About Me

Name: JayPeriod
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Conservative Principals: Morals

Posted by JayPeriod on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 2:36:04 PM
The Republican Party was founded to be the party that would oppose slavery.  They have stood on the right side of the Civil Rights movement and abortion, as well.  Conservatives have always taken the higher moral road, realizing that a nation founded and governed by moral people will long outlive one living by an "if it feels good, do it" philosophy.

Morals generally fall into the social issues of political campaigns.  While Southern Democrats may have once stood on the side of higher moral standards, i.e. Zell Miller and crowd, the mainstream of the liberal movement has placed experience, relativism and expression at the core of its beliefs.  The "free-love", sexual revolution of the '60s opened a floodgate of moral ambiguity that is leading our great nation down a path that has led other nations to their downfall.

There has been much outrage over recent statements by Dr. James Dobson regarding a possible third-party entry into next years Presidential election.  He has spoken out about the need for the Republican party to keep with its historical moral positions.  When we have candidates who are willing to abandon those principals, no one should be surprised that the conservative base is so willing to throw the whole party under the bus.

It seems easy to call for the party to ease up on its moral stance.  We can say that more and more Americans want a more "open" society.  There may be some small truth to that, but that should not change the party and its core beliefs.  Once we start down that slippery slope, there is no way back up.

Remember, this is not about which party is right or wrong, which party is better.  Americans don't care which party they vote for.  They want the party who shares their values and those values are conservative.  Once a party has lost that trust, the people will look for who holds those values.  We need look no further back than the mid-term elections of 2006, when Democrats proclaimed strong conservative values and displayed the lack thereof in the Republican party.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Conservative Principals: Lower Taxes and Controlled Spending

Posted by JayPeriod on Monday, October 08, 2007 10:46:10 AM
During the 2006 election cycle, many were making a big deal of election after election where Democrats were beating Republicans, and the mainstream media wanted us to believe it was all about the War.  If that were the case, though, Joseph Lieberman would not have won in Connecticut.  In reality, the real issue was runaway spending.

Lower taxes and controlled spending have been a staple of the Republican platform for quite some time.  Ronald Reagan ran on both and won landslide elections, twice.  The Republican Revolution of 1994 that swept Republicans into power in both houses of Congress for the first time in decades was fueled by Newt Gingrich's Contract With America, whose cornerstone was fiscal responsibility and lower taxes.  Of course, they differed from the current stock of GOPers in that they actually lived up to those promises.

Most people see through the Democratic (read: socialist) agenda of higher taxes.  While they claim to be taxing the "rich", what they are really doing is making someone pay someone else's bills.  Redistribution of wealth never sits well with the general public.  When people like John Kerry and Ted Kennedy are telling us that the rich need to pay more, we have to wonder what these multi-millionaires mean.

Most rational economists will tell you that a nation cannot tax its way out of debt or recession.  In contrast, they must cut taxes, cut programs that don't affect the majority of the populace and create incentives for small and medium businesses.  As Reagan proved, our economy will not succeed if businesses cannot profit.

While the Bush tax cuts in recent years have done well to stimulate the economy, if we are to sustain it, we must continue to make these cuts.  In addition, though, we cannot allow government spending to get out of control.  That is what cost the Republican party control of both houses of Congress.  The American people saw that they were not fiscally responsible, so they wanted change.  Unfortunately, the Democrat party is not the place to look.

If the Republicans are to regain seats in Congress, and maintain the White House, they will need to return to the idea of fiscal responsibility.  Each candidate is touting tax cuts, on extreme contrast to Democrats, but they are not impressing the public with spending cuts.  On the other hand, Democrats are talking about expanding government spending to record amounts, which will hamstring the economy and take the tax rate of average people beyond what they can endure.

We must make sure candidates understand that out of control spending, pork especially, must be cut.  Programs that do not benefit the majority of the populace such as the National Endowment for the Arts, public tv and radio and other such programs, must be cut from the budget completely.  The scope of government involvement and funding of education and health must be reduced and those responsibilities placed back on local governments where better decisions are made.  These are solid Conservative values.  If the Republican party will not re-engage them, they may have outlived their usefulness.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Conservative Principals: Limited Government

Posted by JayPeriod on Friday, October 05, 2007 2:05:50 PM
As the primary season kicks into high gear, we, as conservatives, need to gauge candidates on their commitment to conservative principals.  There are several that should be key, so I'll start a series on one that many feel is the most important; limited government.

For several years, the idea of limited government has been one of the main defining issues for conservatives.  True conservatives will hold to the idea that the size and scope of government should be limited, thereby limiting their interference into our lives and personal freedoms.  Our founding fathers fought for this idea, and wrote it into the Constitution.

Liberals (read: socialists) have been fighting for years to expand entitlement programs, attaching strings to the money for these programs.  In placing these strings, they are taking control away from the very people who could best administer the programs: local governments.  When the federal government gives money to a local school board, they place demands on how that money is spent, whether it truly benefits the community or not.

In this, communities in small communities are made to accept rules which work better for urban areas, and vice versa.  One state's ability to govern its people is restricted and decided by someone who has no idea what is necessary for that particular area.  So that, I, living in Tennessee, have someone in New York making decisions on what is best for my children when they have no idea what my children need or their situation.

In breaking away from England, our founding fathers were determined not to get into the same situation they had just left.  Limited government was a major part of that.  A large government is one which removes freedoms and drains the people of their financial freedom.  Our problem is not government which is too small, it is that our government has become too large.

In this election, candidates like Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama are trying to convince us that we need more government, that we need the government to control more of our every day lives.  They want government control of our medical system, education system, tv and radio, etc.  The idea is equality, equity and fairness.  Warning; life is not fair.  Life is not equal.  It is not government's responsibility to ensure that it is.

In all actuality, in the pursuit of "equality," our true rights are dissolved.  We are guaranteed the pursuit of happiness, not equality.  We are guaranteed the right to try, not to succeed.  To attempt to guarantee success for everyone is to guarantee success for no one.

As the Republican candidates debate the future and direction of our nation, I hope they will keep in mind that the majority of the base is firm in its belief of limited government.  If they are going to try to pander to the other side of the aisle by promising more and more programs, just as their opponents in the other party are doing, there is nothing to separate them from one another.  They would then be "Democrat Lights," not Republicans.

I firmly believe that the American people en mass believe in limited government.  They are frustrated, but they don't want government control of their lives.  They are listening for another "Great Communicator" to bring the message of limiting government and giving freedom to pursue dreams to all Americans.  If our current crop fails to fill this position, we are headed for another debacle, such as what we experienced just one year ago.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Islam At A Crossroads

Posted by JayPeriod on Tuesday, October 02, 2007 1:39:13 PM
During the Dark Ages, Christianity was used and manipulated by corrupt men.  They extorted and killed innocent people, all in the name of religion, to further their own power.  The power they wielded they claimed came from God, so the people were afraid to respond.  Ultimately, though, Christianity came to a crossroads.  The followers had to decide how history would remember their faith.

Men like Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley and others were determined they were not going to let corrupt, power hungry men distort and manipulate their faith, and their God.  They stood up and faced imprisonment and death to make sure their faith was not turned into something despised by all men.  Today, Islam sits at that same crossroads.

For the past 40 years we have seen men with dangerous, radical ideas rise and make war with humanity.  All the while they claim to be doing the will of their god.  They use the name of Islam to justify their terror and mayhem.  At the same time, there are those, both within Islam and without, who claim these men are subverting the faith.

For the past 6 years, cries have come up from around the world, calling on peaceful followers of this faith to take a stand against such men and prove to the world that Islam is indeed a peaceful religion.  For 6 years, those cries have failed to produce a uniform declaration denouncing these brutes.  There are those who justify this silence claiming that for followers to rise up against such radicals would certainly mean death.

As I have stated, men in the Middle and Dark Ages suffered greatly for taking a stand.  They refused to allow men to pervert their faith, even at the point of death.  Many were brutally killed and tortured.  Yet, they would not back down.  It was larger than they were.

Now is the time for followers of Islam to stand up.  If their faith is truly being subverted, they must begin to stand up and show the world.  If not, the silence is deafening.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ahmadinejad Lied, Kids Died

Posted by JayPeriod on Tuesday, September 25, 2007 8:11:12 PM
So, I'm listening to Mahmoud I'm-In-A-Jihad during his speech at Columbia University and its like I'm listening to a Bill Clinton speech again; lie after lie after lie after lie.  He's talking about how Iran is only interested in enriched uranium for energy purposes, Iran is a victim of terrorism itself, Iran has nothing to do with the war in Iraq and, to top it off, there are no homosexuals in Iran.  Surely this guy wouldn't know the truth if it jumped up and bit him on the back side!

