Conservative Bastion
The only blog that can factually claim to shift the Bell Curve, along with the hearts & minds of America, to the right.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Howard Dean: the Fear-Mongering Hate-Filled Intolerant Left-Wing Nazi
Howard Dean is at it again. In case you have not heard, the chairman of the DNC has (once again) referred to the Republican Party as the “white party.” Some people are trying to pretend it was an accident, but we know the truth. He has done this before, and we expect this type of classlessness from the man that once made fun of Rush Limbaugh for being addicted to pain killers.

They usually say follow the money trail, but in politics, sometimes you need to follow the fear trail to see who benefits. Don’t fool yourselves. This type of rhetoric is meant to do one thing and one thing only: instill fear into the hearts and minds of minorities toward the Republican Party.

The fact is that President Bush is just as much the first Hispanic president as Bill Clinton was the first black president. His policies are the most pro-Hispanic in the history of the United States. He has been in favor of a guest worker program since before he became president, he has appointed Hispanics to positions of importance, and he has transformed (at least momentarily) his party from being one that got a fraction of the Hispanic vote (21% in 1996) to one that got 44% in 2004. Throw in the fact that Bush also got 44% of the Asian vote in ‘04 and you have a scary situation on your hands.

Dean knows that if this type of progress could ever cross over into the black community, the Democratic Party would have an almost impossible time winning any national election. So what have Dean and his cohorts decided to do to fight this trend? What they do best - abort this baby before its born! They have decided that injecting race and insinuations of racism are the best way to keep the colored folk in line.

Ironically, they are doing this while still being able to maintain the argument that it is McCain and the Republicans who have gone negative. It is true that McCain is bringing up Obama’s lack of experience, poking holes in his faulty energy policy, and the fact that Obama was wrong about the surge. However, those are not fear tactics. Those are debatable issues that are at the forefront of this election.

Obama on the other hand is trying to scare people into thinking Republicans are trying to scare them.

In July, Obama had this to say about Republicans:

So what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, he's not patriotic enough. He's got a funny name. You know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills, you know. He's risky.
Unfortunately for Obama, these comments reflect a land of make believe. No one of any significance has made any of these points an issue.

For the party run by Howard Dean, that doesn’t matter. Which makes one wonder…does Dean really believe that Republican Party is a white party? If you take blacks out of the picture, the two parties are relatively close in terms of their racial makeup. The black population is by far the most skewed racial group in favor of one party. So if anything, wouldn’t the Democratic Party be the black party? If so, is that better or worse than being the white party?

The ironic aspect in this whole situation is that Dean comes from a state where 98% of the population is white. Since he comes from a white state, he and his state, must be bad for minorities. If it was a good place for minorities, more would live there. Therefore, he and the whole state of Vermont are racist. Of course that line of reasoning is childish, idiotic, and disingenuous at best. Too bad that seems to be the very line of reasoning the Democratic Party is using to inject fear into minority communities towards the Republican Party.
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Sunday, July 27, 2008
How Dumb is Obama?

A lot has been made about a recent comment by John McCain in which he more or less stated that Iraq and Pakistan shared a border. Of course, that is really funny to the Obama supporters because they tend to be slow and forgetful and they get off on making fun of McCain's age. These people who are so quick to attack someone's soundness of mind and/or intelligence are the same people who cried when a bunch of people were outsmarted by a piece of paper in Florida.

Anyways, all that aside, it still isn’t as funny and some of the mistakes B.O. has made. You don't know what I'm talking about? Hmmm I wonder why that is? COULD THE MEDIA BE BIASED? 

…in front of a roaring Sioux Falls, S.D., audience, Obama exulted: "Thank you, Sioux City. ... I said it wrong. I've been in Iowa for too long. I'm sorry."

So in this instance, Obama didn’t know the name of the city or state he was in. Is that a senior moment? Is that because he is a moron? I am guessing it’s both. That’s not all though. He also made a pretty bad mistake regarding the basic geography of his own state when speaking as to why Hillary Clinton held a lead in the Kentucky primary.

Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it's not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle.

For the Obama supporters who don’t know, Kentucky shares a border with Illinois and does not share one with Arkansas. So the moron doesn’t even know which states share a border with his own state.

Don’t be mad at me America. I warned you about this a long time ago. I told you over a year ago that if Obama was elected he would be the first mentally challenged candidate.
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
If you haven’t heard, a Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) community in Texas was raided a couple weeks ago. I am not sure about the exact reason their community was raided, but it stemmed from an anonymous phone call that reported child abuse. If you don’t know who the FLDS are, don’t worry. The media has done a great job doing the same smear job they did on the Branch Davidians. According to the media, the FLDS are a "cult" that live in a "compound" and have "wacko religious beliefs". Or, if you are fairer, you could say they are a "group" that lives in a "tight knit community" that has an "alternative lifestyle".

There is already some backlash against what has happened, but it is definitely a minority view in the media. The original phone call that voiced the complaint to the police of which the raid was based off of has turned out to be fraudulent. Not to mention, just because one person in a particular place is accused of a certain crime does not (or at least should not) give the right for the authorities to separate EVERYONE from that community from their children.

To give an example, the US has an illegal immigration problem, but that does not give the right of the police to storm in to immigrant communities and detain everyone until they can prove their innocence. If that was done in the US, there would be (with little doubt in my mind) violent retaliation. I don’t see the difference from that scenario and what has happened to the FLDS.

Back to the media…It is interesting how the media changes terms for certain situations in the news. The term cult is a subjective one. What is the definition of a cult? The real definition is debatable. However, it seems people are generally willing to use the term for any group of people they don’t particularly like. For instance, I recently saw a protest outside one of the Scientology “churches” in which one of the protesters had a sign that stated “Scientology is a cult.” If you listen to talk radio, I am sure you have heard the conservative commentators refer to the Obama followers as a cult. I would personally consider environmentalists as part of a cult. Sure they don't have a charismatic leader, but they have a lot of weird beliefs that defy logic. They certainly have a stronger and much more negative affect on society than the FLDS (as has been demonstrated by the recent food riots/shortages).

The fact is that the media uses the term cult in a derogatory manner. The question is why? Why not use it for environmentalists? Why not use it for scientologists? Why not use it for the jihadists? I am not saying they should use the term cult for all these groups. What I am saying is their willingness to use it in one instance over another does not seem to make sense. There is no rhyme or reason behind it.

You may think I am kidding, but I am not. Let's look at some of the things the FLDS are accused is an impressive list, but I have included by rebuttals to give everyone perspective.

1. The men have sexual relations with more than one woman

All sorts of men have sex with more than one woman. In fact, the hypocrisy here is almost absurd. Let's say I am a normal everyday guy. I can go out and have random sex with as many women or men that I want, and nothing will legally be done to me. However, if I decide to commit to multiple consenting women in a serious long term relationship, my house will be raided by heavily armed police who will break up my community and take my kids away. To paraphrase one conservative radio host said (I forget which one) Hugh Heffner’s living arrangements are good enough for its own cable TV show, while the FLDS living arrangements are good enough for a police raid.

2. They are weird

They sure are a bunch of weirdoes. That is true. But is anyone weird enough to have their kids taken away, their homes referred to as a compound (so if the police decide to shoot and burn everyone inside, it won't sound as was a compound for goodness sake!), and their community slandered all across the American media without a trial (yet), fair or otherwise?

3. They dress funny

Seriously, why do the media even bring this up? It is almost embarrassing. It is irrelevant. Did they expect to find them dressing like Paris Hilton? In fact, anyone who has kids that dress like Paris Hilton should have THEIR kids taken away.

4. Teenage girls are having sex

First of all, I am not sure how much of this they have actually proved. That being said, I don’t think young and underage girls having sex is a problem that is isolated to the FLDS. Furthermore, I think it is very safe to say that underage girls having sex with older men is definitely not exclusive to this particular community. Has anyone been watching the sex epidemic between teachers and their students? It seems like there is a new case every month. One case of an underage girl having sex with an older man does not justify raiding an entire school and slandering every teacher at that particular school (or taking away the children from every teacher from that school for that matter). So why raid the entire FLDS community?

5. Underage girls are getting married

Last time I checked, 16 year olds could get married in Texas as long as they have the consent of the parents. I could be wrong about that, but I am pretty sure I am not.

6. We don't agree with their lifestyle

Most people would find the marriage arrangements the FLDS are accused of to be troubling. Minors sexually involved with adults, living situations where the people involved cannot legally be married, and the general creepiness of it all. The problem is none of this exclusive to this group of people and they are getting undue stigma for one reason or another. For instance, can you think of any other institutions that have been involved with rather large sex abuse scandals involving minors? Bill Maher mentioned the Catholic Church as a culprit on his HBO show. That is true, but there is also another institution that has had problems recently: our public school system. Story after story of teachers having sex with underage students have bombarded the news cycle the last few years. Some would say it’s different because it’s not systematic. That is true, but there have been systematic cover-ups in which teachers known to be sexually involved with students are simply asked to leave their school district but do not lose their teaching license.

The most interesting parallels can be drawn with gay marriage. Gay marriage and polygamy are both not legally recognized. It is interesting that the government would choose to invade houses of polygamists but not the homes of gays. The argument I hear gays use is that you cannot stop people from living with each other, loving each other, or having sex with each other. I agree with all of those statements. The government should not be involved with any of those issues no matter how demented and perverted the people involved are. It gets gays off the hook, why not polygamists?

So let’s play devil’s advocate. Let’s say everything I just listed is irrelevant. Let’s say the only thing that matter is that there are underage girls sexually involved with adult males. If that is all that matters, the media needs to stop talking about all these other issues because it is then irrelevant.

Also a fairer pursuit of justice should be followed for all adults who are sexually involved with minors. That means all these catholic priests and public school teachers should have their churches and homes raided. It also means NAMBLA (now these people are creepy) should have their headquarters raided with armed police.

