Thursday, August 2, 2007
[Incidentally, the term "redeployment" is a misuse of an official-sounding word to mask the true Liberal Agenda. And it angers military types to hear the likes of Harry Reid and Nansy Pelosi misleading the public in this manner.]
They say, "why aren't we killing Al-Qaeda?" "Why don't we go to Afghanistan, or other places, where we know Bin-Laden is?".
I heard a marine biologist on the radio the other night. He was studying starfish. As many probably know, if you cut off the limb of a starfish, it grows back. But what fascinated this biologist (and what was previously unknown to me) was that a single limb can regenerate an entire body and 4 other limbs.
Al-Qaeda is exactly like a starfish. It's committed, decentralized, and global. Killing Bin-Laden (what the Liberals foolishly think to be the "heart" of the starfish) is not going to kill the organism.
The Liberals who think we aren't doing enough have a fundamental misunderstanding of our enemy,
and of war.
In war, you engage the enemy, whenever you can, wherever you can, and kill as many of them as you can.
And that's exactly what we're doing (quite successfully) in Iraq. We have defined a battleground in a previously indefinable conflict. We have set the terms, laid the traps, and are luring the enemy to fight us. And we are kicking the crap out of them.
Will we get Bin-Laden eventually? I sure as hell hope so.
But will getting him kill the organism (and stop Al-Qaeda)?
And it is this fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of our enemy, and indeed, the nature of war, that disqualifies and precludes Liberals from ever being smart enough, mature enough, or qualified enough, to lead this great nation or command our armed forces, (most especially) in times of war.
God help the enemy if Romney or Giuliani wins.
God help us if it is Obama or Hillary.
Friday, July 27, 2007
As a continuation from our July 25th post regarding separation of Church and State, we have received requests for further explanation. We told you how the Liberals have hijacked the Constitution (through the Supreme Court) and have continued their assault on Christianity.
This begs the question, if Liberals don’t believe in the Church, what do they believe in?
A surprisingly simple answer, this idea reaches to the very core of their belief system.
To a Liberal, there is no higher authority than the State. The State is the answer to most (if not all) of life’s problems. This is because of a fundamental lack of reliance on SELF – instead placing their reliance on OTHERS.
This fundamental belief in the State as the answer to our social ills is ironically incongruent with the Liberal’s supposed idea of Secularism. For to be truly Secular, one must strip society of all beliefs in God or another Higher Power, such that our government, and indeed our society at large, no longer recognizes anything as Religious, Spiritual, or Sacred.
Thus, in the name of Secularism, the Liberals have been unending in their war against Christianity and their greater attempts to push Religion out of our society for good. Interestingly enough, while they vehemently undertake this sacred duty of ridding our Nation of Christian “superstitions”, they simultaneously impose their own religious faith – the Church of the State – on everyone.
I often see Liberal Bloggers claim that our current War on Terror, as it is manifested in Iraq, does not actually constitute a “war” because Congress has not declared it so. In other words, because the government – the highest Spiritual Agent in the Church of Liberalism – has not declared it to be so, then it must not be so.
Never mind the troops on the ground. Or the enemy we are fighting. Or the casualties and their sacrifices. Never mind our President, our Allies, or the Armed Forces of the United States of America.
Never mind Freedom.
Because the State has not made it so, it cannot be so. Thus, the Liberals cannot, and do not, support this war. Or so the argument goes.
We don’t believe the government is the solution.
We believe the government is the problem.
We don’t want to retain our right to bear arms to protect ourselves from foreign invasion.
We need our guns to protect ourselves from the State.
As always, we appreciate any serious comments, questions, and suggestions. We hope these posts can generate some fruitful discussion.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or any other founding documents is there a mention of the so-called separation of Church and state.
The phrase first appeared in a letter written to the Danbury Baptists by Thomas Jefferson. In the letter, Jefferson referred to a “…wall of separation between the Church and the state”.
Taken within context, this “Wall of Separation” was meant to protect the Church from the state.
Let me state that one again.
Thomas Jefferson believed that the state was the biggest threat to religion, and as he was addressing the concerns of the Danbury Baptists, who were fearful that the newly formed government might just go trampling on religious freedoms and taking faith out of every day life, he assured them that the “Wall of Separation” would protect the Church from precisely this sort of encroachment.
Even the Supreme Court (in 1908, and elsewhere) declared that we are indeed “…a Christian Nation”, based on Christian principles.
It was only in the 1947 Supreme Court case, Everson v. Board of Education, that the Justices of the highest court in the land went radically beyond their bounds and out of original context to establish the mess we have today. In the decision, the phrase “Separation of Church and state” was first used in the sense we now recognize it today, as a means of protecting the state from the Church.
So, prior to 1947, the state was the enemy. Since 1947, the Church is the enemy. And now we want to take God out of our pledge, out of our money, and even out of Christmas.
This mis-use of the separation of Church and state is so widespread that the average American doesn’t even know that it never even appears in a Founding Document.
Call me a traditionalist, but I still think the state is the enemy – not the Church.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
The minimum wage increased today, the first in a coming stream of wage increases that will last until 2009. Minimum wage earners today will see their hourly pay rise from $5.15 to $5.85 per hour, a 13.6% increase.
The whole concept of a minimum wage is interesting, but devastating. It is a perfect example of well-meaning, short-sighted liberalism at its best. Since its inception (at $0.25 per hour) in 1938, the federal minimum wage requirement has been ballooning to what it will become on January 1st, 2009, $7.25 per hour.