And yet, he gets stage after stage, audience after audience and the left seem to think we can just sit down with him and talk about this whole Iraq thing.  He wants to wipe our most loyal and trusted ally in the Middle East off the map, denies the worst mass murder in history and sends weapons to kill our brave men and women trying to bring true democracy to his neighbor.  How long will we endure his bovine scatology on our soil?

Clearly, the world has no idea of the real danger he presents.  If they did, they wouldn't provide fodder for his propaganda machine.  To think that he won't use his lie-fests, cut and pasted, to show his own people how in love with him the west is merely glosses over the true evil that is Ahmadinejad.  He will take back with him sound bites that will surely make bin Laden jealous with rage.  We will then have to fight on more with this evil-incarnate man.

I suppose, in retrospect, we learned nothing from World War II.  We seem, over and over, to allow dictators and evil men to roam about, devouring peace-loving societies and spewing their venom unabated. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Three Party System: Republicans, Democrats and MoveOns

Posted by JayPeriod on Thursday, September 20, 2007 6:35:06 PM
In one simple vote today, the Senate showed us the character and courage of the nominees for the Democratic Party for President.  In a vote, an amendment to the defense bill, none of the Democrat nominees voted to criticize MoveOn.org for it's tasteless ad in its publication, the New York Times, last week.  Not one.  A few weren't there, but one, Obama, was for a vote just twenty minutes earlier.  Hillary clearly sided with MoveOn by voting against the amendment.

In a moment of partisan backbone, President Bush made a statement that with this vote and their silence, the Democratic leadership has chose to be more afraid of a radical group than they are of the American public and our military.  Maybe this explains why they side with al Qaeda and want to make nice with them.  It's just more natural for them to cower in fear of radical groups than to stand up to them.

I say that Bush showed a moment of partisan backbone because it is unusual for him to stand up to the Democrats when not running a campaign.  He has spent a large portion of his Presidency working for bi-partisan support, even when he had the majority.  I hope in the coming weeks and months, he will make more stands like this on important issues such as his tax cuts, social security reform and our military.  He needs to do more of this calling a spade a spade.

With this act, we now know where the Democrats stand on matters of national security.  They have shown that they are more interested in the input of George Soros, Hollywood and the New York Times editorial board than the American people.  Their leadership, Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, et al, has for years had the interest of their pocketbooks more at heart than our nation.  Now we have them on record for it.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Betrayed

Posted by JayPeriod on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:33:09 PM
While awaiting Gen. Petraeus' report on the surge in Iraq, it was more than I could stand to watch the political posturing by the Congressmen trying to make sure their constituents heard them loud and clear denounce the leader of our troops on the ground in battle.  It even seemed as though they were emboldened by the childish ad run by the ultra-Liberal group MoveOn.org.  As they ran their full page ad attacking the General, whom Congress overwhelmingly approved of just a few months ago, they showed our enemy that our resolve is not as strong as theirs.

One thing I found amusing as this process unfolded is the idea that our super divided, partisan Congress was making hay mostly about the fact that the Iraq government hasn't been able to put aside partisan politics and reconcile.  In our country, we have the ultra Left, determined to give away our money and destroy our military and the Right, determined to adhere to the letter of the Constitution and minimize government, with the exception of providing for a strong military.  I suppose the Left should pull the plank out of their eyes before bothering Iraq about the speck in theirs.

The real problem, though, is that we have puppet masters like George Soros, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi screaming about defeat and failure, while our men and women on the ground in Iraq are doing everything they can to win and ensure success for the Iraqi people.  These traitors are giving aid and comfort to an enemy who sees this as a weakness and reason we should be destroyed.

This week, WorldNetDaily ran an review of a book by Aaron Klein titled, "Schmoozing With Terrorists", in which he details, through interviews with terrorists, how they see our actions.  In the article, and book, his interviews reveal the truth about terrorists; winning is the only option.  They even detail how they might use a cease-fire to regroup, as explained in the Quran.

The Liberal idea is one of trust and belief in the "good" in all of us.  The problem is these terrorist have no good in them and deserve no trust.  It seems the only ones the Left is willing to treat like that are the military and Conservatives.

