The “Green” Movement

Environmental Protection Agency Seal

Liberalism in Disguise

The “green” movement is slowly crushing us.  Little by little, under the guise of environmentalism and “saving our planet”, we are being conditioned to accept governmental power and are our losing our nation.

It is difficult for many to argue against the concept of being “green” and trying to prevent pollution, when the concept seems so noble on the surface.  There have been many great conservationists, such as Theodore Roosevelt, who saw the benefits of preserving our natural habitats and not razing every inch of our country to the ground for business purposes.  Honestly, very few can argument against the logic of being good stewards of the earth that God has given us, but we have gone too far.  Some are truly worshiping the creation over the Creator and have continued the age-old practice of pantheism.  Yet, the majority are exploiting the moral obligation we have to be good stewards and using it to advance the liberal agenda.

Since the 1970’s, “experts” have been warning of an impending global apocalypse.  Drumming up fears around “global warming”, these scientists and fear-mongers have spoken of the evils of CO2 emissions, pollution, and corporate America.  Of these warnings, the most memorable came from Al Gore’s 2006 prediction that the world had less than ten years before destruction would occur.  (There are currently 3 years, 276 days, and 2.5 hours left)   No matter how subtle or outrageous, all these warnings and outcries have the same common goals: advancing the liberal agenda and covertly transforming the U.S.

Under the Obama Administration, the blind push for “green” energy has led to some incredibly irresponsible investment decisions.  The most notable disaster is the Department of Energy’s loan to Solyndra, a solar-panel maker in California.  The $535 million loan to Solyndra returned little except campaign donations; as the “green” energy company collapsed in 2011 and became one of the first of many energy companies to fold. While Solyndra has become the most memorable company to receive DOE loans, it was not the only one to collapse in the artificially-created “green” energy market.  Multiple other companies have filed for bankruptcy after receiving hundreds of millions in federal loans, including Olsen Mills Co, Ener1, and A123 Systems.

These loans have not only been wasteful and irresponsible, but they have also begun another front in the war to create government dependence and to change the U.S. economy.  As these companies operate in an artificially-controlled bubble, more and more upstart companies are realize the path to initial success is paved by federal loans and not entrepreneurial spirit.  This deliberate governmental interference is attempting to become an accepted and preferred part of the U.S. economy, all masked under the moral argument of making our world more environmentally safer.

In another government endeavor, electric cars are quickly showing to be an absolute failure, as federally-subsidized Chevy Volt’s continue to catch fire and sit on sale lots throughout the nation.  While virtually none were purchased throughout the U.S before March 2012, liberals are now touting a surge in Volt sales, claiming that the car is finally catching on.  What they neglect to mention is that almost every new sale has come from the Obama-friendly GE Corp.’s purchase of the electric vehicles for its company fleet.   As the Volt flops with the public, another DOE loan recipient, Fisker Automotive, is facing severe financial trouble as it is unable to sell its $90,000 electric sports car.  These are just examples of the beginning of government attempts to create un-viable “green” energy powered vehicles.

While energy-creation and “responsibility” is the disguise, the “green” movement’s biggest goal is actually the control of society and fitting them into the extreme-left’s mold of what’s socially acceptable.

Over the last 40 years, the EPA has been the attack dog for this cause, using the “green” argument to slowly advance the liberal agenda.  Emission regulations (SUV’s), lead restrictions (ammunition), and the banning of DDT (over-population) are all examples of the EPA advancing the liberal agenda through its rulings.  On the upcoming gun-control front, the major push to raise the cost of ammunition due to “lead concerns” is promising to return under a second Obama term.

The largest attack currently underway on the U.S. economy is the EPA’s war on the coal industry as it introduces new regulations effectively designed to cripple the industry. The EPA’s new regulations are centered on reducing the CO2 emissions allowed for energy plants to a level which will essentially prevent the opening of any new coal-fire energy plants and burden existing ones.  The new regulations will quickly give rise to consumer energy bills and add new hardships to an already struggling economy.

The more observant should realize that this regulation means that the government and EPA is subsidizing and promoting electric power and “greener” vehicles while shutting down the source of most people’s electricity: Coal. It also calls into question of the real motives of those in power currently and why they would want to remove the ultimate source of the “green” energy they promote?  Pulling the rug out from under “green energy would almost certainly create an energy crisis in the U.S. that is currently unprecedented.

If the war on coal and oil seems unrealistic, consider the following comments by a high-level EPA official released today:

“It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean.  They’d go in to a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify them.  Then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.”

To put it bluntly, the EPA is saying it wants to “crucify” the coal and oil industries.

Although liberals are quick to condemn any references to violence when conservatives speak, they seem to be the ones who actually gravitate to methods of violence. If the previous EPA comments are even mentioned on by the media, there is little doubt that it will be dismissed as “out of context” and “hyperbole”. Rest assured these calls for violence to force “green” ideology are not isolated cases.

Not more than a week ago, climate change activist, Steve Zwick made the following appalling comments:

We know who the active denialists are – not the people who buy the lies, mind you, but the people who create the lies. Let’s start keeping track of them now, and when the famines come, let’s make them pay. Let’s let their houses burn. Let’s swap their safe land for submerged islands. Let’s force them to bear the cost of rising food price.

As if it is not enough to call for violence and the mobbing of “green” dissidents, Oregon University professor, Kari Norgaard, recently commented that anyone who doubts climate change must be “sick” and classified such skepticism as a “mental illness”.

This is the civility that liberals truly are aspiring for.

As these comments continue, it is becoming more and more obvious that liberalism has found a home in “green” ideology and environmentalism.  Yet through their attempts to cause people to doubt their social morality, a backlash is beginning to develop.

Although not even glanced at by the media, multiple NASA scientists, former astronauts, and other officials have signed a letter stating their strong objections to the organizations commitment and belief in man-made global warming.  Their realization of the true “green” agenda has led them out of the wilderness and into reality. Recently, the number of renowned former-climate scientists refuting their former religion is growing and shedding light on the lies they once believed.

While the 2012 campaign begins, we must continue to grow this resistance against this new home for liberalism and speak to the misdirection and true motivations of those who preach it.

As counter-intuitive as it may seem on the surface, the “green” movement must be prevented from transforming the world around us.

The War on Family: A Glimpse into the Liberal Agenda

For a brief moment, the American public got a glimpse of something that is rarely seen: Liberalism’s “War on Family.”

This short glimpse occurred as Hilary Rosen berated Ann Romney on CNN over having “never worked a day in her life”.  While her tirade continued, she simultaneously revealed exactly how liberalism views women, particularly mothers.

For decades, the main goals of feminism and women’s rights movements have been portrayed as striving for “equal rights” and “equal pay”.  If these were the true goals of radical liberalism, all would be good and well in the world.  Yet, these are just parts of a masquerade created to conceal the actual goal of a long-term “War on Family”.

For almost a month, Democrats, including Obama, have been accusing the GOP of waging a “War on Women”, citing opposition to the “Contraception Mandate” and attacks on Sandra Fluke’s “testimony” to Congress.  In all these attacks, there has been little that was not intentionally manufactured and staged in advance by DNC operatives, including the awkward question to Romney on birth control in a January GOP debate.  One of these operatives was Hilary Rosen, who visited the Obama White House thirty-six times in the last three years and partnered with Anita Dunn to stage the Sandra Fluke testimony last month.

When given the chance, Rosen opened fire on Ann Romney; not for her opposing beliefs, but for being a stay-at-home mother.  According to the liberal view, raising a family cannot possibly be work, but rather an oppressive role forced upon women by the traditional concept of family.   Rosen and like-minded liberals target their hate towards the American family formula, as they see the family as counter-productive to the cause of women’s “independence”.  In their skewed world, children are shackles and husbands are oppressors, resulting in their disdain for career mothers and conservative women.

Ann Romney is that strong conservative woman.

Her entire life story threatens the hollow walls radical feminism has spent years to construct. Mrs. Romney, a breast cancer survivor, has raised five boys and committed her life to the cause of motherhood; going against the modern liberal mantra of career first, family optional.  When combined with that fact that she has multiple sclerosis, Mrs. Romney becomes a symbol of the strength and courage a stay-at-home mother must have and what she can achieve.  For Rosen, this lifestyle is does not fit into the mold of the “modern women”, who must achieve a fulfilled career and spend years fighting against the injustices of the male-dominated world.   It never even occurs to the Rosen’s of the world that motherhood is a career, noble of recognition and more advanced than any public-relations position a presidential administration could offer.

This “War on Family” is not new, but has simply been exposed again by this brief lack of verbal restraint.  In the early-90’s, Hilary Clinton exposed the agenda concisely, saying:

“I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession…”

Teresa Heinz-Kerry let her disdain for non-career mothers show through in 2004, claiming:

“I don’t know Laura Bush. But she seems to be calm, and she has a sparkle in her eye, which is good. But I don’t know that she’s ever had a real job I mean, since she’s been grown up.”

Even yesterday, President Obama attempted to cleverly take the side of Rosen when he said:  

“…we didn’t have the luxury for her [Michelle Obama] not to work.”

By making this statement, Obama made it clear that he believes the work of a “stay-at-home” mother is a “luxury”, as if raising children ends at 5pm every day.
While income is relative to one’s spending structure, the Obama’s clearly made a life-choice to balance raising children with their careers. In this free nation, this personal decision should be respected as theirs to make. Yet, this freedom to decide does not seem to apply to conservative mothers or Ann Romney. For all the diversity and tolerance the Left preaches, there does not seem to be much room for respect and acceptance of career mothers and their priorities in life.

Within only a couple of days, the Obama campaign’s artificially created “GOP War on Women” has boomeranged into a full-bodied spotlight into the soul of the liberal perspective on a women’s place in society.

As the general election fight shifts into high-gear, this blatant attack on family is only the beginning of what is planned for the remainder of the year.  As conservatives, we must continue to keep the spotlight on this true agenda and on liberal’s gender stereotyping of women in today’s political arena.

We must defend Ann Romney and a women’s right to choose a career in motherhood and child-rearing.

It’s Time to Saddle Up

A broad metal chain.

As Rick Santorum suspended his campaign yesterday, Mitt Romney appears to have become the inevitable GOP nominee.  Due to the aggressive nature of the GOP primary season this year, there are no doubt many hurt feelings and cries of outrage.  Many are feeling anger and extreme disappointment, as Mitt Romney was clearly not even the second choice of many conservatives and the Tea Party. To be honest, Romney was not my first or second choice, either.  Yet, the table has been set and it’s time for us to re-adjust our focus.

While it has been a nasty six months of campaigning between the “establishment” candidate and the ever-changing “conservative” choice, we have now must prepare for a political war that hasn’t been experienced since Hamilton and Jefferson.  As conservatives, we must understand that the 2012 election means a complete change in the course for the United States.  There will be no going back from our decision in November, as Obama has already indicated his real agendas are still secret.  Implementation of “ObamaCare” alone in 2014 will ensure a complete remodel of society and the economy we live in.  The addition of another four years of socialistic policies would certainly bring us to an unimaginable place in our history, perhaps with even violent results. This is why we cannot afford to backbite and hold grudges over our issues with Romney anymore.

The stakes are too high and the result is too permanent. Our future generations deserve our present participation.

For some, this concept of uniting behind Mitt Romney and the “Establishment” may drudge up resistance and anger, yet consider these following reasons why we must unite in our battle.

Conservatism and the Tea Party have come extremely far in the GOP since 2008.  Due to the nomination of John McCain, conservatism has surged in the last four years and has become a major force in the Republican Party.  The crescendo from the ‘10 mid-term elections sent numerous freshmen congressmen to D.C. along with a new mandate and direction.  If we can dump our short-term memory and remember these strings of victories, it should become obvious we cannot afford to take any steps backward in 2012.  In 2008, it would have been inconceivable that grassroot-conservative members of the GOP could become such a strong force in the nominating process.   Yet, here we stand having changed the face of the GOP and beginning a journey back to the days of Reagan.  To stop or to sit-out the election now would halt the significant progress made and would begin to send the political environment back towards the status-quo.

Mitt Romney is a viable candidate.  It is very popular right now to claim that Romney cannot beat Obama in the general election.  It is easy to buy into this myth when it is combined with the frustration of other candidates losing to the “Establishment pick”.   While the frustration is warranted, we have to remember who his opponent is: Barack Obama   

Romney faces the most radical President in our nation’s history.  As a magnified version of Jimmy Carter, he has overseen soaring unemployment and gas prices, while the economy and the public’s’ moral simultaneously collapse.  Compared to President Obama, Romney has the potential to appear as a strong, fiscally-conservative alternative.  Even with Romney’s former healthcare law and “flip-flops” on past beliefs, comparisons of him to Obama are a stretch, at best.  There is no record indicating Mitt Romney would suspend oil-drilling in the gulf, criticize/threaten the Supreme Court, or even attempt to bypass the U.S. Congress whenever beneficial.  More importantly, Mitt Romney shows very little contempt or blatant disregard for the foundation of the United States, compared with our current leader.  With the economy failing, Barack Obama is extremely beatable by any candidate the GOP could have put forward this year, even Mitt Romney.

This election may be the last chance for the United States.  As the President’s current and future policies create more inflation, debt, and social division; the window for a change in direction is closing extremely quickly.  As mentioned before, the implementation of ObamaCare in 2014 will alone cripple the deficit and economy.   Each of the divisive policies from the current Administration will become amplified in a second term, furthering the goal of creating a government-dependent society.   If this dependent-society is achieved over another Obama term, the GOP nominee in ’16 may not matter.

Even more important than all the potential policies of a second Obama term are the Supreme Court nominees that are sure to be selected in the next four years.  If Obama is allowed to stack the court with liberal justices, then control of the other branches will be strongly irrelevant.  The Supreme Court will become the new policy-maker, approving and overturning laws based on the liberal agenda, not the U.S. Constitution.

To defeat Barack Obama, conservatives must begin to rally behind Mitt Romney in the next few weeks.  It is a make or break moment, as the nation must choose between embracing the radical changes of this administration and returning to its capitalistic roots. This year, conservatives must unite and fight for their beliefs and their country.  We should be extremely proud of the progress made in the last four years and be encouraged by the battle seen during the primary.

This November, we must realize the Presidency is within our grasp.  We just have to saddle up and take it.

Battlefield: SCOTUS

We have an emerging crisis and battlefield developing in the war against America. 

With the comments made over the last several days, a new narrative has begun to emerge for President Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign.   As he “threatened” the Supreme Court, Obama showed his intentions to run against an “activist” court, signaling he seems to expect (already knows?) that an overturn is coming.

During his absurd rambling, Obama used two important terms in reference to SCOTUS and the ObamaCare case:  “unelected” and “unprecedented”

“…that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law…”

By singling out this “unelected group of people”, the President has begun to play to the uneducated masses. His hope lies on mobilizing individuals to outrage not only at the upcoming ObamaCare decision, but also the Court itself. With no knowledge of how the checks-and-balance system works, it easy to see how many could be shocked that nine “unelected” justices could determine the fate of laws. This ploy is very dangerous and could be effective for the President because of the multiple generations raised under the government-ran public education system.

It is not enough to convince the public that the Supreme Court is “unelected”, as they will not grasp this concept alone. There must be an element of rebellion against the President and the perceived public will. This is where “unprecedented” came into play when the President continued his remarks:

“I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

By setting the expectation that the Court will uphold the President’s law, the belief is created that the Court has little involvement in government’s creation of laws.  The combination of these two concepts allows for the formation of President Obama’s main goal in attacking the court:

De-legitimize the U.S. Supreme Court and show it irrelevant to today’s United States.  

The result of this goal is twofold and extremely dangerous if accomplished.  The first part is to aid and expand Obama’s campaign message of “It’s not my fault!”  It has already been accepted that a “Do-Nothing Congress” portrait will be painted this fall by the Administration, as the GOP-controlled House has put the brakes on their agenda for the last two years.  To deflect against the President’s shortcomings and the floundering economy, “Obama2012” is now deflecting attention toward an “Activist Court” as well.   In doing so, they will have created an election message that pits the Presidency against an obstructionist Congress and misunderstood Supreme Court.

In a society conditioned to love drama, their hope is that this perceived power struggle will give way to a sympathetic view of Obama’s first term.

The second goal is more threatening to our current system of government, as there is little doubt Obama will go down swinging if he loses this November.  If at all possible, President Obama is attempting to place as much public skepticism and doubt around our most misunderstood branch of government.

Once again, due to government-ran public education, it may not be a difficult task.  The Supreme Court is not directly elected and is the only branch of government that is intended to not consider the will of the people.  Very few realize that the Court’s only intended role is to interpret law and the Constitution, not what is popular or what benefits the majority of the public.  As the media drums up an overturn of ObamaCare as “activism”, a potential tide of public sentiment could be created over time as public schools and college classes switch into full courses of progressive revisionism. While this may take years, it has become apparent that liberals are extremely patient.

If placement of anger and fear of this “unelected” group’s decisions can be successfully implemented, the United States’ entire system can be opened for challenge and re-examination.  Commentators and legislators will bow to perceived public outcry that the Court is, in fact, unnecessary since laws are passed by “elected” officials.  While perhaps losing in the general election, Obama would still go down in history as the progressive liberal hero who began the restructuring of the U.S. government. Again, these changes would not occur overnight, but rather through multiple future years of continuing the premise that the Court is a relic.

If this scenario seems unlikely, then consider that only days after the President’s comments, David Dow from The Daily Beast has already written an article calling for the impeachment of the five conservative Justices if they overturn ObamaCare in a 5-4 ruling. The title of his inane article is, “Impeach the Supreme Court Justices If They Overturn Health-Care Law”.  Within a day of this article, Maureen Dowd, who’s vocal opinion counts only to show a look inside the liberal mind, referred to SCOTUS as “hacks dressed up in black robes…”

While some may shake their heads now, this is the playbook and game plan we will be facing this November and perhaps in years to come.  As liberal ideas continue to fall short and fail intense scrutiny, their proponents are turning to refocus on damaging or completely removing entire branches of government.  With roles significantly lessened, their ideology can thrive on the absence of debate and challenge.

There is one major ray of hope throughout this entire scenario.  ObamaCare would have to be overturned for this strategy to play out to its fullest.  In this case, no one could deny that Conservatism would have given the first blow in this new battlefield.  This overturn could give conservatives the springboard needed to begin to express and explain our constitutional principles and beliefs in a way not seen since Reagan. This is why it is crucial that we are vigilant in relentlessly preaching the dangers of government overreach and praising the concepts of individual responsibility and liberty. 

Conservatism cannot afford to lose the battle around the integrity and relevance of the Supreme Court.

What If We Took It All?

The national debt clock outside the IRS office...

U.S. National Debt Clock

What if we took it all? What if we were to take all the money of the richest people and put it on the U.S. national debt.  That would be social justice after all, right? That’s we are being told or hinted at by many liberal activists.  Our President has even attempted to make this issue a pillar of his re-election campaign.   So, with all the 99% vs. 1% arguments and “fair share” comments thrown around these days, let’s look into this a little bit.

The U.S. debt is around $15 trillion at the moment and still rising. That is around $2.5 million every minute you and I breath.  To be fair, not many are truly saying confiscate it all.  Instead, they are simply calling for a “fair share” to be given back to society from the “1%” of America. Of course, what is not being acknowledged is who decides what is “fair”  and how “fair” is determined.

