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, February 23, 2007
Did Bush Balance the Federal Budget?
There’s some new and interesting news out in the Christian Science Monitor regarding the federal deficit:

Despite the ongoing costs of US military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, the outlook for the federal budget has grown substantially brighter.

Tax revenues are rising much faster than spending, according to Treasury Department numbers released last week. The recent trend is strong enough that, were it to continue, the budget could move into surplus in barely a year, one economist calculates.

Already, the federal deficit is shrinking toward about half the size that it has averaged since 1970, when analyzed as a percentage of gross domestic product.
This really underscores how Clinton was able to balance the budget. It has a lot less to do with his fiscal discipline or the fact that he raised taxes, and had a lot more to do with the strength of the economy.

That is why I personally get extremely annoyed when people say that Bush has ruined the economy with his deficit spending or whatever nonsense they manage to get out of their mouth.

The fact is the economy is now improving and the budget is practically balancing itself. When the economy was bad, that was when the deficit was huge. A bad economy will lead to bad business. When business is bad, they make less money. When they make less money, they pay less taxes. You would think that this is pretty self-explanatory, but many American’s don’t have the smarts to figure it out on their own.
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Environmental Fear-Mongerers Target Children
Bush’s “fear-mongering” doesn’t keep anyone up at night (probably because he doesn’t actually fear monger) but a new study in the UK suggests that environmentalists are using fear to indoctrinate children into their way of thinking.

Half of young children are anxious about the effects of global warming, often losing sleep because of their concern, according to a new report today. A survey of 1,150 youngsters aged between seven and 11 found that one in four blamed politicians for the problems of climate change.
Yes we all know it’s Bush’s fault that China and India have better economies now. Their better economies allow them to buy things that the West has (like cars) and these things cause global warming.

One in seven of those questioned by supermarket giant Somerfield said their own parents were not doing enough to improve the environment.
If you can’t scare the crap out of adults, you might as well target the kids.

The most feared consequences of global warming included poor health, the possible submergence of entire countries and the welfare of animals.
Please not the animals!!!

Pete Williams, of Somerfield, said: "Concerns over our environment dominate the media at present and kids are exposed to the hard facts as much as anybody.
I think this study proves that kids are NOT exposed to the hard facts. If global warming were a true threat, wouldn’t the people with the best judgment (adults) be the most worried about it? Sorry if I don’t trust the judgment of a bunch of rug rats in the UK.

While many adults may look the other way, this study should show that global warming is not only hurting the children of the future, it's affecting the welfare of kids now.
The only way global warming is affecting kids is through environmentalists use of fear and terror. Their anxiety is not rational and wouldn't exist were it not for the overzealousness of environmentalists.
By raising awareness amongst today's young, hopefully we are improving our chances of reaching a solution.
Translation: If we can blame rich people, big business, and American’s for more of our problems, we can reach our socialist goals.

Another example of why I hate environmentalists…but not quite as much as they hate the rich.
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Myth Buster
Calling all the misinformed!

There is so much misinformation out there on Iraq, that I thought I would just sit down here and pick apart some of the nonsense that so many of the young kids have floating around in the alcohol soaked brains.

• America did not put Saddam in power.

• The US did not provide Iraq with WMD. No one did per se. Some American firms sold chemicals to Iraq that can be used to make chemical weapons, but they played a small role compared to many other countries.

• Saddam did support terrorism.

• Saddam was never a “friend” of America. We just wanted to make sure they didn't lose their war with Iran.

• Our military support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war was very limited (as in 100 helicopters). In fact, America’s military contributions to Iraq are a footnote compared to what Russia, France and China provided them.

• Iraq was considered a state sponsor of terrorism by President’s Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton. However, when G-Dub brings it up, people call him an idiot and a liar. It makes me wonder who the stupid people really are.

• Saddam was directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of about 1.5 million Iraqis. Of this number, approximately, 1 million died (numbers vary) because of Saddam’s willingness to use his countries money on himself rather than taking care of his people. Ironically, he was able to dupe many dumb Westerners into believing these deaths were due to President Bill Clinton’s enforcement of economic sanctions. Of course, we know this is false. Saddam was given more than enough money through his oil for food program to take care of his people, but decided to buy palaces instead. The remaining 500,000 are a result of the Iran-Iraq War, the Persian Gulf War, and Saddam’s use of murder as a political tool (again numbers vary).

