Conservative Bastion
The only blog that can factually claim to shift the Bell Curve, along with the hearts & minds of America, to the right.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Democrats Flip Flop on Bush Iraq Policy
Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Democrats have been bitching about the idea of America being the world’s police. Their argument is that the world is a big and dangerous place, and that America can’t waste its limited resources on protecting random countries from one another or themselves.

This position has gained a lot of popularity lately, especially since July of 2006, when many deemed the current Iraq disaster a civil war. For a long while, I questioned the Iraq policy. Why should America “police” the world? After all, in the end, only one thing can happen. Eventually, something will go wrong in that country, and we will be blamed for it by local politicians so that they can save their own asses. At least this was my line of thinking for the last few months. That is, until the Democrats starting bringing up the idea of intervening in the Sudan.

I don’t want to drag this blog out longer than it needs to be, so I will get to the point. Here is a list of things that makes the genocide in the Sudan relevant to American national security.

Here is a list of things that made Iraq relevant to American national security in 2003.

1. Saddam Hussein – this man was more dangerous than Osama bin Laden in 2003. Why? Keep reading.

2. Fear of a WMD program

3. Failure to comply with UN weapons sanctions

4. Oil

5. Connections to terrorism

6. The fact that Saddam was still in power in 2003 weakened America. It showed that we were not willing to backup our word against a vicious dictator. That was especially dangerous in a post-9/11 world.

7. Saddam’s track record. Everything about Saddam was bad. At the time, he was the only world leader in power that had used WMD. He was one of only a handful who we believed had a WMD program. We know he sponsored terrorism. Billy Clinton knew it, and so did Jimmy Carter. Please don’t make me argue this one. Read a book. Perhaps the most insane of all the things Saddam did was during the first Gulf War. For those of you who can’t remember that far back, Saddam shot SCUD missiles at Israel after America started repelling the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. He did this because he was afraid he was going to lose power and hoped in coaxing Israel into a war. If Israel attacked Iraq, every Arab country would join the war on his side, and he…well, he was a crazy son of a bitch.

8. Also, don’t forget that Saddam probably hated America more than anyone else in the world. On September 11, Iraq was the only country not to send their condolences to the US. So I don’t get ragged on for that statement, I will site my source.

Then there was the whole trying to assassinate Bush 41.

I think you get the idea. Saddam was bad. I wish WMD weren’t hyped up as being the main reason for invading Iraq because it was only one of dozens of reasons to get rid of that guy.


People seem to think that intervention in Sudan will be a breeze. Well let me wake you up to reality…the Sudan is worse off now (in terms of violence) than Iraq was prior to invasion.

Liberals complain that Iraq is a civil war – that it is their fight and we should get out of it. Well what the hell do you think Darfur is? If we were to intervene now, we would be stuck in the middle of a civil war from day one.

One of two outcomes is possible by US intervention: hell and nothing.

1. We will go in there, get our hands very dirty, and probably piss off a lot of people in the process.

2. We will go in there, stand on the side while people kill one another, solve nothing, and waste resources.

These people are even less united than Iraqis. The country is split among Christians, indigenous beliefs, and Islam. However, and just as importantly, there is also a mix of blacks (52%) and Arabs (39%). FYI, Arabs hate blacks. Ok, that is a generalization, but that region of the world isn’t exactly enlightened, and racism is definitely prevalent there.

My advice:

If America needs to intervene anywhere militarily, it is Iran. The Sudan should be the last thing on our minds right now. After all, there are plenty of people dying all over the world, why should we choose the Sudan as our place to intervene?

If you didn't catch that, I am mocking the Liberal/Democratic talking points on Iraq. However, I think this point is actually valid here.

Intervening in the Sudan now would be like intervening in Spain during WWII. Ok, it is bad, that is true, but we have more pressing matters right now.

In the end, it seems like Democrats don't care as much about America being the world's police as they like to claim.
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Left-Wing Terrorist Group Exposed
PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) in on trial and has some splaining to do.

Adria Hinkle of Norfolk and Andrew Cook of Virginia Beach, both workers for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, are being tried together on 21 counts of felony animal cruelty, seven counts of littering and three counts of obtaining property by false pretenses.

The prosecution asserted that the animals were killed maliciously and with intent, while the defense argued that Hinkle and Cook euthanized the animals humanely and they would have been put down at the shelter in Bertie County by the most acceptable method.
More from the same article:

Lawyers for two PETA workers charged with animal cruelty argued today that they were doing their job and that the only thing they might have done wrong was dispose of carcasses improperly.
That is interesting. It is PETA’s job to kill animals. How liberal of them.

This reminds me of the generic story of the evangelical pastor caught with his pants down.

Imagine the Anti-Defamation League caught killing Jews. Of course, that would be a situation in which people were dying – which is no way relevant to this story. After all, people are infinitely more important than animals. PETA doesn’t see it that way though, so the comparison applies. That’s right. PETA does not think humans are more important than animals. How else could they be against scientific research being done on animals. If it’s not done on animals, who or what will we test on? Trees? I’m guessing its humans. I am also guessing that anyone who really believes a word PETA has to say has an IQ of 95. Actually, there is some evidence to support that:

However, vegans - vegetarians who also avoid dairy products - scored significantly lower, averaging an IQ score of 95 at the age of 10.