Regardless, for the “greater good” of the nation and in the name of social justice, let’s confiscate every penny from Forbes Top 20 Richest Americans and place it on the National Debt.  Let’s liquidate their assets and take every drop of their net worth and send them to a soup line, homeless and just the cloths on their back.   We would reduce our $15 trillion debt all the way to $14.5 trillion.  That’s right, not quite a half a trillion. Still seeming like a good idea?   Not only have we stripped naked individuals of their wealth, but we have also deprived them of their roles in the business world.  This has removed the Koch brothers (oil), Warren Buffet (Berkshire Hathaway), Larry Elison (Oracle) and three members of the Walton family (Wal-Mart) from influential positions in the economy.  Other companies affected by this confiscation are Google, Facebook, and Amazon; not to mention the numbers jobs lost due to the removal of these visionary leaders.

All for $.5 Trillion, $460 Billion, 1/30th of the U.S. debt.   How ever you want to word it.

What if the United States used it “immoral” superior military force to confiscate the net worth of the 1,226 richest people in the world, which is Forbes’ list of the world’s billionaires?   Go outside her borders and force each nation to take it all from these 1,000+ individuals?  The U.S. debt would be diminished by $4.6 trillion to a whopping $11 trillion owed.   So now we have bankrupted every billionaire in the world, destroyed numerous corporations, and caused the loss of countless jobs in exchange for 30% of the U.S. debt.   That’s right; we would still be over the debt level of $10.6 trillion when our President took office a little over three years ago.

Clearly, this is not realistic, yet the cries for this kind of action are being called for on a much smaller scale.  Surely, leaders and activists know that anything less than the severe move described previously would not even make a dent in the debt crisis we face.  It is a political game being played to dredge of jealousy and hatred for those who have more, and it is based on the belief the voters are ignorant enough to believe it.

Still sound like a good idea? Perhaps we should be looking at a change in leadership instead of a change in tax rates.

Perspective on the Limbaugh Boycott Movement

Freedom of speech!

Love him or hate him:  There really isn’t any middle ground when it comes to Rush Limbaugh and his EIB Network.   So there is no reason to debate his actions, words, or show at this time.  If possible, remove him from this whole issue for a moment and remove Bill Maher and Louis CK as well.

Ask yourself if you believe in free speech.

If you believe in the 1st Amendment, then consider why you or anyone would support a boycott of a citizen exercising this precious right.  It is a dangerous slope to be on when we begin to call for economic intervention against individuals who say things that are off-color or outside the box of politically correct barriers.  In a world where we worry so much about safety, we often neglect the safety of our constitutional rights.  Consider that when we call for companies to boycott an individual or a network for language used or comments made, we are saying that the accused stepped outside the bounds of their right to free speech.

Does free speech have a limit?  Certainly, when it causes direct, indisputable physical damage to others, it can be curtailed to a degree.    Yet, with every boycott demand, the dissidents out there are saying that they believe that the word “slut” is beyond the acceptable bounds.

Is it possible that such individuals only believe in free speech when it agrees with them?  Is it even remotely possible that this freedom protects people who use inflammatory word?

Don’t misunderstand me; people are exercising their right to voice their opposition to comments as well. I support their right to call for boycotts; and I even support the right of Bill Maher to call Sarah Palin a c***.  Yet, one can use a constitutional right to inhibit others’.

Public discourse is what was intended to be protected by the founding fathers, even if in the most outrageous terms.  Why?  Without it, the walls of our freedom close in. We become silenced by the fear of repercussions of our words.  There are multiple examples throughout history of nations that limited their citizen’s freedom of speech and they all have at least one common denominator: they all had significantly less free societies than the United States has today.

Instead of using our right to free speech trying to restrict others’ speech through boycotts and advertiser complaints, let’s exercise our right to voice our opinions for and against those who speak publicly.