First, a math lesson.
The average inflation rate in the United States is somewhere around 3% per annum. So, a reasonable person would expect that, on average, the minimum wage would increase at an annualized 3% per year. Below are my calculations showing what the minimum wage should be, assuming a 3% annual growth rate. As it shows, the January 1st, 2009 amount should be $2.04.
Let’s compare that to the Democrat’s January 1st, 2009 figure of $7.25. $7.25 is more than 3 and a half times the predicted $2.04, and, using the wonders of Microsoft Excel, it takes on an annual growth of almost 5%, which is almost twice as high as the average inflation rate.
So, why would the liberals want to grow wages faster than inflation?
TO BUY VOTES.
Now, an economics lesson.
As we have previously determined, a 13.6% increase in the minimum wage today will ultimately mean a similar jump in other wage-related products and services. Why? Well, here’s where the short-sighted liberals get confused. You see, they think that companies can just afford to absorb a 13.6% increase in their costs.
A 13.6% increase in costs is something almost no company can afford.
This is especially true of small businesses. Take your local movie theater. Most movie theaters operate on paper-thin margins, as the costs of doing business continue to rise. Movies are always more and more expensive to produce (and thus, to buy and show in your theater). Energy, building, and maintenance costs are always on the rise. Even the price of popcorn has shot up recently due to the increased ethanol demands (article regarding environmental nuts to come later). And now, one of their largest costs, the paychecks of their ticket counter operators, concession stand workers, and theater and bathroom cleaners has jumped by an astonishing 13.6%.
Your theater now has 2 choices: Lay off employees, or raise the ticket price. As you may have noticed, most theaters are already operating with minimal manpower. My local theater doesn’t even have anyone working at the ticket booths. You have to purchase your movie ticket from the concession stands, and no one checks your tickets as you enter the theater. That said, my local theater probably can’t lay any more workers off. So ticket prices will jump.
If your average movie ticket, which costs $9 today, were to increase by 13.6%, your movie tickets tomorrow will cost $10.25.
And here’s the real kicker. As prices adjust to wage increases, and products and services composed of wage-related costs become more expensive, they essentially cost the same to minimum wage earners – and we’re left chasing our tails once again.
3.00% Annual Increase
1938 $ 0.25
1939 $ 0.26
1940 $ 0.27
1941 $ 0.27
1942 $ 0.28
1943 $ 0.29
1944 $ 0.30
1945 $ 0.31
1946 $ 0.32
1947 $ 0.33
1948 $ 0.34
1949 $ 0.35
1950 $ 0.36
1951 $ 0.37
1952 $ 0.38
1953 $ 0.39
1954 $ 0.40
1955 $ 0.41
1956 $ 0.43
1957 $ 0.44
1958 $ 0.45
1959 $ 0.47
1960 $ 0.48
1961 $ 0.49
1962 $ 0.51
1963 $ 0.52
1964 $ 0.54
1965 $ 0.56
1966 $ 0.57
1967 $ 0.59
1968 $ 0.61
1969 $ 0.63
1970 $ 0.64
1971 $ 0.66
1972 $ 0.68
1973 $ 0.70
1974 $ 0.72
1975 $ 0.75
1976 $ 0.77
1977 $ 0.79
1978 $ 0.82
1979 $ 0.84
1980 $ 0.87
1981 $ 0.89
1982 $ 0.92
1983 $ 0.95
1984 $ 0.97
1985 $ 1.00
1986 $ 1.03
1987 $ 1.06
1988 $ 1.10
1989 $ 1.13
1990 $ 1.16
1991 $ 1.20
1992 $ 1.23
1993 $ 1.27
1994 $ 1.31
1995 $ 1.35
1996 $ 1.39
1997 $ 1.43
1998 $ 1.47
1999 $ 1.52
2000 $ 1.56
2001 $ 1.61
2002 $ 1.66
2003 $ 1.71
2004 $ 1.76
2005 $ 1.81
2006 $ 1.87
2007 $ 1.92
2008 $ 1.98
2009 $ 2.04
Monday, July 16, 2007
My question to you, the reader, is this - was John McCain ever a viable candidate in 2008?
Since January, the media-types have been talking about the "big 3" - Rudy, Mitt, and John McCain. But John McCain doesn't necessarily deserve this title, does he? What exactly has he accomplished, besides devaluing the rule of law by trying to reward lawbreaking illegals for all of their efforts with citizenship?
John McCain has been a media favorite since the 2000 campaign season -- and has been getting a lot of media hype, for reasons that are beyond my comprehending.
As a first-time blogger who recently discovered the world of blogging, I decided it might be a good idea to explain the purpose of this blog as it relates to the title.
I was reading an article about conservatism one day, and I was surprised to read about the difficult nature in defining conservatism in politics. This makes sense because, while the basic principles of the word may be similar all over, conservatives have different goals in different countries of the world. Even in our own country, there is a disunity of what conservatism actually is - what it means, where it comes from, and how we should apply conservative principles to politics and policy.
Therefore, while it is admittedly a lofty goal, I wish to bring conservate principles into focus and help to define a more unifying and easily-understood idea of conservatism (through applications of conservative principles to current political events). Thus, I will be regularly reporting on newsworthy events, with analysis drawing on history, economics, philosophy, and theology as they all relate to conservatism, in the hopes of more clearly defining The Conservative Standard.