23. February 2009 by Satire V.

The elections got me down.  I found it hard to write anything, even in the face of obvious targets.

 I suppose I should have said something when Obama decided that his first Executive Order would be to fund the killing of children in other countries.

I should have spoken up when Nancy Pelosi espoused ideas that would have made any Nazi eugenicist proud when she told us that birth control was economic stimulus.

 The passing of the stimulus package, which probably had many on the left weeping with joy about how Barack was going to stimulate them was truly a package of ammunition for any writer of the right.

 Unfortunately, it was just too depressing.  I have recovered enough though, and have decided that it is time to help move the Right in the right direction. 

So, onward…..

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

18. December 2008 by Satire V.

Barack Obama’s recent attempt at his administration’s promised transparency with reporter John McCormick revealed an interesting tendency on the PE’s part.  He occasionally engages in a practice sometimes referred to as “uptalk.”

Uptalk is the use of a rising inflection at the end of a statement.  This is normal for interrogatory statements, but not for declarative statements.  Although this practice is fairly common among Left coast residents, it is not the norm for the Midwest.  Also of note is that he doesn’t use this speech pattern very often.  In many speeches and interviews he ended his declaratives with the even inflection that denotes the completion of the statement.  When comfortable with the subject, or when interviewed by anyone left of Fox News, he rarely used uptalk.

Outside of those who use this speech pattern regularly, engaging in uptalk is potentially a sign of internal dissonance.  Most often, it indicates discomfort with, or unsureness about the statement being made.  Another common reason it comes out is that the speaker is unconsciously making a question out of the statement.  Think about when a child is questioned about doing something naughty, like the hand in the cookie jar.  When asked why or if he or she did it, the child will often try out answers, ending his or her statement with the rising inflection of a question.  Its as though the child is trying out the answer to see if the adult will bite.

I don’t think that I’m biting on this one.  Let’s see who left their prints on the Blagojevich cookie jar.

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

17. December 2008 by Satire V.

One of the more foolish sentiments declared by the left during the last administration under President Bush was “Dissent is Patriotic”.

The idea in and of itself is not particularly foolish; it was the thought process, or more accurately the lack thereof, behind it.

There is much hypocrisy in the statement, rooted in the beliefs of those who make it. Those most likely to use it and stick it on the backs of their cars are those least interested in dissent. I sought out discussion with some of these people, and they had no interest in any opinion other than their own. They attempt to characterize any ideas they don’t agree with as hate speech, thus justifying in their minds that the speaker should be censored. Typically, it is Conservatives that are far more tolerant of the speech of others.

Most of the media establishment voices the same ideas as the “dissenters”. There is no shortage of time, venue, or validation from old media and Hollywood of their views.  During the Democrat convention in Denver, I personally observed leftist protesters violating the freedoms of others by blocking streets without permits, while they were allowed to freely exercise their rights to assembly and free speech. The government of Colorado and Denver went to great lengths to ensure the freedoms of those who wanted to be heard.  Some of these poor muted souls even attempted to attack a crew from Fox News.  So, with the assistance of the government,  the collusion of the media, and while physically assaulting a legitimate news organization because it doesn’t report everything from a leftist perspective, the left has still come to believe that they have been silenced. They seem to have forgotten a basic tenet of this Country; that we are each equally free to express our ideas.  That doesn’t mean that the government has to change to suit whomever shouts the loudest.

This freedom means that if, for example, I want to say that the actions of John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama lead me to question their patriotism, then that is my right.  My doubts don’t silence them, or any other person who speaks out against the defense of our Country.   I know these people don’t have the best interest of the Country at heart, and are therefore by definition not Patriots, but still they are free to speak.

Now the Democrats and others on the left are talking again about the “fairness doctrine.”. This doctrine has as its goal, the silencing of one side of the political debate. Liberals have a long history of trying to shout down or silence those who disagree with them. Although the left has gone to extreme measures to demonize and criminalize dissent, the Right will continue to express their dissatisfaction with the socialist ideas of the current government.

The left has achieved historic gains in the legislature while installing a socialist as our head of state. Given this situation, it should be expected that the minority will take issue with the upcoming administration and wish to speak out.  This opposition has every right to do so, but will the liberals defend this right?

So, the question for the left now is:

Is dissent still patriotic?

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

15. December 2008 by Satire V.

“Peace, back by popular demand”
This bumper sticker, the recent resurgence of the peace symbol, and peace rallies are viewed by many as signs of this country’s renewed desire for the end of war. This is a legitimate desire. Unfortunately, it is also a renewal of the raging ignorance and dangerous naivete of the 60’s.

There is a fundemental misunderstanding that is revealed by the simple-minded utterance of the word “peace”, or the use of the recently popular symbol. The implication is that we can simply declare peace on our enemies. This is entirely wrong.

The inverse, which is equally wrong, is perhaps the source of this mistake. Many on the left are foolish enough to believe that it requires both sides to declare war. War is not a tango, and it doesn’t take two. Even for those that fail to recognize earlier events for what these were, only a fool would not agree that on September 11th, 2001 our Islamofascist enemy declared war on us. They didn’t need our consent.

The same people that thought Woodstock was great, that burning draft cards was the ultimate expression of bravery, and that believe(d) that drugs can expand your mind are sadly teaching our children today. These people are trying to teach these children that peace is something we can simply choose of our own accord, and it will happen. This is not entirely wrong. In the same way that a child might avoid getting beaten by a bully by giving up his or her lunch money, we could possibly sell our freedoms for peace. Who would consider this price fair? I believe that freedom is far more valuable than peace without it.

Taking this peace-loving “stand” today helps the draft dodgers justify their cowardice in the 60’s. What an opportunity to make so much of the evil of war when they no longer have much to lose. They can even convince themselves that there is some risk involved in “resisting” and that they are therefore displaying great bravery.

We Americans have not had to fight often on our own ground. This is mostly because we have demonstrated an ability to, and a willingness to, wage successful war on our enemies. Sadly, because of the left in the late 60’s and now, and with the help of the “light right” in the first gulf war, the world can question our resolve. We can only pray that they don’t continue to test it.

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

1. December 2008 by Satire V.

ATHEIST

This was the entirety of the bumper sticker on a car in my neighborhood recently. What an interesting statement. This short statement seemed to say a couple of things.

First, I thought it must be an identification in the same way as a sticker saying “Hockey Mom”, or “Republican”, or “Raider Hater”. This person must identify himself as an atheist, I thought. 

My next thought was that this just didn’t seem like it could be right. Of the two meanings of the “a” prefix, most “a”theists claim the mantle of simple disbelief.   Why would someone declare a simple lack of belief in such a public way?  I’ve never seen anyone driving around with a bumper sticker saying “I don’t believe in dragons!”, “AUFOist”,  or “Afairyist,” or any other declaration that the driver wants everyone to know what he or she doesn’t believe in.  What a colossal waste of time to state everything one doesn’t believe in.  Even selecting one item of disbelief and plastering it on your vehicle is a bit ridiculous.

 The reasoning that makes the most sense is that the meaning is not “disbelief”, but “unbelief.”  Unbelief in that not only is there a lack of belief, but an opposition to belief.  In the same way that an unwilling person isn’t simply without will, but actively resists the intended goal, atheists seem interested in actively resisting the influence of religion.  This doesn’t seem so bad on the surface, but when many of these people feel the need to actively resist the influence of religion on those who do want it, they go too far.

 Look at writers such as Christopher Hitchens; or listen to almost any member of Amerikans United for the Separation of Church and State.  There is an apparent need to try to make those who believe out to be ignorant rubes.  Why?  Why the shrill tone, the anger, the search for anything that might have the slighest scent of God about it that must be excised from public life?  Are these people really afraid that religion is going to take over the government?

More importantly, why do atheists seem to have such an axe to grind with Christianity in particular?  Christianity has had no more evil committed in its name than any other religion of note.  Secularism has been the source of far more misery than any religion.  So, why such hatred of Christianity?  Many atheists grew up in Christian families.  (many Christians grew up in atheist families as well)  Many of these unbelievers claim that there was rampant hypocrisy in the religious life of those close to them.  I suppose it is easy to be without any hypocrisy in secularism.  All one has to do is not have faith.  Christianity may be the focus of their ire because the God of Christ will judge each person on their own merits.  There is a requirement of personal responsibility.

Perhaps it is the idea of being held to an external standard that frightens atheists, for I believe that fear is at the root of atheistic anger.  It is easier to make angry statements about the stupidity of the faithful, easier to fight any public display of symbols of religion, and easier to say that God is not, than it is to accept responsibility for their life.  The only good that comes from this is that many atheists are otherwise decent people.  Knowing that if they behave in keeping with an atheistic belief, they will be challenged for selfish and amoral behavior, they end up living by most of the Commandments.  If they truly believe that there is no higher power, and that we are random collections of molecules, they should feel free to behave in any way they want.

Back to the Atheist of the bumper sticker.  He recently removed that sticker and replaced it with another that shows arrogance and a failed thinking process.  His new sticker reads:

“Dare to Think For Yourself”

How arrogant to tell others what they should dare, and what hypocrisy to tell others that they should think for themselves.  The statement is oxymoronic on its face.

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

24. November 2008 by Satire V.

Once upon a time there was a chicken named Chicken Little.  Little and his fellow Rhode Island Reds were living on a very nice farm, where everything and everyone was free-range.  There was another smaller group of chickens on the farm, a number of Jersey Giants.  The two groups got along fine at first, and the farmer was very fair to all of them.  The chickens were free to market and sell their own eggs in the local area where prices were based on size and quality.  The farmer rented land and some small starter coops to the chickens, and the chickens bought food and materials from the nearby town.

This arrangement was working well for the Jerseys.  They worked hard, and through their planning and efforts were able to produce large, very tasty, and popular eggs.  They used their money to keep their rental coops in good condition, and saved for the future.

The Reds on the other hand, put very little effort into creating quality eggs, or in the upkeep of their rentals.  They did spend a lot of time talking about the Jerseys, and how they were eating all the good grain and leaving nothing for the Reds.  There was actually plenty of grain to go around, but the Reds couldn’t afford the best because their eggs were inferior and their income was therefore lower.

The farmer saw this, and decided that it wasn’t right for the Reds to have to struggle while the Jersey’s had so much.  He decided that it would be only fair to have the Jerseys pay more rent, and to give some of this extra to the Reds, and so he did.  This still wasn’t enough, so he also decided to tax all the farm animals on their earnings.  Since the Jersey’s could apparently afford more, he decided to tax them much more as a percentage of their income than the other animals.  The Jerseys were not happy about this, but they continued to work hard, and often even harder to make sure that they could still live well and save for the future.  Although the Reds were happy about the plan, they really didn’t seem better off than they were before.

Things went on this way for a while, and nothing really changed.  The Reds had more than before, but the hard-working Jerseys continued to work harder, save more, and live better.  The Reds continued to complain about how much more the Jerseys had and how they could never have that much themselves while the Jerseys were getting it all.  They talked about the good ol hen network, and the chicken-wire ceiling.

A capenter living next door to the farm was walking by one day, and noticed the small, crowded coops that all the chickens lived in.  He talked to some of the chickens, and decided that he could probably build better ones.  The carpenter bought supplies, developed plans, and started working on some new coops.  These coops were very nice, and cost the carpenter a lot to build.  He knew that the chickens wouldn’t be able to pay for his coops with the money they had, and so he sugested that the chickens go and see the pigs, who were very good at saving and had a lot of money.  The pigs offered fair loans to all the chickens, and set interest amounts that resulted in a reasonable payment and allowed the pigs to make some profit on the money they were risking.  Most of the Jerseys could afford the payments, but many of the Reds could not.

The farmer saw this, and thought it was unfair.  He told the pigs that they either had to make loans available for all the chickens, or he would sell them for bacon.  The pigs didn’t want to be put out of business, or to be eaten, and reluctantly agreed.  The pigs made fair offers to the Reds, but most still were not able to afford the payments.  The farmer insisted again that the pigs must find a way to get the Reds into these coops, and made a rule that forced the pigs to offer loans low enough to get the Reds into the new coops.  The only solution for the pigs was to offer loans that started with low interest rates that went up significantly later.

The Reds saw the new payments, and although they knew not so deep down inside that they really couldn’t afford to make the higher payments later, they bought anyway.  They wanted the newer places and did not want to wait to save enough money to give the pigs a downpayment.

Eventually, the payments for the loans went up and many of the Reds couldn’t afford to keep making payments.  The pigs were forced to foreclose on the loans, and try to resell the coops.  The farmer saw that some of the Reds were now without coops, and that the pigs were running out of money quickly.  He decided that there was only one solution; he had to make sure there was enough money around to ensure that the Reds could get loans.  He looked under his mattress, and there just wasn’t enough there to support the failing pigs.  There was only one thing to do in his mind, and he followed his animal farm instincts.  The farmer decided to increase the taxes even more on the Jerseys and the other animals.

The farmer propped up the pigs, and not only forced them to continue making loans to the Reds that they couldn’t pay, he demanded more of these loans be made at even lower rates.  The farmer didn’t really care how much the Jerseys were paying, he believed that they could afford it anyway.

The Reds were sort of happy.  They had the nice coops, although they couldn’t afford to maintain them.  The Jerseys were not happy, and started to move to other farms.  The pigs were not happy, but knowing that the farmer would bail them out they made even more bad loans.

The farmer started to run out of money too, and since the Jerseys were leaving he wasn’t taking as much money in.  The farm began to fail.  The animals were sold to the butcher, and the farmer was put out on the street when new owners took over.

And standing in the back of the poultry truck, looking out through the wire on the way to the Tyson factory was Chicken Little, crying finally, “the sky is falling.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

18. November 2008 by Satire V.

Who wants to give the United Auto Workers Union this much power?  This could be the headline in the relatively near future if the auto makers bailout goes forward.

There are no proposed provisions in the bailout plan that would restrict the ability of the auto workers to strike while repayment of bailout funds is still ongoing.  Repayment of taxpayer money is unmistakenly dependent on whether the auto makers are making autos.  The ability to slow or cease this activity is already in the hands of the unions, and will not be affected by any bailout plans put forth so far.  If the union employees walk out, the auto manufacturers will stop making money, and repayments to the government will therefore cease.

The fact that the Congress is controlled by the Democrats, and that the Democrats owe so much to the unions, translates into there being no chance of an anti-strike provision in any final plans.  This really means that the unions, along with the Democrat overseers, will have far more control over the auto companies than the boards or the stakeholders.  This is not how business is done or should be done in America.  This would be more appropriate for Amerika.

There are some Republicans on the Hill standing up and fighting the bailout, but unfortunately something will likely pass.  With even a temporary stop-gap in place, the Dems will have the freeedom to wait until January to finish socializing the Auto Industry.  It is up to the people to express to the representatives they elected how wrong this bailout is.

This is another step down the slippery slope that the easily swayed and willing to buy into class warfare voters started us down when they swallowed the media line that the Bush Administration was somehow responsible for the current economic woes.  We can clean the slope of the slime of socialism if we act quickly enough.  Anything done in government can be undone, and the impending damage to the Republic can be repaired.  Hopefully, the generation that will be forced to experience this socialist vision of America will be motivated to make sure it never happens again.

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

17. November 2008 by Satire V.

The opponents of the financial bailout were right.  Regardless of whether there would have been significant economic fallout from not acting, they were in the right and are shortly to be proven so.  Part of the bailout package required beneficiary financial institutions to break existing contracts with senior executives.

Obviously those exact words don’t appear in the massive, bloated mess of legislation, but that is one of the effects.  Congress, and in particular the Democrats, have tried place the ridiculous idea that high executive salaries are a major cause of the credit problem.  This is patently untrue, but as evidenced by the results of this election cycle, that has little meaning to a majority of the electorate.

The real problem was that in order to business within the United States, financial institutions had to contend and comply with a host of regulations.  The worst of these were intended to increase home ownership among low-income families and individuals.  Is it really so shocking that credit becomes difficult to find when so much cash is already tied up in inheretly bad loans?  These financial institutions knew that they were making loans to people that probably couldn’t repay the principal, much less the interest.  This was the cost of doing business if such companies didn’t want to be fined in even more damaging ways by the federal government.  Thank you Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and every Congress from 1970 on.

The part of the bailout bill that should disturb every American that believes in our Constitution is the oversight requirements.  Not only will Congress have oversight authority, they will be able to  place their toadies in the boardrooms of these institutions to ensure “compliance.”  In other words, the federal government will have much more direct control of our financial system than could be achieved by massive increases in regulation.