Why does any other this matter? It matters because we are supposed to have equal protection under the law. It is not right to target certain groups just because they may be outside the mainstream, especially for circumstances, motivation, and evidence as ambiguous as in this particular case. If the “weirdoes” of the FLDS can be essentially persecuted for being “weird”, then you open an ugly door for future or already existing “weird” groups.
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Global Warming is Already Killing People!
Since all this global warming fear mongering really became mainstream (mostly because of hurricane Katrina and Al Gore's movie) the US has shifted its energy policy to adopt bio fuels (mostly corn ethenol) in an attempt to cut down on our use of oil.

This is from the UK new website the telegraph:

The mass diversion of the North American grain harvest into ethanol plants for fuel is reaching its political and moral limits.

"The reality is that people are dying already," said Jacques Diouf, of the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

Mr Diouf says world grain stocks have fallen to a quarter-century low of 5m tonnes, rations for eight to 12 weeks. America - the world's food superpower - will divert 18pc of its grain output for ethanol this year, chiefly to break dependency on oil imports. It has a 45pc biofuel target for corn by 2015.

So basically, we are starving people today, so they won't drown because of melting ice caps tomorrow.

Not to mention...
Brazil has the world's biggest reserves of "potential arable land" with 483m hectares (it currently cultivates 67m), and Colombia has 62m - both offering biannual harvests.

The catch is obvious. "The idea that you cut down rainforest to actually grow biofuels seems profoundly stupid," said Professor John Beddington, Britain's chief scientific adviser.

Basically, if we stay the current course, we will be forced to cut down rain forests in order to keep up with our energy needs.

I don't understand how anyone could still believe these global warming ass holes.
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Are We Still Debating Darfur?
I was watching CSPAN a couple weeks ago and saw a guy by the name of Coby Rudolph of the Save Darfur Coalition. The guy, bless his soul, is still trying to bring attention, and presumably, American intervention into Sudan. I know certain people are trying to make a big deal about the situation there, and rightfully so, but do we really want to intervene in a civil war in another Islamic country?

I thought this debate was over a long time ago. I thought we didn't want to send American soldiers to intervene in foreign conflicts. I thought we were supposed to just leave the Muslims alone because intervening just makes them hate us even more. I thought optional wars were bad.

Let me guess. We will be greeted as liberators and won't have to do much fighting...that sounds familiar.

Do these people (mostly liberals) realize that this is the same logic that President Bush used to invade Iraq. The same! Isn't it ironic that the same people who would so easily call him an idiot, also easily adopt his foreign policy?

Do you realize these people in Sudan have been fighting each other for decades? American cowboys are not going to be able to ride in and save the people there over night.

When we invaded Iraq, the economic costs and time table were downplayed. The people advocating the war thought it would be easy and over in a couple of months. Unfortunately, that was not true.

The Darfur advocates are making the same mistake. While watching CSPAN, there was no mention of costs or a time table, or even a specific strategy of how to save the people in Darfur. It is a two word argument: save Darfur.

How about not. How about we don't save Darfur. Why don't we finish what we started and save Iraq and Afghanistan. How can you advocate the start of a third war when we are barely winning (some would say losing) two others. Who in their right mind would want that?

I know the Darfur advocates want to save people and have good intentions, but so did the people wanted to invade Iraq. Prior to our invasions, Iraq and Afghanistan were both just as messed up as Sudan is right now. So what makes Sudan so important?

It isn't important. Unlike Iraq, there aren't even fake reasons to intervene in Sudan. Unfortunately, that is reality.

If we ever do invade Sudan, expect more of the same. We will send too few troops, who start as peace keepers. As time passes we will realize we need a little more force and will move to a more aggressive strategy. This will inevitably make the Muslims mad and will create a new wave of radicals who come from all over the Islamic world to kill us. We will have two choices when this happens. We can run like we did in Somalia, in which case the whole thing would have been useless. Or we can stay, and have it turn into another Iraq.

All of this so we can achieve what national goal? To feel better about slavery? When we invaded Iraq, they said there were dozens of dictators, so why focus on Saddam. Regarding Darfur I would say there are a many civil wars with no significance to American interests, why Sudan?
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Don't Give Up Now
Clinton is responsible for more Iraqi deaths than Bush.

How could you forget?

According to the most outrageously high estimates, the Iraq war has killed 700,000 civilians. The most accurate account that actually ties names to the people who have died has a number of around 80,000. Don't get me wrong. Both numbers, regardless of which one is closer to the truth, are tragic. What makes it worse is that those numbers should be lower and would be if it wasn't for the undeniably poor execution of the war.

However, don't forget that 500,000 children alone died in Iraq during Clinton's years because of US led sanction against Iraq.

Again, another tragedy.

What is the point of this blog...

Understand that Iraq was a danger to the US and its interests. You may not like that, but it was a reality to the point that a Democratic administration chose US interests over the lives of 500,000 Iraqi children. Not to mention, our lack of action allowed Saddam to stay in power and kill and terrorize God knows how many others.

You may not like the Iraq war, but unlike economic sanctions, the war has a chance of actually creating a better Iraq in the long run. Remember that the next time you want to sound smart by saying you think the president and his policies are moronic.

StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!