So, as we ponder the General's report, let us consider the fact that he has been there on a daily basis far longer than any Congressman looking for a photo op.  Let's consider that he knows what he's talking about.  Let's consider that our men and women in uniform are doing a great job and have turned the tables on al-Qaida in Iraq.  Let's give the people of Iraq a chance to get things figured out and make their Democracy work their way, for it may not look like ours.  Let's let the General do what we're paying him to do; execute a successful war against terrorists.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Fred Thompson: Crazy Like A Fox

Posted by JayPeriod on Wednesday, September 05, 2007 10:52:46 PM
A lot has been made of Fred Thompson's decision to wait until after the New Hampshire Republican debate to announce his candidacy for President.  Instead of participating in the debate, he has decided to spend a little time with Jay Leno on the Tonight Show.  Many have chastised him and doomed his chances for it.  I, on the other hand, believe he couldn't have made a better choice.

For one, he has to think about audience.  There can be no debate that he will have a far greater audience with Leno.  With primaries still several months out, no many are interested in the debates.  Therefore, the number of people watching will be relatively small.  Compare that to the audience that watches Leno, and Fred will reach a far larger audience.

Second, think about talk time.  There are eight men fighting for talk time during the 90 minute debate.  Each may get ten minutes, if he's lucky.  Fred will get far more than that.  He'll get the chance to say what he wants, articulate his thoughts and get his message across, without having to hope for just the right sound bite to get noticed.  Those in the debate have to hope that the news mentions something they say.

Finally, there's demographic.  Republicans will watch the debate, maybe.  Only those who really want to hear what each of the candidates has to say in sound bites will be watching.  Yet, people for all demographics, conservative and liberal, young and old, rich and poor will be watching Fred on Leno.  He won't look like an insider, either.  He'll look and sound like one of us, casual and interesting.  The debaters will sound rehearsed and like a Washington insider.  Fred has the chance to distance himself from that.

All in all, I don't think Fred could have made a better choice.  Remember, he got elected to the Senate by driving around Tennessee in his pick-up truck, wearing a flannel shirt.  Fred is great at being an "every man".  That's just what he needs to show the country, and that isn't going to happen at the debate.  His poll numbers should jump over night.  Way to go, Fred!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hypocrisy

Posted by JayPeriod on Monday, September 03, 2007 6:58:18 PM
With the recent problems of Sen. Craig, many on the Left are pointing their fingers at the Republican Party and crying, "Hypocrite."  They are complaining that Republicans speak out against issues such as homosexuality, then when we turn around, someone is caught doing just what the party preaches against.  They fail, though, to look at several points in the debate.

First of all, one persons actions do not speak for the Party as a whole.  One, two or even ten prominent Republicans could get caught in homosexual relationships or affairs or having abortions and that still would not speak to the Party platform as a whole.  These few people, making personal decisions, do not alter the foundational beliefs of the Party.  This is most likely hard for them to distinguish, as there are not moral issues within their platform.  Their's is a Party of "tolerance" and "if it feels good, do it."  There is no moral compass (more on this later).

This point is proven when we see the bulk of the Party requesting that the member resign.  As has happened in the past, when someone performs contrary to the foundational truths of the platform, they are asked to step aside, even if this is virtual political suicide for the Party.  It could very well be that with Sen. Craig's resignation that the GOP looses the seat.  The Party has determined that our moral direction takes precedence over politics.  To have someone who does not uphold the morals of the Party is worse than allowing them to speak for us.

Second, they neglect the fact that one person performing contrary to Party expectations is not the same as such actions being approved.  While in their party this may be the case, it is not the case on the Right.  When someone takes illegal campaign money or has an affair, the Party does not automatically approve.  The action is usually the opposite, in fact.  The one person's actions do not negate our moral directions.  They remain true.

Finally, I have come to realize that to be called a hypocrite, one must have a moral foundation to begin with.  If there are not moral foundations, there can be no breech of them.  We believe abortion is wrong, therefore to go against that foundation is hypocrisy.  When there is not moral foundation, there can be no hypocrisy.

Therefore, when someone on the left is caught in a bribe, they simply rely on the fact that there is no moral standard against such action.  When someone is caught in an affair, they just claim that there are not foundational standards against such.  Without a moral foundation, there is no action that goes against belief.

So, we should wear the badge of a hypocrite proudly.  It means that we have standards, things we consider wrong.  We are able to be labeled hypocrite.  Without such a foundation, we would be adrift in the sea of politics and America would be in grave danger.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Making Every Vote Count

Posted by JayPeriod on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 9:45:19 PM
In two previous Presidential elections, we have heard the mantra of making every vote count.  Whether it was hanging chads in Florida or questionable electronic machines in Ohio, we have been lectured that we must make sure every vote counts.  I couldn't agree more.

As someone who works with college-age people on a daily basis, I always hear that they don't want to vote because they don't think their vote counts.  They wonder if one vote makes a difference at all.  They seem disinterested, disconnected and disenfranchised.  Who can blame them?  They don't have the slightest idea of how to make a vote count.

Just the other day, a young lady saw me reading Sean Hannity's, "Let Freedom Ring."  She asked me what the book was about.  After I told her, she asked me if I was really into politics.  The short conversation that followed was typical of that age, she stated that she just didn't get as interested as she probably should, but seemed unwilling to do anything about it.

I replied by letting her know that I contact my elected officials several times a month.  In fact, my congressman even writes me emails on issues he knows I'm interested in.  This really surprised her.  Then, I made a statement that I wish more young people could hear and realize.

"That's how you make every vote count; contact your representatives and let them know how you feel about legislation."

It really is that simple, yet most people don't take the time.  They think they can make their voice heard by pulling a lever once every few years.  They gripe and complain to their spouses, co-workers and neighbors, but the people who could really do something about it, their elected officials, never hear from them.  It is a small minority who take the time to write letters and emails or make phone calls.  Yet, if they never hear from us, they don't know what we want.

I have literally had representatives tell me I changed their mind on the phone or in an email, or by watching their vote change when it comes time.  If I hadn't contacted them, they may never have thought of the other side of the coin.  My voice counted.

Even when I can't change their mind, I made my voice heard.  We live in a representative republic.  Without stating our opinions, can we really claim we've spoken with just a vote?

I don't want to look down on those who only pull the lever every few years.  I wish more did at least that much.  If we really want to see our government change and be more responsive, they need to hear directly from us, not from polls.  When they hear from us, they'll know we care and they'll take more time on important issues.  The recent amnesty bill should have shown us that.  We spoke in large numbers and they felt compelled to listen.

So, make your vote count.  Contact your representative today and let them know how you feel about important issues.  You'll feel better just doing that.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Conservatism And The Religious Right

Posted by JayPeriod on Monday, August 27, 2007 9:51:38 PM
In talking to, and listening to, Liberals, invariably they connect Conservatism with the Religious Right.  They point to issues such as abortion and marriage as proof that it is the extreme right of the Republican party that makes the policy.  This is just not the case.

While many Republicans are concerned with pro-family issues, which are the strong point of the Religious Right, the idea of Conservatism runs far deeper.  Conservatism deals not only with strong family values, but with strong economic issues, personal freedoms and social responsibility.

Conservatism starts with a strong belief in personal freedoms.  These freedoms are guaranteed in our Constitution and were meant to be protected to the fullest by our Founding Fathers.  These freedoms are of the highest importance, as long as they do not infringe on the freedoms of others.  Today, more and more, we see the Left trying to take these rights, from the right to bear arms to the freedom of religion to free speech.  These are some of the major differences between the two ideologies.

Conservatives also believe in strong economic policy, beginning with limited government.  Our Founding Fathers were well acquainted with large, oppressive government.  That is the last thing they would have wanted in America.  They limited our government specifically in the Constitution, remanding most rights to either the individual or to states.  The Left has forgotten that principal.  Liberals fight for more and more entitlement programs, larger taxes, class warfare and a Big Brotheresque, far-reaching government.

Social responsibility hinges on personal responsibility.  Without each individual taking responsibility for their own actions, all of society pays the price.  True compassion does not make excuses and allow people to run wild, facing no consequences for their actions.  In so doing, the very people we are claiming to help will continually fall into a trap and need rescuing, until they reach a point where no one can help them.  Does that sound compassionate?  Yet, the Left feels that it can hold the hand of everyone, excusing their wrong-doing and faults, forcing the rest of us to pay the penalty.

While it is true that many principals of Conservatism and religion align, it does not mean that the religious crowd rules our ideas.  As a Christian, I can say that I was a Conservative long before I was a Christian.  It just so happened that I didn't have to change any of my convictions when I became a Christian.

I suppose the real problem lies with the fact that the Left is now run by such extreme groups as MoveOn.org, Sierra Club, PETA, et al.  As you watch the debates of the Democratic candidates for President, you can hear them pandering to the extreme left of their party.  Therefore, they can't conceive of the Republican party not being run by it's extreme.  True Conservative ideas are level across the board, whether you're religious or not.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Liberals and Evil

Posted by JayPeriod on Sunday, August 26, 2007 5:19:53 PM
As Conservatives, we are amazed at the actions, or inactions, of the left.  Liberals want treatment for pedophiles, understanding for terrorists and bigger government to regulate every aspect of our lives.  Why, we may ask?  The answer is simple; tolerance.

The Left has a very different idea and definition of tolerance than you and I, or even traditionalists.  They envision a world where everyone gets along and no one hurts or attempts to hurt one another.  It's about peace at any cost.  The idea is that if we just understand one another and tolerate one another, we can work through any differences.

To the Liberal, tolerance is about acceptance.  I must understand you are different, in though or culture, and accept that.  There is no room for me to disagree with you or to think your way is wrong.  We just can't be closed minded that way.  If we all just learn to accept one another and one another's ideas and points of view, the world will be a better place and we will have eternal peace, nirvana.

For example, to the Left, the terrorists are not to blame for their attacks.  We must learn what we did to provoke them and rid ourselves of that behavior.  Then we can all get along and live happily ever after.  If we just do the things that make radicals radicals, they wouldn't be that way.

Another example is pedophiles.  It's never their fault, according to the Left.  They are merely victims themselves, acting out of the pent up aggressions they've never worked through.  Punishment would be wrong and send the wrong message.  Therefore, we must understand and treat them, helping them to work through their aggressions so they won't do it any more.

There is just one problem with this line of thinking.  There is evil in the world.  There are people who have a bent for doing bad things and nothing will change them.  You can't just "understand" them.  They are evil.

Terrorists are not just misunderstood.  They are evil people trying to force the rest of the world to behave the way they want them to.  Pedophiles are evil people determined to hurt children without regard.  These are just evil people.

The problem is that if Liberals were to admit there are evil people in the world, they would be forced to accept a definition of good and bad, right and wrong, good and evil.  If there exist such standards, they might be in violation.  Therefore, they can never admit to such standards.

This is why Liberal groups defend the indefensible and protect the incomprehensible.  This way, they don't have to be introspective and determine if they may be one themselves.  They want to live by their own rules and allow others to do the same, no matter what it costs society.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Should We Just Settle?

Posted by JayPeriod on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 6:25:38 AM
As the campaign season rolls on, we keep hearing about the candidates "electability."  There are candidates running in the Republican party who do not share the staunch conservative views that most in the party espouse.  We are told by the moderates of the party that we should just overlook these "shortcomings" and look at who can actually win, and keep, the White House.

The problem with this is that it's conservative values that win elections.  I've said it many times in this blog; when you look at where candidates stand when running for office, they always claim to have conservative views.  Conservative positions win elections.  Americans, by and large, espouse conservative views and they want candidates who hold those views.

As the agenda of the left moves further and further away from mainstream America, we need to stand firm in our demand for true conservative candidates.  Moderates only weaken the party and show the rest of the country that there really is no difference between the parties.  We cannot allow this to happen.  As conservatives, we need to ensure that we protect America from the radicals on the far left who would slowly, painfully strip our culture of our values and morals.

We cannot allow our conservative positions on taxes, economic growth, family and person freedom and responsibility to be undermined.  If we allow those within our own party to discard these key issues, we will erode the trust America has in itself.

We all want to see the affects of the last election undone.  We must recognize, though, that it was not the war in Iraq or the selection of conservative, pro-life judges which caused America to turn it's back on the Republicans in Congress.  It was the fact that those same Congressmen had failed to uphold conservative principles.  The got soft on spending and allowed our country to shift toward socialism.  They recoiled from their promise to reform a government fat from entitlement programs.