Now Congress moves on toward a bailout of the auto giants.  This is not a response to the horrible economic damage that would occur if these companies went under, because any thinking person knows these companies would be bought and reorganized.  This is a combination of two liberal (socialist) plans.  First, a payoff to the Unions that are largely responsible for the problem.  These Unions are huge contributors to Democrat coffers, and must be paid.  Second, an attempt to grab power in the boardrooms of yet another large sector of our economy.  Obama’s people have already publicly said that any bailout would require that government overseers be present to ensure compliance in these companies, going so far as to also state that these overseers would be empowered to command the production of smaller, fuel-efficient hybrid and electric cars.  Way to price the poor out of transportation!

Now, do any of you still wonder what is behind the windfall profits talk and other ideas bandied about by the Dems regarding the oil and gas companies?

We have democratically voted ourselves into this situation, and we cannot wait 4 years to vote ourselves out.  2010 needs to be a recall election.  Bring the Libs back home, and send believers in American freedom back to Congress.

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

7. November 2008 by Satire V.

On the 30th, I wrote about how my yard sign in support of McCain and Palin was stolen.  The story actually didn’t end there…

I decided not to take it lying down, and wrote up my own sign:

McCain/Palin Sign Stolen
By Liberals Doing
What Liberals Do
When Your Ideas Can’t
Compete, You Try To
Silence The Opposition

I kept this sign up until Trick or Treaters began arriving on Halloween, took it down while the kids were out, and put it back up later that night. I left this sign up until the following evening, when I replaced it one more time.  I’ll get into why I replaced it again in just a minute.
What I didn’t know at the time, and only found out on the 5th of November, is that someone took exception to my new sign, and left a note on my garage door during the day on the 1st of November.  My young daughter had found the note and brought it in without my knowledge.  I have removed my address from the text, otherwise what follows is the verbatim text of the note:

Attention (my address)

Thank (sic) for helping me with my voting decision.  You showed me just how crazy the republican (sic) party can act.  I honesty (sic) was leaning toward McCain until I drove by and read your childish sign.  I was so outraged that it convinced me to go in the opposite direction.  If you (sic) actions are anything like the McCain party, than (sic) God help us if he wins.  I have never seen such bullying from a grown adult.  Thank you again for helping me!

For a moment, let’s assume that this person was just so angry that he or she lost control of his or her self while typing, instead of questioning his or her intelligence.  That said, I was a bit baffled by this note.  I had to actually go back and read my sign again to try and figure out how I had bullied anyone.  Did I threaten anyone?  No.  Did I make statements indicating that I would defend my property with force if another leftist tried to steal my sign?  No.  (although that would be perfectly within my rights)  Did I name names, call names, kick a puppy?  No, no, no.
My sign was stolen.  My wife was concerned enough about the many reported attacks on person and property by left-wingers that she was very nervous about me putting up another sign.  My neighbor put up his yard sign in his window to try to avoid having a SECOND sign stolen, and was immediately concerned that someone would try to throw a rock through his window.
The sign mentions that I am a grown adult.  How did this person know who put the sign up?  Now  I had to wonder if this person had been surveilling my home.
How did this person decide that he or she was being bullied, when I had a much stronger claim to that sort of attempted coercement?  I can only assume that it was a complete misunderstanding of my sign, and this person thought I was going to “silence the opposition.”  That would be a stretch given that Conservative ideas are winners in any competition involving thought and a love of freedom.  The other option is mental defect on the writer’s part, and I would hate to ascribe that to anyone I haven’t met.

A second point: why would this person refer to the protest of theft as childish?  A child would respond by lying on the ground kicking and screaming, or by going to his or her room and crying.  An adult response is to challenge illegal and hateful behavior.  As the thief didn’t leave a calling card, I responded by voicing my displeasure in a calm, non-violent, and Constitutionally protected manner.  It seems to me that the name calling in this note is far more childish than my replacement sign was.

