When I posted the original "What Obama Taught Shahzad" post I missed some of the more nutty aspects of the story. The first has to do with Mayor Bloomberg of New York City. When asked about the Times Square attack, the mayyor responded by saying the guilty party was probably a "homegrown, maybe a mentally deranged person or someone with a political agenda who doesn't like the health care bill or something."
Really? Because when I heard there was a bomb found in New York City, I assumed it was a Muslim male in his 20's or 30's of Arab descent.
Contessa Brewer of MSNBC said she had hoped that the bomber was not Islamic:
There is either great ignorance or willful blindness on the liberal side that sees Tea Partiers as potential terrorists but finds Islamic radicals' motives inscrutable. Yes, there are nuts of European descent but how many times must we hear about McVeigh when there have been dozens of terrorist attacks in the last few years around the world perpetuated by many different people all named Mohammad?
Friday, May 14, 2010
Happy 50th Post to Me
Thank you to everyone who has linked my blog in their facebook status or who have commented on my blog posts. I hemorrhaged one more friend from facebook for my blog post on immigration, leaving the total at 5. The support could not have come at a better time. I'm dedicating my 50th post to my followers, commenters and all the lurkers out there. Although still at a small number, I have doubled my followers in just 2 weeks and started getting some good feedback.
I have also added some features, now you can E-mail a post to someone by clicking on the envelope at the end of the entry. I have opened up the comments section to anyone, it will remain this way unless there starts to be abuse and spam showing up there. More features will come as I find time to add them.
I don't have any illusions of grandeur regarding this blog but the post on immigration really opened my eyes to the race-baiting and arrogance surrounding our politics when it comes to certain issues. Unfortunately, with the election of Obama we did not transcend race as a nation as we were told. Instead, any criticism of our President is considered through a racial prism by our detractors. Does anyone think I would be any less critical of the administration if Hillary had won?
I will continue to blog on issues that are important to me and those who disagree can choose not to read or even better, respond (responsibly) in the comments section. In my initial post I said that this blog is for everyone, left and right, those who choose to shun me rather than comment back show that they simply are not equipped for the debate. I won't be wasting any time on them in the future.
Thank you to everyone who was helped keep me motivated to continue this blog.
Yours Truly,
Conservative Ken
I have also added some features, now you can E-mail a post to someone by clicking on the envelope at the end of the entry. I have opened up the comments section to anyone, it will remain this way unless there starts to be abuse and spam showing up there. More features will come as I find time to add them.
I don't have any illusions of grandeur regarding this blog but the post on immigration really opened my eyes to the race-baiting and arrogance surrounding our politics when it comes to certain issues. Unfortunately, with the election of Obama we did not transcend race as a nation as we were told. Instead, any criticism of our President is considered through a racial prism by our detractors. Does anyone think I would be any less critical of the administration if Hillary had won?
I will continue to blog on issues that are important to me and those who disagree can choose not to read or even better, respond (responsibly) in the comments section. In my initial post I said that this blog is for everyone, left and right, those who choose to shun me rather than comment back show that they simply are not equipped for the debate. I won't be wasting any time on them in the future.
Thank you to everyone who was helped keep me motivated to continue this blog.
Yours Truly,
Conservative Ken
Sunday, May 9, 2010
What Obama taught Shahzad
Eyes rolled when Bush described the actions he took around the world after 9/11 as the "long war." Liberals cried that the President was fearmongering. By creating a long-lived boogeyman, he was scaring the electorate into reelecting him and expanding his own power. Some said that 9/11 was a fluke and that there really was no determined effort to hit the US on a regular basis. Whereas a lack of future casualties told conservatives that the President had truly stepped up and put security first, liberals believed that Bush was too stupid to protect anyone so the threat must be imagined.
While conservatives remember the Shoe Bomber and the anthrax scares in D.C. and around the country that occurred shortly after 9/11, liberals lost themselves in a haze of "Bush lied- kids died" and "No Blood for Oil." After Bush created the Department of Homeland Security and passed the Patriot Act the closest repeat we had of those events were the arrests of the Buffalo Six and the Fort Dix Six. Although no one would say Bush did a perfect job, in the seven years after 9/11, we were not hit again.
