Click to bookmark this page!
- Contact Me -
Include your email address
Just in case you weren't sure...
Buy this book (not just because it contains two of my op-eds):
Americans on Politics, Policy, and Pop Culture:
The 101 Best Opinion Editorials From OpEds.com
An Interview With the G-Man:
My first (hopefully not last) experience in live radio, being interviewed by G. Gordon Liddy!
of people freed from totalitarian dictatorships
by precision use of American military force
under George W. Bush:
million in just two years
of people freed from totalitarian dictatorships
by anti-American Bush-bashing
terrorist-appeasing whining elitists:
...The problem seems to
me to be the definition of "free speech".
Liberals define it as anything they want to say
or do that opposes America. I say "speech" ends
where "action" begins. Once you pick up a gun
for the enemy, throw a rock at a cop during a
"peace" march, send money to a terrorist
organisation, or travel to Baghdad to block an
American JDAM with your ass, you have crossed the line from free speech to costly action.
Saying the War on Terror is all about al-Qaeda is like saying we should have fought the Japanese Naval Air Force after Pearl Harbor. Not the Japanese Navy, not the Japanese Army, not the Empire of Japan -- just the Naval Air Force....
Complaining about the "waste" when human embryos are destroyed instead of being used in medical experiments is a lot like going to a funeral and complaining about the waste of perfectly good meat....
Blaming CO2 for climate change is like blaming smoke for the fire. CO2 is largely a following, not a leading, indicator of a rise in temperature....
Cavalier's First Theorem:
Every time, Liberals will fight to protect the guilty and kill the innocent, while Conservatives will fight to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.
Cavalier's Second Theorem:
Liberals are just Socialists who want to be loved... then again, Socialists are just Communists who lack the courage of their convictions.
Cavalier's Third Theorem:
Any strongly moral, hawkish or pro-American statement by a Liberal will inevitably be followed by a "but."
Infamous Monsters of Filmland
Day by Day:
Chris Muir's witty comic strip with a political
The Ultimate War Simulation: Why does this scenario seem so familiar?
What Kind of Liberal Are You?
Save me the trouble
of figuring out what kind of idiot you
Because Bush is to blame... for
Sacred Cow Burgers
Satirical Political Beliefs
Communists for Kerry
Cooper's Protester Guide
Fellowship 9/11: Sauron never attacked Rohan, Saruman did! Yet a small group of elitists convinced Middle-earth to divert resources from the real war to attack Mordor for personal gain.
When Democrats Attack
Did prominent Democrats switch positions on Iraq just to attack President Bush for political gain? (See the updated list.)
Was Iraqi Freedom Justified?
An honest, step-by-step analysis of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq that Congress voted into law shows that it was.
Saddam's Philanthropy of Terror
Details of solid ties to organised international terrorism
How The Left Betrayed Iraq
by Naseer Flayih Hasan
Did We Botch The
No, not of Iraq: of Germany. Read the
media's take on how we "lost the peace" in 1946
Debunking 8 Anti-War Myths About the Conflict in Iraq
Pictures from Hate
Bush/Hate America/Hate Capitalism/Hate
Israel/general wacko rallies
Share your wish list with friends and family
Free online file transfer - even works with Android phones
Reviews of hotels, flights and sites
Convenient comparison shopping
The best right-wing news and commentary
GOP USA Commentary
Men's News Daily
The New Media
a project of Frontiers of Freedom
SF Chronicle watchdog and conservative news
Analysis with political and social commentary
The Conservative Voice
Conservative news and opinion
News By Us
...not news bias
Conservative and Libertarian Intellectual Philosophy and Politics
Practical conservatism for the common man
Analysis, Commentary and Opinion on the Real World
Philly news and blogs
The Fatal Conceit:
The Errors of Socialism
by F. A. Hayek
Articles Previously Published at
- When Good Liberals Go
Bad - 05/29/03
- How Stupid Do Democrats Think You
Are? - 05/31/03
- Who Are These 'Rich' Getting Tax
Cuts, Anyway? - 06/02/03
- How Can We Miss The Clintons If
They Won't Go Away? - 06/04/03
Whining of Mass Distraction: How
To Discredit A President -
- Liberal "Rules" for Arguing
- Liberalism: Curable or
Terminal? - 06/14/03
- Filibustering Judges: Hijacking
Presidential Powers? - 06/17/03
Is Hamas Exempt from the War on
Terror? - 06/22/03
- How Malleable Is The
Constitution? - 06/26/03
- Rejecting Our Biological and
Cultural Heritage - 06/30/03
- I Need Liberal Assistance,
Now! - 07/02/03
- Bring Them On -
- We Need You Arrogant Warmongering
Americans...Again - 07/09/03
- Much Ado About Nothing, Again
- Double Standard: Blindly Blame
Bush - 07/18/03
- Was WWII Also Unjustified?
