Reclaiming Conservatism

MSM Notes New Currents on the Right.

In an "Ideas and Trends" piece appearing in the New York Times today (July 20), Patricia Cohen reports on matters germane to the very essence of TheNextRight; the evolution of American conservatism in the era after George W. Bush. Some familiar names appear, such as that of David Frum, Christopher DeMuth, and Grand New Party authors Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam. Ms. Cohen aptly describes the issues faced by the conservative movement going forward:

Today, all of these policy cooks — as well as others who sit in nearby offices — are pushing wildly different ideas about which direction the party should take. A.E.I., like so many other bastions of the intellectual right, has returned to the kitchen to whip up a fresh menu of possibilities for disaffected conservatives looking for solutions to emerging problems like energy, the environment and immigration, as well as a way to comfortably fit these new ideas into a conservative ideological framework.

Ms. Cohen even quotes Mr. DeMuth as aptly saying:

We’ve been extremely discouraged by the policy trajectory of the Bush administration, with big increases in unfunded entitlements, big increases in deficit spending, considerable growth in government regulation

Indeed, the ideas piece linked to above goes on to note the division apparent on the Right on even such questions as the legacy and relevance (or lack thereof) of President Reagan to the future and success of conservatism. But, even as the NY Times piece notes, this debate will continue well beyond November 4:

Election day would seem to be the pivotal moment in this debate. Adam Bellow, a conservative book editor, recently argued that “the G.O.P. will not be revived through the efforts of intellectuals but by a talented politician who can build a new majority coalition. When that happens, as eventually it will, the intellectuals will be there to translate his or her political instincts into a new conservative ideology.” But as Ramesh Ponnuru, a senior editor at National Review, long a flagship of the right, said: “Whether or not McCain wins, there is going to be a lot of rethinking among conservatives.”

Emphasis mine. Do we yet know the identity of such a politician, or has such a figure yet to emerge? Discuss.  


On Torching the Village

An insidiously stubborn idea has taken hold in some corners of the conservative movement as the Republican Party sets off on its quest to rediscover its identity.  Apparently, after too many hours in the sweat lodge, some conservatives have emerged having experienced apocalyptic visions leading them to believe that in order to restore the true, natural order of things, the conservative movement must set itself ablaze in the hope that new life will spring forth from the ashes.  In order to start the fires, they believe that conservatives must withold support for John McCain and allow Barack Obama to be elected to the White House.

Given the current sorry state of the Republican Party and seeming aimlessness of the conservative movement, I must admit that the imagery conjured up by such thoughts does make it a tempting idea.  But, for the reasons I lay out below (and many others I've yet to consider, I'm sure), it's a bad idea.

The Economy:  The marauders of conservatism believe that John McCain's opposition to the Bush tax cuts in 2001, and his use of what they quite reasonably believe is class warfare rhetoric, prove that he is not an economic conservative.  This leads them to conclude that once in office, McCain will pursue an agenda that will do serious harm to the economy, leading conservatives and the Republican Party to be saddled with the blame, permanently damaging the conservative movement.

So, in order to prevent this damage from occurring, they reason that by allowing Barack Obama to be elected, he will be able to implement an economic policy with the help of a Democrat-controlled House and Senate that will be so disastrous that voters will be chastened by their decision to put them in power, and will never make such a stupid mistake again.  As someone recently put it to me, if the economy is going to tank, it would be better to "let the Democrats take the hit."  This relies on a couple of variables that are far from certain at this point.

First, you have to assume that the economy will actually tank, which given its cyclical nature, is an even bet at best.  In 1992, when Bill Clinton managed to get himself elected to the White House, the economy had already begun a recovery from one of the briefest recessions in the nation's history.  And, while it's true that two years into his administration he managed to lose both houses of Congress, giving control to the GOP for the first time in forty years, it wasn't as a result of the economy's performance so much as it was a visceral rejection of an agenda that tacked far more harshly toward the left than the public was willing to tolerate.  Also, there was a stench of corruption that hung over the administration, as well as a series of embarrassing failures in staffing the cabinet and enacting the Clinton agenda.