Subscribing heavily to the belief that terrorism fears were overblown, Obama began dismantling the tools put in place by Bush as soon as he was elected. Interestingly, Obama still did not keep his promises to end warrantless wiretaps, close Guantanamo or pull our troops from overseas but he did reinstate the criminal justice paradigm of the Clinton years over the GWOT (Global War on Terror) paradigm of the Bush years. Khalid Sheik Mohammad would be granted a civilian trial, as would his coconspirators. The Christmas bomber would not be interrogated but would be offered a plea bargain for his cooperation.
Clearly not impressed by the toughness of Obama's policies, Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani-American, set up a makeshift bomb in a Nissan Pathfinder and attempted to detonate it in Times Square. Under Bush, he would have been just another news story buried by the New York Times about Bush "claiming" to have caught another terrorist long before the plot unfolded. Under Obama we are merely lucky that the bomb failed to detonate. Shahzad has been arrested by authorities and has already been read his Miranda rights though the administration insists he is still cooperating.
There are serious legal, moral and practical questions surrounding how we should deal with terrorists who plan to attack the homeland. While Bush erred on the side of keeping us safe, Obama errs on the side of civil liberties, even when it comes to non-citizens. As a libertarian, I often look at things in terms of incentives. For example, if the government subsidizes home loans for people who can't afford them, you will get a bubble followed by a crash. In this case, if you take a shot at an American soldier on a battlefield in Iraq or Afghanistan you will either be killed or captured and tried by a military tribunal, however if you try to bomb American civilians you will be arrested and be given a civilian trial. Hmm, what is the incentive we are creating here?
While conservatives remember the Shoe Bomber and the anthrax scares in D.C. and around the country that occurred shortly after 9/11, liberals lost themselves in a haze of "Bush lied- kids died" and "No Blood for Oil." After Bush created the Department of Homeland Security and passed the Patriot Act the closest repeat we had of those events were the arrests of the Buffalo Six and the Fort Dix Six. Although no one would say Bush did a perfect job, in the seven years after 9/11, we were not hit again.
Subscribing heavily to the belief that terrorism fears were overblown, Obama began dismantling the tools put in place by Bush as soon as he was elected. Interestingly, Obama still did not keep his promises to end warrantless wiretaps, close Guantanamo or pull our troops from overseas but he did reinstate the criminal justice paradigm of the Clinton years over the GWOT (Global War on Terror) paradigm of the Bush years. Khalid Sheik Mohammad would be granted a civilian trial, as would his coconspirators. The Christmas bomber would not be interrogated but would be offered a plea bargain for his cooperation.
Clearly not impressed by the toughness of Obama's policies, Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani-American, set up a makeshift bomb in a Nissan Pathfinder and attempted to detonate it in Times Square. Under Bush, he would have been just another news story buried by the New York Times about Bush "claiming" to have caught another terrorist long before the plot unfolded. Under Obama we are merely lucky that the bomb failed to detonate. Shahzad has been arrested by authorities and has already been read his Miranda rights though the administration insists he is still cooperating.
There are serious legal, moral and practical questions surrounding how we should deal with terrorists who plan to attack the homeland. While Bush erred on the side of keeping us safe, Obama errs on the side of civil liberties, even when it comes to non-citizens. As a libertarian, I often look at things in terms of incentives. For example, if the government subsidizes home loans for people who can't afford them, you will get a bubble followed by a crash. In this case, if you take a shot at an American soldier on a battlefield in Iraq or Afghanistan you will either be killed or captured and tried by a military tribunal, however if you try to bomb American civilians you will be arrested and be given a civilian trial. Hmm, what is the incentive we are creating here?
Friday, April 30, 2010
Change is Bad
In 2008 the stars were aligned for the Democrats. Amidst two unpopular wars, an economic downswing and the general discontentment that comes from 6-8 years of one-party rule, the Republicans got their clocks cleaned. A political outsider was swept into office with high praise and higher hopes. The media fawning was so ridiculous, talk radio starting referring to him as "The Messiah" and "The Anointed One." To be fair, liberals actually did create messianic icons of him. Note the unicorn in the background.
