and the country.  Democratic wins and gains would lead to the loss of personal rights, the redistribution of wealth and economic depression.  Yet, in the long term, this third party would be able to establish itself as the true agent for change and could sweep into offices to rescue the country.  It would only cost the country about half a century of time to recover.

So, while the MSM would like us to believe that marginalizing the Conservatives is the way to go for McCain, the long term damage he could do to this country by such arrogant speculation would be far worse.  My suggestion is that he use his ability to compromise and compromise with his own side this time.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What McCain Must Do To Win Over The Conservative Base

Conservatives are splitting at the sight of McCain like the Red Sea did for Moses.  Many Conservative pundits and bloggers are pointing to his past to show that he is not our guy.  At the same time, some Conservative politicians are endorsing him, claiming the greater good of the movement.  Yet, in spite of these endorsements, he has not convinced or excited the base.  So, what must he do to do that?

Many died-in-the-wool Conservatives will not be easily won.  The remember McCain-Feingold's assault on free speech.  They remember the "Gang of 14" meant to keep Conservative judges off the bench.  They remember the calls to close Guantanamo Bay and bring known terrorists to our shores and open our courts to them.  And, of course, they remember the call to grant citizenship to 20 million people who have broken our laws to get here, stolen identities to work and kill more people every year from drunk driving than the whole of the Iraq war.  He has encouraged compromise, even when he was part of the majority.  Can anyone really blame the base for being skeptical?

With all this history, how can we believe McCain has now had a "change of heart?"  He talks about having a revelation and now supporting the Conservative ideas in each of these issues, but how do we really know he has done so?  Politicians are known to say whatever it takes to get elected.  Can a leopard really change his spots, though?

No, we the base demand something concrete to verify that we are going to be respected.  We need something tangible to hold him to after the election.  He must be made to sign a pledge that he will support the base, over and above his desire to compromise.  Without such a show of reconciliation, there can be no proof.

I highly doubt, though, that McCain would be willing to sign such a pledge.  I don't believe he has any desire to compromise with his base, he saves that for the enemies of his base.

So, while there can be no doubt that McCain is a fiscal conservative, completely rejecting all earmarks in the past, there is more to being a Conservative than just that.  He must respond to our concerns and provide us with the proof we need.  Without such, he should plan for the attacks and criticism to continue, because without said pledge, he does not represent us.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »