and a pro-choice socialist progressive
This list has been a long time in the making. So many times when I debate someone from the left, I find their arguments boil down to little more than code words and accusations. "You must just be homophobic... How can you be against equality and choice?..." and so on. Yet the left's intended meanings of most of these code words are far removed from their common usage. I've even seen fellow conservatives fall into the word traps laid by those on the left; and when they do, they inevitably lose. So I present this list in the hopes that any conservatives reading this will take heart, and speak up the next time the left tries to frame the argument in their twisted words.
The first mis-used liberal code word is Liberal itself. The truth is, I am a liberal. The word "liberal" comes from the Greek eleutheros through the Latin liberalis, from which we also get words like liberty. Eleutheros means "free", while liberalis literally means "pertaining to a free man" and later took on the meaning "noble, generous". We could go with either one of those definitions. Ask yourself this: Which political philosophy is freer, the one that encourages individuals to be masters of their own actions and consequences, or the one that is willing to take away the individual's life and property for the good of "society"? Which is more generous, the philosophy that encourages the poor to become dependent on cradle-to-grave government care, or the one that ensures opportunity and class mobility for all, rich and poor alike? And which is more noble, the philosophy resting on coercion and "spreading the wealth around" or the one that emphasizes the rights and dignity of the individual? Moreover, even today Europeans use liberal the same way I'm using it here, the same way they always have, meaning support for individual freedoms. It seems only in Canada, the US and a few other select countries has liberal become twisted to mean the opposite of what it actually means. And if you need more evidence that it was truly twisted, consider this: By the end of the 19th century, usage of the word had so deviated from its original meaning that true liberals were forced to adopt a new, entirely nonpolitical word to describe themselves: libertarian. read more »
The real victim of the run in between Harvard malcontent Henry Louis Gates and officer James Crowley may actually be the poor woman making the call to police. For her efforts at being a good citizen, she has been labeled a racist and received various threats. At least the policeman is permitted to carry a gun and pepper spray. At her press conference, she should have made it clear that this would be the last time she ever lifts a finger for anyone in her COMMUNITY.
North Korea has executed a mother of three for distributing Bibles. Perhaps Bill Clinton should have made a bigger fuss over this incident than the imprisoned journalists who did, it must be remembered, violated the borders of a sovereign nation. Multiculturalists often point out how much America has to learn from non-Western cultures. Perhaps we should start by emulating North Korean policies towards illegal aliens. Instead of lavishing border violators with welfare benefits and the like, we give them harsh prison sentences.
Critics of Obama's healthcare plan should know that they are being watched. The White House is asking Americans to report to them the names of anyone spreading "disinformation" regarding insurance reform proposals. One might point out that, to a liberal, disinformation is anything they disagree with. When this call for ratting out your neighbors is coupled with the dismissal of citizens speaking out at congressional open forums as contrived activism, it seems the President is not quite the fan of "community organizing" that he heralds himself to be.
As much as he rides the issue, it causes me to wonder if there is some kind of profound unhappiness in the Albert Mohler household. read more »
Senator Barbara Boxer recently declared that, before the current round of town hall meetings on health care reform, the last time she had seen such suspiciously well-dressed protestors was during the 2000 Florida election recount. Well, yes—until Obama’s presidency, that’s the last time Republicans showed up en masse to get really angry about something; screaming and chanting are political tactics more naturally suited to the left.
As for the couture angle—here’s a newsflash for Boxer: Republicans have higher standards than Democrats. A typical left-wing protest involves twenty-somethings in ratty T-shirts and shredded jeans breaking windows at a local Starbucks during the midmorning rush.
The typical right-wing protest—invariably held in the evening, since attendees have jobs in the daytime—involves adults who dress as though they would like to elevate community standards, not degrade them. Participants address their concerns directly to those in power, such as legislators, rather than assailing defenseless third parties, such as coffee franchise employees. The fact that most conservative protestors come directly from work may explain why they wear suits and skirts. But apparently Senate Democrats believe opinions are valid only if expressed by people sporting “Kill Bush” buttons and Birkenstocks.
When Boxer and other Congressional Democrats realized that Americans don’t see “well-dressed” as an epithet, they moved in the opposite direction: they claimed that the protestors were scruffy rabble-rousers after all. House Leader Nancy Pelosi insisted that demonstrators have been “carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare.” Translation: One protestor had a swastika with a slash through it, and others were displaying American flags and ‘Don’t Tread on Me’ banners—you know, symbols like swastikas. read more »
An Overview of Conservative Positions
As a new member of Conservative Outpost, I think it's appropriate for me to explain where I'm coming from. The most direct way to do that is to grapple a bit with the Conservative Outpost's stated Philosophy.
The Conservative Outpost is a home for what we call 'Comprehensive Conservatives' - those who consider themselves to be conservative on social, cultural, economic and foreign policy issues, as well as on the role, size and scope of government."
I am conservative, and I'd like to use this entry to explain what I think that means. Most political philosophies can be characterized by their relative positions on the optimal size of the government. Anarchists want no government at all, totalitarians want complete government control over our lives, and everyone else falls somewhere in between. In general, conservatives believe in more government than libertarians, but less than liberals and socialists. There are other defining characteristics of conservatism: conservatives uphold every individual's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, in that order. Conservatives stand up for what they believe in. We believe that the fundamental institutions of society are the free market, the family and personal (often religious) convictions. We believe in a republican form of government, and we promote individualism and nationalism above more collectivist philosophies.
A conservative government fulfills two fundamental roles: 1) ensuring property rights and the rule of law, including guarantees of individual rights and freedoms and 2) acting as a secondary, backup institution to the free market, taking limited action to curtail market failures (such as providing public goods like national defense or dealing with market externalities like pollution). read more »
If the Middle Ages are to stand in history books as the Age of Faith, it could be equally asserted that the nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first centuries will no doubt be remembered as the Era of Unbelief. Whereas unbelievers in the Middle Ages were careful in how they expressed their theological doubts for fear of befalling persecution, theists (be they Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox Jew) have today learned selectivity in how they go about expressing challenges to the prevailing lack of belief impacting fundamental cultural institutions such as government, academia, and the scientific establishment. And like the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages, the atheistic establishment of today seeks to foster a worldview influencing all aspects of society and binds all individuals whether they wish to be or not. Such an assertion will become more obvious in the following analysis which identifies significant atheistic thinkers, clarifies why some chose to adhere to this particular belief system, and critiques this worldview and contrasts it with Christian monotheism.
As an intellectual tradition, atheism has captured the minds of some of history’s most formidable thinkers. Creation science apologist Ken Ham of Answers In Genesis has astutely pointed out that social issues and public policies rest upon a foundation of thought and belief. Keeping with this analogy, atheism proceeds from a theoretical base up through a practical program designed to influence various spheres of culture such as politics and education with prominent luminaries within the movement solidifying this mental edifice along the way. read more »
Thanks to the Obama administration’s new Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS), known as Cash-for-Clunkers, American taxpayers are now subsidizing car owners to do what they would have done eventually—scrap their old cars and buy new ones.
CARS is perversely profligate in numerous ways, among them the fact that car dealers must waste time filling out onerous paperwork to get reimbursed by the government and adding legal riders to contracts with car buyers regarding liability for rebates. Mechanics must squander effort draining each car’s oil, then donning protective suits and carrying out a dangerous procedure involving pouring sodium silicate on the engines to make them “seize up” and cease to function.
This government-mandated engine genocide is a huge problem for auto parts sellers, who earn the bulk of their income reselling engines, motors, and transmissions—all of which must be intentionally damaged and made unsalable to comply with program rules. Government inspectors will go around making sure engines have been properly desiccated, a precondition for dealers and car buyers to claim refunds.
More disturbingly, for those who can barely afford to buy a used car, the reduced supply of used engines will lead to increased, often prohibitive costs for used cars that, having been decommissioned by mechanics, cannot be resold to potential buyers. That’s looking out for the little guy!