After a year in office, and being protested for not keeping his promises even in the friendly territory of a Barbara Boxer rally, Obama is on the defensive. Cindy Sheehan has even branded the President a "warmonger" and warned that people bought the "Obama hype." Even Obama girl, who had a viral Youtube video expressing her enthusiasm for Obama during the campaign has said that she has "fell out of love" with Obama. As hard as it is to believe that the liberals are eating their own when their own is the most liberal President since Woodrow Wilson, assisted by two Democrat-controlled Houses of Congress, some of the most strident opposition comes from the Tea Party.
A year ago, the Tea Party even as a concept sounded unlikely. Liberals march for anything but conservatives never seemed to have the desire to get involved in that forum. Liberals alternately praise and bash the Tea Party depending on their internal polling. Nancy Pelosi called the Tea Parties "Astro-turfing" mocking the grassroots base of the Tea Party and then turned around to say that she agreed with many aspects of the Tea Party.
If even the most hardcore liberal in one of the safest districts in the US is afraid to go after the Tea Party, we may actually be a force to be reckoned with in '10. I have zero illusions about Pelosi losing her seat but she will probably lose her Speakership.
Even Bush is making a comeback due to Obama's lackluster performance. Despite staying out of the spotlight with the exception of his Haiti fund, 46% of Americans would like to bring Bush back. Even Joe Biden now calls the war in Iraq a success. Although now that Joe Biden has said it I'm no longer sure...
To be sure Bush's compassionate conservatism did not resonate with his base. I opposed his Medicare Prescription Drug Plan as another unsustainable entitlement and I feel he opened the door for Obama with his bailout plan regardless of how "compassionate" it was. However after the Fort Hood shooter and the Christmas bomber, one great thing about Bush does leap forward. He kept us safe. I don't trust Obama to keep the nation safe either economically or militarily. I am not alone, in '09 60% of our troops said they too were wary about Obama.
So the question becomes, if liberals are disenchanted with Obama and conservatives strongly oppose him, does the man who was swept into office on a wave of support and enthusiasm even have a constituency anymore?
After a year in office, and being protested for not keeping his promises even in the friendly territory of a Barbara Boxer rally, Obama is on the defensive. Cindy Sheehan has even branded the President a "warmonger" and warned that people bought the "Obama hype." Even Obama girl, who had a viral Youtube video expressing her enthusiasm for Obama during the campaign has said that she has "fell out of love" with Obama. As hard as it is to believe that the liberals are eating their own when their own is the most liberal President since Woodrow Wilson, assisted by two Democrat-controlled Houses of Congress, some of the most strident opposition comes from the Tea Party.
A year ago, the Tea Party even as a concept sounded unlikely. Liberals march for anything but conservatives never seemed to have the desire to get involved in that forum. Liberals alternately praise and bash the Tea Party depending on their internal polling. Nancy Pelosi called the Tea Parties "Astro-turfing" mocking the grassroots base of the Tea Party and then turned around to say that she agreed with many aspects of the Tea Party.
If even the most hardcore liberal in one of the safest districts in the US is afraid to go after the Tea Party, we may actually be a force to be reckoned with in '10. I have zero illusions about Pelosi losing her seat but she will probably lose her Speakership.
Even Bush is making a comeback due to Obama's lackluster performance. Despite staying out of the spotlight with the exception of his Haiti fund, 46% of Americans would like to bring Bush back. Even Joe Biden now calls the war in Iraq a success. Although now that Joe Biden has said it I'm no longer sure...
To be sure Bush's compassionate conservatism did not resonate with his base. I opposed his Medicare Prescription Drug Plan as another unsustainable entitlement and I feel he opened the door for Obama with his bailout plan regardless of how "compassionate" it was. However after the Fort Hood shooter and the Christmas bomber, one great thing about Bush does leap forward. He kept us safe. I don't trust Obama to keep the nation safe either economically or militarily. I am not alone, in '09 60% of our troops said they too were wary about Obama.
So the question becomes, if liberals are disenchanted with Obama and conservatives strongly oppose him, does the man who was swept into office on a wave of support and enthusiasm even have a constituency anymore?
1 down, 49 to go
Arizona is the first in the nation to pass a law making it a state offense as well as as a federal offense to be in the US illegally. Because of the high concentration of illegals in Arizona and the federal government failing to do its duty to defend the border, the taxes of legal Arizonans are skyrocketing. With the added costs of education; hospital treatment; bi-lingual government forms; crime; violence; social services; and drugs, Arizona is struggling to keep a balanced budget.