Unless, of course, you believe that the 1st Amendment applies only when you agree.

A Revelation

I believe all things happen for a purpose.  As I walked toward my polling place on Super Tuesday, I was approached (outside and at a legal distance) by a man, who asked for my support.   I had been vaguely familiar with the name and already had plans to vote for him.  He was Ohio state senate candidate Paul Isaacs.

I thanked him for being out there and continued on to go exercise my constitutional right. As I was leaving, I felt compelled to ask him for information about his campaign and some of his beliefs.  The conversation was continually interrupted as he would greet every voter walking towards the polling center; but through the half-sentences and pauses, I came to know a man who put his convictions and faith above other people’s opinions and the odds. This most obviously demonstrated by the fact that he was asked to run and start a campaign two months before.  As we spoke, I came to learn that Mr. Isaacs’ main reason for running was the lack of interest in the Heartbeat Bill that the current District 06 state senator has shown over the last year.   I listened to his abbreviated campaign story and saw conviction and passion that one rarely sees expressed in an individual.  I stayed that afternoon helping Mr. Isaacs hand out literature and asking voters to support him.  Between the requests, we spoke about our politics, convictions, and our faith in the Lord.  Before I knew it, the sun had gown down and the polls were about to close.  Mr. Isaacs had left a few minutes before to wrap up some loose ends before the results were announced.  Standing there alone in the dark, I found myself campaigning for someone who I’d just met.

Mr. Isaacs lost the election.  His two month old campaign garnered a little bit over 31% of the vote from OH -District 06 voters. For a campaign born not more than two months before Super Tuesday, that is nothing short of incredible, but that’s not the point.  Although we only spent three hours together, I could tell the drive Mr. Isaacs has for his beliefs cannot be stamped out by the loss of an election.  The revelation I experienced that evening was that I have a duty to be active for my beliefs or I need to sit down and be silent.  The middle ground is the easy place to be; in fact, it may be the easiest position.  What could be easier than being silent when dissidents are present and expressing  “convictions” when in friendly circles?  Nothing could be simpler than to blend in with your surroundings, avoiding confrontation with the people around you.

No more!

I cannot call myself a conservative, if I am not willing to speak it.  The biggest spark to this realization was a comment that Mr. Isaacs made to me that evening.  In a discussion around religious beliefs, he said he did not believe that people will die for something they don’t genuinely believe in.  I realized that this is a level of conviction that one must have if they truly believe in something, and it’s time to apply this all areas of life.  Young and old conservatives must live by this; or we must fade away, taking our beliefs with us.  There isn’t really any middle ground anymore; perhaps there never really was.

 

The Almighty Independent

In pursuit of the almighty “Independent”, we …

..are told to…

    • hide our beliefs
    • be quiet
    • leave the discussion to politicians and pundits
    • assume defeat
    • support the most moderate candidates
    • attempt to win the Houses of Congress, before the Presidency
    • compromise our convictions
    • respect our opponents
    • say that our current President is a “good man” and is just in over his head
    • acknowledge our opponents accomplishments
    • accept the candidates that established party members have ordained
    • admit we are ignorant and certain “educated” people know what’s best
    • ignore the assault on our Constitution and freedoms
    • play both sides of  an issue
    • support government intervention if it will garner public support
    • be progressive
    • embrace compromise

..are told to not…  

    • talk about social issues
    • defend morality
    • directly support the concept of traditional family
    • mention any religious beliefs
    • speak negatively of our opposition
    • say anything inflammatory
    • accuse opponents of unconstitutional beliefs
    • teach self-reliance and responsibility for actions
    • defend the wealthy and successful
    • defend our founding father’s intentions
    • offend the “independent”

We are told that violating any of the rules above will send the “independent” running to the arms of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party, who abide strictly by none of these rules.

…and in the process, we become…

  • lukewarm
  • spineless
  • ineffective
  • accepting
  • complacent
  • unable to explain our beliefs to our descendants
  • outnumbered

and become the reason why the next generation may be the last who are truly free