• If one does the math, approximately 60,000 Iraqi’s died every year under Saddam. It makes the current situation in Iraq look like a day at the park. Not really, but numberswise, there is an improvement in post-Saddam Iraq as opposed to when he was in power. Not to mention, rape is no longer an institutionalized form of punishment. That is good too!

All in all, I think you are probably much smarter having read this blog. Continue to read, and continue to allow me to shift that Bell Curve, and your politics, to the right.
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Global Warming Part II
Nazi um...scientists that dare try to counter current claims of global warming have discovered something rather interesting:

A U.S. study suggests two of Greenland largest glaciers are melting at variable rates and not at an increasing trend.

The study, led by Ian Howat, a researcher with the University of Colorado National Snow and Ice Data Center and the University of Washington Applied Physics Laboratory, shows the glaciers shrank dramatically and dumped twice as much ice into the sea during a period of less than a year between 2004 and 2005.

But then, fewer than two years later, they returned to near their previous rates of discharge.

Howat says such variability during such a short time underlines the problem in assuming glacial melting and sea level rise will necessarily occur at a steady upward trajectory.

I reject your reality and substitute my own.


More common sense, this time from India:

Some experts have questioned the alarmists theory on global warming leading to shrinkage of Himalayan glaciers. VK Raina, a leading glaciologist and former ADG of GSI is one among them.

He feels that the research on Indian glaciers is negligible. Nothing but the remote sensing data forms the basis of these alarmists observations and not on the spot research.

Raina told the Hindustan Times that out of 9,575 glaciers in India, till date, research has been conducted only on about 50. Nearly 200 years data has shown that nothing abnormal has occurred in any of these glaciers.

Imagine that…



The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building has been postponed due to inclement weather. The hearing is entitled “Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?”

The hearing will be rescheduled to a date and time to be announced later.


And lastly, check out this gem from the President of the Czech Republic:

Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate.


StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Monday, February 12, 2007
Environmentalists Piss Me Off
This from your friendly neighborhood envrionmental militant:
Even if man’s activities such as burning fossil fuels didn’t contribute one bit to global warming, the burning of fossil fuels is fraught with plenty of other perils including other environmental damage, geopolitical instability, and the ultimately limited nature of the resource.The debate over global warming’s cause doesn’t change those facts, and the need to develop the next generation of alternative energy technologies is a very real need no matter what course the debate over global warming and its cause may take.

Wow....then why do you even talk about global warming? I'll tell you why - these people know that fear mongering is the only way they will get their agenda accomplished.

I think it is funny that a "green" technology company can promote global warming and it is considered science, but when an oil company dares argue against the validity of global warming, everyone cries foul.
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Friday, February 09, 2007
Five Reasons Liberals should Detest Welfare

1. “Don’t shove your morals down my throat!!!”

If you know anyone that is liberal or ever watch the news, then you have heard the “don’t shove morals down our throat” argument. For those of you who have read this blog consistently, you know I debunked this years ago in what is now known as the moral values fallacy. Yes – I am proud to say that if you Google “moral values fallacy” the first page that comes up is my article on the subject.

Back to the point. Liberals say they believe in the “don’t shove your morals down my throat” doctrine, so let’s hold them to it. Why are they forcing their morals of helping the poor on everyone else? Everyone has their opinion on how best to help the poor, so why should a government monopoly (welfare) exist?

I say that people should choose who they give money to. I already know what the liberals reading this are thinking:

If we don’t force our morals on people, then nobody will help anyone!

You self-righteous son of a bitch. How dare you think that. Rather than argue that ludicrous point, I will point the readership of the Conservative Bastion to a book called Who Really Cares by Arthur C. Brooks. Long story short, conservatives give more money to charity than liberals. Read ‘em and weep.

2. “Freedom of choice!”

I don’t believe in abortion, but I believe it that it is a choice that an individual needs to make for themselves and that others and government should stay out of such decisions.

That’s how one argument goes in favor of legalized abortion. Personally, I couldn’t disagree more because that decision ends a human life – which is murder. However the argument does work for welfare. Personally, I believe it is a good humans’ responsibility to give resources – not just money necessarily, but time and used items – to those who are less fortunate.

I don’t think, however, that Big Brother should decide who gives, how much they give, and to whom they give. That is micromanaging someone’s finances. If your mother had as much say over your finances as Big Brother, you would think she was very overbearing. Yet we accept the fact that the government somehow knows best.

This flies in the face of facts and history since the government has spent trillions on welfare and hasn’t put a dent in the poverty levels.

3. “Don’t be simpleminded, be nuanced like me…”

How many times have we heard the libs say Bush’s arguments are simpleminded and ignore the nuances. Sometimes it gets to the point where it is comical. One man’s nuances is another mans nitpicking I suppose. Sometimes I think liberals just like the word “nuance”. I can understand them – I like it too.

However, there is no case of ignored nuances more prevalent in American politics than in the way we treat poor people. The liberal line of logic goes something like this:

Rich people have money. Rich people can use money to buy things. People like things. Poor people don’t have money. Poor people can’t buy things. Poor people are sad. Poor people need money.

It goes something like that anyways. Whatever the line of logic, it ends with poor people need money. That is why welfare – the main way the government helps the poor – involves handouts. After all, poor people need money, so let’s give it to them.

Thankfully, I, along with many nuanced conservatives understand that this is false. You know the problem with poor people? They have freedom of choice – that is the problem. As long as people have the freedom to make bad choices, poverty will exist. As long as people have the right to drop out of high school, poverty will exist. As long as people have the right to get pregnant with no husband to support them, poverty will exist. As long as people have the right to abuse mind-altering substances, poverty will exist. As long as people have the right to refinance their homes every six months, poverty will exist. As long as people have the right to buy cars that are above their means, poverty will exist. As long as people have the right to buy 30 lottery tickets a week when they can barely make rent, poverty will exist.

The fact is that most poor people have made big mistakes in their lives – and more often than not, they repeat those mistakes.

4. True compassion…

If someone you loved was in dire need, you wouldn’t send them to the welfare office.

One sentence KO.

5. Absolute Power corrupts absolutely

George Bush has too much power and he is abusing it.

My simpleminded foes. Here is a line of logic that makes sense.

Money = power. More money = more power. Power will corrupt. The more power one has, the more corrupt they can be. Therefore, more money = more power = more corruption.

If you want a less corrupt government, take away their money. That is the only way. You can not reform government to be subordinate. It is an untamable monster. This is why the Founding Fathers (in their infinite wisdom) pushed for limited government. Since welfare essentially makes up half of the 2006 2.6 trillion budget, it logical to target it.


Rather than just being another ass hole critic, I will support what I have said with answer.

1. Pushing morals on other unnecessarily is a real issue. One way to avoid this in our welfare state would be to allow people to opt out of Social Security, and put that money in their 401k.

I know the arguments against this, and if you can honestly argue that you feel safer with Social Security than a 401k, then you are a fucking retard…excuse my French. The fact is, no one actually believes that. It is rhetoric used by Democrats to feel better about the fact that they have taken an anti-freedom stance on this issue. Every single Democrat in the House and Congress has money in the stock market. When the pull their money out, I will start to believe them.

2. Choice is the key word here. Frankly, I wouldn’t mind if the government said that we have to give 10 percent of our money to a certain type of cause. If certain people were helped by a soup kitchen when they were down and out, they could give it all to that soup kitchen. If others thought that their college was responsible for their success, they could give their 10 percent to their school or to a fund to help students pay tuition.

The beauty of choice is that when it turns out that soup kitchen or that college was found wasting money, funds would immediately drop off the next year. No one would continue giving their money to a cause that was careless with their money. The result would be a strong checks and balances system against fraud and waste.

And hey, just to make the libs happy, we would even let people still give their tax dollars to current government programs – like food stamps.

3. Wake up, we are never going to end poverty. With freedom comes responsibility. The best thing we can do to end poverty is to improve education. Let’s stop teaching hocus pocus global warming bull shit to the kids and start teaching them how to shop for a mortgage, the benefits of buying a house while you’re young, and about personal finance. Not to mention, how to speak English, read, and write.

4. Admit it, the best place to go for help is from family and close friends. That is what life is about. Making personal relationships with people you care about, then depending on each other when things get rough.

5. I don’t even know what to put here. Most liberals can’t admit that their welfare system creates a powerful government. Let me appeal to you now. There is a reason that wars like Vietnam and Iraq didn’t happen until government got bigger…frankly, governments had no money to fight wars before then. You could also make the argument that having a large peace time military has a lot to do with it, but that argument is for another day. Fact is, more money = more power, more power = more corruption, and all of this means less freedom.

StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
The Hateable Minority
And gays wonder why everyone “hates” them

An initiative filed by proponents of same-sex marriage would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriage annulled.

Initiative 957 was filed by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance. That group was formed last summer after the state Supreme Court upheld Washington's ban on same-sex marriage.
I am not adamantly against gay marriage. I believe it is wrong and I would vote against it if given the opportunity. However, if there was a vote, and the people voted to allow gay marriage, I would not be upset. Worse things can happen.

However, actions like this by gay activists makes me want them to fail. This type of strategy is utterly obnoxious. Frankly, it hurts their PR. Normal people don't look at stunts like this and understand their point. They see stereotypical overly emotional gays.
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Monday, February 05, 2007
This Just in: Global Warming is a Fraud
In the past couple days, Drudge has posted two articles of major scientists who argue against man made global warming. Rather than pretend to be a scientist, I will quote from both of them.

The first scientist is "[a]strophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists..."
In another study, directly relevant to today's climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth's temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 -- instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity.
In other words, *gasp* the sun has more to do with the temperatures on earth than your SUV does.

The second scientist, Tim Ball, is a Canadian.

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist.
ROFLMAO he must hate science!!! Ok, I'll try to contain myself...
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
The propaganda statement is gold.
…there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change.
Bold and direct.

There is much more, and I wanted to quote more, but I would basically be quoting the whole article. Read the damn thing and learn. Face it, you have all been duped. Global warming is the 21st century boogey man. It is a story you tell your kids before you go to sleep so that they don't litter, recycle, and conserve energy. In other words, it is a scare tactic - one that has been far too effective on thinking adults up to this point. Let's hope people wake up to this nonsense and stop wasting trillions and something that doesn't even exist.
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Saturday, February 03, 2007
In a classy statement of solidarity, a number of Democrats, independents, and Republicans bravely voiced their opinion on the troop surge Iraq in a recent poll:

Asked whether they want the surge to succeed, 34 percent of Democrats answered ''No,'' and so did 19 percent of independents and 11 percent of Republicans.
For clarification, this poll wasn't asking if you think the surge will succeed. It wasn't asking if you trust the president's ability to handle the war. It wasn't even asking if you agree with the war in the first place. All it is asking is if you want America to succeed.

Overall, 22 percent said they wanted America to fail while 15 percent said they didn't know. I'm not sure which is worse.

On one hand you have a terrorist sympathizer, and on the other you have someone who is too spineless to take sides in a war in which their countries safety is at stake.

I officially despise 22 percent of the American population.
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Liberal Values: A Case Study
This just in: liberals and their sexual revolution are mentally retarded. Another example of why sexual chaos is a bad. For those who can't remember, liberals are the people who always preach about how we should be kind to one another. One of their main points are that conservatives are meanie heads because they like to make a lot of money. Well morons, I personally rather have a boss that makes a lot of money than a boss that destroys my family. That's just me though.

If you wonder why I bring this up. Read this from the San Francisco Chronicle:

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's re-election campaign manager resigned Wednesday after confronting the mayor about an affair Newsom had with his wife while she worked in the mayor's office, City Hall sources said.

Alex Tourk, 39, who served as Newsom's deputy chief of staff before becoming his campaign manager in September, confronted the mayor after his wife, Ruby Rippey-Tourk, told him of the affair as part of a rehabilitation program she had been undergoing for substance abuse, said the sources, who had direct knowledge of Wednesday's meeting.
Keep up the good work liberals. Your values are doing a bang up job.
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!