conservative Archive

Tired of Being Told You "Blame America" ?

In a foreign policy discussion with some supposed Tea Party members where I engaged with lots of historical facts, information and philosophy I got one of those Hannity told them to say this responses like, “you just hate and want to blame America” and your only purpose is to “…tear down America.”

I’ve written before on America’s interventionist foreign policy missteps and ensuing blowback with “A Message For Pro-Interventionist Conservatives and Liberals” and at the beginning of “Ron Paul, CPAC and Loathing by the Ideologically Unprincipled and Intellectually Dishonest”
But, that “blame America” retort is just smarmy and usually thrown out by someone working their hardest to either be willfully ignorant of the facts or to ignore them in favor of endorsing the idea of being the world’s bully. Of course, the people who argue these points will always be the first to tell you that government ruins nearly everything it touches (it does), can’t do anything right, can’t do anything cost effectively, etc. But, they somehow always exclude foreign policy or military activity from their laundry list. It is somehow, magically immune?

So, the next time this comes up with a so-called Conservative … ask some simple questions. Maybe like this.

You suggest I blame (the) America(n government) for a lot of our trouble with overseas nations and people. So, let me ask you …

Do you “blame America” for …

The Conservative Intellectual Dilemma Over Who Has Rights

In an all too frequent political discussion on Facebook, this time with Brian Gaddie, one of my unashamed far left liberal friends, he kindly pointed out that he appreciated Congressman Ron Paul’s opposition to torture. This prompted a quick thought I’ve had about rights. And, really, a lot of this discussion must ultimately rest on the nature of our rights as sentient, self-aware beings who value life with each of us being the legitimate owners of our own selves who take positive action to support or enhance that life.

There is an excellent write up at The Objective Standard regarding the nature of rights that I highly recommend reading, especially since it offers up a theory that does not depend on the existence of God. This is important, because if God cannot be proven than your rights cannot be proven if you solely rest the existence of them on its existence.

But, back to the point. Certainly, nobody in the United States would support kidnapping someone off the street, failing to give them due process, failing to find them guilty in any kind of trial but instead just sticking them in a secret room and torturing them just in case they might know something useful. This would be such a vast violation of rights and the character of who are SUPPOSED to be as a nation.

But, it did prompt me to post my comment from Brian’s thread on a broader topic of the nature of our rights and why I think the typical Conservative has an intellectual dilemma that they either must resolve by becoming more authoritarian and deciding that we only have the rights our respective governments grant to us OR that all human beings have rights that come about by way of our existence as sentient, self-aware beings.

Brian – regarding torture. Conservatives have an intellectual dilemma that they must resolve.

Most Conservatives would argue that our rights come from our creator (God, the creative force of the universe or whatever mechanism by which we are sentient, self-aware beings). This is clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence as a founding principle of our country. That we have rights (life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness) that nobody, not even government – except as compensation for a harm done to another – can take away.

BUT THEN, in the same breath, they would suggest that immigrants, accused terrorists or other people not born here don’t have the same rights.

This is intellectually inconsistent. Either our rights come from the creator OR they come from government by nature of which borders we are unlucky enough to be born between.

They must decide. And I appreciate Ron Paul consistently showing intellectual honesty in all matters, including torture as I very much appreciate you pointing out.

Ron Paul, CPAC and Loathing by the Ideologically Unprincipled and Intellectually Dishonest

Conservatives have a real problem in Texas congressman Ron Paul.
Ron Paul doesn’t think the United States should claim to be all about “freedom” and “democracy” while sending billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer money to foreign dictators. The people of Egypt just rose up and booted out Mubarak whom the U.S. sent billions of dollars to each year. The Ba’ath Party in Iraq was supported early on by the U.S. and Saddam was all buddy-buddy with America for many years before we sought “regime change”. In 1979 the people of Iran tossed out the increasingly brutal Shah Pahlavi whom the U.S. and Britain had put put in power, replacing their secular (non religious) democracy in 1953. I mean, it’s not like the people in these countries are backwards cave people who don’t know that the United States has funded and supported the same governments and leaders that have secret police kidnapping political dissenters off the streets, won’t let women drive or vote or sometimes even punishes them with whippings, jail or being stoned to death for having gotten raped.
Former Pakistani President Musharraf, a military dictator, whom the U.S. sent billions and billions of dollars to each year just had an arrest warrant issued for him over the assassination of his political opposition, Benazir Bhutto, prior to the election. Yay! Hey, thanks U.S. Government for sending my tax money to a murderous, anti-democracy dictator who has women assassinated.
Ron Paul doesn’t think the Federal Reserve should be able to just print money out of thin air, decreasing the value of the money already in circulation (including our savings) so that they can cover the massive deficits and out of control spending of our ridiculously bloated government while the rest of the world laughs at us. Has anyone else noticed the rest of the world starting to demand that the U.S. Dollar no longer be a key reserve currency and even China, a Communist Country whom we will borrow our entire military budget from (and then some) this year, is starting to rethink how far they will let us extend ourselves with them.
Ron Paul doesn’t think that the Federal Government should be regulating religious rituals like marriage that a lot of us really think should be controlled by each person’s respective church or religious beliefs. Nope, he doesn’t think that the opinions of some people should be forced, by threat of government violence, on everyone else.
Ron Paul really means it when he talks about shrinking the Federal Government, making sure it minds its own business and actually protects not just the personal safety and freedom of Americans but our economic freedom and security as well.
A lot of conservatives like to talk about how they want the U.S. Government out of their lives and wallets. Yeah, well people in other countries want the U.S. Government out of their lives and wallets too. You want to stop terrorism against the United States? Heaven forbid we consider starting by not pissing off a whole region of the world with a hypocritical foreign policy.
Small government conservatives shouldn’t be calling for the Government to not only take over marriage from the church; but, as the proposed Constitutional Amendment in Indiana would call for – actually banning voluntary, contractual agreements between people that might look too much like some kind of arrangement similar to that married people have. Yeah, banning voluntary, contractual agreements between consenting adults is exactly what small government conservative folks should be promoting. Idiots.
One of the elected politicians that represents me in the Indiana State House, and one of the few I respect quite a bit, pointed out how some of the same people who praised Governor Mitch Daniels’ great speech at CPAC spent the very next day blasting and criticizing CPAC for Ron Paul’s victory in their Straw Poll. Well, just keep this mind. As a Facebook post pointed out, “Ron Paul won that straw poll with 30% of the vote by INSPIRING people to be there. Mitt ‘RomneyCare’ Romney came in second place with 23% by PAYING people to be there.” Nobody else garnered more than 6% and, thank goodness for small miracles, Sarah Palin only got 3% with the much more deserving Mitch Daniels ahead of her at 4%.
For all of the railing against the government takeover of healthcare under Obama where was all the fuss when George W. Bush pushed through the trillion dollar prescription drug benefit to Medicare? Where are the loud calls and protests to repeal that? Where is the acknowledgement about Mitt’s involvement with Massachusetts so-called “RomneyCare” program? Hey! If the CPAC results are any indication 23% of conservatives agree that government takeovers are okay so long as a Republican does it!
So, yeah, there are a bunch of us out there who want a little (or a lot of) intellectual honesty and consistency from our politicians and our government. But, until we get it from the followers and supporters of the two major political party cults (and that’s what they’ve devolved into), we aren’t going to have it from government. And, so, people like Ron Paul pose a problem because he continues to point out the inconsistencies in the current political dialog and our own hypocrisy. Supporters of the status quo, of an oppressive global American empire or people who want to use government to push their hateful, religious anti-gay people agenda really, really hate that.

Ron Paul, CPAC and Loathing by the Ideologically Unprincipled and Intellectually Dishonest

Conservatives have a real problem in Texas congressman Ron Paul.Ron Paul doesn’t think the United States should claim to be all about “freedom” and “democracy” while sending billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer money to foreign dictators. The people of Egypt just rose up and booted out Mubarak whom the U.S. sent billions of dollars to each year. The Ba’ath Party in Iraq was supported early on by the U.S. and Saddam was all buddy-buddy with America for many years before we sought “regime change”. In 1979 the people of Iran tossed out the increasingly brutal Shah Pahlavi whom the U.S. and Britain had put put in power, replacing their secular (non religious) democracy in 1953. I mean, it’s not like the people in these countries aren’t backwards cave people who don’t know that the United States has funded and supported the same governments and leaders that have secret police kidnapping political dissenters off the streets, won’t let women drive or vote or sometimes even punishes them with whippings, jail or being stoned to death for having gotten raped.Former Pakistani President Musharraf, a military dictator, whom the U.S. sent billions and billions of dollars to each year just had an arrest warrant issued for him over the assassination of his political opposition, Benazir Bhutto, prior to the election. Yay! Hey, thanks U.S. Government for sending my tax money to a murderous, anti-democracy dictator who has women assassinated.Ron Paul doesn’t think the Federal Reserve should be able to just print money out of thin air, decreasing the value of the money already in circulation (including our savings) so that they can cover the massive deficits and out of control spending of our ridiculously bloated government while the rest of the world laughs at us. Has anyone else noticed the rest of the world starting to demand that the U.S. Dollar no longer be a key reserve currency and even China, a Communist Country whom we will borrow our entire military budget from (and then some) this year, is starting to rethink how far they will let us extend ourselves with them. Ron Paul doesn’t think that the Federal Government should be regulating religious rituals like marriage that a lot of us really think should be controlled by each person’s respective church or religious beliefs. Nope, he doesn’t think that the opinions of some people should be forced, by threat of government violence, on everyone else. Ron Paul really means it when he talks about shrinking the Federal Government, making sure it minds its own business and actually protects not just the personal safety and freedom of Americans but our economic freedom and security as well.A lot of conservatives like to talk about how they want the U.S. Government out of their lives and wallets. Yeah, well people in other countries want the U.S. Government out of their lives and wallets too. You want to stop terrorism against the United States? Heaven forbid we consider starting by not pissing off a whole region of the world with a hypocritical foreign policy.Small government conservatives shouldn’t be calling for the Government to not only take over marriage from the church; but, as the proposed Constitutional Amendment in Indiana would call for – actually banning voluntary, contractual agreements between people that might look too much like some kind of arrangement similar to that married people have. Yeah, banning voluntary, contractual agreements between consenting adults is exactly what small government conservative folks should be promoting. Idiots. One of the elected politicians that represents me in the Indiana State House, and one of the few I respect quite a bit, pointed out how some of the same people who praised Governor Mitch Daniels’ great speech at CPAC spent the very next day blasting and criticizing CPAC for Ron Paul’s victory in their Straw Poll. Well, just keep this mind. As a Facebook post pointed out, “Ron Paul won that straw poll with 30% of the vote by INSPIRING people to be there. Mitt ‘RomneyCare’ Romney came in second place with 23% by PAYING people to be there.” Nobody else garnered more than 6% and, thank goodness for small miracles, Sarah Palin only got 3% with the much more deserving Mitch Daniels ahead of her at 4%.For all of the railing against the government takeover of healthcare under Obama where was all the fuss when George W. Bush pushed through the trillion dollar prescription drug benefit to Medicare? Where are the loud calls and protests to repeal that? Where is the acknowledgement about Mitt’s involvement with Massachusetts so-called “RomneyCare” program? Hey! If the CPAC results are any indication 23% of conservatives agree that government takeovers are okay so long as a Republican does it!So, yeah, there are a bunch of us out there who want a little (or a lot of) intellectual honesty and consistency from our politicians and our government. But, until we get it from the followers and supporters of the two major political party cults (and that’s what they’ve devolved into), we aren’t going to have it from government. And, so, people like Ron Paul pose a problem because he continues to point out the inconsistencies in the current political dialog and our own hypocrisy. Supporters of the status quo, of an oppressive global American empire or people who want to use government to push their hateful, religious anti-gay people agenda really, really hate that.

Self Defense in City Parks, Washington State Validates Right to Carry and Gun Free Zones Continue to Be Violence Magnets

A female Superior Court judge in King County, Washington has ruled in favor of individuals who sought to end a ban on carrying firearms in city parks.

Judge Catherine Shaffer did not mince words in her order, part of which was handwritten and issued from the bench following an afternoon hearing in her Seattle courtroom.

“The court finds that the plaintiffs have a clear legal or equitable right to carry firearms under the federal and state constitutions,” she ruled.

The judge also noted that the “court finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact on which reasonable minds could differ.”

As some people are aware, Indianapolis Councilor Ed Coleman (Libertarian – At Large) has introduced legislation which would eliminate the unconstitutional city ban on individuals, who have gotten permission from the government by way of a permit to exercise their rights (sarcasm intended), carrying their personal firearms onto city park property. In other words, he has introduced a proposal to restore an individuals right to defend themselves in a way that would align city code with both state and federal law where such restrictions either don’t exist or are expiring this month.Now before the anti-gun folks have a fit, let’s consider the following.You walk up and down city streets and drive all over public roads every day with countless other people who are licensed to carry their firearms and have them on their person or in their vehicles either openly or concealed. The streets are not running red with law abiding citizens shooting each other are they? Do you feel unsafe walking around Monument Circle at lunch time because some of those folks have guns on them? Of course not. Interestingly enough, in some states (like New Hampshire) one can legally “open carry” into the State House (although bureaucrats are trying to play games with it now [see this link and associated video] )!Where should you feel unsafe? So-called “gun free” zones maybe?This past week we saw a faculty member at the University of Alabama kill three people and wound others when she was denied tenure. We also saw this month where an elementary school teacher shot other faculty members when he was told he would not have a job next year. We all remember what happened at Columbine or at Virginia Tech. All “gun free zones”. Yet, that didn’t stop crazy people with criminal intent from taking a gun into those areas and attacking people who were legally (but unconstitutionally perhaps?) denied the choice of defending themselves. It was great to see the Fraternal Order of Police speak publicly in favor of Mr. Coleman’s proposal. Unfortunately, the proposal caught Mayor Greg Ballard (R) off guard and he probably spoke too quickly when suggesting he would veto the proposal if it landed on his desk. There is never a wrong time to restore rights or liberty to the people. Most conservatives and libertarians would expect Republican officials to fully support this kind of thing if they truly believe in protecting people’s natural rights. One can only hope that the Mayor doesn’t feel backed into a corner as after careful consideration there would be no reason not to support this except to play silly political games.There was a rumor that councilor Mike Speedy, who is running for State House this year, has been interested in this kind of proposal in the past but never thought it would get enough support. Now that with the Heller and the Seattle decisions showing courts will support individual rights, there should be no reason other councilors shouldn’t jump on as co-sponsors. But, again, political games could trump actually doing the right thing. We’ll see.The important thing to remember is that “gun bans” are “massacre enabling” restrictions and do not protect anyone. You can’t protect the sheep from the wolf by making all of the sheep weaker.

Self Defense in City Parks, Washington State Validates Right to Carry and Gun Free Zones Continue to Be Violence Magnets

A female Superior Court judge in King County, Washington has ruled in favor of individuals who sought to end a ban on carrying firearms in city parks.

Judge Catherine Shaffer did not mince words in her order, part of which was handwritten and issued from the bench following an afternoon hearing in her Seattle courtroom.

“The court finds that the plaintiffs have a clear legal or equitable right to carry firearms under the federal and state constitutions,” she ruled.

The judge also noted that the “court finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact on which reasonable minds could differ.”

As some people are aware, Indianapolis Councilor Ed Coleman (Libertarian – At Large) has introduced legislation which would eliminate the unconstitutional city ban on individuals, who have gotten permission from the government by way of a permit to exercise their rights (sarcasm intended), carrying their personal firearms onto city park property. In other words, he has introduced a proposal to restore an individuals right to defend themselves in a way that would align city code with both state and federal law where such restrictions either don’t exist or are expiring this month.
Now before the anti-gun folks have a fit, let’s consider the following.
You walk up and down city streets and drive all over public roads every day with countless other people who are licensed to carry their firearms and have them on their person or in their vehicles either openly or concealed. The streets are not running red with law abiding citizens shooting each other are they? Do you feel unsafe walking around Monument Circle at lunch time because some of those folks have guns on them? Of course not. Interestingly enough, in some states (like New Hampshire) one can legally “open carry” into the State House (although bureaucrats are trying to play games with it now [see this link and associated video] )!
Where should you feel unsafe? So-called “gun free” zones maybe?
This past week we saw a faculty member at the University of Alabama kill three people and wound others when she was denied tenure. We also saw this month where an elementary school teacher shot other faculty members when he was told he would not have a job next year. We all remember what happened at Columbine or at Virginia Tech. All “gun free zones”. Yet, that didn’t stop crazy people with criminal intent from taking a gun into those areas and attacking people who were legally (but unconstitutionally perhaps?) denied the choice of defending themselves.
It was great to see the Fraternal Order of Police speak publicly in favor of Mr. Coleman’s proposal. Unfortunately, the proposal caught Mayor Greg Ballard (R) off guard and he probably spoke too quickly when suggesting he would veto the proposal if it landed on his desk. There is never a wrong time to restore rights or liberty to the people.
Most conservatives and libertarians would expect Republican officials to fully support this kind of thing if they truly believe in protecting people’s natural rights. One can only hope that the Mayor doesn’t feel backed into a corner as after careful consideration there would be no reason not to support this except to play silly political games.
There was a rumor that councilor Mike Speedy, who is running for State House this year, has been interested in this kind of proposal in the past but never thought it would get enough support. Now that with the Heller and the Seattle decisions showing courts will support individual rights, there should be no reason other councilors shouldn’t jump on as co-sponsors. But, again, political games could trump actually doing the right thing. We’ll see.
The important thing to remember is that “gun bans” are “massacre enabling” restrictions and do not protect anyone. You can’t protect the sheep from the wolf by making all of the sheep weaker.