- Clinton Backing Bush? Don't Bet On
It! - 07/24/03
- How To Be A Hypocritical
Liberal - 07/28/03
- The Clinton Legacy: In Answer to
Mr. Stensrud - 07/30/03
-What Is 'Good News' To
Liberals? - 08/02/03
- Bush's Big Blunder -
- The Meaning of Right - Why I
Supported the Iraq War -
- More Liberal "Rules" for
Arguing - 08/14/03
- You Can Have Cary Grant; I'll Take
John Wayne! - 08/19/03
- Where Is The ACLU When It's
Actually Needed? - 08/25/03
- Who's Afraid Of The Big Bad Ten
Commandments? - 08/28/03
- From The Weasels: Thanks For
Nothing - 08/30/03
- The Liberal
Superfriends - 09/02/03
- Liberal Superfriends 2: The
Sequel - 09/05/03
- Saddam and 9/11: Connect the
Dots - 09/08/03
- Throwing Away the Southern
Vote - 11/02/03
- Libya: The First Domino
Falls - 12/20/03
- Is the UN Playing Games with
American Politics? - 03/04/04
Blogs to Browse
Across the Pond
Arts for Democracy
Bull Moose Strikes Back
Common Sense & Wonder
Everything I Know Is Wrong
Freedom of Thought
My Arse From My Elbow
Take A Stand Against Liberals
The Resplendent Mango
The Right Society
Tom's Common Sense
Tomfoolery of the Highest Order
Trying to Grok
TS Right Dominion
Watcher of Weasels
Word Around the Net
Monday, November 03, 2008
Election Eve Angst - Principle or Country First?
How far does one stick to his principles? What is worth breaking your word for? As Election Day approaches, these are the questions that plague me. For nearly two years, I have said that I would not vote for John McCain, just as I would not have Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee or any other Liberal Republican. I would even have preferred to see Hillary Clinton in the White House, betting that there would be enough opposition to her in House and Senate to keep the Federal government in stalemate for the next four years.
Sadly, it looks as though the Republicans are going to lose enough seats in the Senate to give the Democrats a filibuster-proof majority. Even if my most optimistic projections come true, the Democrats will have 55 seats, and there are certainly more then five Republicans Liberal enough -- or craven enough -- to vote with them on the important issues. Moreover, Pennsylvania is actually a swing state this time around -- as much due to McCain's being too much of a Democrat as it is to Obama's being too much of a Marxist who wants to "spread the wealth around," ruin small business owners, drive large business overseas and bankrupt the coal industry with his cap and trade policy. All but the most committed Leftists want to be able to afford electricity more than a few hours a day, after all.
So the choice comes down to this: cast my vote for someone who cannot win, or help a Republican who barely deserves the label into office, where he can wreak domestic havoc almost as badly as the Democrat surely will -- and sign it "Love, the Republican Party." If I do so, I must surrender my adherence to principle and go back on my word.
Damn you, John McCain. Damn you, Republican party. You aren't worthy of sacrificing my self-respect for. If I vote for McCain, I won't be able to look myself in the mirror. It will be hard to accept having knowingly enabled him to promote global warming hysteria, attack corporations, raise taxes on "the rich," work with his "good friends across the aisle" to ensure that judicial nominees are acceptable to both sides, prevent our intelligence services from using effective interrogation methods, grant civil rights to captured terrorists and push for more government control over everything from baseball to the banking industry. And when his amnesty-that's-not-amnesty ushers in tens of millions of new voters looking for handouts, who will Americans blame for selling their country out to foreign nationals? John McCain, who promised La Raza (the Hispanic version of the KKK) just a few months ago that he was still committed to his "comprehensive immigration reform" package.
But what if I don't vote for McCain? How can I knowingly allow the country to be ruled by the Marxist Barack Obama and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate? If I could be sure that there would be enough real Republicans left after the election to stop the Obamessiah's destructive policies, I could relax and watch the fireworks as Left and Right stand deadlocked for four years. I can't bank on that. If we're lucky, there will be enough solid Republicans left after the election to get up a decent football game. The rest will be McCain-style "moderates" who care more about looking good on camera and getting favorable press coverage than doing what's right for the country. With the likes of Barack Obama pushing European Socialism at every opportunity, we'll be lucky if anyone has a private-sector job left in four years. And Obama's attitude toward gun owners and unborn babies are as loathsome as his desire to make peace with the world's worst dictators.
If Pennsylvania were not a swing state, my vote probably wouldn't matter, and I could vote my conscience with a light heart. But McCain has been surging here lately, despite the media's many oversampled and desperate push-polls. It's down to the wire. More than ever before, my vote matters.
I suppose the best argument I can make to convince myself to vote McCain is this: do I want to let America take a mortal wound by my inaction, or deal it a blow that I hope is merely critical? Allowing Obama to ruin this country may be too heavy a price to pay for my principles. If I force myself to vote for McCain, I am agreeing to the harm he will cause this country. But can I live myself if I stand by and allow Obama to utterly destroy it?
Posted at Monday, November 03, 2008 by CavalierX
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Thoughts on a Post-Bailout America
You know how deeply annoying living in a development can often be, because there's always some prissy little Homeowners' Association President with a Napoleon complex throwing his weight around telling you how often you should water your lawn so it stays the same shade of green as everyone else's, or dictating what Christmas home decorations you're allowed to put up so no one feels offended or intimidated?
And you know how annoying paying a mortgage can always be, because there's a ton of finance company rules and regulations and terms to which you must adhere, and non-compliance could result in foreclosure?
Now replace "prissy little Homeowners' Association President with a Napoleon complex" and "finance company" with "massive army of prissy little bureaucrats backed by the full might of the Federal government in all its red-tape-wrapped glory," and double the number of rules and regulations. Welcome to life under a nationalised mortgage industry. It's going to be just as bad as living under a nationalised health care system would be.
Oh, wait: we're almost certainly getting that, too.
Posted at Thursday, October 09, 2008 by CavalierX
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
The Mortgage Buyout Shell Game
So we're told that the world faces a financial meltdown unless Congress spends over 700 billion dollars of our money right now to buy up bad debts from financial institutions that never should have made the loans in the first place. It's a terrible idea for several reasons. The taxpayers should not be forced to bail these companies out of loans they agreed to make. Will the taxpayers repay me if I gamble away my savings? The government should not take over the entire loan industry, which would be the effect of its bailing these companies out and then, as they put it, "increasing oversight." More regulations and restrictions and oversight committees equal a larger, more powerful government, with more control over who gets a mortgage and who does not. I don't want Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to make the decision on whether I can buy a house any more than I want them deciding whether I can get an operation. Most important of all, free-market capitalism is already overly restricted, and nationalising an entire sector of the market would be a huge move towards Socialism that we cannot afford to make.
How did we get into this mess? The Democrats and other Socialists are blaming the problem on free markets and capitalism run amok, for which the answer is (of course) more government interference. But that makes no sense, if you know the history of the situation. The Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) was created in 1938 as part of the New Deal to help more people buy homes. It's not the free market at work. It was technically privatised by Lyndon Johnson in 1968 to remove it from the federal budget, and the Federal Home Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) created in 1970 to expand the business of reselling mortgages. Though they are run as private corporations, they are in fact funded and controlled by the federal government. They operate by buying loans from banks, bundling them together and selling them with the guarantee that they will be paid. They have a line of credit with the US Treasury. The banks are more likely to take risks when loaning money, as they know they can sell those loans to the government. When bundled with other loans, a bad one or two doesn't make that much difference. That works very well as long as the vast majority of loans are made to those who will definitely pay them back -- the only kind of loans banks would normally make, if left alone.
But they haven't been left alone. The Democrats have spent the last seventy years using Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to push banks into making increasingly risky loans to people who should never have been able to get them. In 1977 President Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act, which required banks to make sub-prime loans to people in low-income areas, who couldn't afford to pay them back. The process drastically accelerated in 1999, with the appointment of Franklin Raines (Bill Clinton's White House budget director) as its CEO. Jamie Gorelick -- Deputy Attorney General under Clinton and author of the infamous "wall" that prevented the CIA and FBI from sharing information regarding terrorists loose in this country -- served as Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae from 1997 through 2002. The free market would never in a million years have led major banks to give low-interest loans with no money down to people who could not put up the collateral or prove they could pay the loan back. It's not just the poor -- plenty of people have been living way above their means for far too long, and now the proverbial piper must be paid. But in order to continue operating as though they were financially solvent, and in order to guarantee huge bonuses to their officers, those responsible for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lied. And those appointed as watchdogs over the two mortgage companies also lied.
Fannie Mae, it turned out, overstated its earnings by $10.6 billion from 1998 through 2004. Franklin Raines was finally fired, and is now a "financial advisor" to Barack Obama. Freddie Mac was discovered to have understated its profit by nearly $5 billion from 2000 through 2002, after which it went through more high-level turnovers than the late Roman Empire. Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), head of the Senate Banking Committee, received an incredibly sweet deal on his mortgage from Countrywide Financial, from which Fannie Mae buys more loans than any other single company. Coincidentally, former Fannie Mae head Jim Johnson received a similar deal from Countrywide, and decided to step down from his position as advisor to Barack Obama when that became public. Dodd, however, still chairs the committee which writes laws governing the operation of mortgage companies, which is exactly like hiring a fox to guard the henhouse. Dodd has also received $165,400 in campaign donations from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the years.