Now, to this persons other point, the claim that he or she was “leaning towards McCain.”  This has been a favorite, though very unsuccessful, tactic used by the left on Conservative radio talk shows for the past 4 years.  “I have voted Republican all my life, but because of (take your non-dem pick here) I’m changing my registration to Democrat.”  There are variations on the theme, but the next sentences out of the callers mouth are usually indicative of very left-wing beliefs.  Once again the “ends justify the means.”  Lying is OK with the left if they believe that it will achieve their ends.  I don’t believe the writer of the letter in this regard either.  It is entirely possible based on the line “it convinced me to go in the opposite direction” that he or she only meant that he or she turned his or her car around and drove the other direction.  I doubt that was the intended message though.  I am making the assumption that this person really meant that he or she intended to vote for Obama as a response to my sign.  Outside of the obvious weakness of personal will that that reaction reveals, it is also somewhat telling.  I don’t think that many Americans, left or right, would say that John McCain is not a patriot. It would be difficult to argue that he doesn’t love his Country dearly.  I find it interesting then that the writer finds Obama to be McCain’s opposite.

I am guessing you have noticed that I use “he or she” throughout when talking about the writer of this note.  That is because the writer didn’t attach their name, or any information by which I could contact him or her.  This is, in my opinion, a cowardly act.  Not because this person didn’t attach his or her name to the writing.  This is reasonable in public discourse to an extent.  I don’t give my name on this blog, but I am potentially speaking to an unknown audience and not directing my comments to any one individual.  The writer however, came to my house and left a message intended for me specifically, challenging my words at my home.  In the same circumstance I would not hide my identity, but would ensure that the person had the ability to contact me.  The writer’s act was simple cowardice.

Now to why I replaced my homemade sign.  The same day on which I received the note calling me a bully, another person also left me something.  The day after I put my sign out, a pair of signs were placed neatly on my front porch.  There was a fresh, new McCain/Palin sign  and also one in support of Bob Schaefer, the Republican candidate for Senator in Colorado.  This made me proud to be associated with the party that gives, as opposed to the one that takes away.  To that person I say “Thank You!”

To all of you that voted for the candidates with American values, I also say “Thank you, keep up the fight, stay positive, and live the Conservative principles that made America great.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

6. November 2008 by Satire V.

Things are looking a little bleak these days for those of us that believe in Conservative ideals. With Obamination in the White House, the core beliefs, morals, and freedoms that made America the greatest country the world has ever known will be under daily attack. Implementation of Conservative ideals on a national level will be almost impossible for at least the next 2, and probably the next 4 years. Much good that has been accomplished will be undone. Much that has been prevented will come to pass.

The Republican party has brought much of this to head. The failure of the party to police its own members, to provide leadership, and mostly, to stick to the Conservative principles that made it strong, has played a large part in its losses.

It is time to rebuild. At the lowest levels we must find the candidates that embody and can communicate the ideals of smaller government, personal responsibility, the free market, and the importance of a strong national defense in which we win, not surrender.

I am not convinced that the Republican party is currently capable of carrying this standard. It may be time for the development of a new party that can compete at the local level. Such an American Conservative party could present its ideals without the encumbrance of people such as Ted Stevens and John McCain.

Conservatives have other responsibilities as well:
Get involved in local government. More than just voting, we must know the issues, participate in discussion and debate, and exercise the best kind of oversight, that of the private citizen.
Get involved in your neighborhood schools. For too long we have allowed the left to dominate the educational establishment. Our children and the our Nation’s founding concepts are under attack. It may be time for those of a Conservative mind to sacrifice some pay for the greater good and become teachers. This is not a low calling, and we must be willing to counter the effects of the extreme liberalism in our schools. If you have any doubts about how bad this has become, remember that William Ayres is a Professor of Education at the University of Illinois. That he was ever hired should be ample evidence of how bad education has become.
Fight the “Fairness Doctrine”. Not only is the name a ridiculous and transparent lie; it is also patently unconstitutional in regard to the First Amendment. The left has a habit of championing freedom of speech when it works for them; we should champion this right every day. We should keep in mind however, that this amendment was only intended to protect political speech, and fight the unfairness doctrine on those grounds.
Remain true to our principles. We can fight hard, and not give up, but we should NEVER stoop to their methods. Unfortunately, at least one conservative talk show host broke with this during the primaries. Hugh Hewitt used name calling and faulted callers instead of ideas in his nearly-rabid proponency of Governor Romney. This is not how we as Conservatives should behave.
Write editorials, blogs, and even fiction that shines a light on how positive Conservative ideals are. Don’t allow our voices to be silenced.

All of these things, and so much more are necessary to Conservatism regaining its rightful prominence in the American political spectrum. Keep your heads up, and wear your Conservatism proudly. You may currently be in the minority, but you are always in the right.

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »