Conservative Bastion
The only blog that can factually claim to shift the Bell Curve, along with the hearts & minds of America, to the right.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Tax Evaders Lucky Clinton Not President
Apparently there are a couple government haters holed up in New Hampshire somewhere.
To avoid serving prison sentences for tax evasion, Ed Brown and his wife, Elaine, have locked themselves off from the world on their own terms.

From behind the 8-inch concrete walls of their 110-acre hilltop compound, the couple taunt police and SWAT teams and play to reporters and government-haters with references to past standoffs that turned deadly.
Most assume people like this are crazy. I, on the other hand, tip my hat to them. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong against sticking it to the government. The reason doesn’t matter to me. It could be for constitutional reasons, a protest against the war in Iraq, or even because you are greedy. I honestly don’t care.

In fact, I was fretting just the other day because I assumed people like this had ceased to exist. These people are not criminals. Criminality is more accurately defined by the federal government taking away 20% of what you make.

Don’t get me wrong, government must exist, but if you look at what our government actually provides for us, and how much they spend, you will be pissed. Guaranteed. We have a $2.7 trillion budget. I can’t even imagine what that money is spent on (actually I can because I have seen the federal budget, but if I hadn’t, I would have no clue).

One side note:

These guys sure are lucky that Führer Clinton isn’t still in power. The last time a standoff like this happened it didn’t end to well…

StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Hillary Exploits Poor for Profit
A very uninteresting story about the Clintons and their hypocrisy towards the stock market surfaced this week.
Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton liquidated the contents of their blind trust upon learning it contained investments of $5 million to $25 million that could pose conflicts of interest or prove to be embarrassing to her presidential campaign.

The blind trust and a bank account valued in the same range place the Clinton's total wealth at between $10 million and $50 million.

The Clintons had to disclose the contents of the blind trust in April under instructions from the Office of Government Ethics and sold the assets in May, according to a disclosure form filed Friday. The Clintons have had a blind trust continuously since 1993 and had no control over its transactions.
So why is the stock market good enough for the Clintons, but not for old people saving for retirement? Why does Hillary not want people to have the choice of personal investment accounts as opposed to the current Social Security/Ponzi scheme?

People can make a big deal about her owning Wal-Mart and oil company stocks. Sure Hillary may be a hypocrite by blasting those companies for their business practices while at the same time profiting from those “shady business practices”. Sure she is no better than an evil Republican who probably runs the company, but who really expects anything different? Maybe some young Democrat/Socialist who actually believes the crap that comes out of Democratic leaders mouths, but no one else.

What really gets me is that this woman will use fear mongering to stop the progress of economic freedom in our country while she makes money using her millions in the stock market.

Let me make this clear. No one can stop any American from investing in anything. However, when many Americans live paycheck to paycheck, losing 6% to a Ponzi scheme with no option of using it for a real investment does have a serious effect on the average persons economic wellbeing. Don’t forget that the 6% you pay into Social Security is matched by your employer for a total of 12%. Imagine that. A world where equivalent to 12% of your pay is set aside in the stock market every time you get paid!

Unfortunately, because of the unwillingness by many to reform (especially Democrats), we see that 12% go into a black hole and must invest additional money into a real retirement account. Freedom of choice is the only way to solve this issue. Hopefully one day Democrats stop lying to themselves and their constituents and give us the freedom to invest our money the way we choose to.
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Czech Republic President Rips Environmentalists
Vaclav Klaus…a.k.a. president of the Czech Republic…a.k.a. freedom fighter…had an op-ed published in the Financial Times yesterday. It is Drudge often links to comments he makes about global warming and that is what this particular op-ed was about. One gem of a quote in particular:
As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.
When global warming is put into terms such as “global planning” it definitely opens my eyes to just how creepy this whole thing. There is nothing wrong having allies and working together for a common goal, but when it involves centralized economic planning (especially when the effects will be unquestionably negative to the overall economy) it is scary. We are essentially handing over our economic future to other countries obsessions with the environment.

Thankfully, the American political leaders have been wise enough to avoid such religiously ignorant environmental policies. However, if Democrats get their way, it seems like they would be willing to sell out our future in a second.

Some say there is nothing wrong with sacrificing some economic growth for the environmental preservation. The problem with that is that our environment is fine. By all measurements, our environment is cleaner today than it was 30 years ago. The same can not be said throughout the rest of the world, so perhaps they are the ones that should be focused on sacrificing their economies to clean up their own mess.

Cleaning up the environment hasn’t been enough for the Greenies though. They got rid of pollution, now they want to get rid of C02 which they say causes global warming. It may actually do that, but their solutions are often childish and exhibit some of the worst problem solving skills I have ever witnessed.

I have already presented several possible solutions to global warming on this blog, but environmentalists seem to run from the easier fixes. This trend leads many to believe that this isn’t about the environment, but about politics…most notably, anti-corporate and anti-capitalism interests.

Not all environmentalists fall into that classification of course, but enough of them do to the point that the motives of environmentalists must always be challenged.

Back to the original point…

We, as people, should be weary of anything that involves massive centralized planning. The reason for this is that centralized planning cuts the little guy out of the equation. The more we are afraid of X, the more aspects of our lives the government will take over and control for us.

To be fair, that doesn’t just apply to the environment…it could also apply to terrorism. However, that is a different blog for a different day…and probably for a different blogger.
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Canadian Goes Wild
Drudge reported a weird story out of Canada about a 12-year-old girl killing her family to be with her boyfriend.
The girl and her then 23-year-old boyfriend were arrested after her mother, father and brother were found dead on April 23, 2006, with multiple stab wounds in their Alberta province home. The boy also appeared to have been strangled.

During the trial, which started this week, prosecutor Stephanie Cleary read to the jury an email written by the girl, 12 at the time, to her boyfriend a month before the killings, local media said Tuesday.

"I hate them so I have this plan. It begins with me killing them and it ends with me living with you," the email said.

The prosecution also plans to show the jury a drawing found in the girl's school locker, apparently depicting the murder and her escape in her boyfriend's truck.
There aren’t a lot of details here, but I found it interesting that the girl drew a picture of the killings before they actually happened. Don’t ask how, but the Conservative Bastion has attained a copy of the drawing:



And there you have it. The Conservative Bastion has taken you into the mind of a crazed psychopath. Check back at the Bastion for full coverage of this story. Updates will be available as the trial moves forward.
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Monday, June 11, 2007
Great Going Fag
This is old news, but it came up in a conversation I was having yesterday. The topic was the word “fag” and the recent “scandals” involving the word.

The fact is, liberals and other fags like to ban words that make them mad or offend them. This is no different from the way conservatives act, so I don’t hold that against them.

The main difference between liberals and conservatives on this issue is the outright liberal hypocrisy. To them, saying “fag” is a mortal sin that requires admittance into rehab or a reeducation camp. However, when conservatives get offended by nudity during the Super Bowl, all we hear from liberals is that conservatives are shoving their values on others.

That is just one example, but there are plenty of ways that Hollywood offends conservatives. How about the seemingly concerted and contrived effort to take the name of the Lord in vain as much as possible? Most religious people I know don’t even make a peep about the blatant use of “God”, “Jesus Christ”, and many variations thereof mixed with plenty of expletives.

Personally, I don’t think I will ever stop saying the word “fag”, and I won’t apologize for it. However, if the fags decide to call a truce and stop using the name of the Lord in vain, I may be able to come to the table for some sort of peace talks and ceasefire.

Until then, don’t dish it out if you can’t take it...and here is an example of the use of the word "fag" in a tasteful manner.

StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Friday, June 01, 2007
Illegal Immigration Butt Lovers Unite
I – the greatest debunker of dishonest political thinking of the 21st century (so far) – have found another great loophole in the modern American liberal political philosophy. Prepare for intellectual nirvana...

This is from Wikipedia regarding globalization:
Globalization refers to increasing global connectivity, integration and interdependence in the economic, social, technological, cultural, political, and ecological spheres.
For those of you who don’t know, many liberals oppose globalization for a number of various reasons. Some don’t like it because they believe it empowers corporations while simultaneously suppresses the poor. Others don’t like it because they feel globalization has effectively “Americanized” the rest of the world. The idea is that because America is the richest country in the world, our cultural icons (music, books, movies, etc.) are shared with the rest of the world and stomp out local talent. In other words, it makes the world a less diverse place (which is the biggest sin of all for liberals).