In 2003, the Bush administration recommended creating "a new agency ... within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." The weak proposal was shot down by Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who said bluntly, "I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis." In 2004, Alan Greenspan warned that the rapid growth of both companies, not based on a solid financial footing but on "cooked" books and falsified earnings statements, would cause a collapse of the financial market. After widespread reporting of the financial scandal in 2005, Sen. John McCain attempted to introduce a bill calling for oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but the bill never made it out of committee. So nothing was done, and now that the housing market has taken a downturn, the investors who bought those bundled loans suddenly found themselves holding either debts they can't collect, or overpriced property they can't resell. But then came the federal government, like a white knight, and re-absorbed both agencies. Now the government is promising to buy up all those bad loans and set everything right. And nearly everyone's acting as though that's a good thing.
Listen, the fact that the government wants to buy up those bad debts does not mean they will go away. Those people still owe that money, only it's the government that's going to own everything when they lose their homes, businesses and properties. The companies from which the government will buy those debts, the banks that made those risky loans in the first place, and Fannie/Freddie executives which bought them up and then sold them as assets, are the only beneficiaries of this buyout deal. If the government bails them out, they will continue to make the exact same mistakes. If we do not allow them to fail now and face the recession that would likely follow, they will inevitably fail a few years from now anyway and cause a worldwide full-blown depression.
On the other hand, the government will have plenty of homes available for tens of millions of new immigrants to buy after amnesty is enacted, with no money down and at low, low interest rates.
30 Sept 08 UPDATE: Read an editorial by Jeffrey A. Miron, a senior lecturer in Economics at Harvard who opposes the idea of the government bailing out mortgage companies.
Posted at Wednesday, September 24, 2008 by CavalierX
Monday, September 08, 2008
Ever since John McCain announced that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin would be his Vice President, Conservatives and Republicans alike have been beside themselves with joy. Republican party faithful practically fainting in ecstasy over Palin I can understand, since it almost guarantees McCain a win in November. However, McCain himself has not changed just because he added Sarah Palin to his ticket. He's the same person, with the same attitudes and agenda, that he was the day before -- when the odds were good that he was going to pick Joe Lieberman as his running mate. Nothing is different now. Adding Palin to the ticket has done nothing to change him or his policies, and I, for one, don't think she's going to be setting the White House's agenda if McCain wins. She'll be doing the political equivalent of cutting the opening ribbons at shopping malls. Without altering his own political policies one iota, McCain has tricked a lot of Conservatives into supporting him based on his picking as his running mate a person whose entire job will consist of breaking ties in the Senate... of which there will be damned few, with President "Reach Across the Aisle" setting the agenda.
And yet, Conservatives are flocking to the McCain-Palin banner in droves, sending in those all-important campaign donations. That makes me sad, it really does. Because I can't imagine how anyone could really believe that John "Screw the Conservatives" McCain is doing anything but using Palin as a stalking horse. She's not going to be running the White House. She's not going to be setting policy. She's going to sit in the Senate just in case there happens to be a tie someday, and that's it -- aside from a lot of photo ops. Don't get me wrong -- I like what I know of Sarah Palin so far, aside from the fact that no one seems to know her position on granting amnesty to illegal immigrants. If she runs in 2012 I might even support her. It's just that Palin has only one purpose as part of McCain's campaign: to trick Conservatives into voting for the guy who has spent his entire career stabbing them in the back. And so far, it's working. I guess the McCain-Palin campaign can be summed up as "Change You're Desperate to Believe In."
Posted at Monday, September 08, 2008 by CavalierX
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
The melodramatic flair of Barack Hussein Obama and his cultish followers is almost too much to stomach. According to ABC News, Obama's address before the DNC will be a stage show to remember.
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's big speech on Thursday night will be delivered from an elaborate columned stage resembling a miniature Greek temple.
The stage, similar to structures used for rock concerts, has been set up at the 50-yard-line, the midpoint of Invesco Field, the stadium where the Denver Broncos' National Football League team plays.
Some 80,000 supporters will see Obama appear from between plywood columns painted off-white, reminiscent of Washington's Capitol building or even the White House, to accept the party's nomination for president.
He will stride out to a raised platform to a podium that can be raised from beneath the floor.
Well, I don't think I can stand watching it, myself -- my tolerance for platitudes having long since been exceeded by the Obamessiah and his glassy-eyed, chanting minions -- but I imagine it will look something like this:
Hat tip: RightWingNews.com
Posted at Wednesday, August 27, 2008 by CavalierX
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Like most people, I get a lot of email offering me solutions to problems (some of which I may not even have.) Not too long ago, I received an email promising me an answer to high gas prices. Instead of the usual "let's scare the oil companies by not buying gas on a certain day," this one contained a plan to scare oil companies by not buying gas from one particular company for the rest of the year. Despite the fact that emails like this have been circling the internet for a decade or more, they just keep getting forwarded from one person to another with the best of intentions. This time -- somewhat uncharacteristically -- I hit "reply all" and wrote the following response:
Oil companies make less than a dime's worth of profit per gallon of gas, considering that the money you pay at the pump goes to a) state taxes (averaging 28.6 cents per gallon), b) federal taxes (18.4 cents per gallon), then c) exploration by oil companies and d) research and development by oil companies. Not buying gas would only slow research, development and exploration for new energy sources... and that won't lower the price of gas by a single penny. Most companies, contrary to the common Liberal portrayal, are not evil entities bent on sucking out your last cent... they provide goods you demand, and charge a price for their service. If they don't profit, they go out of business, and then who will sell you the products you want? There are, however, more pragmatic ways to go about lowering gas and oil prices. There are no "magic bullets;" no cheap and easy solutions -- only realistic alternatives to attacking those eeevil oil companies.
Four "easy" steps to lower gas and oil prices:
1. Build more refineries. We have plenty of oil, but have not been allowed to build a new refinery since the 70's. The ones we do have are operating at full capacity. We can't make gas fast enough to meet the demand, hence the high gas prices. At least get rid of the ridiculous "blend" requirements that prevent us from moving gas supplies from one state to another, or buying it cheap from countries that refine a surplus.
2. Drill for oil offshore and in ANWR. Cuba is drilling off the Florida coast with China's help; why can't we? And drilling in the tiny northernmost patch of the frozen wasteland of ANWR is not going to affect any cute and fuzzy animals. The pictures the "news" stories show you when ANWR drilling comes up for discussion were all taken in other parts of Alaska.
3. Build more nuclear power plants. If you're really concerned over the price of oil and gas, the best solution is to use another, more efficient power source.
4. Stop enabling China. One of the main reasons for high oil prices is China's stockpiling every drop they can get their hands on, using the money they make by selling us products manufactured by virtual slave labor in work camps. If you really want to help lower oil prices, you'll have to pay a little more for other things.
Posted at Wednesday, May 14, 2008 by CavalierX
Thursday, February 07, 2008
With Mitt Romney pulling out of the Presidential race, 2008 will be the Year of the Liberal no matter who wins. Whether the next President is McCain, Clinton or Obama, we're getting amnesty and citizenship for criminal trespassers, global warming alarmism, punitive tax hikes labeled "no tax cuts for the rich," anti-business legislation aimed strictly at American corporations and judges who will have to be vetted by Pat Leahy and Harry Reid (or they won't get a vote). I'd rather we get those things forced down our throats under the Democratic imprimatur than the Republican. Moreover, Conservatives on Capitol Hill have a better chance of getting the more Liberal Republicans to stand with them to block legislation under a Democratic President than under a Liberal Republican President, whom most of the Republicans would support. If McCain is in fact the Republican nominee, it looks as though I will -- however reluctantly -- be rooting for a Democrat to win the White House, though I could never bring myself to vote for him or her. The only hope to stop the Liberal agenda is to let the Democrats take the White House, but put as many Republicans in Congress as possible. It only takes forty Senators to filibuster any bill.
UPDATE: Some Conservatives have said that they will reluctantly vote for McCain because the Democrats would pull out of Iraq. But with the Iraqis taking responsibility for more of their country every day, and the terrorists reduced to begging for help and using retarded women as unwitting suicide bombers, another year or so will almost certainly see Iraq in a place where we can officially turn everything over to the Iraqi government. And since the next President won't take office for another year, and there's no way on Earth to pull the troops out before at least another six to nine months after that, there's no need to sacrifice the future of our own country and the Republican party for Iraq. And that's what a vote for McCain would do -- surrender our own country to amnesty, tax hikes, anti-business legislation and all the rest of the agenda that Republicans in Congress could not fight under McCain, but may fight under a Democrat.
Posted at Thursday, February 07, 2008 by CavalierX
Saturday, February 02, 2008
The Media's Manchurian Candidate
With most of the primary elections still to come, the media has annointed John McCain the inevitable Republican candidate. That's understandable -- McCain has been in the pocket of the mainstream media for years. Especially since 2000, he's been the Republican they could always count on -- along with Senators Chuck Hagel (NE) and Dick Lugar (IN) -- to say something negative about President Bush's policies. But McCain has done more than simply bash President Bush. He's spent years stabbing Conservatives in the back, working against Conservative principles in exchange for fawning press from the New York Times -- which has now endorsed him along with Hillary Clinton. I guess the editors couldn't make up their minds. It's alright -- I can't tell the difference between McCain and most Democrats, either. And if he becomes President, he will do so without my vote. I won't vote for McCain, even if the race is between him and Hillary Clinton. To paraphrase an old joke: one of them is an amnesty-granting, rights-limiting, global warming-believing, terrorist-coddling, industry-destroying Democrat. The other is Hillary Clinton.
McCain was part of the Keating Five scandal, which no one now seems to remember. Five Senators -- four Democrats and McCain -- tried to use their influence to make FHLBB chief Edwin Gray cease his investigation of Charles Keating, who was responsible for the 1989 collapse of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association. Keating, it turned out, was a huge campaign contributor to all five. McCain was exonerated after claiming that he only attended the meetings because Keating was a constituent and McCain wanted to be sure he was getting fair treatment. It's no coincidence that McCain spent the next ten years conducting a vindictive crusade to "reform" campaign financing by contributors, which resulted in the largest assault on the First Amendment in nearly a hundred years: the McCain-Feingold Act.
The First Amendment's not the only one McCain has tried to hamper. He sponsored yet another bill with Senator Joe Liberman that would have required all attendees at gun shows to be registered, and all show sales (including books and clothing) be filed with the BATF. He also said he was "open" to voting in favor of the assault weapons ban, though he did, in the end, vote against it.
McCain led the Gang of 14, a prime example of how he often "reaches across the aisle" in a spirit of "bipartisan cooperation" to stick it to the Republican party and especially Conservatives. When Democrats threatened to filibuster President Bush's judicial nominations, using a Senate rule (never meant to be used in that way) to prevent a vote being taken, Republicans were poised to amend the rule so it could not be so abused. McCain and his little group derailed the process, thus preserving the ability of Democrats to filibuster the President's judicial nominees -- a process most Conservatives believe to be a violation of the Constitution, which mandates that the Senate vote on judicial appointments. As in the case of the McCain-Feingold Act, McCain seems to care less about the Constitution than about his "maverick" status. If he were a Democrat, he'd just be one of the pack. But as a Republican who sides with Democrats, he's lauded by the New York Times.
McCain has also been responsible for the McCain-Lieberman bill, which attempted to levy Kyoto Treaty-like penalties on American industry. If it had passed, it would have crippled the US economy. McCain has also attacked the tobacco industry and the pharmaceutical industry, all for applause from the media and his fellow Democrats. Although he now claims he voted against the Bush tax cuts twice because they did not include spending cuts, that's not the truth. In 2000, McCain said of Bush's proposed tax cuts, "Sixty percent of the benefits from his tax cuts go to the wealthiest 10% of Americans -- and that's not the kind of tax relief that Americans need. ... I'm not giving tax cuts for the rich." In McCain's recent capaign speeches, he refers to "greedy people on Wall Street who need to go to jail." Is this the right man to lead the US economy? I can't tell the difference between John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
Mccain touts himself as the best person to lead us in the War on Terror, but that's not true, either. McCain has been trying to force us to close Guantanamo Bay, which would mean letting captured terrorists go or housing them on American soil, granting them Constitutional rights they do not and should not have. He has tried to hamper our interrogation efforts by redefining anything that causes the subject minor discomfort as "torture." Our success in the War on Terror hinges on information, and McCain would severely limit our information-gathering capabilities.
McCain has fought building a fence on our southern border, though it is now mandated by law. Her preferred to leave us open to infiltration by terrorists who can cross from Mexico at will, bringing who-knows-what with them. He claims he will build the fence now, of course, after the Capitol Hill phone lines were shut down by an influx of angry calls over his McCain-Kennedy amnesty-that's-not-amnesty bill. McCain's bill -- the "comprehensive immigration reform" -- did not provide for building the fence before offering what amounts to amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. If McCain's bill had passed, those who have violated our borders and multiple laws against fraud would have been eligible for "Z-Visas" with almost no delay for background checks. Somewhere between 12 and 20 million of them would have been eligible for permanent residence and eventual citizenship. According to studies by the Heritage Foundation among others, those "sudden citizens" would have been able to bring in between 60 and 100 million others over the next couple of decades, forever altering our entire culture and placing a humongous burden on government and social services at all levels. Most of those new residents -- uneducated, illiterate, unskilled -- would become loyal Democrats. If McCain gets into office, McCain's amnesty will become reality.
A lot of Republicans argue that we must all stand behind the Republican nominee no matter who he is. Some say we must get a Republican -- any Republican -- into office to ensure that only Originalist or Constructivist judges are appointed. But McCain has stated that Justice Alito -- one of President Bush's two Supreme Court nominees -- was "too Conservative" for him. When picking judges, McCain will vet them through his partners on the Democratic side of the aisle, to make sure they will go through without a fight, and the media will applaud his bipartisanship. In fact, President Hillary or President Obama wouldn't pick any worse judges than President McCain. Some say that we need a Republican -- any Republican -- in the White House to veto Liberal bills that make it through Congress. I sincerely doubt that McCain would veto any bills that propose the very policies for which he has fought against the Republicans to enact all these years. Some say that we need a Republican -- any Republican -- in the White House to ensure the Democrats don't control that as well as both Houses of Congress. However, I think even most of the Liberal Republicans in Congress will band together with the Conservatives to fight against a Democratic President, out of party loyalty if nothing else (as they stood together against Bill Clinton). Against a Liberal Republican President, the Conservatives in Congress will stand alone. How can that be better?
Many Republicans are ready to abandon their Conservative principles and vote for whomever the Republican party nominates. But I can not vote for McCain with a clean conscience. I do not support him for his amnesty, his Kyoto-lite plans, his attacks on the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries, his opposition to "tax cuts for the rich," his restrictions on the First Amendment, his eagerness to backstab Conservatives and fight against Conservative ideals for media acclaim at every opportunity, or his enabling the Democratic party to filibuster judicial nominations, which I believe is a violation of the Constitution. A McCain Presidency would drag the Republican party even further to the Left than it has already gone. I will not enable that. Hillary or Obama may damage the country, but so would McCain -- and he would destroy the GOP, the only party that even halfway espouses Conservative principles, in the process.
I will not sell my soul or my vote to keep the GOP in the White House if that party is going to abandon me in exchange. Besides being a bad bargain, my vote means something; it's the only voice I really have. I will only cast it for someone, the candidate who best represents me; I will not vote against someone or out of fear. I have said from the beginning of this campaign season (about five minutes after the last election, it seems), that my first choice was Congressman Duncan Hunter, but that I could also support Senator Fred Thompson, or even Governor Mitt Romney. Now, only one of those men is left in the race. Mitt Romney is the last Conservative standing, or the nearest thing to it, and he will have my vote in the primary election.
Posted at Saturday, February 02, 2008 by CavalierX
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
It seems a lot of Republicans these days are urging Conservatives to "be pragmatic" and vote for Rudy Giuliani next November if he's the Republican nominee. "We have to stop Hillary!" we are told, and that's true. However, if the Republican party puts Giuliani forward as their candidate, election day will find me going straight home after work, instead of to the polls. And I'm not alone in that decision.
I'm not particularly religious. I don't care what James Dobson or his ilk have to say. They don't speak for me. However, I do hold myself to certain principles, one of which is that I won't cast my vote for a person who holds the wrong position on so many key issues. Some disagreement is one thing -- I voted for Bush despite his unwillingness to control Congressional spending and our borders -- but why would I vote for someone who hardly agrees with me at all?
Rudy Giuliani was tough on criminals during his stint as New York City's mayor, which -- imagine that! -- led to a drop in the crime rate. His response to 9/11 was sterling, and his reply to the Saudi prince who donated money for the families of those killed on 9/11 but blamed America for that atrocity was especially praiseworthy. Not many people get the chance -- or would dare take it if they did -- to tell a member of the Saudi royal family where to stick his money. Long before 9/11, Giuliani had terrorist leader Yasir Arafat ejected from a Lincoln Center event for world leaders. As President, Giuliani would probably be fairly tough on terrorists and would-be terrorists, and would likely continue Bush's policies of tapping our enemies' phone conversations and aggressively interrogating them when captured. Also, Giuliani is unlikely to let Congress raise taxes on businesses and punish individuals for making "too much" money.
But that's about as far as my admiration for Rudy Giuliani goes. Because, to paraphrase an old book I read once, what's the point in winning against the global jihad if America loses it soul? It's an important issue, perhaps the most important issue, but not the only issue. It's not enough just to beat the enemy. What are we fighting for, at that point?
Rudy Giuliani believes Americans have a "right" to abortion. He does not, however, believe in our right to "keep and bear arms," at least not without government oversight and control (which pretty much removes the purpose of that right altogether). He also believes non-Americans have the "right" to sneak into our country, violate our laws, and get rewarded by permission to stay... a glaring exception to his "tough on crime" stance, in my opinion.
Giuliani has stated he will only appoint originalist Justices to the Supreme Court -- those who believe the Constitution must be followed as written, not that its words can be "interpreted" to fit the reader's agenda of the moment. But the role of a President is much larger than that in any debate. The President of the United States has the biggest voice in the country -- arguably, in the world. How can anyone make the case for the protection of innocent life, the preservation of our most sacred rights, and the prosecution of anyone who violates our immigration laws when he doesn't really believe in those things himself? At best, Giuliani's speeches on those subjects would seem forced and weak -- full of caveats, backtracking and wavering. Sensing his lack of direction and determination on those issues, Congress would fail to follow his lead. President Giuliani would never get a truly originalist Justice through the Senate, despite his promises to nominate them.
If I'm faced with the choice between a pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro-illegal immigrant candidate with an "R," or a pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro-illegal immigrant candidate with a "D" after his or her name, I don't really see the point in choosing one over the other. That letter doesn't mean as much to me as the person in front of it, and the principles for which he or she stands. Sure, one of them might fight terrorists more aggressively and keep the economy strong by not raising taxes. But for what purpose?
If Rudy Giuliani is the Republican nominee, we Conservatives have already lost the fight for America. The choice between Left and more Left is no choice at all.
Posted at Tuesday, October 09, 2007 by CavalierX
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
In some ways, six years can be a very long time. In others... well, not so much. Six years ago, shocked out of our complacency by the world's violent truth, Americans came together as a people for the first time in half a century. We swore to stand together against our common enemies. We vowed we would Never Forget. I still see those stickers on cars from time to time, faded and peeling. To so many people, that's all 9/11 means anymore -- a faded, tattered bumper sticker.
Just six years on, Democratic leaders spent two days -- including the anniversary of 9/11 -- in an all-out effort to see the US disgraced and our military retreat from the fight against terrorists in Iraq. Democratic Senators and Representatives alike flatly accused General David Petraeus, a career military man with an unblemished, honorable three-decade record of service -- of "cherry-picking" and manipulating data in exchange for... well, no one has indicated just what Petraeus might gain from lying. They're just certain that he is, because his report (eagerly anticipated by the same Democrats when they thought he might report failure) differs from their preconceived opinions... opinions basically hand-written for them by groups like MoveOn.org, which took out a full-page ad in the NY Times smearing Petraeus us "General Betray Us." Winning can only be considered "betrayal" if one actually sides with the enemy. Oh, but don't question their patriotism or their support for the troops!
One Democrat Presidential hopeful, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), recently went on Syrian television to attack President Bush, undermine our troops, give heart to our enemies and praise the dictator Bashar Assad -- who is allowing terrorists to funnel through his country into Iraq -- as a humanitarian who is helping bring about stability in the region! Suppose a politician (let alone a possible Presidential candidate) went on German radio during the WWII to denounce President Roosevelt's "illegal" and "immoral" war against Italy, demanding that he work with Germany to bring stability to Europe. The only debate in this country would have been whether to commit him to an insane asylum or execute him for treason.
Who knew, in the days and weeks that followed 9/11, that the Democratic party would have become so deeply invested in a US defeat at the hands of terrorists like those who attacked us that they would say anything, do anything to ensure victory for the kind of people who murdered nearly 3,000 people that day? Who would have believed that more than 40% of Democrats would think the US government actively planned 9/11, or at least allowed it to happen?
Our enemies know how divided the far Left has made this country. Osama bin Laden recently resurfaced spouting what sound suspiciously like Left-wing talking points -- railing against "neocons," issuing dire warnings about global warming, blaming the assassination of President Kennedy on evil corporations who wanted to keep the Vietnam War going, chiding Democrats for not getting US troops out of Iraq by now, bashing America for killing all but "a few specimens of Red Indians" and for using nuclear weapons against Japan in WWII. If it wasn't for his frequent references to religion and the fact that he's not a native-born American, he might be running for President.
Perhaps MoveOn.org mailed him the wrong talking points, and we'll start seeing Democratic politicians referring to the US as "the Great Satan" while demanding submission to Islamic law. To be honest, I wouldn't be all that surprised. To Democrats, there's nothing more important than being loved by the rest of the world, especially Europe... which is rapidly becoming Islamicised itself.
Before 9/11, bin Laden referred to America as the "weak horse" and a "paper tiger." He told his followers that Americans could not stand the sight of their own blood, and would crumble if his followers could only hold out long enough. With half the country desperate to forget about war and get back to American Idol, it's painful -- but necessary -- to admit that he may have been half right.
Posted at Wednesday, September 12, 2007 by CavalierX