For those concerned about the “environmental impact” of the program, the plan unfortunately won’t help on that front, either. According to the director of Columbia University’s Center for Climate Change Law, the energy required to produce a new car more than offsets any fuel savings from driving a used car for a few more years. Without the program, car buyers would have ended up buying more fuel efficient vehicles anyway, because most vehicles are made to be more fuel efficient nowadays. read more »
Update:Feds trying to salvage program — Update: House Passes 2 Billion “C for C” Bill
This is a bit a humorous story.
Via Wall Street Journal:
White House officials and lawmakers were studying late Thursday how to keep alive the government’s cash-for-clunkers incentive program because of concerns the program’s $1 billion budget may have been exhausted after just one week.
Obama administration officials warned congressional leaders Thursday it planned to suspend the program at midnight. But the White House released a statement late Thursday saying that completed deals would be honored and the program is still under review.
A White House official said, “We are working tonight to assess the situation facing what is obviously an incredibly popular program. Auto dealers and consumers should have confidence that all valid [cash-for-clunker] transactions that have taken place to-date will be honored.”
Lawmakers are discussing with White House officials where to find funding — including possibly tapping the government’s Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, a congressional aide said.
The clunkers program, which offers rebates of up to $4,500 to consumers who trade in old vehicles and buy new, more fuel-efficient models, began July 24 and sparked a surge in car sales.
Barack Obama has taken on the role of chief booze peddler. Hoping to smooth over the controversy that has erupted over the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, the President has invited the professor and the arresting office to the White House for a beer. Given the professor's temper, is it really a good idea to get him all liquored up?
Henry Louis Gates is hardly the harmless professor the media is making him out to be. Frankly, Gates is to the Ivy League what Jeremiah Wright is to ecclesiastical circles.
At Harvard, Gates is the director of the W.E.B Du Bois Institute for African & African American Research, named after a known Communist. According to a WorldNetDaily profile of this academic subversive, Gates has lured other leftist rabble rousers to campus such as Cornel West and advocates Afrosupremacist positions such as Affirmative Action, reparations, and liberation theology. If one is known for the company one keeps, Americans should be very concerned about what they have let into the White House.
Michael Jackson wanted to be cloned by a UFO cult. According to Jackson's chauffer, the King of Pop became obsessed with creating a duplicate of himself after attending with Uri Geller a conference hosted by Clonaid. Clonaid is the research arm of the Raelians, a sect that believes human beings are the result of extraterrestrial genetic experimentation.
Life is apparently no circus for Ringling Brothers elephants. PETA operatives have obtained footage of handlers allegedly beating their pachyderms as a matter of course rather than when simply out of line. read more »
President Obama has invited Sergeant James Crowley and Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. to the White House for a beer to clear up hard feelings over Crowley’s arrest of Gates for disorderly conduct two weeks ago.
Notice how, now that the facts have come out, no one is taking Gates’ side anymore; those who initially sided with Gates are arguing that both men are at fault and that we should all “learn from this incident” and move on.
If anyone still cares, the fact is that both sides are simply not at fault.
Here are a few myths and misunderstandings about Crowley’s arrest of Gates:
Crowley overreacted in arresting Gates.
Not according to the Cambridge Police Department; the Cambridge Police Patrol Officers Association; the Massachusetts Municipal Police Coalition; the Cambridge Multicultural Police Association; mixed-race police unions across the country; Sgt. Leon Lashley, the black cop who accompanied Crowley; or black public figures such as Bill Cosby and Juan Williams. Other than that, the experts are unanimous—he overreacted!
Gates’ behavior was not an arrestable offense; Crowley should have walked away after establishing his identity.
According to police protocol in such an incident, you leave the scene only once all actors are quiet and issues have been resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. You do not slip away while one party is still unhinged, screaming like a lunatic, insulting a police officer’s mother, badgering officers, and frightening neighbors who have gathered out of concern. If the object of investigation shows no signs of calming down, it is not police procedure to leave such a raving maniac poised to cause additional mayhem. The police have seen plenty of cases in which angry residents have gone on to cause further trouble; it’s foolish for anyone to second-guess the cops and pronounce that they should have known what Gates would do next. Gates had dozens of opportunities to cooperate with Crowley’s attempts to defuse the situation and back away, and every time he chose not to. That is why he was arrested. read more »
At least my God never forgets His word. That is more than can be said of Pseudomessiah Barack Obama.
The President confessed to knowing nothing of the provision in the healthcare bill that would forbid insurance companies from enrolling new applicants once the legislation goes into effect. Thus, he is either a liar or a halfwit. Take your choice.
Walter Cronkite might have been the most trusted man in America, but that trust might have been misplaced. According to a number of retrospectives published since his passing, one could legitimately conjecture that his support for America was questionable at best.
For example, in 1999 Cronkite accepted the Norman Cousins Global Governance Award. In his acceptance speech, Cronkite called for the creation of a global planetary union usurping national sovereignty patterned after the United States government.
However, if we dig further back into the broadcaster’s past, we discover that Cronkite may have preferred a Soviet-style system. According to researchers such as Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily and Cliff Clincaid of accuracy in media, Cronkite often sided with Communists throughout the course of the 20th century’s most dangerous conflicts.
Meteoroids weren’t the only thing space station astronauts had to dodge. The toilet there backed up and overflowed.
Eugenicist theories are gaining legitimacy with the leftwing of the American government. Ruth Bader Ginsburg announced that part of the reasoning behind Roe v. Wade was to decrease “undesirable populations”. As a Jew suffering from cancer, perhaps someone should remind her that, in the eyes of many, she likely ranks high on that list. read more »
The eagle-eyed sleuths at Investor’s Business Daily recently dug up a nefarious provision in the House’s 1,018-page health care bill that prohibits you from keeping your current private insurance if any changes are made to it.
On p. 16.
This, in a bill whose table of contents and “general definitions” run to p. 14. So the House has written a bill whose key, most egregious proviso is hidden so poorly that the authors apparently assumed the public couldn’t be bothered to click two pages to get to it.
Evidently this was too much work for President Obama, whose response during a news conference on Monday at Children’s Hospital to a concerned caller from Maine asking if he was interpreting the stipulation correctly was, “You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about.” What part of the bill is Obama familiar with—the cover?
But don’t worry—Obama says, “If you like your health plan, you can keep it.” He sure doesn’t know any differently!
In Section 102—that is, the second part of the first section, two pages into the bill—ironically titled, “Protecting the Choice to Keep Current Coverage,” the bill puts the following limitation on those who wish to eschew government-approved options and keep their own coverage: “[T]he individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage [must] not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.” read more »
The more they stay the same….
Reporting from Washington — Invoking an argument used by President George W. Bush, the Obama administration has turned down a request from a watchdog group for a list of health industry executives who have visited the White House to discuss the massive healthcare overhaul.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington sent a letter to the Secret Service asking about visits from 18 executives representing health insurers, drug makers, doctors and other players in the debate. The group wants the material in order to gauge the influence of those executives in crafting a new healthcare policy.
The Secret Service sent a reply stating that documents revealing the frequency of such visits were considered presidential records exempt from public disclosure laws. The agency also said it was advised by the Justice Department that the Secret Service was within its rights to withhold the information because of the “presidential communications privilege.”
Just another lying Politician, like the rest of them. No Change, at all.
Others Covering: The Plum Line, MyDD, TPMMuckraker, Buck Naked Politics, The Confluence, Salon, Denver Post, Sunlight Foundation, Think Progress, Taylor Marsh,, Talking Points Memo, Michelle Malkin, Outside The Beltway, The Impolitic, Media Blog, Right Wing News, JustOneMinute, In The Agora and Sister Toldjah read more »
Some very good points made here…:
In Washington, it seems history always repeats itself. That’s what’s happening now with health-care reform. This is an unfortunate turn of events for Americans who are legitimately concerned about the skyrocketing cost of a basic human need.
In 1993 and 1994, Hillary Clinton’s health-care reform proposal failed because it was concocted in secret without the guiding hand of public consensus-building, and because it was a philosophical over-reach. Today President Barack Obama is repeating these mistakes.
The reason is plain: The left in Washington has concluded that honesty will not yield its desired policy result. So it resorts to a fundamentally dishonest approach to reform. I say this because the marketing of the Democrats’ plans as presented in the House of Representatives and endorsed heartily by President Obama rests on three falsehoods.
First, Mr. Obama doggedly promises that if you like your (private) health-care coverage now, you can keep it. That promise is hollow, because the Democrats’ reforms are designed to push an ever-increasing number of Americans into a government-run health-care plan.
If a so-called public option is part of health-care reform, the Lewin Group study estimates over 100 million Americans may leave private plans for government-run health care. Any government plan will benefit from taxpayer subsidies and be able to operate at a financial loss—competing unfairly in the marketplace until private plans are driven out of business. The government plan will become so large that it will set, rather than negotiate, prices. This will inevitably lead to monopoly, with a resulting threat to the quality of our health care
I was invited by the powers that be; of this site, to contribute.
I run a blog called "Political Byline", which I would like to, but the so-called "Rocket Scientists" who run this place, disabled the ability to put links into Blog entries. Real smart guys.
Anyhow, from time to time. I will crosspost entries from my Blog or I will post an editorial here.
A big thank you to the owner of the site for the invite on twitter.
In one of the climactic scenes of the conclusion of "Battlestar Galactica", Gaius Baltar remarks that an unseen hand had been guiding events all along up until that point. Just as the characters were propelled by something from beyond themselves, the producers behind this show may have been driven by ideas originating from sources other than their own fertile imaginations.
Even in the original "Battlestar Galactica" from the 1970's, one of the underlying premises of the saga was that "Life here began out there with forefathers of the Egyptians, the Toltecs, and the Mayans. There are some who say there may yet be brothers of man who fight somewhere to survive among the heavens." In the series finale of the contemporary retelling of the sci-fi classic, viewers got to see a bit of how this vision might have played out.
Though most can watch these compelling dramas unaware of the underlying worldviews of the authors, there is indeed a philosophy being presented that if nothing else impacts the authors' approach to the material at hand.
In the original with the narration provided by Patrick Macnee who went on to play a devil-like figure in that versions mildly Mormonesque mythos, one assumes that, when mankind arrived here on earth, there was no other intelligent life.
However, in the recently concluded version, we realize that it is prehistoric Earth (not even the actual Earth in the reimagining and if you add a third you'll have to have a crossover show with the Thundercats) that the Galactica fleet has arrived at.
To the casual viewer, both versions do not seem all that different from one another. It may come as a surprise, therefore, that each depiction presents a slightly different viewpoint as to how civilization originated here on Earth. read more »
In light of Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings this week, in which the controversial nominee must face tough scrutiny from senators of both parties on her judicial philosophy, temperament, and fidelity to the rule of law, political commentators on the left are naturally busy suggesting harsh, delegitimizing questions for… Frank Ricci! The lead New Haven firefighter in the Ricci v. Destefano racial discrimination lawsuit, who will testify in the hearings, has been attacked by Slate magazine, among others, for having previously brought lawsuits against former employers for discriminating against him due to his dyslexia and for firing him for being a whistleblower against his department.
Ignoring the fact that Ricci’s earlier lawsuits have zero legal bearing on the arguments in the Ricci v. Destefano case and that the Supreme Court recently overturned Sotomayor’s ruling against Ricci, why should the other 17 firefighters in the lawsuit suffer if it so happens that Ricci was lawsuit-happy with his previous employers?
Speaking of those firefighters, Lieutenant Ben Vargas, who will also testify at Sotomayor’s hearings, is the Hispanic firefighter who joined 17 white firefighters in filing the lawsuit against the New Haven fire department. Vargas shares some superficial similarities to Sotomayor: both are Hispanic; both were born and raised in the U.S.; both have Puerto Rican parents who came here because they were poor. Both grew up in troubled, high-crime, urban neighborhoods in the Northeast; both found a way out of their circumstances through hard work in their chosen career paths. read more »
Five months after the stimulus bill was passed, we can now say that we’ve witnessed the following under-stimulating results.
Payrolls are falling more than forecast, with employers cutting 467,000 jobs in June, following a 322,000-job decline in May. Factory jobs fell by 136,000 after falling 156,000 in May.
Unemployment is at 9.5%, the highest level in 15 years, and projected to exceed 10% by the end of 2009. Some economists expect it to remain at historically high levels for years.