Vegans also tend to be animal rights freaks. The message is clear. PETA is a terrorist organization full of dumb people.

The problem with many PETA members is that they are duped into becoming members. Falling for lame violent videos made in the 70's in China and assuming the same practices happen here in America. Animal cruelty is already illegal in America as is shown by the fact that this trial is taking place.

P.S. If you don’t know why PETA is a terrorist organization, Google: “PETA terrorist”
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
State of the Union 2007
Every year, the sitting president gives the State of the Union address and every year we hear lofty ideas that go nowhere. This year was no different than any other. However, one concept of the president’s speech hit home.

For those of you who missed the speech, the president talked about every issue imaginable – Social Security, tax reform, healthcare, immigration, energy reform, and foreign policy. The latter was where the President made his strongest point.

In the last 2 years, we have seen the desire for liberty in the broader Middle East — and we have been sobered by the enemy's fierce reaction. In 2005, the world watched as the citizens of Lebanon raised the banner of the Cedar Revolution ... drove out the Syrian occupiers ... and chose new leaders in free elections. In 2005, the people of Afghanistan defied the terrorists and elected a democratic legislature. And in 2005, the Iraqi people held three national elections — choosing a transitional government ... adopting the most progressive, democratic constitution in the Arab world ... and then electing a government under that constitution. Despite endless threats from the killers in their midst, nearly 12 million Iraqi citizens came out to vote in a show of hope and solidarity we should never forget.

A thinking enemy watched all of these scenes, adjusted their tactics, and in 2006 they struck back. In Lebanon, assassins took the life of Pierre Gemayel, a prominent participant in the Cedar Revolution. And Hezbollah terrorists, with support from Syria and Iran, sowed conflict in the region and are seeking to undermine Lebanon's legitimately elected government. In Afghanistan, Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters tried to regain power by regrouping and engaging Afghan and NATO forces. In Iraq, Al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists blew up one of the most sacred places in Shia Islam — the Golden Mosque of Samarra. This atrocity, directed at a Muslim house of prayer, was designed to provoke retaliation from Iraqi Shia — and it succeeded. Radical Shia elements, some of whom receive support from Iran, formed death squads. The result was a tragic escalation of sectarian rage and reprisal that continues to this day.
In other words, these are not just random events that just happen by chance. There are forces that actively promote the possibility of American failure behind each of these setbacks in the Middle East. The reason these specific countries were targeted was because they were inches from freedom. Freedom and totalitarianism are natural enemies. So naturally, anyone in favor of a theocracy would stop at nothing to destroy freedom in its infancy.


To be fair, I can understand how someone could oppose the Iraq War. I completely understand actually. What really pisses me off though, is when I see people against the Iraq War (because “it has nothing to do with America’s security”) start clamoring for American intervention in Darfur. That almost makes me want to ROFLMAO if it wasn’t so Democratic (can be used synonymously with idiotic). I mean that literally. I'll blog about it another day.
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Monday, January 22, 2007
Looks like the Nazi/Republican/Science Hating Party is at it again. These people will stop at nothing to "disprove" global warming. Apparently, there are pictures floating around the internet on some so-called "news websites" (that's Nazi for propaganda machine) claiming it snowed in Phoenix, Arizona this past Sunday. Here is one of the doctored photos…

Apparently, it snowed in Phoenix during last year's winter as says the Republican/Fascist propaganda machine. I just wish they would stop asking questions – which for those of you who don’t know – undermines science.

Even if it did snow in Phoenix, it is just one event out of hundreds. It would prove nothing. It certainly wouldn't disprove global warming. Using snow in Phoenix to disprove global warming would almost be as stupid as...oh I don't know...using a hot summer or a hurricane to prove global warming.

As if anyone could actually believe it snowed in Phoenix. Why if that happened, it would make all of us believers look rather foolish.
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Friday, January 19, 2007
James Spann Goes Off On Weather Channel
Quote of the month:
*The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It
will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much difference
than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we
are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and
Northern Europe.

Imagine that. Climate history didn't beginning in 1860 (around the time that many fearmongering global warming fanatics quote as the time man starting warming the earth). Anyone who doesn't mind being educated and entertained at the same time should consider reading State of Fear by Michael Crichton. It is a fantastic book that addresses the real motivation and politics behind global warming.
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Friday, January 12, 2007
You People Make Me Sick
This from the tax Nazi's:
Pelosi had said nixing tax cuts for half-million-dollar earners "might be more
important to the American people than ignoring the educational and health needs
of America's children."