Illegal aliens drain money from government while contributing nothing back but they also depress wages in the private sector. Illegals who work construction or as farm labor for considerably less, undercut legitimate business due to circumvention of minimum wage laws and taxation. This leads to wages spiraling downward and unemployment spiraling upward. Do we really have to continue on this ruinous path even while unemployment is already hovering near 10%?
So does this mean that SWAT teams will surround the houses of illegals and drag them into the street using Gestapo-like tactics? Hardly. If someone is stopped because they have committed another crime, they can be questioned as to their immigration status. Even though being in the US illegally is a crime, an illegal will have to commit a second crime to even be asked the question. If someone is stopped for a second crime and cannot speak English or has no form of ID, they will probably be asked to prove their citizenship.
Libertarians oppose the Arizona law but in doing so they are forgetting their core values. Not only do illegals compete with government granted advantage, that being a blind eye being turned to their income in terms of taxation, but Ayn Rand reminds us that no country can exist with open borders and a welfare state. Certainly today more than ever we cannot exist with open borders, a welfare state and a President who is determined to make all those here illegally into citizens with full rights to the cornucopia of social programs.
Despite consistent negative coverage, 64% of Arizonans support the new law. 51% of Americans overall support the bill with only 39% opposed according to Gallup.
Under our Federalist system, states can impose laws as long as they do not contradict the Constitution. The dissenters can then vote with their feet (read: move) if they cannot stand the law. Many illegals say that they will leave the state due to the restrictive law. The only question now is will the bordering states of California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico pass similar laws if the waves of illegal immigrants come to their door?
Illegal aliens drain money from government while contributing nothing back but they also depress wages in the private sector. Illegals who work construction or as farm labor for considerably less, undercut legitimate business due to circumvention of minimum wage laws and taxation. This leads to wages spiraling downward and unemployment spiraling upward. Do we really have to continue on this ruinous path even while unemployment is already hovering near 10%?
So does this mean that SWAT teams will surround the houses of illegals and drag them into the street using Gestapo-like tactics? Hardly. If someone is stopped because they have committed another crime, they can be questioned as to their immigration status. Even though being in the US illegally is a crime, an illegal will have to commit a second crime to even be asked the question. If someone is stopped for a second crime and cannot speak English or has no form of ID, they will probably be asked to prove their citizenship.
Libertarians oppose the Arizona law but in doing so they are forgetting their core values. Not only do illegals compete with government granted advantage, that being a blind eye being turned to their income in terms of taxation, but Ayn Rand reminds us that no country can exist with open borders and a welfare state. Certainly today more than ever we cannot exist with open borders, a welfare state and a President who is determined to make all those here illegally into citizens with full rights to the cornucopia of social programs.
Despite consistent negative coverage, 64% of Arizonans support the new law. 51% of Americans overall support the bill with only 39% opposed according to Gallup.
Under our Federalist system, states can impose laws as long as they do not contradict the Constitution. The dissenters can then vote with their feet (read: move) if they cannot stand the law. Many illegals say that they will leave the state due to the restrictive law. The only question now is will the bordering states of California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico pass similar laws if the waves of illegal immigrants come to their door?
Friday, April 9, 2010
Girl Don't Go Away Mad, Girl Just Go Away
I posted a column when Sarah Palin resigned from the governorship in Alaska. Although it was favorably commented on by a plethora of conservative bloggers, I could not understand her reasoning, much less her speech. I said as much in that column. Now Sarah Palin is a commentator for Fox News and will be hosting a Real American Stories piece for them. Although I was skeptical about Palin, I was ready to give her another chance. She blew it before the show aired.
The show lifted interviews previously from the Fox archives and made it seem as though Palin was the interviewer. She was not. LL Cool J protested so vehemently that his piece was dropped from the show. Toby Keith, who got the same treatment, also complained. Palin has the reputation, rightly or wrongly, of not being able to hold her own in an interview. I was willing to give her a chance but the special seems the indicate that this characterization was correct. Either as interviewer or interviewee, Palin is a dud.
There is a group of people who feel the need to prop Palin up because of her life story and frankly because of her gender. Why bother when we have great conservative women in the party like Michelle Bachmann? Why even fall into the trap that we have to have a front-and-center conservative woman? Many women are conservative and those who are, are in it for the ideals the party stands for not because they are falling for some Democratesque identity politics. Smaller government, getting to keep more of what you earn and a strong foreign policy does not affect women less than it affects men. To assume so is inherently sexist.
While talk radio props up Sarah Palin, she fails them again and again. Can she operate as a commentator? The market will decide. Can she successfully run for President? I severely doubt it. If we must have a woman in the running to show we are inclusive, let's shift the focus to Michelle Bachmann who is better able to articulate conservatism to a wide audience.
Sarah Palin is a great woman who truly reformed Alaska in many ways against all odds and did so with a smile. She deserves our gratitude for what she has done up to this point but she was plucked before her time and has become an object of derision. She is incapable of being a viable candidate on a national level and for substantive reasons.
Should she announce that she will not seek the Presidency and allow the primary to occur between the major candidates? In her words, "You betcha."
The show lifted interviews previously from the Fox archives and made it seem as though Palin was the interviewer. She was not. LL Cool J protested so vehemently that his piece was dropped from the show. Toby Keith, who got the same treatment, also complained. Palin has the reputation, rightly or wrongly, of not being able to hold her own in an interview. I was willing to give her a chance but the special seems the indicate that this characterization was correct. Either as interviewer or interviewee, Palin is a dud.
There is a group of people who feel the need to prop Palin up because of her life story and frankly because of her gender. Why bother when we have great conservative women in the party like Michelle Bachmann? Why even fall into the trap that we have to have a front-and-center conservative woman? Many women are conservative and those who are, are in it for the ideals the party stands for not because they are falling for some Democratesque identity politics. Smaller government, getting to keep more of what you earn and a strong foreign policy does not affect women less than it affects men. To assume so is inherently sexist.
While talk radio props up Sarah Palin, she fails them again and again. Can she operate as a commentator? The market will decide. Can she successfully run for President? I severely doubt it. If we must have a woman in the running to show we are inclusive, let's shift the focus to Michelle Bachmann who is better able to articulate conservatism to a wide audience.
Sarah Palin is a great woman who truly reformed Alaska in many ways against all odds and did so with a smile. She deserves our gratitude for what she has done up to this point but she was plucked before her time and has become an object of derision. She is incapable of being a viable candidate on a national level and for substantive reasons.
Should she announce that she will not seek the Presidency and allow the primary to occur between the major candidates? In her words, "You betcha."
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Book Review: Sean Hannity's Conservative Victory: Defeating Obama's Radical Agenda
Conservatives continue to ask themselves "What next?" even as Obama is moving on from his victory over the American people in pushing his healthcare reform bill. Liberals answer to "What next?" is cap-and-trade, amnesty, financial regulation overhauls, and imposing a VAT tax. Fortunately, Sean Hannity's book could not have come at a better time. In his new book, Conservative Victory: Defeating Obama's Radical Agenda, Hannity lays out just what we need to do to stop the march towards socialism.
Hannity starts by describing Obama's past and present associates. From Jeremiah Wright to Van Jones, Hannity shows that Obama feels most comfortable with radical leftists and indeed surrounds himself with them. Guilt by association is a weak charge but the list of Obama's radical friends are too numerous to be anything but a conscious effort to surround himself with like-minded socialists. People like Marilyn Katz, David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, Mark Lloyd, Cass Sunstein, Ron Bloom, Anita Dunn, Kevin Jennings, Harry Knox, Carol Browner, John Holdren, Kathleen Sebelius, Harold Koh, and Dawn Johnson only mirror Obama's own ideaology. From animals being protected by the Consitution to forced sterilization there is no cockamamie liberal idea too ridiculous for these Obama appointees.
Hannity then turns his attention to when conservatives have done right by America. The Contract with America, welfare reform and middle class tax cuts that occurred under New Gingrich's House show that Republicans really are worthy to be America's true conservative party. Hannity understands the frustrations that people have with the party, most recently in the example of DeeDee Scozafava, but urges conservatives to work within the party to revitalize it. As Regan asked "Is it a third party we need or a revitalized second party?" While the Tea Party is a great grassroots organization, Tea Party candidates would split the vote and squander the chance that Obama's unpopular policies have created. As a libertarian I agree with this characterization. Although the Republican party stands for some things I disagree with, I refuse to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If we get another McCainesque candidate in '12, I will vote Libertarian but if we can get a good conservative candidate, I will vote against Obama and for the Republican.