This idea also extends to industry. After all, how can an upstart fast-food restaurant in…Mongolia let’s say…compete against a McDonald’s franchise?

So what does globalization have to do with immigration? Well I am glad you asked. You see, the reason globalization exists is because of free trade.

Everyone acknowledges this. People who are anti-globalization are also anti-free trade. People that are for free trade don’t see globalization as a problem.

What some people don’t understand is that also the biggest pro-immigration people in the world are free trade believing conservatives. Don’t believe, read ‘em and weep

You see, to the economic conservative, people should be allowed to do whatever they want (economically speaking) as long as what they do is consensual and profitable. This means that corporations should be allowed to pollute (within reason) as long as consumers are still willing to buy their product. The idea is that if the pollution were really that bad, consumers would take a stand and not buy from the company in question.

This type of philosophy gives corporations like Wal-Mart a pass despite charges that they underpay their workers. Again, the logic behind it is that if Wal-Mart were that bad, no one would want to work there, and no one would shop there. In other words, if you don’t like Wal-Mart, don’t shop or work there…after all, they aren’t bothering you.

Unfortunately this logic gets a little contradictory when welfare exists, but that is another subject for another day.

Back to immigration…free trade conservatives take the same stance on immigration as they do with everything else. In there mind, if one person is willing to give another a job for a price that is agreed upon by both parties, then no one should be allowed to stop them.

Liberals, on the other hand, seem to agree with immigration for another set of completely illogical, and often a cry-me-a-river set of reasons.

1. Immigration made America great

This is a very "conservative", knee-jerk, "stuck-in-old-ways" take on a modern issue…especially by the self-proclaimed liberal party.

2. Families will be separated

This is a pretty lame excuse. If someone breaks into your house and starts sleeping in your bed, do they now have a right to bring over their whole family because otherwise “we would be breaking up families”? Does anyone actually believe this makes any sense?

3. They do jobs Americans won’t do

This is my favorite. I will admit that I haven’t been to New England lately, but I can’t imagine how bad those states must be. Think about it. Without illegals doing all the work Americans won’t do…who’s cleaning the toilets up there? Who’s mowing the lawns? Who does construction? Yes, I am mocking you. Illegals don’t do work American’s WON’T do…they do work Americans DON’T do.

Imagine a town of 100,000 people. It is a decent sized town and has everything a normal town would need to survive. Now picture 10,000 people moving into the town rather rapidly. What would happen? Well there would be thousands of jobs almost instantly created. With 10,000 more citizens, you will need more teachers, firemen, policemen, construction workers, restaurants (and therefore cooks, waiters, and dish cleaners), mechanics, etc.

Would the new citizens be doing jobs the old citizens weren’t willing to do? Does that even make any sense?

All this even makes less sense when you couple it with the liberal stance on outsourcing.

The common argument is that the US is losing jobs overseas to cheaper workers. This is funny for a couple reasons. First of all, unemployment is at historical lows. All the outsourcing in the world would not hurt our economy.

Second, and more importantly, liberals don’t want jobs outsourced, but they claim that we have more jobs than we can fill here in the US.

To clarify. To the liberal mind:

Outsourcing = bad/evil

Illegal immigrants coming into the country to "do jobs American’s won’t do" = good

So which one is it. Are we losing jobs to workers overseas or do we need to bring in more workers because we don't have enough people in our country to meet our labor demand?

What’s that? Is that the sound of liberals crying? Seriously, I don’t mean to turn everyone’s world upside down…I really don’t.

For those of you who still aren’t getting it (and part of that is me going off on subjects that aren’t directly related) illegal immigration = globalization. Think back to the definition of globalization as given by Wikipedia…

Globalization refers to increasing global connectivity, integration and interdependence in the economic, social, technological, cultural, political, and ecological spheres.

Game. Set. Match.
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!