What the hell kind of people could actually agree with what Nancy Pelosi is saying here? These are the same people who buy into the "live and let live" motto. What business is it of yours if someone who works their ass off gets to keep the money they spend all day earning? The answer is that it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS! If you want more money going to the government, then YOU give more. If you don't give more, but expect others to do so, then you are a hypocrite.
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Hobbes Vs. Locke
Long story short, I had to take the CLEP on Western Civilization II last week (yes I passed and am now a college graduate). In order to pass the test, I picked up a practice booklet.

Western Civ covers a long period in history and nearly every facet, but one of the points of focus was The Enlightenment. It was in this subject that this practice booklet triggered an idea in my head. How? It was while I was reading the sections of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. It helped me see the differences between those two philosophers and how their differences can still be seen in American politics today. Here are some quotes from the book to illustrate my point.


Left to their own devices, Hobbes famously wrote, people will create miserable lives for themselves and others the because they are naturally selfish, greedy, and shortsighted; their lives will be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” To solve this problem, Hobbes continued, people give their power to an absolute authority, the “Leviathan,” who keeps order and makes peaceful living possible. Though Hobbes quoted the Bible frequently – his title comes from the biblical book of Job – he had no use in his politics for theology. Thus, his philosophy is symbolic of the increasing secularization of Europe, which had begun around the early 1500s.

Without Big Bother, some people will make bad decisions that will make their life harder. These people will be poor. Those who are fortunate enough to not be poor will maliciously exploit their fellow citizens economically. The reason this happens is because they are selfish, greedy, and shortsighted. You can easily see contempt for mankind by the rich in practices such as outsourcing, pollution, poorly manufactured products, a low minimum wage, etc. These motivators and their byproducts will lead to a life of poverty that lacks healthcare and other basic human needs [DVD players and XBOX 360’s exempt]. The only way to stop this is through creating a vast welfare state that can protect us from these evils. Some call it a welfare state, others call it big brother, but I call it the Leviathan. The Leviathan will make life as peaceful as possible.

P.S. Religion sucks.

Of fundamental importance – in England and later in the English colonies that would become the United States – was Locke’s idea that a ruler could rule only so long as he or she kept the people’s trust. The ruler did this by respecting the inherent rights human beings possess to life, liberty, and property. And if a ruler trampled on those rights, Locke argued, the people had a responsibility to replace that ruler.
I don’t think this one needs a translation. The man whose political ideas inspired our Founding Fathers believed in the right to life [abortion bitches], liberty [somewhat open ended, but common sense can make decent boundaries here], and property [property is anything you own…more tax cuts please].

Let me ask a simple question. What is the meaning of conservative? This is what says:

Disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

In other words, conservatives want to keep things the way they are, and/or restore things to how they used to be. I think I have made my point clearly.

John Locke – a lover of freedom and the man whose ideas the Founding Fathers used to help found this country – belongs in the Republican Party. After all the Republicans are the conservative party, the Founding Fathers lived in the past, and the Republicans want to make things the way they were in the past.

Thomas Hobbes – promoter of big government – belongs in the Democratic Party.

To be intellectually honest, John Locke would definitely be defined as a libertarian. However, we all know that the Republican Party, despite its shortcomings, is much closer to being libertarian than the Democratic Party. Just face it. The Libertarian Party is where disenfranchised Republicans go while disenfranchised Democrats turn to the Green Party.

All that aside, Locke favored reason as the basis for his politics. Hobbes turned to control and power. I just reported, you decide.
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Friday, January 05, 2007
Bush Sucks at Economics...(to be nuanced and intellectually honest)
It looks like the Democratic congress is instantly improving the poor economy that George Dubya created.

…the government reported Friday that employers are still in a hiring mood, adding an estimated 167,000 new jobs in December. That was more than expected and left the unemployment rate unchanged at 4.5 percent, relatively low by historical standards.
Relatively low by historical standards is an odd way to phrase those numbers. I would say, “Low by any standard set in any region or time in the history of the world.” That’s just me though.

There is more good news though. Many have attacked the solid Bush economy numbers by saying all the new jobs are comprised of dish washers, burger flippers, and toilet cleaners. However, MSNBC has this to say:
While there may have been a basis for that concern several years ago, the increasingly tight labor market has seen strong growth of jobs that pay higher-than-average wages over the past few months.
To make it simple…

On average, the wages of American workers are rising.

Well that’s that. The scaremongering fanaticism we saw from Democrats over the last few years was dishonest and/or idiotic. Anyone with a basic understanding of how capitalism works knows that markets expand and contract – there is overinvestment and then correction. The economy works in cycles. It always has and it always will. Next time there is a recession, don’t blame the sitting president.

Frankly, it is like blaming Ford’s new CEO (Alan Mulally) for the company’s problems. A layman/ignoramus might blame the new guy for the company’s problems, but the fact is that there are many nuances involved in Ford’s demise. These nuances go back decades, not just a couple months or years ago.

I think it is fair to say that the overall US economy is more complex and dynamic than a single motor company. That being said, how in good conscience could any politician or responsible citizen blame a president for an economic shortfall? The whole point of capitalism is that business and state are separated.

The separation of business and state.

StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!