If we want to take our country back, it starts with taking our party back.  There may be some good, strong men running for President who don't share our firm conservative views, but we can't forfeit those principles for a feigned "electability."  We must put up a candidate who is strong on all conservative issues.  We must show the difference between the right and the left, the good and the bad.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

If Bush Is Bad, Congress Is Worse

Posted by JayPeriod on Saturday, August 18, 2007 8:10:46 AM
We are repeatedly told by the Left and Media that the President's approval ratings are at all time lows.  They are, in fact, in the low to mid 30s.  The cause of these low numbers can range from the war in Iraq to his stance on immigration.

What we are not being told is that Congress' numbers are far worse than the President's.  Congress' approval rating has bounced between the mid teens and twenties for some time now, and this only eight months into the "new" congress.  So, it's apparent, that as bad a job the American people think the President is doing, Congress is doing a worse job.

When it does get recognition, it will generally be reported that it's because people are dissatisfied that Congress has not brought the troops home from Iraq.  This is just not true.  While many Americans want our troops home, most Americans are not fooled by the fact that this Congress has done nothing credible at all since taking office.  While the Left criticized the prior Congress of getting nothing done, this Congress has gotten even less done.

The reason for this is simple.  The current Congress is now under the control of extremists, such as Kennedy, Clinton, Kerry and Reid.  These leaders owe their very careers to such far Left radicals as MoveOn, George Soros, Michael Moore, PETA, the Sierra Club, the teacher's unions and such.  These groups have agendas so radical that most Americans would be horrified at how close they are to those in power.

As these power-mongers have sought to advance their radical agendas, brave people in Congress have stood up and seen to it that their work is foiled.  This has led to a lack of actual progress in Congress, and the people see this.  Hopefully, more and more people are waking up to this reality and will remember it next November.

If you recall, though, these people ran on moderate, or even in some cases, conservative platforms.  They claimed to hold the values of average Americans.  They even claimed to be faithful church goers.  Once they scammed the votes, though, they ran back to their radicals, asking for marching instructions.

So, as conservatives, we must keep up the pressure.  We must expose their lies and their ties.  If the American people can see them for the radicals they really are, we can take back our country.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Problem With Iraq

Posted by JayPeriod on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 10:11:47 PM
Let me begin by stating that I fully support our troops and our effort in Iraq.  It was the right war, at the right time.  Iraq, under Sadam Hussein was a powder keg waiting to explode.  He had WMDs (perhaps they're in Damascus right now).  He had used them on his own people before and surely would have used them wherever he felt he needed.  The fact that we are fighting al-Qaeda (not "insurgents"), shows that we are in the right place.

Now, on to the problem with Iraq.  We have been there for about four years now, and we've not walked away with a resounding victory.  Of course, it took us four years to defeat the Germans and Japanese in WWII, and that was with a military that wasn't decimated by the previous administration.  We fought the Cold War for over 40 years, but there were no troops in combat with that.  Our troops have done a great job with the situation they have been thrown into.

Having said that, I'll explain the situation.  We look at Iraq from a western perspective.  We in America have our differences, but we are generally accepting of one another.  We have our common ground.  That is not the case in Iraq.  Iraq is actually a conglomeration of three distinct peoples; Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds.  These three peoples don't share much culture or other aspects of society.  The Sunnis and Shi'ites are Muslims, but from factions that have been fighting for centuries and many of the Kurds are Muslims, but their cultural differences don't cause them to side with either of the other groups.

To end this problem, early on in the war, Iraq would have needed to have been divided into three distinct countries.  This would have allowed each to set up a government which favored their separate beliefs and cultures.  The problem with this was the oil; who would have controlled it?  Most of the oil is in the south.  The Shi'ites and Kurds would not have stood for this.  So, something would have had to been done to bring equity in dispersion of the monies.  Allowing the UN (think food-for-oil scandal) to handle it would have only led to corruption.  They had enough of that under Sadam.

Without this division of the land, peace may never be truly achieved.  This will make it all the better when we can turn over security and policing to the Iraqi people, but don't expect things to be smooth.  Look for widespread violence to continue and human rights to be violated.  That will happen, though, no matter how long we stay.  Ultimately, they will just have to learn to get along.

So, pray for our troops while they are over there.  Send them a thank you email or note and pray for a quick return.  By the way, as of this writing, General Petraeus is predicting a drawdown of US forces by summer '08, as Iraqi forces become ready.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous123456789Next »