Blue Collar Muse's blog

Driving While Conservative

My friend Josh at American Dad Blog alerted me to this article at The American Thinker.

Missouri State Police have been alerted to be on the lookout for subversive drivers who may be domestic terrorists or members of militia groups. How can Missouri Law Enforcement know the car in front of them might be carrying dangerous people? Why from their bumper stickers of course!

Among the bumper stickers listed as indicative of dangerous, anti-Americans behind the wheel are those supporting Ron Paul or other 3rd party candidates, the Gadsden flag, opposition to the North American Union, opposition to the President’s Mandatory Service agenda, the right to Keep and Bear arms and belief that the States are sovereign. All these and more are “identifiers” common to militia movements across the nation and should alert law enforcement to be cautious when dealing with occupants in cars displaying them.

In fact, they are told such people often consider police the enemy. To be fair, the report doesn’t claim that all people who hold such views are automatically terrorists bent on shooting cops at traffic stops. However, if you have such stickers on your vehicle in Missouri, tensions just went WAY up.

The officer approaching your car (who is carrying a firearm) has no way to know if you are a bad guy or not but he’s been told you might be. And you behind the wheel (who may also be armed) have no way to know if the officer is terrified you might be. Both of you are on heightened alert. How does one diffuse that situation? Will the officer ask for license, registration and white supremacist membership card, just to make sure? Should your first words be, “What did I do wrong, officer? And pay no attention to that Ron Paul nonsense on the bumper, I LOVE Barack Obama’s policies!”?

I understand the potential danger to law enforcement. But that is not an exclusively Right Wing phenomenon. The Left has their share of luncacy. Groups like Earth First and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) along with the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) destroy millions of dollars of property and endanger the lives of citizens and law enforcement alike. It’s reported that ELF is considered one of the major terrorist groups in the US by the FBI.

Why didn’t the Missouri report list Sierra Club and PETA bumper stickers along with “Animals Are People, Too!” as indicators of Domestic Terrorists?

Distributing this sort of alert to Law Enforcement at any level is outrageous and libelous. Can you imagine what the outcry would be if Missouri had suggested its troopers be on the lookout for “I (heart) Allah” bumper stickers? What about “My child is an honor student at our local madrassa” or “Hate is not a family value”? What if they were warned to be careful approaching a car sporting an NAACP sticker? What about a La Raza supporter sticker? Free Tibet?

All these are political and religious statements that are completely permissible under our Constitution and should not be taken as any sort of indication of the proclivities for violence the driver or occupants of a car may have. Such nonsense only perpetuates intolerance, hate, suspicion and all the things we say we’re trying to combat in this nation.

It’s too late to tell Missouri’s officers, “That report? Naaaah … just kidding!” The information is already out there and is having an impact. I cannot imagine a more irresponsible act than to compile and make public such an inflammatory report. The person issuing that report should be demoted or terminated. The state should issue an apology and assure citizens that their efforts are based on solid police work, investigation, facts and proof and not snap reactions to a piece of paper glued to a man’s auto.

Blue Collar Muse

Will Obama supporters break the law in the latest flag flap to hit the campaign?

Barack Obama and flaps over flags are nothing new. It seems every so often he or his campaign do something ignorant and then try to explain it away. Very rarely they are proven correct. Most often, however, they just look like anti-Americans. One has to wonder, “At what point do I stop believing this is all an accidental kerfluffle and begin to see a pattern?”  Bear Creek Ledger tipped me off to the latest one, but first a bit of history.

It started back in October of 2007 when a reporter asked Obama why he didn’t wear a flag pin in his lapel like other candidates. Obama’s response, including a lame definition of patriotism if there ever was one, was less than enthusiastically received by millions across the nation.

A month later came the “hand over the heart” brouhaha at a Tom Harkin event in Iowa. Widely, and incorrectly, reported to show Barack Obama without his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance, Americans were outraged that a Presidential candidate would not put hand over heart for the Pledge. Obama is quoted by ABC News dismissing his critics saying,

“This was not during the pledge of allegiance,” Obama said of the picture taken at Senator Tom Harkin’s, D-Iowa, annual steak fry and first published by Time. “A woman was singing the Star Spangled Banner when that picture was taken.

See the original photo by clicking here.

“I was taught by my grandfather that you put your hand over your heart during the pledge, but during the Star Spangled Banner, you sing!” Obama said.

Obama called the circulation of such pictures a “dirty trick” …

“I have been pledging allegiance since I was a kid,” Obama said.

Obama advised his supporters who receive such emails to ignore them.

“Just tell whoever sent it,” Obama told the crowd, “they’re misinformed.”

Unfortunately, it is Barack Obama who is misinformed. His actions did constitute disrespect for our flag. Hello! The title of the national anthem is, “The Star Spangled Banner”, after all. Here are the lyrics. Additionally, Cornell University Law School notes United States Code Title 36 §301states in section (b)(1)(A), “During rendition of the national anthem … all present except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart;”

The flap over the removal of the flag from the tail of Obama’s plane after a new paint job before flying to Europe is the only event that doesn’t seem to have held up under scrutiny. Fight the Smears got one right in pointing out that neither Obama or McCain displayed a flag on the tail of their respective aircraft. Each, however, did have one displayed on the fuselage. It was widely reported, including by me here at BCM, that Obama removed the flag from his plane. I both regret and have corrected the error.

Next up, the DNC.  Who can forget the story of thousands of US flags in trash bags to be thrown away?  Some argue the flags were being saved for donation or reuse.  In a weird twist, this is possibly worse than the initial disprespect.  Consider the specifics of how our flag is to be displayed, raised, lowered and stored.  Is anyone else gobsmacked that Democrats would defend stuffing flags in trash bags and leaving them on the ground near dumpsters saying they did it, not to dispose of them but to store them?

Which brings us to the latest flag follies. Michelle Malkin is reporting that there’s a new flag being flown in the NorthEast by some Obama supporters. It is unclear if the flag in question was commissioned by the Obama campaign or others. What is clear is that it is a plainly inappropriate use of the flag. As Malkin reports, the US Flag Code states, “The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.” But, as with other flag desecration, it will likely be dismissed by Obama supporters as “just a piece of cloth” and nothing really meaningful.

The real gem is found if one scrolls a little further down the page to the listing of “United States Code, Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 3.” There we find any Obama supporters carrying such a flag in DC to the inauguration will be committing a misdemeanor punishable by up to $100 in fines and up to 30 days in jail! Too bad I can’t attend the inauguration with my camera and a cell phone to report crimes in the process of being committed. My guess is there will be plenty.

Unless it’s too harsh to ask Obama, his campaign and his supporters to abide by the law and long standing custom, that is. If I am misinformed and this is yet another instance of my ignorance, I’m sure someone out there will let me know.

Blue Collar Muse

Politics and Religion: Christians and the GOP, 2008

Despite serious problems with the position, there remain people for whom it is true Evangelicals and other “Christians” cost the GOP the election in 2008.  The question must be asked why, when no data supports such an opinion, do people continue to hold it?  To be sure, some dislike that Christians believe in Creation and not Evolution and that homosexuality should be sinful and not celebrated.  But where is the political division in such views? 

If Christians hurt the GOP this cycle, then in prior elections: A) the GOP was primarily a haven for FisCons who are now being driven out by SoCons and their issues; B) key issues were more secular than religious or values based, and ; C) revulsion for Christians arose, basically overnight and with no warning, driving FisCon swing voters out of the GOP.  Let’s consider these points.

A - Fiscal Conservatism is, indeed, a draw to the GOP due to fiscally conservative planks in its platform.  Some FisCons are socially Moderate or Liberal and, thus, disagree with Socially Conservative FisCons.  This duality has existed for years.  If Fiscally Conservative yet Socially Moderate or Liberal voters abandoned the GOP in 2008, they did so because the GOP abandoned Conservative fiscal ideology as evidenced by budget items like Medicare and Bailout spending, not because a longstanding “live and let live” agreement with SoCons suddenly flared into a civil war.

B - Consider the terms “Values Voters”, “Moral Majority” and “Religious Right”.  They support the view of a strong contribution from Christians to the political process, past and present.  One can still debate the matter, of course, but however the question of SoCon political significance is answered, it refutes the premise Christians harmed the GOP in 2008.  If they were not influential from 1980 through 2004, where did they gain the power to derail the GOP in just 4 years?  If momentum is now in their direction, why alienate them?  Wouldn’t prudence dictate courting them?  If they were influential in 2004 and before, then “A” above applies and the origin of any rift is elsewhere.  Either way SoCons didn’t drive FisCons out of the party in contempt for ignorant, religious cousins.

C - Is there then a Republican rift so serious it may have cost the GOP the election?  There is, but not in the way it is being spun.  It does not exist between Conservative Republicans and Christians.  For the most part they share fiscal and social positions.  The rift is between Liberal Republicans and Conservative Republicans, including Christians.  It is Liberal GOPers proclaiming Christians as the culprit.  The strategy is to use religion within the GOP to divide secular Conservatives and religious Conservatives leaving secular Liberals to divide and conquer all Conservatives.

Secular Liberals hope to change the basis for coalition from fiscal issues to social issues.  They prefer the cornerstone be Social Liberalism with a welcome to Fiscal Conservatives than Fiscal Conservatism and a welcome to Social Moderates and Liberals.  That they do so using religion as the wedge is a classic implementation of the pragmatic philosophy emodied in the adage, “My brother and I against my cousin.  My cousin and I against my enemy!”  Secular Conservatives should be wary of this olive branch and wonder when Secular Liberals will come for them with no one left to object.

The question I’ve pondered is, “Why this wedge and why now?”  I found my answer in the biblical description of God as “the Lord God Almighty, Who was, and is, and is to come.”  Those pushing Christians out of the Party are comfortable with the God Who “was”.  That God is a fairy tale good for morality plays but with no claim on current morality.  Likewise, the God Who “is to come” is a fairy tale valuable as a threat.  Gone for years and not expected back today, He can be used to club the faithful and to strip their allies from them.

What is problematic, however, is the God “Who is”.  If Christianity exists in a positive light, people will ask about the God “Who is”.  They’ll find the backstory of the God “Who was”.  They’ll find the happy ending of the God “Who is to come!”  The authority of the God “Who is” threatens Liberals, GOP Liberals included.  Rejecting God’s authority, the only remaining authority to acknowledge is their own.  This must be protected from all usurpers, real and perceived.  If that means religious people get thrown under a political bus, it’s a small price to pay.

This Christmas season, we’ve heard talk about Christ - His birth, life and death.  Most of it has been positive.  But never forget Caiphas said, of this same Christ, “You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.” Pharaoh and Herod also believed destroying God’s Deliverer was the path to political power, security and longevity.  History records the legacies of these men and their schemes.  Secular Liberals, injecting that same ant-Christian vein into today’s “politics that is”, won’t fare any better.  In fact, biblical accounts of this behavior in the “politics that was” should serve as a warning for modern practitioners.  The “politics which is to come” don’t always turn out as you expect if you remove the God Who is.

Without doubt, there are other factors at work, as well.  But to those ridiculing Christians for believing God speaks to them in their hearts; to those who can’t understand how that could happen - try reading the headlines with what the Book calls “an ear to hear”.  You never know what you might hear if you are listening for it.

<a href="conservablogs.com/bluecollarmuse">Blue Collar Muse</a>

 

What Holiday are We Celebrating Here, Obamamas?

Some things just have to be seen to be believed! Just when you thought the dilution of the Christmas season couldn't get any worse, there's this.

I just opened my email and found this email from the President-Elect.

SUBJECT:Your Obama Holiday Mug

Ken --

This holiday season, celebrate the historic accomplishment of our movement for change. Treat yourself or a loved one to a limited edition Obama coffee mug.

Make a donation of $15 or more right now and get an official Obama mug to mark an amazing year:

Celebrate our historic accomplishment

Items purchased by December 15th are guaranteed to be delivered before December 25th.

When you make your donation, you'll be supporting the Democratic National Committee. The resources they invested in the 50-state organizing strategy made this movement possible -- help us build for future victories together.

Share this amazing moment with your friends and family. Thanks to supporters like you, we all have the opportunity to bring real change to America.

Get your holiday Obama mug today:

But when you click through the link to see the mug, this is the picture:

obama-holiday-mug.jpg

Excuse me? What holiday are we celebrating with this? I guess we're in for more change - evidently we're changing from Christmas to Obamamas ...

Blue

A Politically Preposterous Presidential Proclamation

What should the President do if he finds himself in the midst of wrapping up a war that has claimed the lives of many and divided a country; presiding over an Economy that has generally prospered despite the war and finds himself at odds with international partners because of the war?

If you are Abraham Lincoln you issue a proclamation of Thanksgiving. Let me be clear. You issue a proclamation of Thanksgiving not merely for the blessings you enjoy, but you pointedly name and offer homage to the Source of that blessing, "... The Most High God ... our beneficent Father ..." Whose " ... Almighty hand ... works in human history to accomplish ... the Divine purposes ...." If you are Abraham Lincoln you gratefully acknowledge God's gifts while beseeching Him for His mercy for "... our sins ... [and] ... for our national perversenenss and disobedience ...."

But of course, as is widely recognized by many of today's Republican intelligentsia, such public displays of religion and Christianity should be returned to the privacy of one's heart where they speak to no one; they should be avoided because of the damage such expressions of faith do to the Party's efforts to be about The People's business; they cannot help but push thinking and rational people away from the Party and towards the other side which has sensibly removed God from every last public place. A Party and a President who does such a thing deserves to be in the minority and will be seen by history as presiding over the destruction of the Party and its principles.

For the rest of Lincoln's proclamation which, as some historians have discovered, contributed to the healing of a nation; the unifying of a nation and the ascending of a Party to power and prominence, read on. Or you can just go back to your Turkey and dressing and shake your head at those Right Wing Religious nuts and their silly ideas about human dignity and worth, the nature of man, the struggle between Good and Evil and other interesting but irrelevant things ...

The year that is drawing toward its close has been filled with the blessings of fruitful years and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the Source from which they come, others have been added which are of so extraordinary a nature that they can not fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever-watchful providence of Almighty God.

In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign states to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere, except in the theater of military conflict, while that theater has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union.

Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the field of peaceful industry to the national defense have not arrested the plow, the shuttle, or the ship; the ax has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than theretofore. Population has steadily increased notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege, and the battlefield, and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom.

No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.

It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledged, as with one heart and one voice, by the whole American people. I do therefore invite my fellow-citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next as a day of thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners, or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it, as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes, to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility, and union.

In testimony wherof I have herunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Thank you to Bobbie Patray of the Tennessee Eagle Forum for reminding me of all of this, and ...

From my family to yours,

A Blessed and Joyous Thanksgiving ...

Blue Collar Muse

#dontgo Movement Offers Grassroots Power to the Right

For millions of Americans, the results on November 4th were sad but not surprising. They signaled the failure of an ideology which held power for years, promised much and delivered little.

To some, the failure was due to problems inherent in Free Markets, Capitalism, Limited Government, Social Conservatism and the rest of the foundations of Conservative thought. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Barack Obama's message was electing John McCain meant "4 more years" of George Bush. He was right. Unsaid was that electing him would be worse! Apart from the War on Terror and SCOTUS picks, what Bush accomplishments would Obama have problems with?

Bush has grown Government with a GOP controlled Congress for 6 of his 8 years. Obama is unhappy about that? Congress passed the Medicaid spending increase. Obama is unhappy about that? Congress passed Kennedy's Education Bill. Obama is unhappy about that? Social Security Privatization failed. Obama is unhappy about that? Immigration? The Bailout? Obama is even talking about Welfare disguised as Tax Cuts for heaven's sake! One could go on and on.

On too many issues and at too many levels, Conservative principles did not fail, Conservative principles failed to be upheld!

There were bright spots. The defeats of Harriet Meiers' nomination, the Immigration Reform bill and the Dubai Port Deal come to mind. Common to these successes was the grassroots involvement of everyday Americans refusing to allow Government to take the nation in the wrong direction. We did it then, we can do it again.

This morning, the #dontgo Movement gives us that opportunity! #dontgo was founded by Eric Odom and Allen Fuller on a Friday in August when Nancy Pelosi and Democrats turned off the lights in the People's House and went home. Big Government and Democrats didn't have time for you. But many GOP House members believed different! They stayed and told Democrats, "Don't Go! Come back and finish the People's business!" With no cameras or microphones, those voices went basically unheard.

Until Odom and Fuller put up a Twitter hashtag - #dontgo. The word started trickling out. Until Odom and Fuller put up a website #dontgomovement.com so cellphone video, pictures and blog posts could get out. Until the MSM picked up what grassroots, New Media activists were doing and for the next month, the message "Don't Go!" followed Nancy Pelosi from book signing to book signing! Better, tens of thousands of people rallied to one of the most successful grassroots efforts on the Right in years.

That was 2 months ago. While the issue birthing #dontgo is no longer a rally point, people are still looking for a voice to speak to Big Government to foster change! Good news. Odom and #dontgo didn't stop working and growing when the microphones moved on to the next issue. This morning brings us this:

“Center Right Movement Heats up the Internet”
Conservative Bloggers See Netroots As Key To Advancing Policy

On Monday, November 10th www.dontgomovement.com will host an e-launch party to celebrate its fully-functional website and new online radio show devoted to advancing conservative netroots activism.

#dontgo originally began as a simple internet tag that the founders would put on their blog posts while tracking the energy debate by the US Congress on August 1st, quickly it became used by hundreds of activists including members of Congress not just to track the energy bill, but to energize and push conservative values. Soon thereafter the site was created and to date has 30,000 opt-in email subscribers.

The #dontgo Revolution takes web-based strategies and tactics that Democrats used in the last election cycle to advance conservative views and values. The mission is to develop a fifty state strategy of blogs and internet social networks that would get more conservatives active in their communities leading into the 2010 elections.

Communications Director Juliana Johnson states, “As we witnessed in the 2008 elections web-based strategies are imperative. Conservatives have time and time again failed to use the internet to attract voters and get more people active. We hope that with the launch of this website we will be able to effectively wage the battle of ideas with the left in cyberspace.”

Monday’s radio show (online) will air at 5pm CST. In order to listen please go to www.dontgomovement.com and on the right there is a button “listen to #dontgo radio”.

CONTACT: Juliana Johnson, Director of Communications
(312) 575-9500 (office)
(847) 691-9278 (cell)
julianatjohnson@gmail.com

If you're a an eActivist - a blogger, vlogger, podcaster, internet radio host or wiki editor - head to dontgomovement.com and sign up. If you're a traditional activist - a door knocker, phone caller, envelope stuffer, poll watcher or election day driver - head to dontgomovement.com and get involved. You'll be building the state-by-state, city-by-city, block-by-block structure needed to rein in Liberals regardless of Party. And you'll enable the election of politicians who won't just campaign to the Right, they'll govern that way, too!

This is not just a hope! We've seen people work together, they can bring real change. Your passion has moved you in the past. #dontgo gives that passion an effective outlet. Come join us!

Blue Collar Muse

The South's McCain Voters are Racists

They are also uneducated, out of step with the rest of the country, to be pitied, isolated, suffering in the area of "jobs, education and development", ideologically aligned with the old Confederacy, at odds with the values of the rest of the country, and are getting what they deserve because they won't "... get with the right program." Hat tip to Dan Cleary for making sure I was aware of this.

Or you could ask Dwight Lewis at The Tennessean. Lewis learned all this in a phone interview with "... David A. Bositis, senior political analyst for the Washington-based Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies ..." He felt it true and significant enough to share it with all of us. The Tennessean evidently agreed with him. Why publish his lunacy otherwise?

The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies is a misleading name for the group. Per Lewis, the politics and economy the JCPES finds worthy of studying are those "... of concern to African-Americans and other people of color ..." The picture at their site includes pictures of Asians and Hispanics. However, reading through the headlines on their site, the only people of color mentioned are either Blacks or African Americans. There is one vague reference to "America's minorities."

This is the environment in which Bositis' claims must be evaluated. And what is Bositis' basis for making such outrageous claims? It's his analysis of who voted for John McCain and who voted for Barack Obama. He has lots of high sounding analysis. I'll save you some time. Anyone who voted for John McCain is all of those things in the opening paragraph. Anyone who voted for Barack Obama is not.

No word on the character of Barr, Baldwin and Nader voters. Words fail to describe how offensive Bositis' words are, or should be, to every man or woman who supported a candidate OBO, "Other than Barack Obama." Obviously, however, Lewis, Bositis and presumably some of their readers and supporters believe this tripe. I would point out the position of Lewis and Bositis are, on their face, far more racist and divisive than that of any of John McCain's supporters of any color. Except, I must be wrong. It's not possible for Blacks to be racist. Jesse Jackson himself told us so.

When people criticize me for declaring Barack Obama is not my President, I'll take comfort in knowing that he is not mine, although he is Mr. Lewis' President and he is Mr. Bositis' President. To all you who want to claim Barack as your own, enjoy their company. Barack forged a coalition he greatly desired to get him elected. It contains a great many fine people who mistakenly believe in the untested, unproven promise of Barack. It also contains a great many craven, twisted racists such as Mr. Lewis and Mr. Bositis. Their bile and ignorance, passed off as lofty and intellectual analysis, is rubbish if for no other reason than it fails to address the rationale for McCain voters elsewhere. That such thinking might be indicative of the actual change and hope we'll see as opposed the empty rhetoric Obama offered ought to terrify Americans.

Men like Lewis and Bositis are destroying Dr. Martin Luther King's dream of integration. They are callously dividing our nation along racial lines for purposes I cannot fathom. How any sane and educated individual in 2008 can believe, let alone put into print in what should be respectable publications, the notion that millions of Americans may legitimately be labled racist and backward based solely on the vote they cast is beyond outrageous.

I've read it in a score of places in the last 48 hours. I cannot help but repeat it here. It's going to be a long 4 years ...

Blue Collar Muse

MY President or Just THE President

Tuesday night, Barack Obama spoke to a waiting country and a wondering world. Found in his words are a myriad reasons to reject what he stands for. The election is over and Obama is President. Some say the healing must now begin and we must unite behind Barack. Obama himself appealed "...to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn -- I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too."

I say, Obama will be the President; but he will never be my President. Obama wants what he is unwilling to give. To get the job, Obama divided us. Now on the job, he yearns for unity's strength. But leopards don't change their spots. As he ran, so will he govern. I will not be a party to that.

Obama's speech text is here. The video is here. Please read it before reading my comments.

When Obama "wonders if the dream of our founders is alive", I remember what those Founders wrote. They were "dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." Obama believes some men are more equal than others. When advocating for nonexisent rights or for granting more rights to some than to me, he will be the President, but not my President.

When Obama says he wants to "... renew this nation's promise ... to restore prosperity ... to reclaim the American Dream ..."; when he speaks of "remaking this nation" I must ask, when was the promise broken and by whom; who stole our prosperity; who moved the American Dream out of reach of everyday Americans and who pulled down our nation that it needs to be remade? For a century, it has been the ideological allies of Barack Obama who have done so. When raising our taxes, curtailing our liberty, weakening the defense of our country and bankrupting our businesses and Economy - Obama will be the President, but not my President.

When Obama says his Presidency was launched in "the living rooms of Concord" and financed "by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give ... to this cause" I marvel at his deception. When he enters the Oval Office it will complete a journey begun in the living room of William Ayers' and which traveled a path financed by thousands of people Obama will not identify, many of whom are not even Americans. He will enter the office of the President, but not my President.

When Obama says "... the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime ..." and references our military and families worried about tomorrow, I recoil in horror from the cavalier exploitation of those about whom he is ignorant. My son is in the military he will command and I have four more children at home to care for. When he sends my son into harm's way but threatens not to support him while there; when he takes money for which I labor and which I need to support my family to give to families he decides need it more he will be the President, but not my President.

When Obama calls for "a new spirit of patriotism", I struggle to find something wrong with the old one. When Obama gives away our sovereignty and national interests to our enemies and those who would weaken us he will be the President, but not my President.

When Obama calls for us to "look after not only ourselves, but each other" and to believe "that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers" I marvel at his hypocrisy. Under the old spirit of "service and responsibility" he would replace, Americans were the most generous and industrious people on earth. When Obama decides who it is I must sacrifice for and brings suffering to Main Street via higher taxes for the Wall Street Bailout he will be the President, but not my President.

Obama’s words are empty. His promise is hollow. His dreams are nightmares. To be my President, he must deny everything he confesses to believe in. He must repudiate his stated policies. He must realize the paradise he seeks is found in the principles and promises of others. As the President, he may invoke the imagery of Lincoln, King and Kennedy but his appeal to their memory defiles their legacy.

He says he will be my President. But he will not because he cannot. To expect me to believe otherwise insults me. And that, too, is something my President would not do.

Blue Collar Muse

The Next Steps for Conservatives

While I'm unwilling to concede just yet that Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States, it would be foolish to deny that possibility. Even if John McCain wins, the status of Conservatism in the GOP and politics generally is troubling at best.

Politicians and The People, with few exceptions, seem determined to abandon sound, proven truths for the warm, fuzzy rhetoric of the Economic and Social policies of "Hope!" and "Change!" It's difficult to blame The People. They gave the GOP a shot at letting Conservative ideology work it's magic on the country for years. Turns out the Pols weren't as Conservative as advertised.

The years after the Reagan era are defined by a GOP wanting more to breed and less to lead. GOP strategy was "What must we do to increase our power and get re-elected?" instead of "What must we do to serve the people and earn our re-election?"

The nominations of Bob Dole, W and now John McCain coupled with the strategy of many GOP House and Senate candidates has reinforced that approach. A notable exception, AZ Representative John Shadegg, says even at the height of 1994's Republican Revolution the GOP's advice was his most important job wasn't to represent his district or promote his constituents' values; it was to get re-elected.

This approach has tainted Conservatism in the minds of the people. It has become identical to, or at least wed to the GOP. Thus the sins of the Party become the sins of the Principled. Even if Conservatives object, pointing out they never countenanced bad behavior by the GOP (The Bailout, No Child Left Behind, Medicare Reform) The People still see them as part of the problem and not the solution. How else to understand what happened to Rick Santorum, George Allen and others?

Such losses make the Democrats' job easier. Each defeated Conservative frees up time, energy and moneyto defeat those remaining. Squishy GOP members voted with Democrats enough to permit them to establish portions of their agenda and to regain solid Congressional majorities. Two things will follow: those who believe the Left can be reasoned with and appeased will be rudely awakened and the country will suffer. To date, only the second is happening.

GOP snubbing of Conservatives has produced much soul searching. The choices are stay in the GOP and work internally for change or leave to found or join a third party. I'm not advocating either choice. But enabling the status quo is not an option. We each must decide what the best use is of our time and talents. To decide, regardless of who wins the White House, a few things should be influential.

Christopher Arledge at Red County has written 'The End of American Conservatism?' and at The Minority Report, Civil Truth has penned 'A Time for Choosing: Even Truer 44 Years Later'. They are as good a starting place as any for Conservatives asking where they go from here. I commend them to you. If you find, or if you have written, posts with similar themes, let me know and I'll aggregate them here as a resource.

It is impossible to predict the consequences of next week's election. It is, however, quite possible to predict what will happen if Conservatives do nothing. Surrender and chains being unacceptable options, regrouping and fighting on will have to do for now ...

Blue Collar Muse

Colin Powell is a Republican?

Sitting in airports most of yesterday, I got an earful of CNN's coverage of Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama.

It effectively undercut two of the most damning truths about Obama. Particularly galling was the interview with Claire McCaskill. Grinning like the Cheshire cat, she gushed Obama must be the best choice since Powell, a military man, would never support someone unqualified to serve as CinC or who trafficked with terrorists. This despite the fact Powell's endorsement included nothing addressing the validity of those two points. Even afterward, General Powell did not address with specificity his rationale for endorsing Obama.

By far, however, the most disappointing aspect of Powell's endorsement was his contention that, despite his decision, he still considers himself a Republican. I do not know the General nor have I ever spoken to him. I believe he is a good man and his skilled service to our country as a military man is beyond exemplary. But I cannot accept his contention that he is a Republican. It is not because he endorsed the nominee from the other side. It is his stated reasons for doing so.

Over the last 8 years, three prominent Democrats endorsed the GOP nominee; Zell Miller, Democratic Senator from Georgia; Ed Koch, former Democratic Mayor of NYC and Joe Lieberman, former Democratic Senator from CT and 2000 Democratic VP nominee. When these Democrats endorsed the GOP nominee, they did so deliberately and with specificity. They did so while remaining Democrats. With the exception of Zell Miller, they did so while disagreeing with Republicans on almost every other point except the War on Terror. Concluding aggression against the US was the greatest threat to the nation and that Democrats could not or would not see that, these men broke with their party to support a GOP nominee. Miller's endorsement followed in the well established DixieCrat tradition of Conservative southern Democrats. There was nothing that demanded these men be excluded from the Democratic Party.

There was a fair amount of criticism from the Left directed at these men for their decision. Like Powell, however, they maintained they were still Democrats while breaking with the party on the war. That break cost them. While Miller retired shortly after his endorsement, he was villified by Leftists. Lieberman was actively opposed by the Democratic Party in his bid for reelection to the Senate. These men remain Democrats in all things except for their endorsements. Ed Koch is supporting Obama and thinks Palin is scary. Joe Lieberman still caucuses with Democrats and votes with them on virtually all matters not related to the war. It is clear, whether or not you agree with their assessment of the war, that was the reason they supported the nominee from the GOP.

Colin Powell's rationale isn't even close to as specific. It's filled with nebulous and meaningless platitudes. Obama brings a fresh set of eyes to the problem. Well, so does Sarah Palin. Obama is inclusive. This is simply laughable as there is literally zero evidence for that. If inclusiveness is the criteria by which we are to judge, McCain is the hands down winner. Powell is uncomfortable with the rhetoric coming out of the McCain camp regarding Obama's association with terrorists, both foreign and domestic. Evidently he is OK with the rhetoric coming from the camps of terrorists, both foreign and domestic, that support the Illinois Senator.

In short, Powell's objections to McCain aren't policy based. They aren't ideologically based. They seem to be based in personality. That is not to say personality has nothing to do with how to evaluate a candidate. But it ought to be last on the list and certainly not a basis for abandoning party policy and ideology. Unless, of course, your policy and ideology is more akin to the other guy's than to the one you are generally associated with.

Colin Powell, when asked if he was still a Republican, responded that he was. With all respect to the General, I must disagree. There is little evidence from his speech that he is. His endorsement of Obama ignores that Obama is for bigger Government, higher Taxes, decreased personal Liberty, weaker national Defense and a host of other anti-GOP notions. Powell does not list a single issue or policy with which Obama is at odds with the GOP and which he considers paramount beyond all considerations for the safety and security of our nation. Instead, he gives a general and sweeping endorsement of the man and his policies which are unquestionably Left of center.

If you can explain to me how this is a Republican view, I'm willing to listen. But from here it sounds like a Democrat in GOP clothing standing up for what he believes in. I have no issue with the good General if he wants to hold Democratic views. I would appreciate, however, the intellectual honesty to admit the same and make the announcement that he cannot, in good conscience, remain in the GOP any longer and that he was endorsing the Democratic agenda.

That's an endorsement I could respect.

Blue Collar Muse

Syndicate content