The average workweek is at 33 hours, the lowest in 45 years.
Average weekly earnings are down to $611.
The national debt is $11.5 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office projects the deficit for 2009 to be almost $2 trillion and for 2010 to be more than $1.4 trillion.
The Treasury is increasing its sale of debt to pay for spending. Treasury offered $1 trillion in notes and bonds in the first half of 2009 and plans to offer another $1 trillion by the end of 2009.
Colin Powell, of all people, is alarmed that Obama’s spending orgy may be swelling government and the national debt: “I’m concerned at the number of programs that are being presented, the bills associated with these programs and the additional government that will be needed to execute them… [We have] a huge, huge national debt that, if we don’t pay for [it] in our lifetime, our kids and grandkids and great-grandchildren will have to pay for…” Now he tells us!
Jared Bernstein, chief economic advisor to Joe Biden, whose office is managing the stimulus, says, “It’s working, it’s demonstrably working.” According to Bernstein, $200 billion in stimulus money has already been obligated or spent. Case closed! read more »
With the passing of Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy along with the dissolution of the Center for Reclaiming America and the Center for Christian Statesmanship, the issue has arisen once again as to whether or not conservative Evangelicals should participate in political activity. Since things have not gotten any better and if anything continued their downward spiral since the advent of the contemporary conservative Evangelical movement popularly referred to as the "Religious Right", it has been suggested by some that politically interested Christians should be herded back into their pews to once again await the Apocalypse.
Interestingly, one of the foremost voices now opposed to conservative Evangelical political involvement is none other than columnist Cal Thomas, who at one time served as a Falwell underling as vice president of Moral Majority and spoke at Dr. Kennedy's Reclaiming America for Christ conference. Thomas, in a column analyzing the passing of his former colleague titled "The Legacy of Jerry Falwell", concludes of the Religious Right, "The movement also had its downside, because it tended to detract from a Christian's primary responsibility of telling people the 'good news' that redemption comes only through Jesus Christ."
While there is a degree of truth to that as during the early to mid 90's at times it seemed Falwell's ministry did place too much emphasis hawking videotapes exposing the criminality of Bill Clinton and replaying week after week snippets of homosexual excesses to the point where one had to send children out of the room or have to explain why mommy and daddy's faces were turning red, some of this is more the fault of how the Evangelical subculture is structured sociologically than the result of Christian political participation per say. read more »
Paul Krugman says of the U.S. Representatives who recently voted against the climate change bill: “[I]if dissenting opinion-makers and politicians… carefully studied the issue, consulted with experts and concluded that the overwhelming scientific consensus was misguided… they could at least claim to be acting responsibly.” read more »
President Obama said last week that he doesn’t want the U.S. to be seen as “meddling” in the recent Iranian presidential election. In his view, vocally supporting the protesters is comparable to the CIA’s coup against Mossadeq in 1953.
That old bald eagle Zbigniew Brzezinski believes Obama has struck the “perfect tone”: Zbig thinks we should refrain from antagonizing the Iranian leadership and avoid a showdown.
Joe Klein’s thoughtful message for John McCain, who has been requesting that Obama take a tougher stance on Iran: “Be quiet.” According to Klein, supporting the protesters is mere “self-indulgence.”
Joe Scarborough thinks it’s ridiculous that we know what’s best for women’s rights in Iran. Peggy Noonan writes, “America so often gets Iran wrong… So modesty and humility seem appropriate stances from which to observe and comment.”
What planet are these people from? The would-be appeasers’ argument seems to be thus: We should not offer clear, unwavering, forceful encouragement to the Iranian protesters. If we do, Iran’s leaders will accuse the U.S. of being behind the demonstrations—you know, the ones that no one in the West predicted, the ones that happened after the election results no one foresaw, the ones that few Western journalists are close enough to eyeball, let alone instigate.
My question for the ersatz pacifiers: “So what?” Who believes the mullahs? Nations of the free world don’t. The protesters who spontaneously organized don’t. The mullahs don’t—in fact, they were already making their misstatements long before our Equivocator-in-Chief decided to change his mind this week and raise an eyebrow over the carnage. read more »