So, while it may seem strategic to ghoulishly hope for the collapse of the economy under an Obama administration, it's far from a sure bet.  And, to use the experience of past Democratic administrations as a template is to assume that all of the unpopular, and none of the popular characteristics of those administrations will show up in Obama's.  Furthermore, even in the rosiest (as it were) of scenarios, where the wheel come off the entire operation in the first two years, you have to assume that the Democrats will be blamed and that the GOP will benefit.  Again, this is far from certain, given the success that the Democrats will likely enjoy in the upcoming Congressional elections, despite spiraling gas prices and the struggling economy that have come about during its tenure.

But all of this doesn't in itself point to a rationale for actively supporting John McCain's candidacy.  It only spells out the reasons why conservatives shouldn't bank on Democrat ineptitude as a herald for a conservative resurgence.  So, you may ask, why should conservatives support McCain?

Well, for beginners, McCain has already pledged to maintain the Bush tax cuts beyond their sunset in 2010.  His reasoning for doing so is that he would view their expiration as a de facto tax increase, in which case he is right and there's hardly a conservative who would argue against that point.  So, while many economic/fiscal conservatives may be apprehensive about McCain's enthusiasm for tax cuts, particularly for those in higher brackets, there is at least some solace to be found in his hostility for tax increases.

But, there is also reason for conservatives to support McCain as a tax cutter.  While some may still be dismayed at his past rhetoric in opposition to tax cuts for the highest earners, there is good reason to believe that it was largely politically strategic rather than an expression of deep-seated populist inclinations.  After all, one would be hard pressed to find a single populist in history who favored reducing corporate tax rates from 35% to 25%.  And, one would be even harder pressed to find an economic conservative who wouldn't favor such a cut, which would bring the US closer to corporate tax rates employed by our trading partners and competitors. 

So, while it is unclear that an Obama administration will necessarily bring about economic calamity of such magnitude that it will guarantee a resurgence of conservatism, it seems abundantly clear that McCain's proposed cuts in corporate tax rates, as well as his proposed tax credits for research and development and the first-year deductibility of investment in equipment and technology will provide significant benefits to the economy.  This would certainly have better long term impact than Obama's promise to roll back the tax cuts which President Bush enacted and McCain now pledges to extend.

National Security:  While some conservatives have grown weary of America's involvement in Iraq as a consequence of a poorly managed post-war insurgency, the vast majority still view victory as ultimately attainable and necessary.  Some may argue that America has already lost too much in the pursuit of establishing a democracy in a place where democracy isn't a deeply ingrained tradition and has shown itself to be a rather iffy proposition in the past.  This is a fair point, but in the end, it is not the sole point of the exercise.

Our current presence in the region is largely a consequence of failures in previous administrations to show resolve in America's defense of its interests abroad.  A series of flaccid-to-non-existent responses to challenges and attacks by terrorist groups and a lack of retaliation of any kind against their state sponsors understandably led hostile regimes and their terrorist proxies to feel comfortable that attacks on our interests would bring more benefits than costs.  Therefore, America came to be seen as a weak-willed, impotent behemoth tied down by the lilliputian forces of Islamic fundamentalism and its own fear of ruffling the legalistic feathers of our erstwhile diplomatic allies, as well as our own State Department.

This feckless vision of American foreign policy has already reared its head in Barack Obama's campaign in both its incoherence as well as its reflexive inclination toward appeasement.  Already, we have seen shifting definitions of "pre-condition" and "preparation" along with an overall predisposition toward dialogue with heads of state whose stated desires include the complete destruction of one of our greatest strategic allies, Israel.  Worse still, the dialogue being sought centers around the acquisition of nuclear technology that would no doubt be used to bring about that destruction.  This is akin to police negotiating with a hostage taker over what sort of weapons he is allowed to use and what demands he will be allowed to make before he takes the hostages.

John McCain recognizes this, and has stated flatly that he will not be a party to negotiations with rogue nations until they have demonstrated a cessation of their pursuits and a recognition of Israel's right to exist as a sovereign nation.  He understands that sitting across a negotiating table from dangerous thugs only grants them a air of credibility and legitimizes their most nefarious aims.  Barack Obama, on the other hand, would grant a morally level playing field to some of the most repugnant dictators and fanatics the world has ever known on the fatuous assumption that there is some common ground to be found.  History has demonstrated the disastrous folly of granting legitimacy to the aims of those who seek the domination of other nations in pursuit of power and grandeur.

Conservatives who fail to recognize the gravity of the differences between John McCain and Barack Obama on this issue have lost sight of the immense toll that appeasement imposes on nations through the interruption and loss of life.  And, while it may be tempting to hope that the fallout of wrongheaded foreign policy will only be felt by the party that perpetrates it, the potential global devastation that could come as a result of it far exceeds not only the political gains that could possibly be realized from it; it would likely exceed the devastation of any war the world has ever known.

The Courts:  Of all the issues that have take precedence within the conservative movement over the past thirty years, none has been more hard-fought than the shape of the federal courts.  While at times I've been skeptical of the overall influence that the conservative legal community has held over the larger agenda of the movement as a whole, it is undeniably a crucial component of reining in the power and scope of the federal government, which is ultimately the goal of conservatism.  This could very well be the biggest obstacle to conservative support for John McCain, given his history with the Gang of Fourteen and McCain-Feingold.

And, while the issues underlying these matters are of great importance to conservatives, I would submit that the fallout from them is less grave than McCain's most vociferous critics contend.  In the case of the Gang of Fourteen, there is a case to be made that its emergence has been to the overall benefit of conservatives.  While many conservative legal activists were spoiling for a confrontation over the legitimacy of judicial filibusters, it's far from certain, given the composition of the court at the time, that the outcome would have favored Senate Republicans.  Furthermore, given the political climate at the time, it's even less certain that it would have been an issue that reaped any benefits.  And, not to put too fine a point on the matter, considering the composition of the Senate as it currently stands, not to mention as it likely will be come November, the idea of judicial filibusters looks much more palatable than it did a couple of years ago.  McCain's efforts in that regard guaranteed the confirmation of some excellent judges, which is undeniably a good thing.  Sadly, it left a lot of nominations in limbo, but there was no guarantee that many -- if not most -- of those nominations woudln't have simply been rejected.  I would also submit that there is even less certainty that the courts would have intervened in Senate business due to the separation of powers, but that's a debate for another day.

With regard to McCain-Feingold, I was staunchly opposed to its passage just as most conservatives were.  I do feel that it was an unnecessary restriction on free speech rights, and that it was an overreach by the judiciary.  But, the fact remains that the President signed it into law, and the Supreme Court held it to be Constitutional.  Still, that's not the end of the story, as courts have already held that some provisions go to far, and there's no reason to believe that the battle is over on the issue.  Many conservatives question whether or not McCain would be willing to appoint justices who would undermine his signature piece of legislation, and that's a legitimate question in my mind.  However, he has pledged to appoint justices in the mold of Samuel Alito and John Roberts, and he has surrounded himself with some highly respected legal advisors in his campaign.  There is reason for optimism that he appoint solid conservative judges irrespective of how they feel about his campaign finance reform legislation.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, has shown absolutely no predisposition toward appointing judges who are even faintly acquainted with the concept of judicial restraint.  In fact, has explicitly expressed a disdain for judicial restraint and shown an inclination toward activism when Justice Alito appeared before the Senate for confirmation:

"Both a [conservative Justice Antonin] Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time," he said during the Roberts confirmation hearings. "What matters at the Supreme Court is those 5% of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction will only get you through 25 miles of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.

"In those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart."

Given the sentiments Obama expressed during Alito's confirmation, is there any doubt as to the sort of judges he will seek out in staffing the nation's courts?  And, given the fact that there will likely be two, possibly three, retirements from the Supreme Court in the course of the next four years, how wise is it for conservatives to hope for the worst in order to usher in the best?

The makeup of the court will likely be set for a generation in the next four years.  For conservatives to relinquish the chance to mold the Supreme Court into a more originalist shape in a pique of ideological disillusionment would not only constitute a missed opportunity, but would compound the problems that we face today, and perpetuate them for another 20 - 30 years.  Given the resources that have been expended on this front, and the enormity of the consequences of surrender, it would seem unthinkable to any conservative to cede this unique opportunity to place conservative justices on the court, rather than allow another generation of judicial activism to take hold, possibly never to be undone.

So, while many conservatives are dismayed with the Republican Party as it now exists, there is no benefit to be gained by sentencing another generation to a life of unfettered liberal activism in the courts, the consequences of an incompetent, incoherent foreign policy, and the confiscatory taxes and ever-increasing burden of entitlement spending that will be foisted on it by a Democratic president seeking to undo what precious little has been accomplished in our most recent squandered opportunity.  Now is not the time to punish America in the quest to mete out recriminations against politicians, no matter how badly they betrayed us.  It's a time to plow forward and redouble our efforts in bringing honest, genuine, principled conservative governance to the people.  As bad as things may seem in the village today, burning it down is not going to save it.

Hoping for Carter Redux

Of all the insidious conservative rationales for witholding support from John McCain, the most foolish one has to be the idea that by allowing Barack Obama, Republicans will save the party from being redefined leftward.  Yet, some clearly not-stupid people cling to this canard as a justification for abstention.  What this amounts to is an act of petulance gussied up in the finery of lofty principle.

These intractable conservatives have convinced themselves that a McCain victory in the fall will be interpreted by the press as a rejection of the core principles of the Republican Party by the rank and file.  However, there is no reason that this must be the case.  There are other ways to interpret a McCain victory, and the responsibility for how it is ultimately portrayed rests in the hands of Republicans themselves.  A vote for McCain need not be a vote for a cap-and-trade system for reducing carbon emissions when it can more accurately be described as a vote against windfall profits taxes and extreme regulatory controls.

But, in the end, a McCain victory won't be interpreted in either way.  When the election is over, and the media outlets start pouring over the exit poll results, the winner is going to be defined by the war in Iraq.  McCain supporters won't be going to the polls because they think he has the best answer to the global warming/climate change "crisis".  They won't be going to the polls to show appreciation for his efforts toward campaign finance reports.  They won't be going to the polls because they believe he was right to have opposed the Bush tax cuts in 2001.  None of those things will register very highly, if at all, among the priorities of McCain voters.

Instead, the winner will be decided on three issues, any one of which could take precedence over the others between now and November:  (1) Gas prices, (2) the economy, and (3) the war in Iraq.  None of McCain's stances on any of these issues is a threat to conservative orthodoxy or the traditional Republican Party platform.

However, if Barack Obama wins the election, you can rest assured that it will be interpreted by the press as a wholesale rejection of the every bit of conservatism that marked the Bush years by the voting public as a whole.

The GOP Is On Life Support

The following is a post written by the political analyst at A Newt One.

Twelve Step Program for Recovering Lost Conservatives (that is what I call it)


If I were the Chairman of the RNC, I would be reviled by libs like no other Republican- past, present and future....and I would enjoy every single minute of it. Though I would (like George W Bush) tolerate not even a hint of dishonesty or corruption in my ranks and in my party, I would be the most merciless and ruthless chair in the history of either party. As liberals attacked me on the house and senate floors, you would see the foam starting to ooze out of the corners of their mouths.

When we first started A Newt One, we were savaged and attacked with all manner of predictions of doom and gloom. Now, we have posted more than 300,000 hits in the last 3 consecutive months (and May is well on pace to make it 4). We have interviewed Michelle Malkin, Pam Geller, Bill Keller, Melanie Morgan, Buzz Patterson, Scott Rasmussen, Ed Morrissey, John Hawkins, Col Harry Riley, and scores of other upper tier guests and have established ourselves as one of the most hated blogs on the internet, from the vantage point of leftwing moonbats.

Those same moonbats who claim that Conservatism is dead watched the Conservative "The Corner" knock The Daily Kos from the #1 spot in bloggingdom. They have also watched every Conservative blog from Atlas (Shrugs) to (Weasel nut) Zippers rise meteorically.

Conservatism dead? Explain how we killed the Amnesty bill. Conservatism Dead? Explain how the Eagles took back the streets. Conservatism dead? Explain why every Democrat running for congress or the PTA can run fast enough to get in a pickup truck and fire a gun.

Is Conservatism dead in America? Far from it. Conservatism in America is stronger than ever. Fully 2/3 of Americans say raising taxes hurts economic growth. 3/4 of Americans want the damn wall built on our southern border. No Amnesty for illegals, no mercy for child predators, finish the job in Iraq- the surge is working. 4% of Americans think "Climate Change" is one of the top pressing issues in 2008.


Conservatism isn't dead anywhere in America. It is far from dead in most of America. However, there is one place where it is on life support........

The Republican party.

Democrats hail loss after loss by Republicans as evidence of a rejection of Conservatism. Just the OPPOSITE is the case! It is a rejection of the rejection of Conservatism by the very people we sent to Washington to exercise it.

If America has suddenly embraced "Progressivism" (or whatever else the fascist socialists are calling it this week), Travis Childers wouldn't have run as the second coming of Trent Lott in Mississippi. When Conservative voters have to look left to look right, many of them stay home.

When Republicans are ready to win again, they should simply listen to me. I am bold and brilliant and a master tactician. My ability to thwart all liberal attempts at attack is the stuff of internet legend and, yes, I do have all the right answers.

My advice comes from a razor sharp intellect and a train load of real-life experience. In short, I always win, and so would any Republican, following my advice and running in a state or district with an electorate to the right of Stalin.

My advice is blunt and brutally honest. I spare no feelings and I don't care. Don't get me wrong, I advocate nothing Illegal and I certainly do not seek to cause pain. It's just that, when people get their feelings hurt by the truth...well...don't expect me to feel bad about that.

Here it is. My Twelve step program to a permanent Republican majority. I know it won't be implemented. It makes too much sense. In fact, *most of the tactics have been in practice by the Democrats for eons.

*1- Fold the big tent up and burn it. Let's use John McCain as the standard. Any one that is not manifestly right of John McCain, gets no money or support. No tolerance for dissent from Conservative principles-economic, national security and social. Recruit only bonafides for candidates. Draft a rock rib Conservative platform and force prospective candidates to sign it or they get no support.

*2- Follow our lead and scrap the New Tone. The principle thing that makes A Newt One different from other blogs is that we have absolutely no problem fighting libtards with their own nasty tactics. We suffer no foolishness from moonbats whatsoever. Liberals believe they are entitled to be heard. They aren't. The place for liberals is in the corner, dunce cap on, mouth shut. Reagan wasn't nice to liberals. He laughed at them and made fun of them. He, then, steamrolled them. We need to do the same. Attack relentlessly and without mercy. Keep the Liberals on defense all the time by attacking them on the issues. Attack them in their own turf.

Pound the Americans daily with how liberal tax hikes will make their paychecks smaller, how environmental nuts they support make us import oil from terrorists and cost you $65 to fill your mini-van. Show Americans every day how the same party that talks ''healthcare costs'', kisses the backsides of trial lawyers who drive the costs up with bajillion dollar frivolous lawsuits. Make liberals defend all their wrong headed policies- every single one. Publish pictures of aborted fetuses and gay men swapping spit in a church. Show pictures of decaying schools from the districts of liberals who oppose school choice. Post pictures of children murdered by terrorists juxtaposed against the names and pictures of the gutless libtards who don't want to fight them. Produce videos of scientists deriding the folly of evolution and global warming theory. Appeal to American's common sense.

3- Follow the example of this year's Democratic primary season and pit liberal ''groups'' against each other. Divide and conquer. Use the racism and bigotry of liberals against them. Black vs White, Straight vs Gay, Old vs Young, Rich vs Poor. Fair? Maybe not. Nice? Certainly not.

I don't give a flip. Rule #1- Win. Rule #2- See rule #1. If you have to use their cut-throat tactics, so be it. This means that every stupid comment a libtard candidate makes, gets played 100,000 times. The same goes for every attack on one lib by another during primary season.

3- Promote fear of Islam. We are constantly accused of this. If only it were true. Tell the truth of this barbaric religion of murder. Reject the politically correct horseshit that Islam must be respected. It is a garbage religion. Say so. Emphasize daily that Islamic terrorists want to kill every American and the only way to stop them is to kill them and eradicate this malevolent religion of hate. Promise America that, if you are elected, you will put public school indoctrination into Islam to an end and vigorously oppose efforts to coddle Muslims (the flight 93 memorial). You will be ASTOUNDED at the level of support.

4- An aggressive promotion of ''homophobia''. Most Americans find fags disgusting and are sick to the point of rage with them being given special treatment.

5- Our policy re: Illegal Immigrants. Deport them. All of them. Fine the crap out of employers who hire them, even as subcontractors or subs of subs. Require a photo ID to vote, get a drivers license, go to a hospital or take a crap.  Build the wall 20 feet high and 6 feet thick and arm it with guards trained to shoot first and act questions second.

Again, advocate this policy and voters will line up 6 deep for miles to vote for you.

6- Pedophiles. Get a rope. First offense. The end.

7- Seditious bastards. See #6

8- No liberal attack goes unanswered. Ever.

9- Drill and Refine. Screw the Carabou and screw the liberals. Declare Oil blackmail to be a clear and present danger to our National Security and command it by Executive order.

10- Bomb Iran. Just bomb it. Quick, decisive, overwhelming. Dare anybody else to F with us.

11- Tell Israel to take off the gloves and do what they need to do.

12- Cut taxes seriously for upper and middle class. Top rate down to 10% Eliminate the Marriage penalty and the death tax.

Implement my agenda. You will win 45 States in a Presidential Election and 2/3 majorities in both houses.

I guarantee it.

"Change" Begins With Getting Involved

I wrote the following letter to my CONgress Critters and then faxed it to every DCite I had a good number for and then emailed it.  To thise I could not, I snail-mailed it.


If we want to revitalize Conservatism, the DCites MUST know that it is WE THE PEOPLE that dictate to DC and not the other way around.


Senator John Cornyn
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
Congressman Sam Johnson

You have been staunch supporters of our military and the Global War On Terror. For that, I thank you but I would appreciate it if you would relay a message to the very few Conservatives that remain in the very Dishonorable Halls of what was once an Honorable Congress.

There was a time when the Representatives and Senators actually cared about what their constituents in their respective districts cared about. Not any longer. They care more about deals between each other in order to garner support for their pet projects whatever and where ever they may be. They care more about the "squeaking wheel" and take that noise as the thought of the day.

There was a time when True American Patriotism reigned supreme. Not any longer. Patriotism has been swept aside by the cancer of Political Correctness. Patriotism has been buried by the sclerosis of Multiculturalism. Patriotism has been nullified by the mental disorder of Identity Politics. Patriotism has been crucified at the altar of Diversity.

There was a time when God, Country and Flag were the rallying calls. Not any longer. Surely the dead from wars past are churning in their resting places. Sometimes I often wonder why I bothered to serve my nation if all that is to come of it is to watch politicians hang us out to dry and give the country away to those that are undeserving of it.

There was once a time when the political leaders of this land actually justified their legislation by the United States Constitution. Not any longer. Now, legislation is based on emotions and wrangling of votes to remain in power no matter the consequences, long or short term.

There was a time when political leaders considered the ramifications of legislation using the long-term results and forward thinking. Not any longer. Now, everything in DC is done on the fly and most members think short-term to collect votes in the next election cycle. This is a sad state of affairs. It is also damaging to our nation and as caused damage beyond comprehension.

As you know, back in 1963, the following was read into the Congressional Record: Communist Goals (1963) read into the Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963; Current Communist Goals, EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; Thursday, January 10, 1963. I call it The List of 45.

Through the years hence, there have been scores of legislation passed that has zero foundation in the United States Constitution...Socialist Security which was robbed blind by the way, Welfare, Unemployment Insurance (one of the biggest jokes in my life-time), Abortion, Medicaid, Medicare, Prescription Drugs for the Elderly..and scores more. All of them are noble but the Federal Government should not be playing the controlling role nor the implementation of such programs. FDR started that socialist ball rolling and LBJ set it afire once more during his disastrous role as President.

The Federal Government has allowed the Judiciary run amok when by our Constitution, the Congress dictates to the court that which they will "review". The Federal Government has usurped the authority of the States time and time again, via the Judiciary. The Judiciary has dictated to the various States that their State Laws that their Legislators enacted as unconstitutional by an authority of which they do not possess. Why is that?

We are at a crossroads in this nation. Do we go or do we stay? Is the nation going by the way of Stalin, Lenin or Khrushchev? Will the political leaders of this nation allow the Stalinists take us from within or are we going to fight? In case you haven't noticed, the Jihadists are utilizing the same List of 45. CAIR proponents and leaders have stated that they will take the United States not by force but by re-education.

We have Jihadist Compounds throughout the United States teaching Jihad...Islamberg being one of them. Are you not paying attention or is it the fact that it isn't politically correct to identify the enemy? The only "radical Muslim" is the Muslim that doesn't practice Islam. The enemy we are fighting at this very moment and have been fighting since the early 1970s are practicing their religion and their religion teaches murder, rape and slavery. The Jihadists declared war on the United States years ago but no one was listening except those of us that were in battle...I find that unacceptable and perplexing all at the same time.

If you recall, Jihadists in this nation advocate the overthrow of this nation and have stated in the public domain that they will use our Constitution against us. Where have we heard this before? Are you paying attention or is the next voting cycle more important to you...personally.

Just once, I would like to hear of a politician actually demand of other politicians what the basis of their proposed legislation gets its Constitutional Authority. Just once I would like to see the proponents of Earmark and Pork Spending impeached for raping the American People. Just once I would like to see and hear politicians go out on a limb and drive the point home that this war - that we did not start - is a matter of our survival as a nation.

There are many parallels between the socialist/communist doctrine and Islamic Fascism doctrine and the Leftinistra - the armies of the socialist liberal - are great at passing that same doctrine off onto Conservatives. Just once I would like to have a Conservative politician call them on their garbage...if any had any moral courage and moral fortitude to do so.

Every single "liberal" piece of legislation has ended in dismal failure yet they do not call for redeployment. The War On Poverty has what? Failed? Yes, it has. The War On Drugs has what? Failed? Yes it has. There are many more such "liberal" failures yet we keep watching the Conservatives all in the name of detente with the socialist liberal back down and let them waltz all over them. Ronald Wilson Reagan must be sorely ashamed of those he entrusted with his legacy. I am. And I find it disheartening to say the least.

We watch as anti-Americanist organizations such as Code Pink finance our enemies to the tune of over $600,000. And this goes unchallenged because why? I call it cowardice. What do you call it? We watch former Presidents trash this country to our enemies and befriend our enemies and this goes unchallenged why? I call it cowardice.

I watch and listen to the current crop of DNC Presidential Aspirants trash this nation in public forums all in the name of what? Political gain? Political football? And they go unchallenged because why? Conservatives don't want to make waves why? No matter the answer you may get, I call it cowardice. They fear the media. They fear "bad press". I fear for my nation. I fear blood in the streets. The enemy is hear amongst us and the politicians play football with our lives and our nation all in the name of political gain and power. This is a travesty second to none and is quite unacceptable.

Perhaps, one day, we will have an Honorable Congress once more. Hopefully, it will be in my lifetime.

I have a son that has recently returned from serving in Iraq and I had another that was going to serve until he started paying attention to the "idiots in the media" and the "morons in DC". Those were his words. He said that he is going to be needed back here Stateside with the Jihad hits the fan here at home. And, it will if our Dishonorable Congress maintains the current track it is on.

When the cowards in DC allow the Leftinistra to run amok, I question their motives and Patriotism. I often wonder what it is they are patriotic towards and to whom or what they swear their allegiance. It certainly is not We The People.

There is "Two Americas" and we hear the Leftinistra prattle and yammer about uniting the country. But, who wants to unite under the banner of the United Socialist States of America? I shall not. I swore an Oath many moons ago to protect and serve this nation and to fight the enemy, both foreign and domestic. It would be nice if our Congress would do the same.

It is time to fight the Enemy Within and to declare that enemy a Clear and Present Danger.

No, Virginia...Conservatism Ain't Dead


In some way, some one has decided that Conservatism is dead in the water. There are articles and blog posts decrying the myth that Conservatism is dead. How they come to such a conclusion is beyond me but there are folks that seem to think that is the case. Apparently, they live in their own version of Upside Down Land.

I ran across this article earlier today entitled, The Fall of Conservatism: Have the Republicans run out of ideas? Naturally, the title was an attention snatcher and knowing The New Yorker, having been one of those many moons ago, I was curious what the rag had to say. We at A Newt One have already addressed this upon many occasions so, although we have beat this issue like a dead mule, we will continue to thrash Moonbatitis as long as it takes to vanquish the Mental Disorder of Liberalism.

First off, here are MUST READS:

I chose these four because this is the article that I am writing. We have scores more here at A Newt One that I would put up against the articles found at National Review, The Weekly Standard and The American Thinker. (We haven't grown as fast as we have because we suck.)

The article at The New Yorker opens up thusly:

The era of American politics that has been dying before our eyes was born in 1966. [...]

It must be sad to live in such doom and gloom. George Packer is a good writer and author. But, then again.........

Too many people think that Conservatism is specific to politicians and this is representative of a shallow minded and short-term induced conundrum brought about by not looking beyond one's preconceived suppositions. Whereas I can relate to the premise of the Conservative Movement as being dead, I cannot accept it because it certainly isn't true.

Conservatism lives within the American People. Much to the chagrin of the Leftinistra, the armies of the socialist liberal, the United States is a right leaning nation. We are constantly being asked by moonbats "what is a conservative?" I return the question, "what is a socialist liberal?" We can explain to the socialist liberal what a Conservative is until the cows drop dead (due to the Global Warming Myth) but they really don't want to know...they are seeking to distract and make fools of themselves. And, no, I didn't say that George Packer was a fool. One can read his writings and see for themselves that he isn't.

Having said all of the above, I will now say this by using a quote from a member of A Newt One:

[...] Those same moonbats who claim that Conservatism is dead watched the Conservative "The Corner" knock The Daily Kos from the #1 spot in bloggingdom. They have also watched every Conservative blog from Atlas (Shrugs) to (Weasel nut) Zippers rise meteorically.

Conservatism dead? Explain how we killed the Amnesty bill. Conservatism Dead? Explain how the Eagles took back the streets. Conservatism dead? Explain why every Democrat running for congress or the PTA can't run fast enough to get in a pickup truck and fire a gun.

Is Conservatism dead in America? Far from it. Conservatism in America is stronger than ever. Fully 2/3 of Americans say raising taxes hurts economic growth. 3/4 of Americans want the damn wall built on our southern border. No Amnesty for illegals, no mercy for child predators, finish the job in Iraq- the surge is working. 4% of Americans think "Climate Change" is one of the top pressing issues in 2008.


Conservatism isn't dead anywhere in America. It is far from dead in most of America. However, there is one place where it is on life support........

The Republican party. [...]

Perhaps using this analogy, the opening of Mr Packer's article makes sense. Conservatism IS DOA within the GOP. The recent losses in special elections reveal this because CONSERVATIVE Democrats won elections running against LIBERAL Republicans. In another quote from one of our own at A Newt One goes like this: "when a conservative has to look to the left to look right, they simply stay home." Bingo.

The political arena within the United States is pretty much an international laughing stock. As the Democrat Party went more and more to the left, gaining the label of Liberal, they went further and further left, relabeling themselves as progressive. As they became more progressive, they became more and more socialist. As they became more and more socialist, they have become left of Stalin in many respects. As the Democrat Party plunged further and further left, so has the Republican Party and it is readily apparent that the two Parties are trying to out liberal themselves. In the current election cycle of 2008, there is only ONE liberal running and that is John McCain. The other two are flat out their words and the rhetoric of Hope and Change to The Little Red Book for the verification...Stalin would be proud. So would Karl Marx.

The Modern Day GOP is the Liberal of 20 years ago, plainly stated. With the help and influence of the communist founded ACLU, the Modern Democrat Party is the Democratic Socialists or the Social Democrats. Further evidence of this is transparent for all to see if they are willing to see it...look no further than the Peace Thugs that fly Che flags at the alleged peace rallies. These same anti-Americanists burn the American Flag. No true American Patriot would do such a thing.

What we are seeing is this: both parties invoke the names of JFK and RWR and neither are close to either. As The Left ushers in the views of Norm Chomsky, The Right seems to be ushering in the views of Saul Alinsky. The remaining Conservatives within the political parties are deafly silent and have been silenced by threat of "media exposure". They are WORSE than those openly plunging the nation over the precipice of communism while the Conservative People, for the most part, just sit and watch it happen. These are fools. They need to get up off their butts and get involved like they did during the Shamnesty Wars with another right around the corner.

No Conservatism isn't dead. It just smells that way.

However, we can reclaim it and revive Conservatism.  Reagan Era Conservatism saw this nation grow in all respects and, as then, we now need to revive that tenet of American Traditionalism.

Syndicate content