Lastly, Hannity lays out a plan for victory. It can be concisely stated as the same as Dick Morris's plan which I laid out in the last post. Defund the healthcare reform bill and repeal it before America gets addicted to yet another impossibly unwieldy entitlement program. Obama was not a sleeper or a Manchurian candidate as some claim, he told us exactly what he was going to do and he is following through on his promises. If amnesty passes, Carville's prediction of 40 years of Democrat rule could become a reality. It is crucial that we stop his progress in '10 and remove him in '12.
Hannity's book clearly lays out Obama's radicalism, points to when Republicans truly kept their promises with the Contract, and shows us what we must do to once again have a conservative Republican party. With the current climate in America, it is not merely a pipe dream to imagine that this can happen again. As long as this center-right country stays engaged we can halt the leftward drift of America and indeed the Republican party. It is always darkest before the dawn and we could truly have Morning in America once again.
Despite my previous reviews, I've never really had a rating system before. A 5-star system seems appropriate (even though if I take the time to write about it, it will probably be rated 5 stars!). I give Sean Hannity's book 5 stars. This book along with Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny should be required reading for any conservative revolutionary looking to put the current crisis in perspective and how to find a way out.
Hannity starts by describing Obama's past and present associates. From Jeremiah Wright to Van Jones, Hannity shows that Obama feels most comfortable with radical leftists and indeed surrounds himself with them. Guilt by association is a weak charge but the list of Obama's radical friends are too numerous to be anything but a conscious effort to surround himself with like-minded socialists. People like Marilyn Katz, David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, Mark Lloyd, Cass Sunstein, Ron Bloom, Anita Dunn, Kevin Jennings, Harry Knox, Carol Browner, John Holdren, Kathleen Sebelius, Harold Koh, and Dawn Johnson only mirror Obama's own ideaology. From animals being protected by the Consitution to forced sterilization there is no cockamamie liberal idea too ridiculous for these Obama appointees.
Hannity then turns his attention to when conservatives have done right by America. The Contract with America, welfare reform and middle class tax cuts that occurred under New Gingrich's House show that Republicans really are worthy to be America's true conservative party. Hannity understands the frustrations that people have with the party, most recently in the example of DeeDee Scozafava, but urges conservatives to work within the party to revitalize it. As Regan asked "Is it a third party we need or a revitalized second party?" While the Tea Party is a great grassroots organization, Tea Party candidates would split the vote and squander the chance that Obama's unpopular policies have created. As a libertarian I agree with this characterization. Although the Republican party stands for some things I disagree with, I refuse to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If we get another McCainesque candidate in '12, I will vote Libertarian but if we can get a good conservative candidate, I will vote against Obama and for the Republican.
Lastly, Hannity lays out a plan for victory. It can be concisely stated as the same as Dick Morris's plan which I laid out in the last post. Defund the healthcare reform bill and repeal it before America gets addicted to yet another impossibly unwieldy entitlement program. Obama was not a sleeper or a Manchurian candidate as some claim, he told us exactly what he was going to do and he is following through on his promises. If amnesty passes, Carville's prediction of 40 years of Democrat rule could become a reality. It is crucial that we stop his progress in '10 and remove him in '12.
Hannity's book clearly lays out Obama's radicalism, points to when Republicans truly kept their promises with the Contract, and shows us what we must do to once again have a conservative Republican party. With the current climate in America, it is not merely a pipe dream to imagine that this can happen again. As long as this center-right country stays engaged we can halt the leftward drift of America and indeed the Republican party. It is always darkest before the dawn and we could truly have Morning in America once again.
Despite my previous reviews, I've never really had a rating system before. A 5-star system seems appropriate (even though if I take the time to write about it, it will probably be rated 5 stars!). I give Sean Hannity's book 5 stars. This book along with Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny should be required reading for any conservative revolutionary looking to put the current crisis in perspective and how to find a way out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
